| Revision as of 21:49, 3 September 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Reviewers reviewed: reply to Epbr123← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:53, 3 September 2007 edit undoEpbr123 (talk | contribs)291,700 editsm →Reviewers reviewedNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| *It's good to see my comma concerns were eventually rectified by native English speakers. However, there are still many problems with the article. Eg. citations should be placed immediately after punctuation, em dashes should be unspaced, external links only belong in the external links section. ] 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | *It's good to see my comma concerns were eventually rectified by native English speakers. However, there are still many problems with the article. Eg. citations should be placed immediately after punctuation, em dashes should be unspaced, external links only belong in the external links section. ] 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Since it has now passed FAC, you should feel free to make these corrections yourself. Will you consider doing this? ] 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | **Since it has now passed FAC, you should feel free to make these corrections yourself. Will you consider doing this? ] 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. ] 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I couldn't help noticing this critique you'd written. I hope you don't mind me adding links to ], ] and ]. I think one of the problems is that those who are active at FAC feel a need not to get drawn too deeply into editing an article, for fear that they will be seen as supporting their own work. Maybe there should be a review stage where people can be encouraged to collaborate on editing articles before they go to FAC. I think that is the function ] used to play, combined with a visit from a friendly copy-editor. I personally think all articles should be copyedited before they reach FAC, as getting a barrage of copyediting comments, instead of substantive critical comments, can be a most dispiriting moment. ] 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | *I couldn't help noticing this critique you'd written. I hope you don't mind me adding links to ], ] and ]. I think one of the problems is that those who are active at FAC feel a need not to get drawn too deeply into editing an article, for fear that they will be seen as supporting their own work. Maybe there should be a review stage where people can be encouraged to collaborate on editing articles before they go to FAC. I think that is the function ] used to play, combined with a visit from a friendly copy-editor. I personally think all articles should be copyedited before they reach FAC, as getting a barrage of copyediting comments, instead of substantive critical comments, can be a most dispiriting moment. ] 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:53, 3 September 2007
Reviewers reviewed
This FAC has certainly been informative. Its effects are certainly to be seen in the article. These can be grouped into five classes; in declining order of usefulness.
- Those who wrote the article. Of these I would particularly note Pharos, Carcharoth, Theranos, Mattise, and (on one detail) Ksmrq.
- Those who substantively criticized the article. sometimes severely: Yannismarou, Carcharoth, and Jim, on the talk page.
- Praise and support, which are always welcome.
- Minutiae.
- Whether or not to use {{cite book}}. This is discussed in the FAC page; but I don't see why any aspect invisible to the reader should matter here. I knew about the cite templates, and used to use them; but they are more trouble than they save.
- The insistence on n-dashes in the footnotes.
- The repeated demand, on condition of opposing, to use 116–17,instead of 116–7. This is trivial, and a good deal of work; also, it is nowhere in MOS.
- Minor damage, again enforced on the pain of rejection:
- Placing only away from the word it modifies.
- The insistence on a comma splice.
- Most serious, the practice noted in this comment on the talk page: Mattisse combined paragraphs, violating the rule that a paragraph should deal with one subject, because he thought that otherwise FA would reject it. I have no reason to doubt his experience; but it has materially worsened the article.
What I find most striking is that all the help (except Yannismarou) was provided by non-regulars at FA, drawn in by the publicity and my search for a copy-editor; all the hindrances were produced by regulars. The article would have had the same benefits with any other way of attracting the same attention.
I have seriously considered requesting that some of the least helpful editors be barred from FAC; but in the long run, it would not help. FA fatally attracts the half-educated, who enjoy sitting in judgment over others' contribution; the mark of these people is that they decline to make the improvements which they declare to be essential to FA status. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's good to see my comma concerns were eventually rectified by native English speakers. However, there are still many problems with the article. Eg. citations should be placed immediately after punctuation, em dashes should be unspaced, external links only belong in the external links section. Epbr123 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since it has now passed FAC, you should feel free to make these corrections yourself. Will you consider doing this? Carcharoth 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. Epbr123 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since it has now passed FAC, you should feel free to make these corrections yourself. Will you consider doing this? Carcharoth 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't help noticing this critique you'd written. I hope you don't mind me adding links to Orion (mythology), Talk:Orion (mythology) and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Orion (mythology). I think one of the problems is that those who are active at FAC feel a need not to get drawn too deeply into editing an article, for fear that they will be seen as supporting their own work. Maybe there should be a review stage where people can be encouraged to collaborate on editing articles before they go to FAC. I think that is the function Misplaced Pages:Peer review used to play, combined with a visit from a friendly copy-editor. I personally think all articles should be copyedited before they reach FAC, as getting a barrage of copyediting comments, instead of substantive critical comments, can be a most dispiriting moment. Carcharoth 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)