Misplaced Pages

When did this become a vote? I thought that Raul was simply making an announcement, not asking for an endorsement of his decision. I'm confident that they've both demonstrated their ability to do the job well; Raul wouldn't have chosen them otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

MF, everything is a vote on WP...we vote for breakfast, lunch and tea...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Sandy's appointment wasn't subject to a !vote. That is, I don't think Raul asked for a !vote, though there I seem to remember multiple expressions of support. The same thing appears to me to be happening here; Raul did not ask for community approval, but people are expressing support. I'm fine with him simply appointing delegates, but if there were to be a strong expression of concern I expect Raul would reconsider. Mike Christie (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Strong support for both Karanacs (talk · contribs) and YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Excellent choices by Raul654 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ruslik (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the appointments official, so to speak. That is to say, I've added them to the FAC and FAR instructions. They're free to begin promoting/demoting/archiving noms whenever they feel up to it. Raul654 (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to express my desire to move away from my position in FAR. If another delegate is appointed I would step down from my position. Joelito (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Most number of failed FACs for a single article

Just an idle question: Any idea what the largest number of failed FACs for one article is? (I ask this in hopes that one particular I'm working on will not break that number) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, Real Madrid has had eight FACs. I don't know whether that is the most ever though. If you go through a peer review first and invite comments from experienced reviewers, the article you are working on should have no problems at FAC. Woody (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain there have been articles with nine failed FAC noms, though I can't see to remember which. –Juliancolton 14:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Real Madrid has had 9! And Google suggests it's the only one - rst20xx (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Point violation?

I am being accused of having committed a "point violation" in my FAC review of Samuel Johnson's early life. What is a point violation and how have I committed it? I have tried to be unfailingly civil in my review (although I have been blunt). Also, why is the fact of being copy-edited by two dozen people adequate defense against further criticism (which includes a compilation of errors)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion between Ottava Rima and Fowler&fowler is taking place in multiple forums. I just responded to OR's complain on Raul's talk page. Can we get links, diffs, and examples in a central location before this turns awful because no one has a clear picture? --Moni3 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Would you like me to move my examples to some other page? Please suggest page name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with this one. I just asked Ottava Rima to place his objections here as well. To both: please be clear what it is you want others to do, if anything. --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• My only post on the matter, because Moni doesn't seem to understand what this is about. I accused the user of a WP:POINT violation which is the disruptive part of a clear WP:STALK. This is a behavioral problem dealing with disruption that needs administrative opinion in order to determine if a block or some other form of censure can be used to keep Fowler from disrupting the encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with FAC criteria, FAC process, or the rest. There were no "multiple forums". There was his actions and my statement to Raul that I intended to go to ANI and I would like him to know of that since people might be looking at the FAC process inappropriately instead of dealing with the real issue. I will not respond to this further. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My take, as an uninvolved editor: F&F seems to have legit concerns. Ottava Rima may not agree with them, but I don't think that the oppose can be called "pointy" on those grounds. Now, whether the opposing editor has Wikistalked is a different matter entirely. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's examples per Moni3's instructions

Fowler&fowler FAC oppose

As I stated in the FAC review, the article has many errors of grammar, usage, clarity, and logic. Here are three examples from the lead paragraph. However, I am happy to add numerous examples from other sections of the article.

• (Sentence 3) "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
  • (Grammar) The parallel structure in the sentence is faulty. The first three in the series are noun phrases, the last is not. It should be "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, his various experiences with ..., his eventual ..., and his efforts at last to settle into a career," or other consistent formulations.
  • (Usage) Which of the meanings of "dominate" applies here? (a. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power. b. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over c. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in d. To overlook from a height) In other words, "dominate" is not the word that applies to all elements in the sentence. Is "marked by" or "occupied by" meant? Or does the author mean "the course of his early years was determined by ...?"
  • (Clarity) What does it mean to say, "his early years were dominated by his various experiences with his family members?" How is that much different from "his early years were dominated by his various experiences of his early years?" In other words, this part of the sentence is all too vague.
  • (Logic) How can "early years" be dominated by an "eventual attempt at college?" Is "sustained effort at remaining in college" meant?
• (Sentence 4) "After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds."
  • (Clarity) Lack of whose funds? In any case, lack of funds is not the cause. Do you mean "non-payment of fees?"
• (Sentence 5) "He tried to work as a teacher, but he was unable to find a long lasting position."
  • Was he unable to find such a position or was he unable to make a position last long (since he apparently "tried to work")? In the former case, you want to say "he was unable to find a long-term position;" in the latter, you want to say "he was unable to last long in any teaching job."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll step into this buzz saw. A couple of these seem needlessly picky to me. Especially the ones about sentences four and five. If we were engaging in a debate, then perhaps the points might seem more important to me, but this is a lead paragraph and we're trying to give an overview of the content of the article. Especially with sentence three, the phrase is a well worn one "lack of funds" is a commonly used phrase. I had no difficulty understanding either sentence, nor what was intended to be stated. Sentence three, I will not judge the grammar part (I cheerfully left behind parsing sentences when I left school) but which meaning of dominate is meant is clear to me. Likewise, I see quite clearly what is meant by "dominated by his various experiences with his family members" Not everyone grows up with a family, nor does everyone's experiences with family members necessarily impinge much on your later life. I did not see it as vague at all, and quite clearly it meant that his early years were influenced by his family members. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure "lack of funds" is a common expression. You can say, "he couldn't attend college for lack of funds." Lack of funds is a condition, not an event. However, getting booted out of college is a specific event which requires a specific cause. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(Side note, can we try to indent when you're replying to someone? It makes reading the threads much simpler). But the article doesn't say he got "Booted out of college" it says "he was forced to leave due to lack of funds." The college didn't "boot" him, he left because of a condition, the lack of funds. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are debating one or two points. That still leaves a large number that you are not acknowledging! Well, "forced to leave" is at the very least ambiguous (since it can certainly include "booted out of college") If you don't mean he was forced to leave by external event (which is what most uses of the expression involve), then say "obliged to leave" or even "compelled to leave." A major goal of an encyclopedia is to communicate clearly. Using the expression "forced to leave" does not do so. Besides there are other problems in that sentence. There is the common error of confusing "due to" with "because of." Are you seriously defending the prose of this article as even remotely close to being "brilliant?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(sighs) I'm not debating one or two points, I'm pointing out that some of the concerns you brought up are not concerns to others. You brought up a couple of points on the FAC from the lead and Moni asked folks uninvolved with the FAC to weigh in on whether or not some of them were nitpicky as Ottava was alleging. I weighed in that I found some of them nitpicky. (not all of them, some of them) That does not logically follow that I feel that the prose is or is not "brilliant", it was addressing the issue above whether or not Ottava's concern that some of the points raised were nitpicky. You claimed that the points you raised made the prose unclear. I disagreed with a few of those points (once again not all of them). Now, whether or not Ottava or yourself are correct or incorrect, is not something I addressed. And now I'm remembering why I said "buzz saw" before. It's important for reviewers as well as writers to realize that we are talking about the written word. English is a wonderful language in that there are many different ways of saying the same thing, and thus not everything is going to be able to be written the way the reveiwer would necessarily find good, but the reveiwer cannot just call a style of writing that differs from what the reveiwer would write as wrong. The idea of FAC isn't to make over an article to what the reveiwer would have written, it's to make sure that the writing is clear, concise and understandable to the general reader of our encyclopedia. I have one pet peeve with FAC and it's this fetish for one particular style of "concise" writing. Too many opposes on prose seem to me to boil down to "It's not a style I like so I'll oppose". There is some sort of totemish worship of pared down prose that makes any other style of writing bad and sometimes it's nice to read something that is not bare bones prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A totemic worship of pared down prose might result, for example, in a recommendation of Jack London as vastly superior to Joseph Conrad. This, however, is a different kettle of fish. We are looking at two staccato sentences followed by an ungrammatical howler: "Samuel Johnson was an English author. Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire. His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career." How would you characterize that style? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's no different in the later sections:

Examples from section 1

• (Sentence 2): "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings."
  • What does "reputation" (within quotes) mean? Is the author quoting someone or is he being ironic? The former requires a citation; the latter is a POV.
  • "was" is incorrect here. It should be, "Michael had become the first bookseller of reputation in the community, having opened ..."
• (Sentence 3) "Little is known about Michael Johnson's past, or what his background was."
  • (verb ending) It should be "Little is known about Michael Johnson's past or his background."
  • (usage/logic) What is the difference between "past" and "background?"
• (Sentence 4) "He and his brothers were apprenticed as booksellers, and his father, William Johnson, was called a 'yeoman' and a 'gentleman' in the Stationers' Company records, but there is little evidence to suggest that William Johnson was from nobility."
  • (Logic) Why is the "but" there? Is there an a priori expectation of nobility in his lineage? In any case, we weren't told about it earlier.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As for sentence 3, I think it's clear that past refers to his own past life, and the background refers to his own ancestry/family etc. For 4, yes, there might be if you say "gentleman" you imply that it is possible that he might have nobility in his background. Gentleman in the context of the times was someone from the gentry, and as the English do not have an aristocracy in the same sense as the French do, it is entirely possible for a son of a baron to be simply a "gentleman", if he was the second or younger son, he would not inherit a title and would not have a courtesy title, so gentleman can imply a noble background. Or it can imply nothing of the sort, it needs clarifying. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you're being accused of being overly picky with this language. It in fact does seem to me that these are very fine grammar issues that are brilliant writing either way. Can you assure us, now that the objections have left the FAC, that your points are so important that should this article appear on the main page, it would be a detriment to Misplaced Pages? This is my bottom line on how I judge if an article should be supported. What I hoped to accomplish by centralizing the discussions that have taken place in multiple venues is an common understanding about the responsibilities of the nominator, the objector, and the FAC closer. The way contentious FACs are handled will help to establish a protocol for how regulars step in to mediate or sort through them. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to go to a meeting and will reply later in more detail, but let me say just for now that user:E has picked one or two of the finer points of usage that I made and has held them up to be ones of nitpicking. Even if you ignore those,

• the faulty parallelism in "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
• the verb ending in "Little is known about Michael Johnson's past, or what his background was."
• the incorrect "was" in "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings."

are all significant errors. They should be inexcusable on the Main page. (It would be well-nigh impossible to find them on any page in Britannica (even a stub page)). More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Like Fowler, I have to run at the moment, I just wanted to point out the common ground here. Two people who care enough about writing to argue over individual words? Please! We need both of you! You are a rare breed on Misplaced Pages. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit, your point is why I believe there is a point and possible stalk violation. Care enough? He has only shown such care on two pages, both of which I was listed on. There are dozens of FACs, yet he chose these two and made statements to suggest both needing copyediting. The fact that the Johnson page received so many copyedits by many of our finest copyeditors show that the caring is to a point that ignores reality and is detrimental as a whole. Why should he care to such an extent yet not on any other page? There is only one answer. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Agree with Awadewit. If FAC wants more conscientious reviewers to participate, then be kind to them when they do appear. Many FAC reviewers on other FACs in the past have left long lists of, what can seem to some, petty concerns. I commented to the editor of Rhyolite, Nevada that I was bothered by his use of "relies". He fixed my nit picky complaint and thanked me for noticing it. Do you want to encourage reviewers to participate or not? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• A reviewer must be civil when reviewing, which means to respect the effort, to actually review the whole page, and to not oppose unless there is a serious concern. Reviewers should also not follow certain users around and should review all pages equally. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that editors are not allowed to pick apart the lead as a example/sample of the writing in the article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to look at the article as a whole, then you aren't following the purpose of the FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Parallelisms are not necessary, especially not to lists. Parallelisms are found in all forms of syntax, and are found within repetitions of sentences and paragraphs. To harp on parallelisms is not an appropriate grammatical focus because this is a stylistic point and not a reflection of impropriety. Now, for tenses - "was" is necessary for background because it deals with the past only (hence "background"). The second "was" deals with the tense of the structure. This is a historical topic and "was" is necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can any of the copy-editors that you claim have edited the Samuel Johnson's early life article defend any of the three sentences above or perhaps support your explanation? If so, why don't they step forward? Also, why did user:Malleus Fatuorum, who apparently is helping you, change all the sentences I objected to if there were no issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want them all to respond, why don't you directly contact them yourself? This is the list. By the time Tony1 came onto the page, he was satisfied so he didn't directly participate. And Malleus did not change all of the sentences. Regardless, if he was to respond to why, I am sure he would definitely tell you 100% how he feels about your comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please please please can we take this thread to (at the very least) the talk of the FAC in question? This really doesn't involve the FAC process as a whole. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Moni3: How should I proceed now? user:Malleus Fatuorum had in over dozens of edits removed many of the objections I had. Clearly, he did think there were issues, otherwise he wouldn't have made his edits. Should I now list the remaining grammatical/usage issues? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with quite a few of your objections to the lead, others I went along with because I didn't see that they made much difference once way or the other. I didn't agree with your extrapolation of problems in the lead to problems with the rest of the article however, so if you can see other issues then you ought, of course, to give examples so that they can be addressed just as speedily. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please close these pages

Could someone close the FAC pages that were archived/promoted by Raul on 11 March? The promoted articles have been updated on WP:WBFAN, but no stars show on the actual pages. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GimmeBot goes through on Tuesdays and Saturdays (see WP:FAC/ar and {{FACClosed}}); in the meantime, anyone can add {{FAClosed|archived}}, {{FACClosed|promoted}} or {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} to the bottom of any FAC that has been moved off of the page. It is helpful if FAC regulars keep up with this sort of tedious and routine work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted (I am very bad at admin stuff) Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orchestrated?

It seems there is a completely different twist to the entire "Samuel Johnson's early life" FAC. Please read the Johnson section on Malleus F's talk page, especially this post by Ottava Rima. Apparently, the entire hurried FAC submission on 12 March (for an article that had last been edited by user:Ottava Rima on September 5, 2008) was orchestrated to provoke me. This also explains his sudden disavowal of the Lucy FAC on 11 March (editors are not allowed to simultaneously have two FAC at one time). He then encouraged others to start an AN/I thread against me at 02:18 on 12 March 2009 (the others didn't bite). His FAC nomination was made at 18:27 on 12 March 2009, the explanation for which was provided cryptically in this post on the article's talk page. In other words, user:Ottava Rima has made a hurried and less than good-faith submission to entrap me and to make a point. If others agree with me, then I want some appropriate action taken against user:Ottava Rima by the admins usually involved with FACs: user:Moni3, user:SandyGeorgia, user:YellowMonkey, and user:Raul654. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Point of order ... Sandy's not an admin. Otherwise, I've stepped into enough buzz saws today, I'm not getting involved. (I'm not an admin either) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth beat me to it. I don't know what to say, but are you sure that this is the correct place for this issue? I don't like to recommend the house of drama, but this is starting to get ridiculous... Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Palace of drama, surely. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the talk page of the FAC. Where else would you make a post for a less than good-faith FAC, the evidence for which is in the diffs above? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sudden disavowel? I haven't had a major contribution to the Lucy poems page since November. It wasn't sudden in any regards. The Johnson early life page has been ready for FA since it was split from the main page. I don't put many pages up for FA because I don't care about "stars". I put this one up because I talked to people and we figured that you were specifically targetting me. We decided that since this page was already approved by so many people in its previous form, if you opposed it it would only confirm that you were targetting me to be disruptive. You did just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

F&f, fair enough it was a trap it seems; but given you took the bait, I'd let the whole thing go, and would strongly recommend Ottava does the same. What good can come of this? I'd send both of ye to opposite corners with naughty hats for 15 minutes or so. After than, water under the bridge. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seconded...Modernist (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, this has already taken up way too much of writers' and reviewers' time. The whole thing has boiled down to little more than "I know you are, but what am I?" and "Liar liar pants on fire." Go back to writing and/or reviewing, please. --Laser brain (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I got involved because I thought I could help out, and FAC is usually the last place to find drama. I had honest intentions to assist in a dispute that was quickly spiraling out of control. I intensely disliked the fallout from the FAC for Major Depressive Disorder, and I would never like to see that happen again here. Now, due to the Fowler&fowler and Ottava Rima Show, I feel like a great stupid prat. I do think this was orchestrated by both in a comedy of egos. I am ashamed and angry that it dragged uninvolved FAC regulars who also intended only to be helpful, and that I was manipulated by these two. Shame on me.

It is clear to me that neither especially care about the betterment of their articles. Instead they care about winning. So. You both win. Does it feel as wonderful as you had hoped? Dropping it as the best case scenario. I think there may be good cause to block both. What a shame, because I have lost all respect for both of you. I feel like I stepped in to build a bridge between colleagues and ended up chastising a couple of brawling 10-year-olds. I apologize to Ealdgyth, Awadewit, Sandy, Raul, Mattisse, and anyone else who tried to get involved due to my interference. As much as I would love to tell both of you to grow the fuck up, instead I'm going to urge you to find whatever respect you have for yourselves individually and figure out the right thing to do. I suggest the first thing to do is archiving the threads for today. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before - it isn't about me. It was about Fowler's heavy handed approach to Ceoil's page which I had very little to do simply because I was listed on the nom. Everyone knows that I sat on the early life page for a very long time. Ceoil is a very good contributor and didn't deserve to be disrespected in the way he was. It is a shame to this whole place to have him treated in such a manner as that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all so sad. I was looking forward to copyediting The Lucy poems this weekend along with everyone and working towards turning the FAC around. I even did some research and some consulting with a professor of mine. How appropriate that I discovered Lewis Carroll's parody of one of the Lucy poems! This entire debacle is like walking through the looking glass. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Moni, same conclusion today.. Ottava, I am able to take care of myself, though I did appreciate, very much, that you stood up for me. But, sincearly I think everything that needed to be said has been said, two or three time. Its all there, to me the timeline is very clear, but now hopefully distant. You have an FAC, foucus on that man, and just leave F&Fs objection stand. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A comment: When I took up my new "day job", I resolved that one of the ways I'd keep my hand in with content was doing FAC reviews, which I thought would be interesting and positive. Instead, every time I opened an ongoing FAC on a subject that intrigued me, I'd find one or more of a handful of names bickering or casting aspersions about the writers at the same time as critiquing. Well, I get more than enough of that the rest of the time, thank you; it's completely demotivated me. I've since had many others tell me that they've stopped reviewing and/or bringing articles into the FAC process for exactly this reason. While I would not wish to dictate to those who invest far more time and effort into the FAC/FAR process than I, perhaps it is time to give consideration to requesting or imposing topic bans on those whose behaviour makes the process unnecessarily stressful and divisive. I have seen plenty of editors with nasty reputations come to these pages and behave very well; there is no excuse for what is going on here. Risker (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Risker, ever wonder why I have only nominated three pages over the court of a year? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

After the bell III

Note

I made the following post in the section above. The post was later refactored by user:Modernist into this new section with a seemingly deprecating title. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for generosity, but what user:Ottava Rima has done is a major repudiation of the entire premise of nominating articles at FAC. If user:Ottava Rima felt that I was targeting him, they should have pointed that out to me, pointed it out to others, and complained to the appropriate official or forum, but nothing gives him the right to start an FAC to test whether I as targeting him. Besides until 5 March 2009 I was involved in the Kannada literature FAC, where I made dozens of posts. On 6 March 2009, I as involved with flushing out sockpuppetry on the Talk:British India page. On 7 March 2009 I made my first post on the Lucy FAC (and later became aware of the existence of user:Ottava Rima). On 22:33 11 March 2009, I made my first (long) post on the Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula FAC (longer than anything I made on SJ's early life). Finally, at 13 March 2009, I made my first post on the "Samuel Johnson's early life FAC." How is this targeting any one person? user:Ottava Rima says that this was a collective decision made with other editors? Who were these editors? Please identify them if you want to make that claim. user:Malleus Fatuorum was clearly unaware of this scheme as is obvious in his replies to the posts by Ottava Rima here. At the very least, if this was a trap, the FAC will need to be withdrawn, and user:Ottava Rima will need to promise to not repeat this in the future. I am not looking to get him banned or blocked, but I'd like to hear both from user:YellowMonkey and user:Raul654. As I see it, this is a major boo-boo. Why are people blaming me for this? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough already...Modernist (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly this has gotten boring, very boring...Modernist (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeating myself and asking that these threads be transferred to the FAC/article talk page. I'm not convinced this involves the entirety of the FAC community, and as it stands now it appears to be a grudge match. Other than this I'm steering clear...--Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How does an FAC that was started to make a spurious point not concern the entire FAC community? Every one is saying "How depressing, boring, tired, ...." But has anyone pointed out any errors in my post? Is there a Misplaced Pages rule that says, "Let errors stand in the interests of congeniality?" Will any one (other that user:Ottava Rima) care to say that he didn't set a trap for me and didn't violate some basic Misplaced Pages rules? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I did, if you'd listen. You are missing the point here, in a big way. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler its over: At this point you should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass...Modernist (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who knows why any of us make FAC nominations? Masochism? Whatever the reason, the effect is to improve the encyclopedia, and that's all that should matter to any of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I like your attitude user:Malleus Fatuorum (and you can write vigorous prose to boot). OK, I will let it go. Let me be very clear though: it is not over as some people seem to be implying. It is a flagrant violation and I can easily start an AN/I thread on this, I won't because I trust what Ceoil, Mattisse, Awadewit, Kafka Liz and you Malleus F. have said, and I trust you to keep Ottava Rima from doing such things in the future. I am, however, very disappointed in admin Moni3, who after asking us to undertake certain tasks didn't respond either to my posts in the section above or my reply to her post on my my talk page. And when I managed to catch user:Ottava Rima red-handed, she seemed to fall apart and resort to intemperate language, such as, "As much as I would love to tell both of you to grow the fuck up," or vague statements, "I think there may be good cause to block both" (without giving a warning or providing the cause). So, I will let it go, but I want this thread to remain here, at least until user:Raul654 and user:YellowMonkey have responded. I think I can do business with Malleus F., Ceoil, Mattisse, Awadewit, and Kafka Liz, and will work with them to improve the two articles. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully we're moving into a more positive arena now, less focused on individuals and more on our end product. I wouldn't blame Moni, who'd want to be an admin? It's a tough and thankless job; certainly administrators get very little thanks from me anyway. BTW, I'm often in trouble here on wikipedia, and in desperate need of character references, so I shall file your very kind comments away for future use. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I take back my comments about Moni3. I just read what she wrote on Raul654's talk page, and she's obviously both sharp and fair. I've scratched my comments above and my apologies to Moni3. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good prose

I'd like to take some of the vitriol out of this discussion by reorienting it towards what appears to me to be the heart of the problem. Specifically, that what constitutes good prose is subjective, and that what might strike one person as perfectly fine writing, someone else will find something to nitpick in it. I'd like to discuss this in general, and perhaps hammer out some way of dealing with the problem of subjectivity in assessing writing. Raul654 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and nominators shouldn't feel obligated to implement each and every suggestion made. Its ok to have differences of openion over subjective matters, over preferences; just let it stand and move on. The timing of this is ironic though, when there are now more nominators than reviewrs. O well. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nominators often take on board someone's seemingly picky suggestions and implement them with discretion. An example are these FAC comments by Tony1 on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Rudolf Wolters, an article I had thought I had edited close to perfection! As always, I appreciate the opportunity to see wording from another person's point of view, and most of these suggestions were implemented by the main editor Wehwalt, even though some issues had been discussed many times before. A reward for those of us who primarily edit and review is the "fun with words" aspect, the exploration of better ways to express, no matter how well done an article is. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I feel like this will force reviewers to list grammatical errors and explain why, according to some writing handbook or other, the writing style of the article is poor. I generally like to offer suggestions in a less dictatorial way than this, but if the aforementioned list would sound less subjective, I have no problem doing this. Awadewit (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just an idle observation, Awadewit, and there is no need for you to take it seriously. I was just pointing out a situation where one reviewer is allowed to be picky, where as another is threatened with being taken to ANI for being so. An RFC was opened on me because I reviewed an article and improved it by upgrading the article myself. The environment is not positive for reviewers. Ceoil notes there are now more nominators than reviewers. I wonder why? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't even click on the link nor was I referring to a specific situation. I was articulating a way in which prose reviewing could become more objective, but which would, I feel, not necessarily be a net benefit, because of the tone that would develop from the review. Awadewit (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I won't bother with more comments then. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse - I made my feelings clear about that RFC on you. I don't appreciate double standards in any kind of regard, especially when they harm people. However, I do feel that it dealt more with off FAC matters than not. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Reply to Ottava Rima) That is not true. I had thought that you had read through the RFC, as my other defenders there did, and so were defending me on substantive reasons. There were non issues introduced to confuse, such as edits I made in 2006. The issue was FAC, issues related to my perceived treatment of FAC editors, like Calisber and his attempt to get me blocked. Nothing off FAC and related matters were substantive, relevant, and/or more recent than over a year ago. The only conceivable reason for bring it was to ban me from FAC. I will say no more on this issue. But it does point out the substantial dangers of daring to review at FAC, and while reviewing FACs is so unappealing that there are more nominators than reviewers! —Mattisse (Talk) 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I feel like we are getting slightly off track here, from Raul's original question. Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Raul654) I don't think anyone is saying that a reviewer's suggestions should be implemented one and all by the nominators; I am certainly not. Neither am I saying that everyone should conform to my stylistic preferences. (I have read enough English prose—from Fielding, Defoe, and Swift to Naipaul, Philip Roth, and Raymond Carver (for example)—to know that there are vastly different styles in the corpus.) However, in an encyclopedia a kind of lucid precision is a must for effective communication. A featured article in Misplaced Pages is not the same thing as a feature article in the New York Times. An author of the latter is allowed to take liberties with language that a regular "hard news" correspondent presumably is not, although correspondents too have different styles of writing.

Similarly, here, my "nitpicking" is not about style, not even, in the end, so much about grammar, but really about clarity and precision. So, when I say "poor prose," I'm really often saying that the prose is neither lucid nor precise. (Lucid precision, however, can be packaged in manifold literary styles.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The MoS is clear about hyphens and some other points (including placement of punctuation in regards to citations). It is not clear about grammar. If there are run-on sentences, then this should be brought up and the nominator shown where (it is a very simple fix). If there is a lack of proper nouns (too many pronouns instead) that causes confusion, then this should be brought up and the nominator shown where the passages become unclear. If a handful of sentences do not unite in a paragraph or there is no topic sentence, then this should be brought up and the nominator shown why this is confusing and needs to be addressed. These are the three things that matter most in my view of things - they deal with encyclopedic clarity. I see "brilliant prose" in the original sense - lucid, revealing, and clear. We want people to be able to read our encyclopedia and understand what is said first and foremost. The little things can be picked about, but are best left to people who feel like going through and doing such to articles. There will always be things missed. There will always be little changes. Most textbooks are filled with spelling errors. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

F&F and OR agree that brilliant prose is about "clarity" and "precision"! Clearly that is our new definition of "brilliant prose". :) Awadewit (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but the key difference is that my use of clarity and the rest deals more with topical than anything else - do I actually gain knowledge on this topic. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the key is that many, many prose suggestions are subjective. Heck, some of them are even wrong—I've been called out for making incorrect suggestions in the past. Whenever I oppose on 1a, I expect the nominator to fix things that are plain errors. However, if they have a reasonable argument for disregarding my more subjective complaints, I usually let it drop and won't maintain my opposition over it. To work, this behavior has to be present on both sides of the table. The reviewer must be willing to let subjective matters drop if there is a reasonable argument, and the nominator must be willing to take suggestions gracefully without getting defensive. To often, one or both parties entrench themselves needlessly. But then again, sometimes there is a need to entrench yourself. --Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your right, but to say defensively or aggresively entrenching is bad and against the spirit of what we are trying to do here, what us all working together and all. Just respectfully say no, No, NO and let it go; tis ok to disagree. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly with Raul's notion (which may be simply a discussion position) "what constitutes good prose is subjective, and that what might strike one person as perfectly fine writing, someone else will find something to nitpick in it".

This attitude itself is the heart of the problem, if generalised. Prose critiques can and sometimes do include personal preferences, but I usually make it clear when a point I've made is that; I believe reviewers should be careful about explicitly making this distinction. Mostly, my issues are with redundancy, grammatical problems, and poor flow—whether logical flow or to do with the way ideas are allocated among the clauses and sentences.

I have a problem with the use of "nitpick", which appears to denigrate attention to detail in pejorative terms. To follow that line would be to reward sloppiness. Is that what you intend? Tony (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 - In my reading of what Raul has stated, it seems that he is saying that one person can find it necessary where another person may find it nitpicking. It is not saying that all close readings for grammatical problems are nitpicking, but that people can have that opinion, especially if it is approached in a certain manner. No one wants to "reward sloppiness", but we all must realize that two people can have completely different views. Since consensus is not an up or down vote but a coming together, we need to figure out how to accommodate very different perspectives, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your stance appears to be pointing towards a general strategy for rejecting reviewers' criticisms of prose. This is the oldest trick in the book here, and one that we got over a few years ago. Reviewers' comments on prose are usually spot-on, and result in significant improvements in (or the rejection of) nominations. Most FACs (most English text) is in signficant need of feedback/editing by others. I think we have a low tolerance of people who gripe about that. Tony (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself as having a low tolerance for language errors. However, there are many FACs which I have worked with nominators because they were opposed over language related problems that I could just not agree with. Sure, Tony, you do great work. However, you have to be willing to admit times that such things are taken way out of proportion. I don't understand how you are wanting to defend every single review over language. Furthermore, we aren't the French. There is no one unified grammar in the English language. There is no master school that decides what is right or wrong. Grammar rules change every day. "Them" and "Their" is now appropriate for third person singular when used to denote mixed gender. This was not true four years ago. If we have a "low tolerance" then we lost what the primary concern of this place really is. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tony and disagree with Raul654's formulation of the dispute as one of subjective tastes. What we had before us was quite another kettle of fish. The lead of the FAC began with two staccato sentences followed by an ungrammatical howler: "Samuel Johnson was an English author. Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire. His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career." How do you think an editor at Britannica or a journalist for any English-language newspaper or news service anywhere in the world would react if they happened upon those three sentences on the Misplaced Pages main page? They would smile to themselves. There is a difference between innovative (unusual, even quirky) prose and ludicrous prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I would say that your first complaint about that passage is a personal preference and your second more objectively grounded. The first two sentences of that article are clear, precise, and unambiguous. Your complaint about them is subjective ("staccato"); that doesn't mean it's misplaced, but it's certainly subject to discussion between you and anyone who disagrees. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason criterion 1a isn't "The prose is correct." --Laser brain (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said otherwise. As I said, the fact that a criticism reflects a personal preference does not mean that it is misplaced. It is however subject to dispute, because it is subjective, which is what Raul is saying. For instance, Tony appears to make a distinction above between his personal preferences and "redundancy, grammatical problems, and poor flow—whether logical flow or to do with the way ideas are allocated among the clauses and sentences". But I would say this distinction is false: surely the latter and to a lesser extent the first of those three are subjective - there is no universal opinion over the correct allocation of ideas among clauses and sentences. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the list of things I just taught in my writing class in the last few weeks, covered in even a basic writing handbook like A Pocket Style Manual by Diana Hacker: "mixed grammar", "illogical connections", "misplaced words", "misplaced phrases and clauses", and "dangling modifiers". These are all objective ways to evaluate sentence organization - these are not personal preferences. Awadewit (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And all fall under "gramatical problems"; about which I said nothing. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they don't fall under the "Grammar" section of the book - they fall under the "Clarity" section. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, for "clarity", there are many, many books that each have their own opinion. Rhetoric tends to be based on personal opinion but is very prescriptive. I can show contradictions between a few. I favor the book Style to be honest, but even that has some problems (I think it is interesting that Style is a book about grammar and clarity, but yeah). Rarely can you teach "great style". You can give hints, but a lot of it boils down to genetics (in my experience, that is). Awadewit - remind me sometime and we should swap book titles to see what other regions are teaching and what fads are happening where. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems of clarity I feel fall into two categories: errors of grammar or usage (where the sentence does not say to the reader what is actually intended) and other errors (where the sentence does say what is intended, but could say it with more lucidity or better emphasis). The latter class is subjective. I can't account for that author's organization of her book, but "misplaced words" and "misplaced phrases and clauses" are usually grammar /syntax errors - they serve the wrong role in a sentence or modify the wrong object, making them unclear. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison

I thought a comparison might make some of these "subjective" criteria clearer.

Example 1 (From Mary Shelley)

"It proved a wet, ungenial summer", Mary Shelley remembered in 1831, "and incessant rain often confined us for days to the house". Amongst other subjects, the conversation turned to the experiments of the 18th-century natural philosopher and poet Erasmus Darwin, who was said to have animated dead matter, and to galvanism and the feasibility of returning a corpse or assembled body parts to life. Sitting around a log fire at Byron's villa, the company also amused themselves by reading German ghost stories, prompting Byron to suggest they each write their own supernatural tale. Shortly afterwards, in a waking dream, Mary Godwin conceived the idea for Frankenstein:

I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.

She began writing what she assumed would be a short story. With Percy Shelley's encouragement, she expanded this tale into her first novel, Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, published in 1818. She later described that summer in Switzerland as the moment "when I first stepped out from childhood into life".

Example 2 (same passage, not "brilliant prose", but still grammatically correct)

Mary Shelley remembered that it was a “wet, ungenial summer” and the group was forced to remain indoors due to the rain. They discussed science, particularly the experiments of Erasmus Darwin, who was said to have animated dead things, as well as galvanism and the feasibility of returning a dead body to life. The company also amused themselves by reading German ghost stories, prompting Byron to suggest they each write their own story. Mary Godwin thought up the idea for Frankenstein in a waking dream:

I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together. I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half vital motion. Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.

She began writing a short story and with Percy Shelley’s encouragement, she expanded it into her first novel. She later described that summer in Switzerland as the moment “when I first stepped out from childhood into life”.

How "subjective" are these differences is one of the questions we are asking here. The differences - lack of sentence variety, imprecise diction, repetitive diction, missing details, etc. - are to some extent subjective, but at times such decisions are clear. I think a comparison like this helps illustrate that. Awadewit (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I subjectively enjoyed and preferred example 1...Modernist (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I could point out some technical clause errors in the first, but I think it would destroy the rhythm. Also, it would be mean. I'm just saying. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bring it on. Grammar cage match! Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've introduced a few clear errors (e.g. "own" in the first paragraph no longer has an unambiguous object) and obviously you've removed some content. Some of that content was arguably not significant; for instance, unless you plan to address the other subjects they discussed, it is fairly meaningless to point out that they discussed other things - who cares? You've also removed what I would say are essential facts (like the title of her book). The fact that you've so dramatically changed the content, however, damages the comparison you've offered by making the distinction between the passages more about selection of details than prose. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The content has not be dramatically changed - both passages explain the famous summer and Shelley's inspiration for her novel. The difference is partially about details (an element of good writing), but it is also about the expression of the ideas. Frequently, when I am copyediting, I ask for additional details to be added to an article because an idea isn't fully explained or the vauge language obscures the idea. I am trying to replicate that here. The most important thing to recognize is that all of the issues that can be raised about the second passage are essentially "subjective" (I fixed the "own" issue), but the fact is that the second passage is, without a doubt, of inferior quality. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well we'll have to disagree on that - I believe you've removed crucial facts; the passage discusses the same topic but presents substantially different information. "You didn't mention the title of her most well known book" is a glaring criticism to make of passage #2, but not at all representative of the types of criticism that raised this dispute or that are being discussed here. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To Awadewit (showing how I can be nitpicky) - Well, I will mix wiki and grammar stuff to make it fun. :) The lack of a citation after the first quote definitely sticks out. :P The second sentence is causing some problems - "who was said" needs a clarification to clue in who said it. :P The third sentence uses a clause that normally has a temporal aspect to it - logically, the action is floating around in space. It could be fixed with the application of a word similar to "while" (or actually "while") to begin the sentence. The last clause beginning with "prompting" is off but I can't think of the name of why. I'm too lazy at the moment to look it up. "Shortly afterwards, in a waking dream," You are following the first clause with a parenthetical statement (there is a better term for it, but it is a subset of "parentheticals"). This could easily be fixed with "In a waking dream shortly afterwards". The "s" should also be dropped. It is spoken because of regional dialect but it is not written except in a few situations (very common problem and I do it frequently - spell checkers hate it, mind you). I can get out a few books and really comb through it if needed. :D

Should these changes be made? Or any changes made? In my opinion - no. The style and flow is more important. Even the ungrammatical "s" makes it sound more true (and probably will be true as time passes). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I live for this - I was just telling my students the other day that they didn't have to follow the split infinitive rule because it was forced upon English to make it more Latinate. 1) All citations have been removed for ease of reading. 2) "who" comes immediately after and refers to Darwin, so that is fine; 3) We could add "at night" to the third sentence to clarify this as well; 4) "prompting" phrase is perfectly acceptable - I forget the exact name, but it is some sort of "verbal adjectival phrase"; 5) "Shortly afterwards in a waking dream" could just be fixed by removing the comma - inverting the order causes confusion; 6) dictionaries list afterward OR afterwards (is this a BE thing?) Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick note - the "who" thing was a reference to this cute little doozy. :) Also, dictionaries list "aint" and it has been in use for 300 years but I still disagree! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflicted) I think Ottava Rima was referring to the passive construction with respect to "who". We don't know who said Erasmus Darwin had animated dead stuff. (Tracing out where that tidbit came from would disrupt the evoked sense of gossip-sharing. Perhaps this is an example where less detail, in fact intentional vagueness, serves the purpose of good writing.)--ragesoss (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, gods. Word nerds. (flees) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia made up of words. I would think there would be more of us. Word nerds unite! Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

words and pictures....that is..Modernist (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, pictures go here, for the most part. –Juliancolton 14:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a common misperception...Modernist (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Gods, puns too! ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava said:

... we aren't the French. There is no one unified grammar in the English language. There is no master school that decides what is right or wrong. Grammar rules change every day. "Them" and "Their" is now appropriate for third person singular when used to denote mixed gender. This was not true four years ago.

But the extraordinary aspect of English is that despite:

• (i) its being "big and baggy" (Clive James),
• (ii) its ownership by so many far-flung native speakers,
• (iii) its notable feature of resisting centralised control—even when it was spoken in the British Isles alone, and
• (iv) its dynamic nature, of being a "borrowing" language and being relatively unstable; that is, quick-changing,

it is still possible to agree on most aspects of good writing, and that a given wording is faulty and can be improved. That is remarkable. WP, and FAC in particular, is living proof of this: the wonder is that there is not greater complaint, fuss, objection, to reviewers' critiques of specific problems; but there isn't, because this genius of a language we share embeds within each of its owners a sense (a strong sense in good writers) of right and wrong, whether based in easy textbook rules or more subtle requirements.

To those who are trying to draw a distinction between "subjective" and "objective" right and wrong, I say that it's not a binary phenomenon, but a continuum on which each criticism or suggestion for improvement might be placed on a point from the extreme of a (quirky) individual preference, through matters of individual style, to the other end at which no one in their right mind would disagree. All parts of the continuum except the quirky are useful in this process, and reviewers should probably declare it if a point they make is on the subjective side of the continuum. The default, I believe, given the generally talented prose reviewers we have here, is to consider each point to be advice worthy of adopting. Polite discussion is welcome, although reviewers' time is stretched. Tony (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Christopher:

"Samuel Johnson was an English author. Johnson was born in Lichfield, Staffordshire. His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."

I disagree that criticism of the opening is somehow on the subjective side of the equation. The stubbiness of the first two sentences are far too disjointed to engage the reader just when it is critical to do so (and just as obvious as the grammatical error in this sentence). Such shorties are more appropriate when it is appropriate to stop the reader in their tracks, to slow them down, to make them sit up and take notice of a major statement. It's almost a rhetorical device. But here, the stop-start experience at the opening is most unsatisfactory. A related problem is the repetition of "Johnson", twice within six words, and the fact that his name starts both sentences within 1.5 seconds of each other (and yet again by back-reference in "he"). That this is a most unsatisfactory opening is hardly a "personalised" view, and is a good demonstration of the fact that wording doesn't have to be strictly ungrammatical to be the subject of general agreement as to the need to improve it. What nominator would object to being told this?

Nor are the repetitions of "His ... his ... his ... his" ungrammatical; but they are regrettable. Neither the language nor WP can legislate against this form of bad writing, but a reviewer who points it out is far from guilty of "nitpicking", a word that was bandied about above with reckless disregard (ahem ...).

As a reviewer, I'd be inclined to criticise the use of "various" as adding nothing—and to point out that families do comprise members, so the inclusion of both references is clumsy (and whose early life was not dominated by family experiences? Starting to be workaday, this opening). This is perhaps further towards the middle of the personal—universal continuum of prose criticism, but one that no nominator should ignore on that basis. Professional writing demands more than the grammatical. Then we have "attempt" and "trying", another awkward couplet that weaken the structure. Do they imply initiation and subsequent failure? If so, it would be better to spell it out for the poor readers. Again, it's not a matter of easy right/wrong categories, to which some people seem to want to restrict comments.And what is "down" doing, if it's not idle? And the apparent parallelism of "attempt at college, and finally trying to" fall into a ditch because their grammar is anything but parallel.

The job of reviewers is to point out examples of not just incorrect grammar, but poor flow and illogical structure that defy easy categorisation into right and wrong. This is why professional-standard writing, like fine music performance, is elusive. But we continue to struggle towards it, and should enjoy the process on as both nominators and reviewers. This is one of the most stimulating processes at WP. Tony (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the first two sentences are unsatisfactory, so you don't need to persuade me. I am merely saying the matter is one of taste and not of rule. I do think that the "fixed" version is equally bad, however. Probably the largest problem with that part of the passage is that the second sentence, his place of birth, is more or less a piece of trivia. It does not belong in the topic sentence of an article. "Samuel Johnson was an English author" at least has the virtue of directly stating the most important fact about the topic in the opening sentence.

My point isn't that reviewer's comments are often out of place; it is that they are subjective. Just as nominators need to be polite to their reviewers, reviewers need to accept disagreement with these opinions as a consequence of their subjectivity, rather than rejecting the idea of subjectivity as "a general strategy for rejecting reviewers' criticisms of prose". Christopher Parham (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony - Questions - 1. Does that one sentence mean that the whole page is not worthy of FAC? 2. If you feel so strongly about it, why not change it yourself? This is an encyclopedia for everyone to edit, and no one owns any page here. While working on the Johnson page there were dozens of reviewers who took liberty and made small changes to suit themselves. Some neutral, some great, some not so great, but they still did. Just because -I- nominate something from FAC does not mean it is my page and that only I can edit. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) No, but it's not looking good as an exposed representation of the standard writing at the opening, where you'd expect editors to take particular care. (2) Ah, no thanks. Everyone can edit—very true—but the converse is not true. I critique, I don't copy-edit; that way, I have a larger footprint on WP and, I hope, encourage improvement over a broader field that direct copy-editing would allow. Tony (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I -never- expect people to care about the lead. The lead is always the last, always the worse part, and serves very little except as a base opening. That is why I never work on them. But as to your part of reluctance to go ahead and edit - we don't need people who just sit back and "critique". Otherwise, you would just stay in peer review. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to stick my nose in here, but as a reviewer I absolutely hate the nominator refrain of "why don't you make the change yourself?" Nominated articles are expected to already meet the FA criteria, and the nominator is essentially assuring the reviewers that (s)he's already checked against the criteria. In my opinion, then, when issues are pointed out in the article, it is the nominator's responsibility to fix them, because (s)he is the editor who previously testified that the article was ready. I have no problem jumping in to fix the occasionaly minor problems while I'm reading through (and I've even been known to copyedit an entire article, especially for new nominators), but there are lots of other nominated articles which also deserve to be reviewed. If I had spent all my time correcting all the prose issues I saw in articles then my reviewing would be cut down to about 10% or less of what it was (and we'd also be encouraging more nominators to submit sub-par work). Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel 100% the opposite, Karanacs. Since each reviewer has a different standard for what actually meets the FAC standards, it would be impossible to claim that an FAC must meet all of the standards before going in. It is also not a peer review process, so simply stating its flaws goes against what FAC is. Its either a support or an oppose. I think it would be 100% necessary for any reviewer to directly take part in the article as a whole, otherwise, they are making empty votes. And if your reviewing had to be cut down to 10% of what it is to make sure something is done right, then I say we should pass much fewer FAs in order to ensure the higher quality. I think we need to get beyond FA as an individual editing experience which you are giving a star for being great. This is a community and it should be seen as part of a community effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To reviewers: "Thanks, but no thanks"

While the grammar wonks trade issues above, the same question remains for me: at some point someone will suggest changes or oppose based on an issue that is just not a wise move. I would like to see what Sandy, Raul, and Karanacs would say to a nominator flat-out refusing to make a change because s/he feels not only would it not improve the article, but it would be a detriment. Twice I have suggested in contentious FACs that nominators who may have personality clashes with reviewers simply note to the FAC closer, "No. I will not make this change, and here are my reasons..."

In my mind, that neutralizes the escalation of bad feelings and petty exchanges, but it also puts pressure on you to promote or archive based on how valid the suggestions are vs. the quality of the nominator's argument about how the changes are unnecessary and probably harmful. Is this an automatic archive, or a case by case basis? --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Flat out refusal may not be the way forward; but argued refusal to make change may be a good way.I t should be possible to state something like: "I understand the reviewers point of view, however based on the evidence (provide evidence), I think the proposed change is not improving the article". Of course, the presented evidence needs to be strong, and proving without any doubt the reviewer was wrong (e.g. something I once encountered like: We never explain things in WWF articles; as we only aim at fans, is not a good reason...) Arnoutf (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a nominator necessarily has to prove the reviewer "wrong", but to prove that there are viable alternatives. I've refused to make changes in articles I've nominated when I felt that the reviewers were wrong. The key is to be very polite (because the reviewer likely spent a significant amount of time on that article) and to provide an explanation of my rationale. Occasionally, the reviewer will respond back and I realize that I misinterpreted what they were asking; most of the time the reviewer graciously accepts my reasoning, even if they don't necessarily agree with my conclusion. (As I reviewer, I try to extend the same courtesy.) On the other hand, I frequently compromise and make wording changes that I don't necessarily think make the article better, but that I don't believe make it worse. I try very, very hard not to begin an argument with the reviewer - 99% of the time neither mind gets changed, and it results in hard feelings and an overly wordy FAC so that other reviewers are scared off. (It's also important to recognize that both reviewer and nominator play important roles in this process, and should be working together, not fighting.) Karanacs (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

During a previous FAC (I wont say) two previous users (I wont name) both made claims about corrections and then added some of their own. Not only did they disagree, but many others later stated that the changes damaged the article. Two opposes can sink a FAC, and people are unwilling to support when they feel such a way on language. I think its best for the integrity of an article to just ignore such people when your intuition is strong and not get that fancy little star. Why? Because the encyclopedia matters more, even if people who will destroy it (unintentionally) are in your way for having your work recognized. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so that we have concrete examples, here are the original reviewer's comments that I made on The Lucy poems FAC and the Samuel Johnson's early life FAC. Can any one not directly involved in the dispute state that I was either excessively rude or way out in left field (with regards accuracy or relevance) in my comments? Both comments were dismissed (as absurd or irrelevant) by Ottava Rima. I have now added new comments on Section 1 (Parents) of the Samuel Johnson FAC (see Post 3). As a real-time experiment, why don't we examine how these comments are received and responded to in the coming days. I plan to do the same for each of the remaining sections of the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to report that the experiment is proceeding apace in both predictable and unpredictable ways. Please see the relevant portion on Real-time experiment for FAC Talk page. Please also notice my interaction in the control groups: Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_Small-Scale_Experimental_Machine and Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Federal_Bridge_Gross_Weight_Formula. Is there someone other than Ottava Rima who thinks that my suggestions will not improve the article? I'd like to hear from them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only person skeeved out by the fact that FAC is being used in some pseudo-scientific experiment to prove a hypothesis held by one editor? My question up there was for the entire community, and now it has rocketed back to Fowler&fowler and Ottava Rima. The fact that you have a point that you are trying to prove leads me to think your reviews do not have the quality of the encyclopedia as your highest priority. Quality may be up there, but here it seems as if it is more important for you to run your experiments. Regardless, I was hoping to get feedback from FAC participants and closers about how to handle commentary on articles that may not be for the benefit of the article, not rehash old arguments between two specific editors. If I can veer the conversation back to that goal, it is for the benefit of the FAC process. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not running the experiment for my own gratification, but rather to provide an opportunity for these issues to be thrashed out. As for my point, what is it? What is my hypothesis that you so glibly characterize as "psuedo-scientific?" I'm just generating the data. Again, I don't have any particular focus on Ottava Rima. The detailed remarks I have made on his FAC are no different in their level of detail from the ones I have made on the Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_Small-Scale_Experimental_Machine (and on the article's talk page). The only difference is in the content of my remarks; in the former they mostly concern syntax and diction and in the latter, incomplete explanations and poor organization. The main difference is in the response. Whereas Malleus F. and I are making progress and the article is already much better, Ottava R. and I clearly are not. I have left an open invitation to any Wikipedian other than Ottava R. to point to any excesses in my reviewer's remarks. So far, no one has taken up the challenge, including you, Moni3. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that the point that is being lost on a lot of FACs is that FAC is not supposed to be a battleground. I've seen many nominators become unnecessarily defensive and take offense at well-meant comments, and I've seen many reviewers use unnecessarily harsh language and become much too attached to their specific suggestions. It's okay for nominators to say "no thank you because...". It's okay for reviewers to then say "I hear you, but..." and then just DROP IT. Everyone has made their point, and if there is no sign of either side budging, let the FAC delegate(s) weigh the points that have been made. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem at FAC is that most reviews are facile ones that point to a sentence here or a sentence there, and when an adequate response is provided by an author, the reviews end in a support vote. That may be one reason why so many articles are being nominated as FACs. There may be a sense out there that you can quickly write up an article, get a peer review, and promptly park said article on the FAC conveyor belt. And there, all things being equal, you'll get a pass soon. In the unlikely instance of someone such as Fowler&fowler appearing as a reviewer, you can let him do all the work and correct only the sentences he provides explicit corrections for; when he doesn't, simply state that the comment is inactionable. Alternatively, when he does provide explicit detailed corrections, you can say that F&f has an obsessive vendetta against you, and draw a line, then and there, in the FAC sand. What is being forgotten in all this is that Misplaced Pages needs to spruce up its quality if it wants to be taken seriously. In the days when professors farmed out to their graduate students the short articles they were sometimes requested for by Encyclopaedia Britannica, the graduate student efforts were subjected to much greater scrutiny than Featured Article candidates are on Misplaced Pages. What is wrong with high reviewing standards? Why are painstaking efforts by reviewers being regarded as instances of old or new rivalry? (By the way, Karanacs, I'm not saying that you are saying this. :)) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC is clearly a potentially difficult situation for both nominators and reviewers. From the nominator's perspective it can seem like it's them taking on all-comers, all on their own. From the reviewer's point of view it can seem like the work they've put in to read and consider the article before making their comments/recommendations has been rubbished and thrown back in their face. It's down to each of us, whichever side of that divide we may find ourselves on from time to time, to bear that in mind. I was initially a bit taken aback by Fowler&fowlers' comments at my FAC, not because of any presentation problems on his part, or defensiveness on my part, but simply at seeing such a detailed analysis of only one section of the article, suffixed with the ominous "more to follow". After carefully considering what he had to say I felt that the vast majority of his points had merit, and could be dealt with fairly easily, and would be a help not only to this article but to other historic computer articles to follow. At no point did I feel threatened or abused by what he had to say, and at no point did I feel that he was motivated by anything other than improving the article.

By contrast, I was not so happy about some of the remarks made by reviewers in this FAC, some of which I felt were at least bordering on the personal. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves - Britannica never did and still doesn't have standards higher than GA nor do they use scholars working on their articles. Most of the time, the articles are horribly flawed, biased, or just flat out incomplete. If they used graduate students to write their articles, then I hope those students never received a degree for their shoddiness. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"... nor do they use scholars working on their articles."

I'm trying not to get into arguments with user:Ottava Rima; however, I cannot let stand a blanket dismissal of Britannica's contributors, especially the authors of its long articles (the so-called "signed articles"). The Britannica article on "English Literature," for example, is a collaborative effort involving nine authors who are among the best-known scholars in the world (see here). Here is a sample of the prose from the sub-sub-section on Ben Jonson in the Britannica article (see here). How often do you encounter prose like this anywhere on Misplaced Pages (let alone in GAs)? It is one thing to have healthy self-confidence in our common enterprise, Misplaced Pages; it is quite another to be self-satisfied, grandiose and dismissive. The latter attitude does nothing except thwart efforts to improve standards by fruitful collaborations between nominators and reviewers (which requires a little humility—as Karanacs and Moni3 have wisely observed—on the part of both parties). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAO! Anyone who tries to put John Beer as any kind of "respectable" level within scholarship really doesn't understand literary theory or criticism. They had to stoop to get Beer in one of the most heavily discussed time periods is only indicative that Britannica is filled with unscholarly hacks. Hell, the people they chose don't even specialize in most of the stuff that they are assigned according to the list. A simple side by side comparison of literature FAs with their filth can show that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the prose is disgustingly wordy! - Signed by me - an anon user 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC) NO PAs

:) True, the sentences are long, but there is little redundancy; it is impossible (as far as I can tell) to delete a single word without changing the meaning. I suppose I picked out that example to illustrate an example of literary flourish ("brilliant prose?"); most writing in Britannica is matter-of-factly descriptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I have been mulling both the original question posed by Moni3 and the posts of Karanacs and Malleus F, and couldn't help thinking of book reviews in literary magazines and journals. Typically, the reviewer writes a review and this is sometimes followed by a response from the author(s) and a further response to the response by the reviewer, at which point, the back-and-forth stops. A look at Real-time experiment for FAC Talk page suggests that not much purpose is served by going beyond this point. If it is felt, however, that this format leaves the reviewer at an advantage, a further response by the nominator can be considered (but no more). Perhaps we might consider making an informal rule or suggestion: "Both reviewer and nominator are encouraged to limit their (individual) exchange to one initial review/response followed by one further response each; additional points can be made on the article's talk page," (or some more lucid amendment to my version. :)) Of course, if this is too confusing, we could stay with Karanacs's more common-sense version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

More on style editing

I think perhaps it is worth pointing out that in publishing houses, an author almost always is assigned one editor, or at any rate only works with one editor at a time. I believe this is because trying to please multiple editors at the same time would often be a very frustrating experience -- especially when they disagree with each other. At Misplaced Pages we can't completely avoid placing writers in this position, but we ought to cut them some slack when it happens. Looie496 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is different from my experience. In the journal issue I am currently editing, each article has been looked at by four separate editors. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not confuse different tasks that are related to editing a scientific journal.

• First task: Receive papers and send out for review
• Second task: Review- whether the content does live up to the quality required. This needs in general more than one view to deal with different expertise and points of view.
• Third task: Decision to publish; decision which issues need to be fixed prior to publication.
• Fourth task: Preperation for final publication finalising prose, style etc.

While I can see the preference for a single editor to contact the author for the last phase, the input of the process is from earlier stages.

In wikipedia's FAC it is essentially tasks 2 and 3 that are being conducted. Peer review, identification of grounds for improvement, and decision to promote. So no need for single editor-author relations in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm editing articles on literature and four different people commented on the content and language - in literature, everyone comments on the prose along the way. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In science we also comment on the language (we hope ;-). For the better journals/publisher there tend to be inhouse copy-editors fixing last typo's etc. Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Community support

One of the gravest problems facing this process is the lack of reviewers (I know, tell you something you don't know). Many great reviewers have been driven away. There's no lack of nominations, but there is also a distinct lack of nominations from some people who have been similarly chauffeured. The more I look at our interactions, the more I believe that these missing persons are repelled by assumptions of bad faith, attacks, name-calling, and other behavioral problems that would get a 5-year-old sent to the naughty step.

We need to do a better job supporting each other as a community and discouraging shitty behavior. I think everyone here is acting in good faith. However, the relationship between authors and critics has always been a strained one. If you see someone pushing someone else in the wrong direction, step in and say something. Back people up if they're being wronged.

• If you're a nominator, take your criticism gracefully and carry on smartly. You did ask for it, after all. If a reviewer crosses the line, call them on it. If you're right, people will back you up.
• If you're a reviewer, review the article and not the author(s). Back up other supports and opposes so we can get things out of here. If a nominator replies to your criticism as if you just took a dookie on their front lawn, call them on it. If you're right, people will back you up.

I'll be first. If anyone sees me being rude to someone in FAC, send me to the naughty step. --Laser brain (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not rude, you're just brutally honest :) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs 19:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Laser brain. I have created a subpage: Real-time experiment for FAC talk page where we can evaluate whether I am adhering to the principles enunciated here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain I agree in totality with every single point you stated. I don't understand why certain peeps nominate articles and expect them to be reviewed if they just can't take any damn suggestion! Why the fuck do they expect people to review "their" articles, huh? What fun do we get by reading what "they" came up with and thought to be "featured quality"?

It takes real courage, patience and goodwill to take the effort to review articles. If nominators can't undertsand this and act ungratefully towards the reviewers, the FAC should be ended then and there. -- Yeah you can dismiss me as an anonymous ip as if you guys are not anons?? signed on by an anon 07:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Image reviews needed

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Harriet Bosse
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1964 Brinks Hotel bombing
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 50 in Nevada
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Vigilance

To my fellow reviewers: if possible, please take some time to check the sources of the articles you review. In the last two months, I have found six articles at FAC that have had copyvio issues. Please also check to make sure that sources are not being misrepresented (that the claims in the article are actually backed up by the citations). BuddingJournalist 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll

The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Misplaced Pages. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll runs as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)