Template:FAC-instructions: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:01, 8 October 2009 view sourceGary (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers102,842 edits adding toolbox without list feature← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:00, 9 February 2010 view source Mike Christie (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,182 edits Copyedit badly merged wordingNext edit →
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Here, we determine which articles are to be ]. FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the ]. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the ].		Here, we determine which articles are to be ]. FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the ]. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the ].

	Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at ]. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.		Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at ]. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

	An article should not be on ] and ] or ] at the same time~~. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed~~. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using ] (if necessary, use bolded headings).		An article should not be on ] and ] or ] at the same time. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using ] (if necessary, use bolded headings).

			An editor is allowed to nominate only one article. While the nomination is still active, that editor shall not nominate another article. If the article is promoted, the same editor may nominate another article immediately. If the article is archived, and not promoted, the nominator may not nominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

	The FA director, ]—or his delegates, ] and ]—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be ] to FA status, ] must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and ] if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:		The FA director, ]—or his delegates, ] and ]—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be ] to FA status, ] must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and ] if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
	*actionable objections have not been resolved;		*actionable objections have not been resolved;
	*consensus for promotion has not been reached; or		*consensus for promotion has not been reached;
	*insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.		*insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
			*a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

	It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve ''critical'' comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.		It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve ''critical'' comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Revision as of 02:00, 9 February 2010

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

An editor is allowed to nominate only one article. While the nomination is still active, that editor shall not nominate another article. If the article is promoted, the same editor may nominate another article immediately. If the article is archived, and not promoted, the nominator may not nominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

actionable objections have not been resolved;
consensus for promotion has not been reached;
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut

WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Dablinks

Nomination procedure

Toolbox

Analysis

Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.