| Revision as of 10:31, 3 February 2010 view sourceTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors275,878 edits Change pursuant to RfC 3 (44–0) plus Steve's concern; clarified wording for RfC result← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:07, 2 March 2010 view source Mike Christie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors70,182 edits Change limits statement; see WT:FACNext edit → | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| 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. | 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 |
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 be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them. If a nominated article is archived, and not promoted, none of the nominators may nominate or conominate 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 one of 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; | *consensus for promotion has not been reached; | ||
| Line 45: | Line 47: | ||
| <span style="font-size:1.4em">Supporting and opposing</span> | <span style="font-size:1.4em">Supporting and opposing</span> | ||
| *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 ] for an overview of the review process. | *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 ] for an overview of the review process. Reviewers are encouraged to review articles in the "Older nominations" section of the page first. | ||
| *To support a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki>, '''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 support a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki>, '''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 <nowiki>*'''Object''' or *'''Oppose'''</nowiki>, '''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 <tt><nowiki><s> ... </s></nowiki></tt>) 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 ]. | *To oppose a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Object''' or *'''Oppose'''</nowiki>, '''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 <tt><nowiki><s> ... </s></nowiki></tt>) 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 ]. | ||
Revision as of 02:07, 2 March 2010
 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 be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them. If a nominated article is archived, and not promoted, none of the nominators may nominate or conominate 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 one of 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:
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. |
Shortcut
Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article review (FAR): Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
Toolbox | ||
|
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
| |||