Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 3 January 2012

• WT:FAC

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Getting more reviewers in?

I notice that, to my annoyance, that two FACs for the article Russell T Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been and gone from FAC with nothing apart from the standard checks. Obviously, this is somewhat annoying that, over two months, there has been only the smallest of feedback on an article that I've put a lot of work into getting it up to this sort of standard, and it's made worse by the fact I remember The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was on FAC for nearly two months too. Sceptre 03:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're a bit short of reviewers. Have you considered reviewing more? I noticed you reviewed Tintin, but additional reviews would help cut down on the backlog. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can be done - the reviewer shortage is becoming a perennial problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sceptre, here's why helping out with high quality reviews at FAC will improve your chances of seeing a nomination promoted. Other delegates may approach the task differently, but one of our "jobs" is to manage the size of the FAC page so that worthy articles have a fair shot at being reviewed. As long as the number of nominations is in the 25 to 30 range, I would be uninclined to archive a month-old nomination that has gotten no review-- even less inclined to archive quickly for a third nom. On the other hand, I would still archive noms with Opposes quickly, and when the page size gets up around 40 to 50, I archive more aggressively. Long story short-- the more any nominator can contribute towards high quality reviews that help the delegates close nominations more quickly and hold down the page size, the better the chances your nomination can run longer. Conversely, low-quality reviews (that is, supports where subsequent reviewers identify problems) cause nominations to run longer than necessary and add to the backlog, increasing your chances of seeing a nomination archived sooner. It's quality reviews that help the backlog-- dropping in a Support on nominations where other reviewers subsequently find problems just cause nominations to run longer, sap reviewer time, and mean that delegates may have to archive those nominations that receive no feedback more aggressively as the page size grows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What she said, and there are also some easier jobs that really need doing to get some of these FACs moving. Just reading the article and noting where something doesn't sound right to you ... and don't be shy about saying that you're not sure why, it just sounds wrong, or you don't follow what it means ... can be a huge help. Spotchecks are easy more often than they're hard ... just look at the sources that you can find online, and make sure the writers got the page numbers right and didn't misrepresent or closely paraphrase the sources. (Also see WP:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches). - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

We should probably have a page that tells you how to do a good FAC review. YE 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. From my seat, a good reviewer is one who either:

• a) specializes in one area so I know exactly what the reviewer's expertise is and what they've checked (examples, prose, sources, images, check the lead, etc), or
• b) does overall checks of a little bit of everything (reliable sources, accurate representation of sources, no copyvio, comprehensive, prose, MOS, etc) and lets me know what they've checked, or
• c) a topic expert who can speak from a base of knowledge of the subject matter, or
• d) a non-topic reviewer, who can check for jargon.

So, anyone who doesn't feel qualified to do b) particularly in the absence of someone else doing a) and c) probably shouldn't be adding Support, but could review to oppose on any basis. The single thing that contributes most to the backlog IMNSHO is reviewers who add unworthy supports and then don't keep the nom watchlisted to see if significant issues are later revealed. When a nomination has accumulated enough faulty supports, it has to be carried until serious reviewers dig in and identify the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fuck it, I'm a sucker for a request for help. I suppose I could come back to FAC. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We could still use an essay guide to describe those 4. I believe that is one reason people have issue. That and they think they aren't qualified, so suggesting to cut their teeth at WP:GAN and WP:PR are also good suggestions.∞陣内Jinnai 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am very much afraid that we have a reputation as less than welcoming and rather difficult to break into.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That doesn't mean we need to promote that stereotype.∞陣内Jinnai 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sceptre, the largest concern at FAC is not about your article, it's keeping the index size down. I've read this over and over, and again above is another example. The only way to get your article through FAC in a reasonable amount of time is to join the ranks of the FAC Prima donnas™ where your article hits the FAC index and it has 37 supports within 24 hours. Brad (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, from someone who does not review FACs at the moment, but has always been interested in doing so: the reason I don't review is because I don't feel confident enough in knowing the various WP:# and policy guidelines relating to FA articles to do anything without fear of it being reverted or of sidetracking the process. Additionally and similarly to this point, I'm not quite sure of exactly what I'm supposed to be looking at/for. Yellow Evan's (YE) suggestion for a page that summarises how to conduct a good review, or even a page that summarises SandyGeorgia's "what we're looking for " would help. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and it was one of the things I was hoping to bring up during the leadership review in January. We work so much by precedent and unwritten rules it is difficult for newbies. Raul's page on TFA is an example of what I would like to see more of.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks and image reviews needed

We have several FACs at the bottom of the list that are close to being promoted, but that still need attention to sources and/or images:

• WP:Featured article candidates/Brain/archive4 – spotcheck found concerns, more work needed archived
• WP:Featured article candidates/Blonde on Blonde/archive1 – needs both an image review and a spotcheck of the sources
• WP:Featured article candidates/Diffuse panbronchiolitis/archive1 – both an image review and a spotcheck needed
• WP:Featured article candidates/Rehab (Rihanna song)/archive3 – image review, spotcheck, and further reviews needed
• WP:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive3 – needs image review and spotcheck
• WP:Featured article candidates/Plateosaurus/archive1 – spotcheck
• WP:Featured article candidates/White-necked Rockfowl/archive1 – spotcheck
• WP:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5 – spotcheck
• WP:Featured article candidates/Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias/archive1 – images

I haven't yet been able to go through all of FAC today; there may be more articles with similar issues. Ucucha (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (Now done going through. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)) (Updated – Ucucha (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC), 10:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC))

I changed the latter link (Rehab) to point to archive #3. --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting on editor responses to my Brain spotchecks. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I just spotchecked Blonde on Blonde. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have commenced a spotcheck on Diffuse panbronchiolitis and am waiting on editor comment before proceeding or completing spotchecking. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough checks, Fifelfoo. Ucucha (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffuse panbronchiolitis has had an adequate (5/27 sources) spotcheck without problems now. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask a dumb question? Does the term "spotcheck" refer to a validity check of all sources, or just a sample of them? I'm new to the FAC process, but I've seen "spotchecks" go both ways (comprehensive, sampling). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Under most circumstances, spotchecks involve checking a sample of sources for accurate representation of the source (WP:V) and avoidance of copyvio/close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to help out with some of these, but also wanted to do it correctly. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, I'll sometimes ask for a comprehensive source check when a spotcheck yields too many issues. Ucucha (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As someone who tries to clean up the "five on the bottom" with spotchecks, I make a judgement call about what variety and uses of sources the article has, and proceed with a sample of sources to try to "uncover" problematic habits. I spotcheck as many sources as I think I need to, or as few sources as I think I can get away with; and those numbers are the same. Like Ucucha notes, if there are a lot of problems, my spotchecks become more and more complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks have already been done for "Single Ladies". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements for FAC

Heller, I'm AJona1992 (as some of you might know) and I have been brainstorming for the past several days on improvements to the way "FAC" operates. As a small reminder, I do not have the world's best writing skills, so please bear with me :-)

Well what do you guys think? Happy holidays, Jonayo! 16:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to answer your first question in the abstract. Please pick an example of a FAC you believe would have been promoted if an opposer had only returned and acknowledged that the problems had been fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure; this FAC (which is currently still under review) was opposed by a user who felt that a section should be removed, the nominator replied swiftly and added comments to further understand why the section is there. On this one I had fixed BelovedFreak's comments though never replied and it failed (understandable at the time). I can't find any other failed FACs that have opposed but were fixed as I don't save any on my watch list but these two came to mind. Best, Jonayo! 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, understood that sometimes it's harder to get through FAC than maybe it should be, but those examples don't work for me. If the first one hasn't been promoted or failed yet, then we don't know yet whether the delegate is going to promote despite the opposes. In the second one, Nikki is a special case ... she does a huge amount of work on all the FACs, and doesn't have time to revisit in every case. The delegates are very familiar with her work and know how to interpret what she's saying. I looked at just one point she made ... WP:DASH (I'm picking it because I expected it probably wasn't fixed, not because it's popular FAC requirement ... it's not!) and I see that "Old Rock, New Life - Page 2" and "man-woman" were never fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood :-) Well I was more going with the second proposal but I wanted to see what are everyone's thoughts about the process of FAC and how it could be improved. Best, Jonayo! 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding your first point, I understood that delegates read the entire FAC before closing (multiple times!) and do read if the nominator argues against an oppose. If the nominator's argument is effective, I expect the delegates ignore the oppose. Similarly, an oppose must be "effective" and directly relate to the requirements of an FA. Regarding your second point, ease of access is an issue with FAC. I'd suggest sticking a hand up and asking for help, early and often. Somethings are just hard to master (but easy to learn)—like what kind of publication a thing is and how to cite it. Somethings are easy, but a regular FAC reviewer might specify them in jargon. Please, do ask for assistance, the people here are quite friendly in my opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess the issue could be when something isn't promoted and the person fixed all issues and/or made an argument against issues, why it wasn't promoted, ie what the delegate thought was left undone or what arguments they thought might not work.∞陣内Jinnai 16:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsure whether or not to submit an FAC now or until after the holidays

I am planning to submit an article for FAC, but, given that the holidays are right around the corner, would it be a good idea to wait after Christmas to send one? I don't want to submit one right now if nobody is going to be around to review it. –MuZemike 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it would make much difference; reviewers are thin on the ground and getting thinner. Well not me obviously, I'm getting fatter. Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Scheduling plans for roast pork fuelled spotchecking. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Muzemike, I'd just go on readiness of article. There are people around regardless of time of year. So don't hurry if article unready, and don't delay if article ready....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I need help here

Could someone tell me if what was said below it's true:

Malleus Fatuorum: "Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me. I'm maybe being too critical, and that's a matter for the FAC delegates to decide, but I'd bet a pound to a penny that I could find multiple issues with pretty much any FA, never mind FAC."

I always knew it, but this is the fist time that is said out loud. That is: we have a super-voter here, someone whose vote weights far more than anyone else's. If this is true, I see no reason to why there is any need to keep with the present FAC process. We should drop it entirely and let Malleus Fatuorum review all nominations and tell which one will pass and which one won't.

The problem is that he and I share a history. In my view, our relationship is quite simple: I stay far alway from him. Unfortunately, he seems to coninue going after me. I've recently nominated Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and he appeared there. Why? I can see it only as a provocation. There are countless other articles which have been nominated and it makes no sense that he chose to review mine. He won't be neutral for sure.

Thus, I'm asking for any delegate to tell him to stay alway from me. Just that. I'm here asking politely for Malleus Fatuorum to leave me in peace. --Lecen (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you've no obligation to listen to me, but I think you're seriously misinterpreting that comment. It seems to imply not a "super-voter" (and indeed speaks to the opposite with the comment that FAC delegates should decide on the merit of the comments), but instead someone who consistently criticizes unclear or rough prose - just as I am arguably currently the "sourcing elephant" though I'd appreciate very much if no one used that label for me. The personal issues between the two of you are what they are, and the delegates may act on that if they so choose - but your first paragraph is, to my way of thinking, quite off the mark. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Nikki) Um, I don't see anywhere in that where Malleus says his vote is weighted more than anyone else's... He says that he's good at spotting errors in prose - that is completely true. He says that it used to be that nominators were afraid of getting a 1.a oppose from Tony, because he was picky about prose - that's true as well. He says that now being uber-picky about prose (something that FAC is known for!) has apparently fallen to him, because Tony doesn't seem to participate in the FAC process any more - that's also true. He does not say anywhere that delegates take his opinion more seriously than anyone else's - in fact he says that they may decide he's being too picky. He says of your nomination, "This isn't bad, but it's still a bit rough", and then gives some very specific suggestions for changes and appears quite willing to engage in dialog. Nowhere in your nomination does he show the slightest bit of attitude (which Malleus is also known for...with no offense meant to him). You have both him and Dank (another wonderful copyeditor) willing to help you out on this article. However, your attitude has driven Dank away - "Okay, I'm done here.". Are you trying to make it so no-one is willing to copyedit your articles? Because that really looks to be where this is headed, when you insult and try to drive away two of the best copyeditors in the project, both experts in what it takes prose-wise to get through FAC... Dana boomer (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read my comments to all other reviewers you'll see that I try to be as helpful as possible. I'm well aware that you're both friends of Malleus Fatuorum and that you'll stick to him no matter what. Unfortunately, no one here seems to have bothered with the problem: he and I do not get along and he should not review my articles. That's simple but I'm seeing that no one is listening. Plus, when he said Once upon a time User:Tony1 was the "Oppose, 1a" elephant in the room, but that mantle seems to have fallen to me he meant exactly that: a nomination can have 100 supports, but if Malleus Fatuorum appears and says "no", it's all finished. I'm not a newcomer and I had articles reviewed by Tony1 (see Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná. I came here to ask politely to someone help me and for the sake of preventing greater problems to tell him to leave me in peace. I'm asking now: editors who share a history of enmity are allowed to review each other's articles, to make comments about each other on arbitration, disputes, etc? --Lecen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: See Malleus Fatuorum's remarks there: we are not allowed to give physical description of long deceased people and an entire section is about the military education of that person we should change its name to "adolescence". Perhaps his early military career should be renamed "adulthood" and his generalship "Senile years". Reviewers can make unnecessary comments too. --Lecen (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I see completely unreasonable behaviour by the nominator, who managed to turn constructive criticism from two respected reviewers into a fight. Assume good faith. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"The dishonesty on display here is beginning to stink. Attempts to get rid of me for alleged incivility have so far come to naught, but now I have to be eliminated because my standards for prose are too high. Well go fuck yourselves is all I have to say to that." (See here) This is what Malleus Fatuorum said to me less than 2 weeks ago. And you see from my part a "completely unreasonable behaviour"? Only because I asked the person who insulted me before (see here and here) and who does not like me to leave me alone? Really? Does everyone here sincerely believe that a person like that should review my article? (Please see here) --Lecen (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting Malleus's comments, and the fact is that these days no FAC does get 100 supports, least of all yours. Malleus is far from the only one to have commented on prose issues on your FACs over the years. I think you are not a native speaker, & you should just accept the fact that your articles will always need one to give it a tedious and time-consuming going-over to meet the current FA standards. Unfortunately you have managed to antagonize the editors who currently perform that function most often. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Check the article's history log. I never said I was a fantastic writer. On the contrary: I do the research, not the writing. It is Astynax, who does the writing. Another copy-editor reviewed the article before it was nominated. But this doesn't matter. I read enough to know what is the general mood. --Lecen (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's entirely possible to not tick off Malleus - the trick to that is to ... not have a chip on your shoulder. And I'm impressed that Dank left off that FAC, since he's one of the most easy going persons around. Maybe, just maybe, if Dank left - the problem isn't with Malleus or with Dank - but with your own attitude and the solution isn't to blame Malleus but to work on your own behavior. I read the FAC - and I have to agree with Malleus and Dank - the description of his appearance fits very badly in a section entitled "Military education". And you don't seem to be willing to entertain other solutions to the problem nor be willing to listen to others. Yes, it sucks to have others criticize your prose and offer suggestions - but a real writer learns that having other critique your work is part of the writing process and learning to take well meant criticism is a great skill to have througout your life. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being unfair. There was not, at any moment, a refusal from my part of collaborating with anyone. Dank reviewed the article and I supported all changes he made and everything he suggested or criticized. The same goes to Fifelfoo who also reviewed the article. It seems that the main point here is being ignored, unfortunately. --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not being unfair - I'm calling the situation like I see it. A description of the person is a bad fit for a section entitled "Military education". Dank suggested retitling the section "adolescence" where the description would be fine - you seem to have ignored that suggestion and instead gone off on Malleus instead of replying to Dank's point - that's what I mean when I say you did not entertain other solutions - a solution was offered (by Dank) and you ignored it to go after Malleus instead. Get the chip about Malleus off your shoulder and learn to work with him, and your work will improve markedly. And you'll learn some things. Yes, you don't speak English natively, and we understand that. That doesn't mean that Malleus is out to get you. He actually treated that review pretty mildly - you are the one getting upset with his suggestions and imputing motives to him that aren't needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're again being unfair. I did respond to Dank and he saw no problem. If Malleus Fatuorum is not after me, could you explain why did he meddle (see here) in a conversation I had with an editor which he had no involvement or reason to? --Lecen (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The obvious question here is what do you consider fair? Do you wish that no one criticizes the articles you nominate although you admit your weakness with the level of English necessary for FAs? Or do you just wish Malleus Fatuorum to avoid articles you nominate? If that is the case, and he is right when he says he has taken over Tony1's role of thoroughly critiquing prose (and I'm not saying he is, I'm just offering that as a hypothesis), that would mean the article might get passed without his pointing out what must be fixed. One of your articles might be passed when it should not be. So what? Well, imagine it makes it to the main page with errors and confusing English that appears that it was written by a non-native speaker. What would you prefer: Malleus critiquing your prose now or you having to read "Who wrote this crap?" with ten or fifty examples of mistakes that were never caught at FAC, on main page day? --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm replying to Lecen's "Now you made me look like a spoiled child" on my talk page. I've been doing my best to copyedit every Milhist article (and a lot of other articles) at FAC for a while now. Lecen's articles, including this one, have taken me about twice as long as most. That's not a problem, but in fairness to other articles, I wrote: "Lecen, I'm starting a new project and my time is really limited these days ... I have no spare time for settling disputes, so if you and Malleus start yelling at each other, I'm out of here." Lecen started yelling, so I left. No hard feelings, I've just got other articles to work on, and it wouldn't be fair to sink more time into this one, particularly when it's so difficult to make progress. If someone else wants to tackle it, great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Malformed nomination

Does anyone have time to deal with this malformed nomination and to leave a note with the nominator? FAC page is here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying, Carcharoth-- that has been sitting there since Dec 11th, I'm busy with a funeral, and anyone could have done this over the last four days. See {{FAC withdrawn}}. Remove from FAC, remove from talk, db-g6 the nom, and notify the nominator. There's a page of instructions in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this user's second out-of-process nomination, also a FAR notification. Will someone pls watch this editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Recusals

So far as an FAC delegate, I've refrained from taking action on most biological articles, because that is the area I've worked in in my own content work. However, with both other FAC delegates absent for the moment, I'm going to start promoting and/or archiving those from now on. With one exception (for which I've asked Raul to make a decision), I haven't actually been involved specifically with any of the biological FACs that are currently open. Please do let me know if you feel I should recuse on any of these FACs. Ucucha (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Sandy is back active again? Not that I have any problem with you promoting/archiving bio facs that you haven't reviewed on, but just questioning the validity of the "both other delegates are gone" rationale. Mainly a technicality, though - as long as you haven't reviewed, I don't see an issue with you promoting/archiving. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, never mind. Just saw that Sandy blanked her talk page and put up a wikibreak notice. Have fun being the sole delegate again :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you've been a significant editor of an article, I can't see that there's a problem. You wouldn't be doing this job if people had doubts about your integrity, Merry Christmas, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Jimfbleak; there's no COI unless you've been involved in editing the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Second/third Jim/Storm -- the fact you're even seeking a reality check is another sign of your integrity (or is it anxiety -- well, anyway, nice you asked)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be administering the biological articles in general since content is important as well as form. The Sasata-Visionholder-Uca trio is a little tight (although all of you very strong, just you work a lot together). So understand a reticense to be the decider there. But I think it actually makes most sense for you to be the subeditor for giraffe or the like. Would have no issue with you doing a turtle of mine and prefer it actually.TCO (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I think we need more delegates (just more total number). I think it will make things less tense if there is less of a concentration. And also allow delegates to write and review more. No reason WEhwalt, Brian Bolton, Hawkeye, Malleus, etc. can't do this job. They have lots of experience with the processes here. And have strong outside writing experience. And brains. TCO (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiger

hello,

please transclude it. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_{TN 18:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)}

Article is not FAC ready, but I can't suggest withdrawal based on not consulting significant contributors because there are no active significant contributors. I'm not transcluding it, I did put a suggestion on the FAC that the nominator should consider peer review, and will see what happens. If we had less ill-prepared FACs dominating the page and sapping reviewer time before being archived, we FAC delegates might actually have more FACs to close when we review the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Other topic

If it's obviously not ready, then just close it with an explanation for the submitter. This is what an editor at a magazine would do. Maybe after we have an election, you will feel more authority to lead. (And I'm not having a go at you. This is just common sense for how to adminster things.)TCO (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GOP's been doing very fine work getting articles improved. I have one I've promised to do for him but I doubt I will get to it before the weekend. Perhaps during one final dose of the Red Zone Channel. Sandy, I did give some thought to the RFC you mentioned on leadership. I did not, however, want to begin work with you away. Perhaps we can talk about it next week, when you've caught up?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, what does the work GOP's been doing have to do with this discussion (sometimes I get the sense you aren't following discussions or don't click on links)?

TCO, Misplaced Pages is not a magazine, FAC delegates are not editors of magazines (we judge consensus), and we don't just close things based on your notion of common sense-- on the other hand, that doesn't mean I have to transclude an ill-prepared nom that wasn't transcluded by the person who launched it-- I prefer to first give the nominator advice and allow them the chance to decide what they want to do, since it's not my job to make up rules as we go.

Wehwalt, if you're still interested in an RFC on FAC, and can't wait until I'm settled in the New Year, I strongly suggest that you ping in Mike Christie to get some discussion and questions on the table first, since ill-launched RFCs rarely go anywhere, and Mike has a strong history at FAC at running RFCs correctly (meaning, ample discussion and definition of issues before launching an RFC).

And by the way, why are TCO and his adherents (meaning those who believe that only high page view articles should be eligible to be featured articles and that deference shouldn't be given to significant contributors' concerns in selecting TFA dates ) giving "your" articles deferential treatment that they aren't allowing other editors? If TFA selection is now being run by TCO and Ettrig instead of by Raul654 and Dabomb87 at WP:TFAR, can we all get in on the new process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, considering what TCO has done here, I will initiate an RFC on FAC leadership (including myself) once this kerfuffle is settled, and after the holidays.

• I am not TCO's lawyer; if you have questions for him, I believe his talk page is ready, willing, and able to take your questions. Ask him. I speak only for myself, I have no mandate to speak for anyone else, do you? As for Great Orange Pumpkin, as you seemed to question his submission of that article, I was mentioning that even if Tiger wasn't ready yet, he is doing and supervising good article work and needs to be encouraged. I have never asked anyone to give deference to my articles, and do not consider those diffs worth the accusatory tone of your post, Sandy. When TCO's report came out, you stated that you desired a RFC on leadership, as the report questioned your and Raul's administration of the FA area. Don't you ream me out for waiting and consulting with you on the RFC that you requested. If that has changed, you need to say so. Sandy, have you changed your mind?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh wait, Sandy threatened to RFC because of that silly TCO thingie that wants chair and all other such nouns to be an FA. By the way, did anyone outside of this talk page take that report seriously for longer than its allotted 15 minutes of fame? –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I missed answering this query. Yes, apparently enough people were frightened off by TCO and Ettrig's efforts and unique views that only high page view and vital articles should be FAs, that the legacy left from that debacle is that WP:TFAR is now completely dead, with essentially nothing but requests for high-page view articles (not always mainpage ready), and everyone else apparently afraid to even go near the place. As was noted by many early on, what TCO did was bound to do nothing but discourage FA writing, not encourage it, but it also appears to have frightened people off of FAC and TFA in general-- since who wants that kind of scrutiny and criticism, particularly from folks who aren't FA writers. The entire thing was seriously demotivating, and while FAs will still be produced, I'm now more worried about what is happening to WP:TFAR, which seems to have died after being taken over by the handful of "vital" and "high page view" adherents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't personally consider RfC as a threat. Possibly a RfC/U is a threat, I would still not consider it such.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, GoP didn't nominate/submit that article, he merely found it the untranscluded nomination and brought it here. That was the sole extent of his participation in that FAC. I think that's what Sandy means by not clicking on links... Dana boomer (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Still no reason for Sandy on the warpath. GOP has been doing fine work enlisting editors and reviewers voluntarily. Why is a word of praise for an editor out of line? As for Sandy, most of us are very good at words, and it distresses me when they are used in such a manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, you seem to have famously missed the point and gone off on a tangent without answering the simple questions asked of you. GOP had nothing to do with the Tiger article-- he apparently found an untranscluded FAC and doesn't know how to transclude it himself (strange), so asked here. I'm concerned that you often seem not to read links or get the point that others have to explain to you-- it wasn't that hard.

  Now, as to the question, I'm still curious. Is WP:TFA/R now being run by an editor who has never written an FA, and one who has one FA, on their individual talk pages, and why are "your" articles given deference that others aren't given? FAC has never been subjected to favoritism, backchannel dealings, or preferential treatment-- it has always been an open and transparent process where everyone is treated fairly. Why is TFA/R apparently now being run on some individual's talk pages, and why are those same individuals hounding FA writers to the point that it would be logical if they stopped submitting FACs, not wanting to be subjected to the craziness that is unfolding wrt TFA?

  As to an RFC, I've suggested the best route-- ping Mike Christie in here to ask the correct questions and get a discussion going (hopefully not one dominated by another TCO wall of text) to determine what issues (if any) anyone besides TCO and his adherents want addressed at FAC, then if anyone credible has concerns, figure out what questions to ask in an RFC. And no one said you were anyone's lawyer, so cool it on the defensiveness-- I think you will find that reading links will help avoid hotheaded tangential responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way are my articles given special deference? The only thing I can think of is that I saw that Ettrig was nominating high view VAs and I asked him not to nominate Nixon because I want it to run on his centennial day in a year? I ask few favors of anyone here and I certainly don't engage in back channels. I think I talked to Clrt once on some messenger system through Google? That's not IRC, is it? We were discussing a Nixon-related collaboration he wound up doing on his own. Anyway, although we disagree on some things, let's agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere positive. After the new year, I'll consult with Mike or anyone else who wants to be involved. I am not foolish enough to walk into a bear trap though. Happy new year, I hope it is less dramatic for all of us.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a coy response-- the diffs are above, it's not a difficult question. TCO and Ettrig have made it pretty clear in those diffs that they think something is wrong with the process if deference is given to the contributors of the article in terms of when it runs at TFAR, and yet you are given that same deference. As to whether I've changed my mind about an RFC, I haven't had time to think about that, since the TCO adherents have targeted an FA written by me (Tourette syndrome), so my time over the holidays has been taken up answering questions posed by folks who don't seem to know Wikpedia practices or policies or to have read the article, or to know anything about the topic or its sources, simply because they want it at TFA because it gets high page views (in other words, who and what is driving TFAR, and will that drive off FA writers?). This is precisely the sort of thing that discourages FA writers from bringing articles to FAC, and makes them cringe at the notion of having their article appear on the mainpage, and if/when it comes to an RFC, I'll fight anyone who is weakening FAC and demotivating FA writers. This business of TFAR being used to discourage FA writers, and being run on individual talk pages, with some FA writers targeted and others given special treatment, to advance the notion that a handful of editors have about pageviews and that most FAs shouldn't be FAs and only high pageview articles should be eligible needs to be brought out into the light. You seem to support the notion, and since you're a heavy participant at TFAR, we all deserve to know why you're asking for special treatment that the rest of us aren't given. As to after the New Year, with the high page view crowd targeting Tourette syndrome, I don't suppose my time will likely be any more free a year from now than it is now, since I'm now a target for folks who know nothing of a topic wanting to prepare it for TFA as they see fit when they see fit; I'm glad you're exempt when the rest of us aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year again, Sandy. I'm disengaging.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good, next time you want to go off on a rant about me, please read the links first, and understand how FAC works. Raul and Dabomb have always worked to respect significant contributor wishes, and FAC has never been run by favoritism, preferential treatment, or backchannel dealings-- that seems to be changing by a mere handful of editors who think they can run it the way they want, and who seem willing to grant preferential treatment to editors who support their party line, and that seems to be ... you. Bad bad direction for FAC and TFAR to be headed, when they were one of the few functioning areas of Misplaced Pages precisely because this sort of baloney never happened. So, let's stop it not just in the New Year, but right here right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say. I'm not going to argue. Again, happy new year. I was sorry to hear of your having to attend a funeral, and I sincerely hope you and your loved ones have a healthy and happy year.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's most kind-- it was a very long December here. Best to all in the New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• An RFC on FAC? Holy crap, doesn't everyone already have enough trouble and stress already? Is the price of a successful RFC (assuming it would be successful, which is a leap, because FAC tends to be conservative, and Misplaced Pages tends to let it run itself), is the benefit truly worth the potential cost of adding to reviewer/delegate burnout? Hmmm. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic

• I found this page suddenly when reviewing my watchlist log. Maybe we should request a bot, which will find non-transcluded FAC pages, and which will correct errors, or at least report them, say, on this talk page. ♫GoP♫_{TN 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)}

• Thanks, GoP, I understood that, since it happens often :) I look for untranscluded noms routinely via Misplaced Pages:Featured articles/Candidate list, but in this case, you got there first and posted here asking for help. I'm not sure we need a bot to routinely check for untranscluded noms: it happens rarely, and untranscluded noms are almost always drivebys from new nominators who haven't read FAC instructions, and they are often unprepared, requiring personal intervention and a message to the nominator to help decide what to do. If the nominator wants to go forward in a case like this (there are no significant contributors), it's not up to us to deny them. Now, in this case, even though I entered a comment on the untranscluded nom two days ago, the nominator hasn't responded-- meaning it appears to be a nominator who isn't even following the FAC-- not likely a good candidate for transclusion and one that will possibly result in a drain on reviewers without improvements to the article. That's the typical scenario for most untranscluded noms: and we can use the {{FAC withdrawn}} template to educate the nominator and just remove the template from the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, done-- I removed the FAC template from article talk, and when I went to notify the nominator, I realized it was the same editor whose other work had been brought to my attention on my talk page by a third editor (a week or so ago), so I pinged someone who works in that area who might be willing to mentor this editor. (Another case of an unrecognized editor whose sig doesn't agree with his editor name ... grrrrr ... ). Anyway, I think if a bot did this sort of thing, we'd miss too many opportunties to educate new nominators, and end up with a lot more ill-prepared noms (which was my point before this thread went off topic). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose size

I see Dr pda hasn't been on since December 13, so I'm hoping someone here can run his prose size script on Elvis Presley; I for some reason can't make the prose size script work on that article, it has been suggested at WP:TFA/R, and I just noticed that concerns about the article's size were raised on its FAC (including by me). Could someone pls supply the Dr pda prose script data? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea why the script isn't working for you but the readout on the latest version is

• File size: 482 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 150 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 33 kB
• Wiki text: 178 kB
• Prose size (text only): 92 kB (15642 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1821 B

Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, if Dr pda surfaces, I'll query him about the problem. Could someone also check the version that passed FAC? User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics (last time data checked) shows this to be our longest FA, and I raised the concern after the FAC that the issue wasn't addressed although it was raised on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The stats for the promoted version are:

• File size: 58 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 145 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 31 kB
• Prose size (text only): 90 kB (15388 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1716 B

Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again-- does anyone understand what made file size go from 58 to 482? It's not prose, and doesn't seem to be citations, but I may be reading this wrong. This article isn't accessible or readable by most computers or readers with normal attention spans. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the file size for old versions is glitchy. I just checked old versions of Merionethsire, Rochester Castle, and Ben Hilfenhaus; three articles varying in number of words, images, and references and yet the tool says the file size for each is 58 kB. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The 480kB for the live version is for the html for the entire page. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The History Review Department

I have restructured WikiProject History's review department so that it can serve more than just one WikiProject and conduct general history A-class reviews. The link is here. DCI traveling Talk 21:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Misplaced Pages; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the participant list, and did you change anything that affects FAC? PS, the idea that we should contact a coordinator via email in cases of abuse goes against everything I stand for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The 70 were here but he has cleared the page for some reason. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The participant list is not yet "live", as it were, but you can find a current one here. The only change, ruleswise, that affects FAC at all is that articles on subjects which are covered on 50 or more Wikipedias are now worth triple points, 100 or more quadruple (last year, the only multiplier was that articles on 20 or more/VITAL3 were worth double). I've removed "by email" from the main page; the question of transparency is a legitimate one. As Ucucha's bot should now deal with the notification, I'm assuming that this is no longer an issue? If not, I will remove it from the rules. If there's anything else I can do to make things easy for you, please let me know- I consider myself a part of both the Cup and the FAC process, and I hope to see them interacting positively. J Milburn (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow, I didn't know there were 100 Wikipedias ?? Will need to hear from Ucucha on the bot issue. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 283 right now, 107 of which have 10k or more articles. Naturally, of course, anything covered on more than 100 is gonna be something pretty significant... J Milburn (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

283 according to the list. GRAPPLE X 02:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still running the bot, and it should work correctly starting tomorrow. I'll keep an eye out for possible issues. Ucucha (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps CUP instructions can continue to remind other CUP reviewers to declare their participation, for the avoidance of the appearance of <you know, whatever>. For example, back when WP:FAT was submitting FACs, they would quickly rack up boatloads of support from involved participants, and anyone opposing had a tough row to hoe. We need to know if reviewers have a pony in the race, in either direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. The high-quality media gleaned from sessions like these will help illustrate FAs, hence my message here. Thanks, Ed  09:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Question re translations

As some may remember, my FAC nomination of Koninginnedag failed earlier in the year due to a lack of quality Dutch sources. I have, in the interim, obtained such sources. I have a Belgian friend who is bilingual in Dutch and English, and if I approached her, I am certain she would be willing to translate the relevant extracts for me (I will insist on paying her, she needs the money). Would there be objection to that? I would not quote from the translations, merely rely on them in citing to the original Dutch. She has no special academic qualifications. I am certain she would do a good job or tell me if she was unable to do so, as she seems to value her friendship with me, as I do her. I don't think she's edited here in article space, but I seem to recall she's posted a question or two to Belgium-related talk pages as an IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fine, but take care to avoid close paraphrasing-- often folks doing translations forget that when you move from the Dutch to the English, you still have to paraphrase rather than translate literally. Also, ask her to provide an exact quote of the Dutch for you to include in the footnote for anything that might require clarification, is contentious, is surprising, is BLP, whatever ... adding the Dutch to the footnote helps native speakers see exactly what was said and lends assurance about the translation for contentious text. Doesn't Ucucha speak Dutch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I will pass on your advice to her. Yes, Ucucha does speak Dutch, Drmies as well, and so they can look over my shoulder. I can easily email scans to them, and copies of my friend's translations. I see this as far superior than trying to use Google translate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I wonder if I could be licensed one way or another as a translator, and if I could get rich off of that. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On Google translation-- no kidding! (I think you may be familiar with the high regard I hold for Google translations in Spanish :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a few paragraphs and was not happy with the results. Drmies, the Dutch translator who I've usually dealt with (also speaks Spanish) in the court system does very well for herself. If you can keep up with the flow of words in a courtroom simultaneously translating, that's pretty good. I believe she has certifications. And if the Spanish translator is not someone I know and trust, Sandy, I'm listening to the translation to my client with half an ear. I know enough "courthouse Spanish" in addition to my very stale high school and college courses to sometimes catch a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just keep good records of everything that was translated etc., so that if ever anyone objects to any detail (either during FAC, or even at some later date), you can show the data. One good way would be to put the info in your user space. If that isn't feasible, store it on your computer or your email acct., and don't accidentally delete it later. That's my .02. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Titchwell Marsh

Any chance of an image review for the Titchwell Marsh FAC? Thanks, Jim

Sure. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Greetings all FAC contributors...is there anyone able to perform source spotchecks for the FAC of Boeing 767? Thanks for any help. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC 2012

I hope 2012 proves to be a joyous and prosperous one for all who contribute here, both IRL and "in here" as well! FA writers give us top content to display on the mainpage, but without FAC reviewers and the helpful bot operators, our FA writers would have a harder time getting the content displayed, so as always, a most hearty thanks to the reviewers and bot operators who make it all happen, along with Raul654 and Dabomb87 for writing the blurbs.

With a New Year, it's a good time to take the temperature in here. I'll start with some things I've noticed, and hope others will chime in with any other matters for discussion.

1. We continue to see that the biggest problem affecting FA production, IMO, is the lack of reviewers. Last week, I spent several hours reading through FAC and came to the conclusion that there was only one that could be archived, and only three or four that were "mature" to the point of a closer look for promotion. Ucucha subsequently promoted/archived and apparently came to the very same conclusion. I frequently find that the hours FAC delegates spend reading result in same: just about nothing that can be closed because most are lacking in reviews. What can we do to encourage more reviewers to engage?
2. On the same topic, we continue to see a lion's share of work done by a handful of reviewers (you know who you are, and so do all of us, and you are appreciated :), accompanied by some nominators who never review, and the additional problem that some topic areas receive only review from other editors from that topic area, while needing independent review for jargon, comprehensibility to laypersons, etc. I've long been against requiring quid pro quo reviews (for the very reasons that plague DYK IMO), but is there anything we should do to encourage those editors who "receive more than they give" (post-Christmas terminology :) to also engage in more reviewing?
3. Prose standards are slipping. All too often, even when a FAC has "matured" to the point of potential promotion, I find that glaring prose issues are evident. Since my own prose isn't stellar, if even I can spot prose issues, that's not a good thing. While I'm pretty sure we've done a good job on checking images, reliability of sources, accurate representation of sources, too close paraphrasing, etc, I'm concerned that prose standards might warrant more attention. Any ideas for how to kickstart that? It's not optimal IMO for delegates to have to weigh in too often on FACs, but should we promote a FAC with support when prose issues are glaring?
4. Repeatedly, I get posts on my talk page to the effect that there is some minimum number of supports that should get a FAC promoted, or some minimum amount of time that FACs should be on the page, and both of those numbers are misstated in the wrong direction and with no basic in FAC procedures of instructions. There is no minimum amount of support for a FAC to be promoted, although we never promote with less than three, yet increasingly, with the lack of reviews, I'm seeing more and more articles getting only three reviews (and per the point above, not always a solid prose review), and nominators complaining about closures of long-running reviews that have no consensus for promotion. It was once common for FACs to be promoted with many supports and solid reviews within five days, and to be closed within two weeks-- yet I'm getting complaints about closing FACs with no supports at three of four weeks. What gives, and what can we or should we do about it? Is the bot placement of "older nominations" confusing people about the length of time nominations typically or should run? I always thought of ten days as "old", depending on the number of reviews on the page, and try to avoid closing nominations aggressively when the workload is light, but may close them sooner if the page is stalled. Right or wrong?
5. WP:TFAR has become dead, moribund. Is that because folks are now afraid to nominate there because of the fallout from the (unsupported, non-consensual) notion that only high-page-view articles are worthy of being Featured articles, is it only because of the holidays (I don't believe we've seen that before), is it related to the undue scrutiny on some specific authors that occurred during November, or is there another factor? What, if anything, can be done about the downturn at WP:TFAR?
6. Delegates: Karanacs is no longer promoting/archiving, but I've yet to find a time that I've read through FAC and found a lot of noms that are ready to be either promoted or archived-- the backlog on the page is related to lack of reviewers, not lack of delegates. Yet, we've seen on this page calls for more delegates (which would take away valuable reviewers). Feedback? Is there any reason to take away valuable reviewers and appoint another delegate, if neither of us are finding many FACs that can be closed either way, because of lack of review?
7. Without characterizing the past discussions on the topic, or the origin of those, are there concerns about FAC, FAR or TFA/R leadership that need to be discussed here?
8. Are there any matters related to WP:WIAFA, WP:TFAR, or leadership that warrant a wider RFC here, such as was held last year?

That's all I can think of-- please add as needed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)