Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:13, 4 July 2014

• 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 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 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 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 59 (2013) 60 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.

Image/source check requests

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1998 FA Charity Shield/archive1 - Image review and spotcheck of sources, please. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Harta Berdarah/archive1 -- source review pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/archive2 -- image review pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional views sought on some sources at Reculver

Hello all. At the FAC archive for Reculver, a small settlement in Kent, I have raised a question about the way in which the WP article in question relies upon the transcriptions and descriptions made by The National Archives about documents that they hold. I have a concern that these may represent use of a primary source and/or WP:OR, but I am interested in other views. The nom is being very helpful with the discussion, but we could use one or two extra sets of eyes. Anyone available? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What to do when FAC nominator retires?

So Me5000 has suddenly retired in the middle of the FAC for Napoleon Dynamite (TV series). It's a shame—there are still some issues with the article, but I think they're all fixable. Is there a better solution than simply archiving it? Can FACs be adopted? I'd hate to see the reviewers' time go to waste. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course he may return as suddenly, but while he has the retired sign up, I see no harm in an adoption. I vaguely remember precedents. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

When are short sentences too short

Right, cervix is undergoing alot of editing and heading towards FAC - Jmh649 and I are having a difference of opinion over prose - see here. Essentially I would say that these two pairs of sentences are too short to flow smoothly whereas he says they should be as short as possible. Opinions invited...if anyone wants to offer opinions on the rest of the article that's fine/great/appreciated but its a looooong page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead should be written in simple English. This requires using short sentences and simpler words. The body of the text can be more written with more complicated language. We need to keep in mind our readers and that many of our readers do not speak English as a first language. Our primary goal is not to write brilliantly sounding prose that appeals to the very well educated. They already have excellent access to high quality medical content / advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Errr, can we keep discussion in one place? I'll drop a note at WT:MED too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

An article in limbo

I have left this article for FA review for over week ago and it has not raised any comments or questions. This is my first FA candidate and I'm asking that is it common that an article remains unattended in the review? Is the article uninteresting, aren't there any similar articles to benchmark or what could be the reason? --Gwafton (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this kind of thing does happen—the reviewers are volunteers, after all. I notice the article doesn't have the Good Article icon. Though not a requirement, most FAs do go through the GA process before FAC. If this is your first attempt at FA, I strongly recommend you do this first. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  The article in its present condition wouldn't have a chance at GAN, it needs an awful of work. Eric Corbett 01:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  What does an awful of work mean precisely? You already went it through once, thank you for that, but what else does it need? If the problem is related to grammar or spelling, any help is welcome. English is not my native language as you probably saw in the text. But if the content is missing some element or has to be restructured, I can do that myself. --Gwafton (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  He meant "an awful lot of work" (an idiomatic expression that just means "a lot of work", not that it's awful). Rather than trying to get FAC reviewers to look at it, I'd bring it to WP:GAN and WP:GOCE (for copyediting), and then maybe bring it back to FAC. That would give reviewers more confidence that the article might be at FA quality (and thus worth the time and energy to review it). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  I just fixed a few bits and pieces to give you an idea of what I'm talking about Gwafton. I don't think this article has any chance at all of meeting FA criterion 1a, so I'd seriously suggest withdrawing its nomination and taking it to WP:GOCE, as Curly Turkey suggests. I know that's not what you want to hear, but I'm afraid it's the reality. Eric Corbett 09:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  Thank you for your feedback, I made the changes you suggested before. I didn't know that it was so terrible (as I didn't get any feedback before). I hope that the links to the article about municipalities and foreign currency reserves are enough to explain the context – I would not like to explain more about them in the article, as they don't really belong into its scope. You are welcome to still improve the article and give suggestions. At least it would be useful to know which parts are incomprehensible. --Gwafton (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Untranscluded FAC

See Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Advance Australia Fair/archive1. Should probably just be deleted as it's obviously not going to come close to passing FAC, but I wasn't sure if there was some other way it should be dealt with. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I usually spot these. I have deleted the page. Graham Colm (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not Closed

When I read Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2014 most of the noms are not closed and the articles are not FAs. Why is this? wirenote (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The closures used to be handled by a bot, which has been down for a while now. From previous discussions, I gather that a replacement bot is being worked on, but isn't ready yet. Until it is, all the closures have to be done manually, a tedious task that doesn't have a lot of volunteers. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What's required to do the closure manually? I'd volunteer do it for, say, a month. —Designate (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's updating the ArticleHistory, adding the FA star, and closing the FA nom, judging from the last closure by the bot. wirenote (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

See User:Maralia/FA bot for instructions. Bencherlite 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll do them tomorrow if nobody objects. —Designate (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If anybody objects, they can do it instead... Thanks very much for the offer. I've done a few and it's not exciting work but I imagine it gets easier with familiarity. Bencherlite 23:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, already got to the ones on the Featured Content page at least (had a bit of free time today). I think I'm finally getting the hang of them... :) Ruby 2010/2013 02:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All help manually closing FACs using the instructions Bencherlite linked above is very much appreciated, thanks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Untranscluded FACs

These FACs either weren't listed or weren't closed:

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ammar ibn Yasir/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Aphthous stomatitis/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mahan-class destroyer/archive1
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive2

—Designate (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've transcluded Aphthous stomatitis (valid nom, apparently wasn't transcluded), and Erick was definitely a joke, not worth transcluding. Not familiar with the other two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks Crisco, we really do need to keep an eye out for the untranscluded ones. I could've sworn Mahan was in there because I've been watching its progress as a MilHist editor; it already has some commentary/support, so is worth transcluding. Yasir also has commentary but not positive, and a quick scan suggests it was not FAC-ready anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a collaborator on radiocarbon dating

Is anyone interested in working with me to bring radiocarbon dating up to FA standard? It's a fairly important topic in the sciences, and gets over 1,000 hits a day. I've been working on it in bursts over the last year, and have completed a first draft rewrite and expansion of the article, though I plan to do a copyedit pass on what I've done so far before going any further. It is now far too long, and will need to be reduced via summary style -- I would like some help figuring out what should be moved to sub-articles. I have never worked on science articles before, and would like assistance from someone who has more experience; although I do have some science background, all my FAs have been in the humanities. I know a professional archaeologist willing to review the article as a subject matter expert, when the article is ready for that, but I don't want to do that till I think the article is ready to be nominated -- I think more work is needed, and probably a peer review is necessary, before it is close to being FAC-ready.

I would love to have collaborators on this -- it's easily the biggest topic I've ever tackled. If you're interested, please comment at the article talk page, or my talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an impressive amount of work! You are right, it needs trimming, and some of the detailed calculations are probably a step too far. Although I have a scientific background, I'm not a radiation expert, and in any case RL events mean that I won't have the time. I'll be happy to take a look when you are ready for PR though. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Uncertain on how to proceed with FAC

Currently, I have an FAC open for The FP, but complications have come up. When the review had just caught fire and received four support votes, my request for a copy-edit from the wonderful Guild of Copy Editors was answered, and Baffle gab1978 did an extensive (and excellent) copy-edit on the article. That said, many of the user's comments may now be voided. I'm wondering, do these comments and votes still count now that the article has been significantly rewritten? My common sense tells me "no they don't, stupid", and that I'll probably have to wait until the reviewers either a) come back and look through the article again or b) don't come back and review again, and makes their votes null. I don't really know FAC policy that well (this is my first experience with the process), so I'm spitballing. Anybody willing to help clear this up for me? Thank you in advance! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd contact them to see if they'd be willing to revisit their comments and/or let their !votes stand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• So in the case that they don't respond, do there votes still count? I think that's what you're saying, but I could be wrong. And don't worry, I'm going to get in contact with them if I can. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember they are not votes. As Crisco said it is better if the "voters" revise their comments to make it clearer but if subsequent comments feel that the copy-edit has addressed most of the issues no decent reviewer is going to stand by criticisms that no longer apply. Just make it clear which issues the copy-edit has fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the reviewers' comments had been addressed and they had supported the article's promotion is what I meant. I guess I shouldn't keep referring to them as votes, my mistake. But I see what you're saying now. I've notified all of the editors on their respective talk pages, so I'm sure I'll hear back from everyone soon enough. Thank you Betty and Crisco! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained oppose

Hello. At the currently active Kangana Ranaut FAC, this user has opposed the nomination without an explanation simply writing: "Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content." Now, this user has competency issues and I have, on several occasions, reverted his/her edits due to his extremely poor language skills. So this oppose is clearly to get back at me for those reverts. This particular nomination already has two supports, including one from Dr. Blofeld. I would, thus, request one of the FAC coordinators to strike out this unreasonable oppose. Thank you. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fairly sure that FAC delegates just ignore unactionable opposes. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 14:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the case. I had an oppose once by someone who claimed the article wasn't comprehensive, but couldn't point to what was missing. It was just ignored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahh..alright. Thanks. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't worry too much about it. User:GrahamColm and User:Ian Rose can usually spot things like that. You could report this editor at check user if concerned he might be a sockpuppet.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think he is a sock, but I believe I should also point this out. During my previous FAC nomination, another user (Prashant) had posted a similar vengeful oppose, here. Now, for Prashant's last two nominations, Daan0001 has supported those nominations without a single comment, see here and and here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You've nothing to worry about. Graham or Ian are going to notice him claiming the article "does not exist" and ignore it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Okay, thanks. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tks Taylor, Jim and DrB for responding so promptly to Krimuk's concern -- I've left a note at the FAC page as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination rules

I want to nominate an article in cooperation with User:Figureskatingfan (and will also be crediting User:Wadewitz, who was the main contributor before, well you know...). Figureskatingfan has an article in the queue already; will this be a problem? I will be helping resolve issues. Adam Cuerden 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Last I checked, conominations can be run at the same time as a solo nomination — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Undermining reviewer

My attempt to resolve this at a delegate's talk page () and the relevant FAC page () went unaddressed. Could someone please tell Froglich that a reviewer shouldn't impose his/her personal criteria, arrogantly dismiss others' responses to his/her personal criteria, or canvass retired editors in an attempt to get them out of retirement and oppose an article they know they've opposed in a previous FAC? Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You got me, pal: I didn't like your article (or, later, your petty vicious entitlement attitude, i.e., "How dare this horrible person make things difficult for my vanity project after I solicited him to critique it; I mean, he should have known I only wanted kiss-ass reviews and that the very last thing I was interested in hearing was his impertinent advice on how to make my stuff actually worthy of Featured status!"), and there's no way out for me now except to jut my chin forward and brave the tempest as I'm sure it'll be a regular Beaufort-force 12 gale of hypocrisy from this point on (e.g., chiding me for canvasing other editors in a post made to enlist your own troops, etc).

I have no reason to expect you take any hints after not listening to any given previously, but a suggestion: just let this one blow over by not dropping my user name into anything else you do, then wait a couple months before bugging the FAC list to consider your article a third time. I'm not "watching" you or your articles (or even the FAC list for that matter); I simply respond to those little red notification boxes like a hungry dog snapping at a bacon treat ...so stop making them for me to click on and I'll go away.--Froglich (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you're really not doing yourself any favours by letting this get to you, or by suggesting that your concerns are being ignored. I'd already responded to you at the FAC page once. As to a previous opposer being canvassed, that was an experienced reviewer and Graham or I might well have invited him to comment on the FAC this time around as well. I suggest you have some faith in the delegates to ignore unactionable objections, rise above the noise, and get on with dealing with any actionable objections as they come up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, as a former longtime FAC reviewer, I'm not a fan of this review. This might just be my opinion, but I simply can't ignore faulty reasoning that may put others off of coming to FAC. The logic that is being applied is flawed. We don't require references in the lead (barring a direct quote), and the claims that the article shouldn't be promoted because of a lack of importance don't hold water. If an article has sufficient notability to generate the level of sourcing required to pass FA criteria 1b and 1c, that is what counts, not whether other works by the same artist are more well-known. These criteria are certainly subjective, but based on a brief look there's enough content that I wouldn't automatically fail the article the way the reviewer seemingly wants to. This article has been criticized strongly in the past for close paraphrasing, and I think it would be more productive for reviewers to check whether that issue has been resolved than to complain that "more important" articles aren't here instead. Also, can we calm down before calling an editor's work a "vanity project" leading to "entitlement"? The editors nominating FACs are doing the best work they can on topics that are of interest to them. I don't think we should assume that vanity is the primary reason for this work; some of us just want to contribute high-quality articles to this great website that is used by millions of people around the world. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely concur with Giants2008. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur qith Giants2008 as well. At the very least if we were to assume that people write wikipedia article for vanity, then the same would apply to those who seem to use the context of a review and the small amount of power that gives them boost their own egos at someone elses expense. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The grammar remains junior-level. (That's what touched this off in the first place.) As for the rest, we can talk about minimal requirements as opposed to likelihoods until we're all blue in the face. At that end of the day, there are a small number of Featured slots to dole out for a large number of entrants; and the simple fact of that matter is that the status isn't often (in fact I can't think of any at present) granted to these kinds of subjects unless they represent the pinnacle of an artist's accomplishments. I'm sure there are corner-cases out there suggesting otherwise, but in the main it is so. (This is why I recommended Dan pour his efforts into Coleman's Library of Congress-inducted The Shape of Jazz to Come.)--Froglich (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

..."At that end of the day, there are a small number of Featured slots to dole out"... what? Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 22:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Froglich: I haven't read the review you wrote that caused this disagreement, but I would like to comment on what you say above. When you say "slots" I imagine you're referring to the slots available for "Today's Featured Article"; I don't think this is a primary motivator for most of us who work on featured content, and I don't see how the likelihood of selection for one of those slots should have any bearing on our evaluation of the quality of an article. Surely, if the article is notable (i.e. it would not be deleted in an AfD) then if it meets the FA criteria, it can be a featured article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think we've built an unwritten consensus over the years that the only notability threshold for an article to become an FA is the existence of sources which show general notability and allow a reasonably comprehensive overview of a subject. "I've never heard of it", or "it's not as important as " should never be a valid rationale (I'd leave Misplaced Pages before accepting such opposes as valid). Our TFA yesterday was even more obscure than this album, especially in the context of the Anglosphere, and yet there was never any question of whether or not it was notable enough to be featured. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• One of the points that Froglich made above resonates with me, and I wonder what GrahamColm and Ian Rose think about Dan's canvassing/spamming no less than 55 users since he opened the FAC on June 15. Kokoro20, Flyer22, Werldwayd, Bencherlite, Tjarrett, Hyperborée, Night Time, Mr Stephen, Semitransgenic, DISEman, Wikiklrsc, TJRC, Johnny338, BrunoMacDonald, Divine618, Friginator, Redrose64, GentlemanGhost, Jinkinson, Jedi94, Freshacconci, Synthwave.94, Radiopathy, Dylanbud, Froglich, Mlpearc, Favonian, Calidum, Werieth, ?uest, Ortolan88, Adabow, Koavf, Kencf0618, SNUGGUMS, IndianBio, Beatleswhobeachboys, Noboyo, JayJasper, Victor Lopes, Widefox, LemonCrumpet, Livelikemusic, Magioladitis, SilkTork, DepressedPer, Aoidh, LindsayH, Montanabw, Makyen, Ericorbit, Sufur222, SNAAAAKE!!, ChakaKong, Mayast. Seems like a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting. I noticed that Dan56 never uses an edit summary when he spams/canvasses for FAC reviews, which is pretty odd, because as far as I can tell he always uses one otherwise. I suppose its difficult to get enough support when socks can no longer support an article's promotion. Harmelodix (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • that last one's particularly off-base, given that Dan was the one who reported it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Where's the diff that show's how "Dan reported it"? Harmelodix (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont see how requesting many different people to review ones article can be considered a problem. More eyes on an review gives a better article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)