Template:FAC-instructions: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 14:42, 17 February 2007 view sourceSandyGeorgia (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,950 edits add note that talk pages are now updated by bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:27, 18 March 2007 view source Gimmetrow (talk \| contribs)Administrators45,380 edits add a line break to perhaps set this off better?Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. If you have worked on the article you nominate, note it as a "self-nomination". Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each. Please respond positively to criticism and avoid discouraging reviewers.		Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. If you have worked on the article you nominate, note it as a "self-nomination". Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each. Please respond positively to criticism and avoid discouraging reviewers.

	For a nomination to be ] to FA status, ] must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, and the '''Featured Article Director''' (currently ]) determines whether there is consensus. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and ]. The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. A bot will update the article talk page after the nomination is promoted or archived.		For a nomination to be ] to FA status, ] must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, and the '''Featured Article Director''' (currently ]) determines whether there is consensus. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and ]. The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination.

			A bot will update the article talk page after the nomination is promoted or archived.

	<small></small>		<small></small>

Revision as of 03:27, 18 March 2007

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Misplaced Pages.

Here, we determine which articles are featured on Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work by meeting the featured article criteria.

Before nominating an article, you may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Misplaced Pages:Peer review.

Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. If you have worked on the article you nominate, note it as a "self-nomination". Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each. Please respond positively to criticism and avoid discouraging reviewers.

For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, and the Featured Article Director (currently Raul654) determines whether there is consensus. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination.

A bot will update the article talk page after the nomination is promoted or archived.

Purge page cache

Shortcut

]

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

Check the featured article criteria and ensure that the article meets all of them before nominating.
If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination that has not already been archived, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion. For example, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Television → Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. Remember to update the {{ArticleHistory}} template or change the old {{facfailed}} template on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}. If previous nominations have already been archived, retain the link to the old nomination in the new nomination.
Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
From there, click on the "leave comments" link.
Place ===]=== at the top.
Below this title, write your reason for nominating the article and sign with ~~~~.
Copy this text:{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, then edit this page (i.e. the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

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).
If you support a nomination, write *'''Support''' followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by the 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 FA Director may ignore it. Be aware that 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, 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 <del>...</del>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.