| Revision as of 10:27, 25 November 2007 editMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 edits →100-FACs soon: cm← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:09, 26 November 2007 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} | {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} | ||
| {{shortcut|]}} | {{shortcut|]}} | ||
| == Misplaced Pages or Homerpedia? == | |||
| It is not surprising to me (''Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto'') that the animated sitcom ] has a ] in Misplaced Pages. Clearly it is very popular in may countries of the world. Having said that, the question that begs an answer is: do we need each episode of The Simpsons to be a featured article? Currently there are 14 articles on this subject with FA status, representing close to <s>10%</s> 1% of all FA articles in our project, and a current ] project in full swing. ] <small>]</small> 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If the project can actually ''produce'' a featured-level article out of the material available for each episode, more power to them. ] 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yeah... Kudos if they can... ] <small>]</small> 16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ten percent of which project exactly? ] 16:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: There are 1,600+ Misplaced Pages articles with FA status, ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Maybe a look at the Simpson Project chart will inspire other ] (but are good at tagging articles they don't contribute to or maintain). These two Projects have about the same number of articles tagged, but one is producing quality and the other oversees a mountain of articles that need cleanup. ] (]) 16:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes, you were confusing me with the 10%. We currently have 1678 FAs on wikipedia. So it is about 0.8%. Does that not just show that there are many committed Simpsons editors who strive to build up our knowledge on that particular subject. I echo Kirill really, if they can produce a featured-level article, good on them. We need projects to be as active as them. Does it not show that the Simpsons project is working well? ] 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It shows there are a lot of people willing to write detailed articles on essentially trivial topics. This has been true of Misplaced Pages for many years. I'm not sure though how exceptional coverage of ''The Simpsons'' really helps spread the seed of human knowledge... ] 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: Nothing wrong with that, The Land. What is trivial to one, is a passion to another. Just that is a pity, IMO, that more important subjects do not get the attention they deserve... ] <small>]</small> 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::We do have the ]. Why not try and improve one of those? ] 16:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Good question, Woody. See also: http://simpsons.wikia.com/Wikisimpsons_Central. A parallel universe? :) ] <small>]</small> 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: (double ec) Even worse than gettiing no attention is that the Projects don't clean up their garbage (example, Psychology articles). I worked on ] (to make sure they accurately represented the ] issues), and from what I saw there at least the Simpson Project does attempt to keep their articles decent. Their articles aren't hurting anyone, while we have hundreds of Psychology articles that are so bad and so misleading that they could all be dumped in a wastebasket and Wiki would lose nothing, while the internet would gain a lot. That's what's sad. ] (]) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Indeed... ] <small>]</small> 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| See the above discussion. ] 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I think it is a problem for the project: it means that our coverage of the trivial will always be more substantial than our coverage of the profound. I don't think that has any particularly negative consequences at the moment, but you never know wht will happen in a few years time. ] 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, I'm going to step in here and say that we only have SEVEN FAs, the others are FLs. And what is the point of this discussion? Are people actually going to suggest that we not be allowed to edit Simpsons articles just because some think of them as trivial? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This is just part of a larger fear that wikipedians tend to focus a lot on less-significant, specialized things rather than general things. Sure, it would be nice if people edited general articles, but it's a free world. People are going to do what they want to. I've quickly figured that out here. You can lead a wikipedian to water, but... ] 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I think that's only partially accurate. Yes, people criticize Misplaced Pages for focusing on ''less-significant'', pop culture trivia in lieu of more important topics, but the more important topics are both general ''and'' highly specialized. I think the poster's worry, perhaps overstated as per ''The Simpsons'' in particular, is that Misplaced Pages won't be a success as an encyclopedia in the true, broad sense of the word, if everyone works most on pop culture articles. I think it's a valid criticism, and I think there are many reasons for the phenomenon. I'll quickly name but one personal reason I myself fall into this trap: given my areas of learning, I could be working on far more political and historical articles than I do, but pop culture articles are easier, more fun, and less emotionally-draining for me. --] 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ''(outdent)'' I was initially worried producing FAs on similar material and have been involved with a few on closely related subjects but I really hated doing a heap of work on something and then not finishing it because of this. FA, then, is like the last 'stamp' and provides a good reference point in the future if the article gets degraded - hence there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by producing more. I agree that esoteric highly defined ones are a helluva lot easier and more fun. I work in mental health and medicine but for the most part I do not enjoy working on these articles. The issue with copyright and DSM IV is a big headache. For many FAC is anxiety-inducing enough for a non-controversial topic. Add a bit of controversy and the whole thing can get colossally sidetracked - ] and ] were two cases in particular where issues aside from article quality generate ''huge'' amounts of negotation. Hopefully, as folks get more comfortable some will get more ambitious - those who took on the previous two articles, as well as ] among others are to be commended for their tenacity and endurance. Sometimes I wonder about people's definition of 'vital' articles - just look at the top 500 viewed instead :). But seriously, ''(and I mean this without a shred of defensiveness)'' why don't you work something up for FAC? Try something important but noncontroversial and ask one or more of us here to look it over or give some tips and...etc. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As a member of the Wikiproject, I'm sort of proud that you guys are taking notice of this. We're not stopping anytime soon, though. We're having Featured Topic Drives, which basically means we make a season of the show into a Featured Topic (Atleast two episodes will be FA, one Featured List (the season), and the rest would be GA'd). I think it would be an honor for any of our members to inspire others to make featured or good content. ]<font size="1">(])</font> 22:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Nicely put, Xihig. You guys/gals are doing good work (my post was more of an open question to generate a debate than criticism of your project's work) ... if you could put your editing skills to help on less fun topics, that would be fantastic. If not, oh well.., there is always hope you will.... ] <small>]</small> 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's pretty cool. Everyone should be able to do what they want to do. ] 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To answer the original post. No, we don't need every episode to be FA. It is impossible since some episodes have so few sources that they can never reach FA status. The project has cleaned up a lot of episodes, which is never going past GA status. I think it is a good thing that the project is so active. It shows that you can produce quality articles about a television series. There are so many bad television articles and this project leads the way for others to follow. I guess it would always be better if the time was spend on core articles, but not everybody wants to work on serious subjects. --] 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is ''The Simpsons'' really that less important than ] or ]? At least the average person can ''understand'' the Simpsons. :) ]'''<font color="#008080">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#808000">]</font>''' 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Haha. Good point. ] 19:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A very good point indeed. There does seem to be some intellectual snobbery around material created for television, as opposed to material created for printing on dead trees. --] 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Homer certainly gives ] competition. ] 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I really resent cultural 'snobs' who seem to assume triviality for anything which postdates the invention of television, with the assumption of some sort of gravity for anything which appeared before. But before I go down that path...a good way to approach trickier jobs is in pairs or groups, which is how ] got successfully cleaned up.cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. In fifty years time, ''The Simpsons'' will be a curiosity a few old people have nostalgia for. In a hundred year's time, it will be of interest only to social historians. To be honest it's much more productive spending effort updating ] or ] - since people will still be looking for information on them in the future... ] 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hrm, some people think we should write about the Simpsons, and some people think we should write about porn and anal sex. Perhaps we should just split the different and combine them? (Per )] 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Clearly. ;) ] 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dunno TL, I think it's a pretty big assumption you're making about the Simpsons, think ]....cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Simpsons article would have the advantage that in 100 years its content will be a lot more useful -- in 2107, given cultural evolution, a hundred-year old article on anal sex will probably be nothing more than a curiosity. ] ] 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I envy ], whenever they nominate an article for FA, GA or peer review they get almost inmediatly reviewed and commented. Like right here, nothing is being discussed, but because it involves TS people comment! Someday people will become as passionate for the simpsons as for ] and ], all the articles will be perfect and Jimbo Wales will be crowned king of the world.] 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're not the only person who envies WP:Simpsons, Yaman. Many articles I've worked on get very low turnout on FAC discussions. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hiya, the above FAC was closed by a bot. There was one support and 3 or 4 comments, the points of which had all been addressed and support had been given by one of those users (though he had not worked '''support''' onto his or her comment yet) isn't this a little unfair? Is there any way to reopen it to allow the supports to roll in and get promotion or do we have to renominate it? ] <sup>]</sup> 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It's confusing, I know, but the bot did not close it; Raul654, the FA director, closed it. Raul makes the decisions, and the bot (]) then performs some of the rote updates. You can renominate, as you say; that's the normal reaction. I don't know if there are any instructions that address this (perhaps someone else can comment) but I believe it is regarded as poor form to renominate right away, particularly if there are multiple unaddressed issues. If the problem is merely that the nomination was unable to garner supports, and all the problems were fixed to the satisfaction of the commenters, I'd renominate quite soon. It appears from looking at the nom that that's the case as far as I can see. ] ] 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Please read {{t1|FAC}}; if the instructions don't clearly enough spell out who closes FACs and the relationship to the bot archiving, please suggest improvements. ] (]) 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] ] 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Raul has raised this blinky thing before; can someone who knows how please install that on the FAC template? Even though we've spelled it out as clearly as we can, every time that Raul promotes/archives, on average, he gets one person raising this same question on his talk page, and we get one person who won't wait for GimmeBot to accurately update the articlehistory. ] (]) 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My "suggestion" for adding a blink tag is *totally* facetious. I'd cut off my hand before I let it add that godforsaken thing to the FAC template ;) ] 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No. Blinking text is annoying—I don't want the FAC template looking like a banner ad. If someone can't read bold red text, why would we expect them to read blinking bold red text? '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I to be more explicit; it did imply that Raul would be modifying the nomination page, not a bot. I don't like an overuse of red text either, but in this case the actual substance was at fault, not the coloring. I would stick something similar that in ], but that asks to tell ] first, so I notified him. ].--] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: The script uses certain details of "fa top" to determine if the discussion has already been closed, but I don't think the sort of changes you've suggested would interfere. ] 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Good point, Pagrashtak. And perhaps adding something to the FA top will help. In the last promotion, again, someone updated articlehistory without waiting for the bot, and that results in manual intervention for Gimmetrow. ] (]) 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps instead of "please wait for the bot to correctly update the ArticleHistory template", we should be more direct: "do not manually update the ArticleHistory template". '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Good! (on FACs, that is; we don't want to imply others can never update ah). (Can you make them read it? :-) Question: should we just link to a page where we explain the whole darn process, so Raul's talk page doesn't have to entertain these questions after every promotion? ] (]) 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::. An explanation page would be useful, I'm sure. Raul's fond of directing users to an explanation page whenever someone wants to protect TFA or FAs in general. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: If Gimmetrow agrees, and unless he has a better idea (he often does), we can work up a page that explains the whole thing, and link to it from the header and the template. Hopefully that will avoid lots of bandwidth after every promotion here and on Raul's talk page. (As to chopping off Raul's hand, lesson learned about his sense of humor :-) ] (]) 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == When an article simply has no more information... == | |||
| Ok, this is something thats been on my mind for a while, and I'm thinking of testing it soon, simply to see what happens. As far as I know, when an article has reached the ] criteria, it's ready to be an FA, is it not? However, with the examples of FA's out there, you get the impression that the article must be really long and have 500 references. But, when article has topped the amount of information it can have and meets the FAC criteria, it *should* be ready to be an FAC candidate. The articles I have in mind right now are ], ], ], ], and ]. You see, as part of a project we're having at the Simpsons Wikiproject, I chose to improve these articles myself first, as I knew getting any sources for them would be hard, as they weren't the most controversial or impacting episode (such as ] or ]). But, when you look at the articles, they meet the FACR stuff (except for perhaps a brilliant prose, which I'm looking to copy edit later). Because of this, would they not be FA-able? I really want to know, because, hey, they meet the requirements, they're just short articles with not that many references, but everything there sourced. If you can't tell me, tell me this: would you oppose or support any of them? If you say oppose, why? ]<font size="1">(])</font> 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't have the background to be able to tell if those articles meet FA criteria in all respects, but I would never oppose an article for being too short. If a short article is genuinely comprehensive, the next question I would ask is if it could be usefully merged with another article. For example ] is a good candidate for merging with ]; what's in that article now is about all that is known about Ceol. In the examples you give I don't see a need for a merge, though maybe the article on the given season of the Simpsons could be a merge target. ] ] 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::With Simpsons episodes, they all have their own articles, and can't be merged. The articles I listed all have the most information possible. Trust me, I've spent hours looking for more, but thats simply it. ]<font size="1">(])</font> 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I just looked at the first one you listed, ], but I'd oppose that one strongly. It's carelessly written: | |||
| * "who is in the process of be pushed into a giant ear" | |||
| * "She decides launch a small model rocket" | |||
| * "Mr. Burns office window." | |||
| * "to showcase what Affleck's vision of Chief Wiggum's predicament." | |||
| ::: written in in-universe perspective (see ]) | |||
| ::: uses unnecessary and redundant slang: | |||
| * "Show runner Mike Scully had pitched an idea to Dan Greaney on Marge forcing Bart to become Ralph Wiggum's friend. Scully pitched the idea to Greaney due to his handle on Ralph, and his overall likeness of the character." - Ralph has Greaney's handle on him? Greaney is like Ralph? | |||
| * "J. Stewart Burns doesn't believe Ralph can carry on his own episode at the moment." - how does a fictional character carry on anything? What is "the moment"? | |||
| * "Affleck was also praised for his ability to spew three new elaborate settings" | |||
| ::: In general, I don't think just because you can't find anything more about a subject that means it automatically qualifies as a featured article. It also needs to be, not just a good, but an outright excellent, article. If there isn't enough verifiable information in the world to make it one, then there isn't. However in this case, given how the article was written, I'm not even willing to accept that there isn't any more information out there. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I already mentioned that I'd do a huge copy edit before, and I told you to go besides that point. Your opinion doesn't help me much. ]<font size="1">(])</font> 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"would you oppose or support any of them? If you say oppose, why?" - I think AnonEMouse was focusing on this part of your statement. There are some shortish FAs, such as ]. ] 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm not really sure what you're asking, if you're not asking us to actually look at the articles you have. Can Simpsons episodes become FAs? Clearly yes: ], ], and ] have. Are the ones you have listed FA quality? The one I looked at isn't. Will we oppose the episodes you have listed after you improve them? That's kind of hard to tell without seeing the improvement, don't you think? Want a general rule? That's hard. As a general rule, I worry about cookie-cutter FAs: tell the plot, give a few brief nods to reception and production, and expect the little gold star as a matter of course. FAs are supposed to be the best we have. "The best" is rarely produced by an assembly line. ] is clearly unique - it won an Emmy, among other awards, was the subject of lots of controversy, etc. Can ] be made equally good? You'll have to show us. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The only way to really find out if something can be FA is to do your best on it and then nominate it. Even AnonEMouse is just one editor. FAs are determined by consensus, so it's really impossible to speculate. Just do your best and go for it. ] 18:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''(outdent)'' - as a guide, ] was one of the shorter FA Candidates I've seen, is there a shorter one? cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is the shortest one I know of. There may be one about a nickel or dime that's shorter; don't recall. ] ] 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Aha, well spotted. cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| AnonEMouse, I have stated that the episodes I listed got no awards or caused any controversy, at all. Simply, the articles I listed contain all the information that has ever been released on the articles. I'm not exaggerating, it really is so. Now, as I said, if I knew the articles were ready for FAC, I would have nominated them. Of course, I know they need a lot of copy editing to fix it up. My main point that I came here was to ask to see if an article needed a lot of references or sections on controversies, cultural impacts, awards, etc. when similar articles had them. I was asking this, because these articles simply had none of that. ]<font size="1">(])</font> 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : It would help, yes. If something hasn't made any impact, it's hard to see why it should have an encyclopedia article at all, really. Giving it one would seem to be a violation of ]; it's like we're manufacturing notoriety for it that it wouldn't have otherwise. That said, of course, ] seems to be a counter-example; an article about a storm that didn't do anything. :-)--] <sup>]</sup> <small>—Preceding ] was added at 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I think there is a subtle but important difference between having exhausted all available sources and having written a comprehensive article. Many times there are just no more sources available, but that doesn't automatically make the article comprehensive. In those cases, the article just doesn't belong in FA and maybe it can never get there. I have worked on some articles to the point where I can't readily find any more sources (see ] for example) but I would not bring them here because they are really missing information. I'll either find more sources eventually or I'll just leave it be. And it's frustrating to work on an article for so long only to discover that maybe you can't make it to FA. | |||
| In your example, you are saying, "I really have said everything that can be said about the subject." but the article is still rather short with few sources, even fewer of which are secondary sources. Now you have the crux of the question: Reviewers may claim that an article is missing information and the author will challenge them to identify what is missing. But that's not really possible in many cases. If you can gain consensus in FAC that the article is comprehensive, it can pass. That's about it. --] 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I think there are cases where leeway has to be given over comprehensiveness, especially on ancient subjects such as ] where contemporary sources are scarse. As long as the article covers the important elements. ] 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Anon, what every Simpsons episode is notable, as it was aired on a major network, and has (and still is) aired internationally many times. It's just that the older episodes (the ones that are FA'd) have more coverage on them as they were older and considered classics, during the time when mostly every episode was great. Of course, with a different show runner in season 9 that many people dislike, things changed, and episodes started to get bad and people didn't care to write about them (unless they were so bad, that they made a top worst episodes list). Also, an article is comprehensive, for Simpsons episodes, if it has a good Production section info, good plot, and some reception, and all of these have them. They have all the information ever released regarding the subject, too. ALso, to Epbr, your statements aren't very accurate, as there could much more information that was never revealed about current FA'd episodes. But, whatever was released for them has been put in their articles, as it has with the ones I listed. ]<font size="1">(])</font> 21:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*First, I would think that a good ''Simpsons'' page would have to have something about the "Themes" of the show, not just the plot, production, and reception. Second, I would think that there isn't enough written on these episodes yet. I have been working on '']'' (1778-79), for example, and even though it is one of the most important children's series written in English, there isn't enough scholarship written on it yet for an article beyond GA, in my opinion. Sometimes we just have to wait for the published material to catch up. An article might be comprehensive for the moment, but that doesn't actually make it comprehensive. In the case of ''Lessons for Children'' or '']'' (1818-47) or '']'' (1802-06), there are just too many questions that a reader would have after reading the article for wikipedia to grant it that "comprehensive" label. Although ''The Simpsons'' has been around for twenty years or so, its cultural impact has not been thoroughly analyzed. I have a feeling this is a minority opinion, but please carefully consider it. I believe that excellent articles can be written on ''The Simpsons'' (I've heard wonderful papers at academic conferences on ''Star Trek'' and other popular culture) and sometimes I think that we sell ourselves short. (There is no reason to cite anything in the "Themes" section of '']'' article to the '']''. for example.) I would suggest that the editors hold themselves to the highest scholarly standards in these articles. If the editors do this, complaints about the proliferation of the pages or their quality are sure to diminish because the quality of the pages will be an argument for their retention and the time spent on them. ] | ] 08:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh I don't know..I think there are plenty of folk on WP who appear to feel that anything produced past 1940 is inherently worthless and would probably scorn these articles no matter how scholarly they were....''(agree we need to ramp up finding themes/thorough critiques/analogies/etc )'' cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I had nominated this article expecting that I would get a number of suggestions/feedback for improvement. But one of the users nominated it for peer review and then suggested that the FAC nomination should be withdrawn. | |||
| It is very difficult if not impossible to get an article about an esoteric ritual text reviewed. This is shown by the fact that right now it is classified as of no importance to Hinduism. | |||
| I was prepared for being bashed up. But I am disappointed that what I have got is total indifference and attitude of " How dare you nominate this article for FAC?" | |||
| Thanks to Rosiestephenson and DaGizza for the encouraging words.--] 06:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :After reading the archived FAC, I don't think anyone was expressing a "how dare you" attitude. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == FA gold star free to use anywhere? == | |||
| I see that one of the nominators (who has engaged in talk-page dialogue with me) has a Featured Article user page. Everyone OK with this? (]). ] ] 22:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Editors have wide freedom to decorate user pages, excepting (mainly) offensive content and fair use images. I don't see the problem. ] 23:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you have something better, I'll trade you for it. ] 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'd have a problem if it categorized his user page, but it doesn't. I'd caution Guroadrunner that it might cause others to not take him seriously, however. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to the "What links here" for ], about twenty other user pages have the FA star as well. I don't think it's a problem though. ] 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't see the problem, either. We at ] have been using the FA star (and the GA circle) on ] so we can keep track of which articles are Good and Featured, and which ones still need work. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I personally use the star on my page to show articles I worked on that are GA/FA/TFA status, but mine link to the article itself, not the FA page. I think anyone who reads the FA criteria will realize very quickly that it is not a featured article...since it isn't even an article at all. I believe this is an instance where someone is trying to find a "broken rule" where none exists. | |||
| ::::::BTW, the image is free to use anywhere on any webpage on any server worldwide...seems kinda silly to limit its use here. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The obvious difference is that people should be linking the ''image only'' (]) for other uses, and only using {{tl|Featured article}} for designated featured articles and lists. --] 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur with the above. ] 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with {{user|Bloodzombie}}. ] 11:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :::Should we ban user pages from using {{tl|Featured article}}, though? ] 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Like I said, If you have something better, I'll trade you for it. Guroadrunner 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::With this i have shown you how to do it. That is better than using the featured article template. ] 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(edit conflict) Just use this code: | |||
| <pre><div style="right:10px; display:none;" class="metadata topicon"> | |||
| <imagemap> | |||
| Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px | |||
| rect 0 0 14 14 ] | |||
| desc none | |||
| </imagemap> | |||
| </div></pre> | |||
| ::::: and you'll have the star, but it won't be in the "links here" for the template, and won't say "This is a featured article". I would support migrating all user pages with {{Tl|Featured article}} or {{Tl|Featured list}} to this code. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: If people think the alt text and link to WP:FA are a problem, the template code could restrict the alt text and link to display only in namespace:0. (Featured lists use {{tl|featured list}} because the link is to WP:FL.) The approximately 50 user and user-talk pages with {{tl|featured article}} would still show up in "links here", but is this a big issue? It directly affects the FA maintenance scripts, but the scripts long ago excluded these pages by a namespace check. ] 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The road to FAC == | |||
| ], widely cited on the road to FAC, has been rewritten to include such tidbits as "is titled smartly" and "categorizes itself". A patient person with good copyedit skills might want to have a look. ] (]) 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : My first instinct is to mass-revert after comparing the before and after, but I don't suppose that would be helpful at this point. --] 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: That was my first inclination, but I suggest others have a look, as prose isn't a strength for me. ] (]) 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Ouch. I think the rewrite was done by a non-native English speaker. I normally don't like to just revert, but the changes were throughout the entire article. :-(. Let's not discuss this here, though. ] --] <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, that's a better place for the discussion, but I brought it here because the edit history there indicates that the article isn't well watched. ] (]) 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd like to delete that page. The perfect article is a vanishing point—not much else to say. ] 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: No, it's a useful little list. Our policies and quidelines are huge; just the Manual of Style is so long that not even our best FA writers know it all. On the other hand, the FA criteria list is so short that the meaning of every word needs to be pored over. This is a useful compromise, long enough to be actually read. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Then rename it. ] 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::When I was a new editor, that was one of the first Misplaced Pages-space pages I read. It made a impression on me and the last point underlies what I feel to be the core spirit of Misplaced Pages, or at least a major component of that core. I like the page at its current title. '''<font color="8855DD">]</font><font color="#6666AA">]</font>''' 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's on my watchlist, I like the article and to be honest, I didn't object to the changes but more the manner in which they were made, as you can see at ]. I will, however, bow to the consensus on the grammar, and also ask that people not move the page. ] <small>] </small> 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Attempting to maintain a FA == | |||
| Can someone please take a look at the recent history of ] and this thread here concerning image sizes. I have attempted to explain that overzelous interpretation of the MOS alters not only the layout of an FA but also its integrity. I would be grateful if someone else could endorse this view. I don't want to become involved in an edit war over this. I see Amanda has had similar problems with this editor . Having remonstrated with him - he now seems to be attacking the page. It will be on FARC before he is finished.] 10:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh have it your way. "Remonstration" is not explanation. It's a shame you didn't chose the latter. I said I would leave the two small adjacent pics alone and pointed out that there was no apparent effects to layout on the others. My suggestion would be to use a better word than "attack" - you might find yourself using it on long standing and respected editors who also know a bit about gaining FA's. As for Amandajam, he couldn't explain his demands to go against the MOS either, but I let him have his way too. --] 10:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. Perhaps in future you may find it beneficial to discuss changes to FAs which are clearly being maintained and watched on their talk pages first before making large alterations. Secondly, when remonstrated with on that subject on your own talk page, it is perhaps not a good idea to just revert those who have been maintaining a page, dismissing them in an off hand manner. The MOS recommendations are just that recommendations and a guide. They are not absolute definitive law. ] 11:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not because I think you are right, but because I sometimes try to chose my battles. lol. Perhaps one day you could actually explain exactly in what manner the lower pics in that article affected the layout? I can sense the two adjacent pics might be problematic (as I said now a few times without a reply from you), but cannot see the problem with the lower pics. regards --] 11:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Have a look at ] for a previous discussion on this matter. ] 11:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow - I'm not going to be able to read that properly tonight, let alone digest it. but thanks. Interestingly I first came across the this issue in an FAC - but that process was asking for the opposite - ie, no forced pixel sizes.--] 11:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Images are used in different ways in different articles. It is my opinion that articles that are about visual subjects require large pictures in order that the subject being discussed can be clearly seen. This is the case, whether the subject is a building, a painting, or a stained glass window. Moreover, a portrait in a biographical article that is reproduced too small to see the features is pointless. Yes, one can continually hop backwards and forwards to W.Commons but this is not a helpful process, particularly if the article is long and takes a while to load. | |||
| :::With art objects, we are dealing with things of different scales. It may not look appropriate to have a picture of a building at the same size as a picture of a small detail of the same building. Probably the best person to assess such an issue is an editor who is in the habit of looking critically at the plan, proportion and scale of art objects, rather than an editor who simply carries a rule in his or her head that pics should be aligned to the right and reduced to the minimum. | |||
| :::Moreover, and this is purely personal, I can't help thinking there are more valuable things for an editor to do than get up the noses of wiki's enthusiastic art editors to are striving to create the best possible article they can. It is pedantic to the point of being quite unpleasant. ....] 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, you've made the personal comments before, Amandajm, and suggests notions of "pleasantness" are clearly as subjective as when to go against the MOS. Is it necessary to bring it up ''publicly'', particularly when I have indicated I wasn't keen on pursuing the issue (and my contribs show it such)? --] 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: though shows some common sense. Similar edits of mine looking for the same effect were removed. But thanks. --] 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I checked out the edits that you refer to. They certainly had the effect of reducing the length of the caption, but at the expense of the content. Part of achieving the aim was the enlargement of the pic both to accommodate more text and to scale it to the other picture better. | |||
| :::::With regards to "personal comments", this is what you have written here, about me, and in my aparent absence: | |||
| ::::::''"As for Amandajam, he couldn't explain his demands to go against the MOS either, but I let him have his way too."'' | |||
| :::::This is nonsense. I took the trouble to explain my criteria to you, on your page. I really can't help it if you didn't comprehend. | |||
| :::::Furthermore, I have explained, on your page, why I consider your attitude rude. | |||
| :::::Apart from anything directed at me, you have changed the FA article that Giano has written three times, despite its status, and despite his request that you should not persist in so doing. Why are you surprised that people are annoyed and consider you rude? | |||
| :::::] 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Apart from saying I disagree with Amandajm's new comments on "personal" aspects, I'm not going to reply further here. I ask he (and others?) do the same. This place is for commenting on articles, not editors.--] (]) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (] 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Who gets to nominate an article?== | |||
| There existed in the ] an idea of needing three people nominating or supporting it's nomination before discussion about it's candidateship - I was wondering whether it is a viable idea. Whether that kind of idea makes sense. | |||
| For that matter, what exactly does consensus mean - more than 3 people supporting, none objecting?--]<nowiki>lls</nowiki>] 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Passing FAC generally requires at least a few participants supporting, with no significant outstanding actionable objections. I don't think your idea makes a lot of sense because often an article will come to FAC in a state in which few would support the nomination, but emerges (post-discussion) in an excellent state -- the discussion is valuable even when the article arrives at FAC not quite ready. ] ] 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed. The FAC I'm currently involved with currently has two 'supports', both switched from 'oppose', and two comments. I don't think any of those people thought the article wasn't worth talking about on FAC. If something really is not worth talking about then that will quicky become apparent. ] (]) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Webcomic FAs== | |||
| I was planning to put the article for the ] ] for FA status, however I do not know if I should, as webcomics do not tend to get promoted to such ranks. This is mainly because there are very few reliable sources for webcomics. Many of the reviews for webcomics tend to come from blogs and therefore are not really usable. Currently, there is only one webcomic at FA rank, '']'', a manga webcomic, and manga also tends to receive more media attention than other forms of animation anyway (''Jack'' is ]). Therefore, is there any point of putting the article up for FA? ] (]) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The subject matter of an article ''should'' never be a bar to FA candidacy or FA status. This isn't always the case, but what should be important is compliance to ] - prose, MOS compliance, images, all the rest of it. The article you suggest looks reasonably promising, but I doubt it would pass as it stands now; too many single paragraph sections, citations from David Hopkin's own website, stuff like that. But if it were to be brought here and failed, the failure shouldn't be because it's a webcomic, or because Jack is furry, but because it doesn't comply to the FA standards. Nowhere in those standards does it say that an article has to be high-brow, intellectual, or any thing like that (even though some reviewers might prefer that it did!) ] (]) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A form of natural attrition? == | == A form of natural attrition? == | ||
Revision as of 20:09, 26 November 2007
 Archives | |
|---|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 | |
| FACs needing feedback view • edit | |
|---|---|
| Operation Matterhorn logistics | Review it now |
- ]
A form of natural attrition?
I must say I do like the idea of an unfettered choice of subject matter at FAC - something like some sort of Freudian free association as to what wikifolks really want to give a spit 'n' boot polish too to polish up to FAC. Pop culture is today's version of folklore, fables and mythology so I have no problem with Simpsons as I do with ancient material.
But I digress; there is so much passing through FAC that I wonder if by choosing something too obscure one is dooming a FA candidate article to failing or at least delaying passing as it raises less interest than a more accessible one..and that as FAC gets busier this may be more apparent (or maybe I am just putting 1 & 1 together and getting 3....)...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are many editors who state that any article can reach FA status, but I don't believe that's the case. I absolutely believe there are hundreds if not thousands of topics which are too obscure to be successful at FAC in its current form. Considering the small percentage of the community which weighs in on any FAC, and considering the lack of experts or organization within portions of the community, there's no way many FACs receive the attention (or recognition) they deserve. Choosing an obscure topic may well doom a FAC, depending on just how obscure the topic is. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, obscure topics may find it easier to get through FAC, as there are less experts able to find faults with them. Epbr123 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Obscurity isn't the only thing that limits FAC reviews - accessibility also plays its part. Consider the current review on Ulysses (poem): most definitely not obscure, but not a subject people feel comfortable commenting on, for whatever reason. It seems to me that some of the more "high brow" articles suffer from inattention through FAC just as much as obscure articles do. Generally, the more traditional encyclopaedia subjects tend to attract reviews from a small subset of editors who are interested in that area (science, classical EngLit, MilHist etc), while the pop culture stuff attracts a lot of comment. Epbr makes a good point on expertise too - the aforementioned categories tend to attract fewer reviews than pop culture, but those reviews are typically much more detailed and critical than the "fancruft" (excuse the nasty phrase), simply because the reviewers have a passion for the subject. Being an "expert" on the Simpsons is a damned sight easier than being an expert on the works of Tennyson. Hmm, I'm not sure what the point I was trying to make was, but here it is anyway ;) Carre (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Firsfron, but the question for me is: What's the best way to object to an article about a subject which is too obscure to be an FA? Is there some part of the criteria which can be invoked most effectively? The best I can come up with is objecting on the basis of "not comprehensive enough" – surely this is a pretty subjective perspective, and I can't help feeling like I'm using a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Scartol • Tok 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Obscurity isn't the only thing that limits FAC reviews - accessibility also plays its part. Consider the current review on Ulysses (poem): most definitely not obscure, but not a subject people feel comfortable commenting on, for whatever reason. It seems to me that some of the more "high brow" articles suffer from inattention through FAC just as much as obscure articles do. Generally, the more traditional encyclopaedia subjects tend to attract reviews from a small subset of editors who are interested in that area (science, classical EngLit, MilHist etc), while the pop culture stuff attracts a lot of comment. Epbr makes a good point on expertise too - the aforementioned categories tend to attract fewer reviews than pop culture, but those reviews are typically much more detailed and critical than the "fancruft" (excuse the nasty phrase), simply because the reviewers have a passion for the subject. Being an "expert" on the Simpsons is a damned sight easier than being an expert on the works of Tennyson. Hmm, I'm not sure what the point I was trying to make was, but here it is anyway ;) Carre (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, obscure topics may find it easier to get through FAC, as there are less experts able to find faults with them. Epbr123 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is a difficult issue that goes to the heart of what Misplaced Pages is. When I took Norte Chico civilization through FAC, I was quite convinced that I knew more about the topic than any Wikipedian going. Because I'm an archeologist or because the material is particularly complex? No, on both counts—it just seemed unlikely that any other conscientious amateur had read through the English language material as precisely as I had, on a subject so obscure. (It would only take you a day.) With the exception of one involved reviewer, the FAC was underwhelming.
- What would have made it better? A subject matter expert—which, again, goes to the heart of Misplaced Pages. We don't bar subject matter experts, of course, but we don't have a process that requires them to look at an article. I would love nothing more than an actual archeologist looking at the Norte Chico article. Now, Nupedia failed because of clunky peer review (Citizendium will fail for the same reason) and Misplaced Pages has succeeded because it swore off expert reliance. I applaud that—I'm here for that reason. But maybe we might rope them in again to look on a lower order of magnitude at our best (and the main links to our best, which are often lacking)? Something above FA? I don't know. But I do think we should stop talking about quantity and start talking about the quality of what is already here. Marskell (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The vast majority of "actual archaeologists" may well not not know any more about the Norte Chico than you do. Why should they, unless they'd taken the time to specifically study that civilisation? Given a sufficiently obscure subject, almost anyone can become the world's leading expert in a matter of days, no previous training required. The Zulu Principle. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I feel something has to be pretty exacting or specific for there to be insufficient material for FA status - even then this can be fixed sometime by broadening the scope a wee bit. As well there is the structure and form of the article which can be viewed under hierarchy of headings and/or prose. Sometimes things just come out 'wonky' and need to be reworked. Happened first time I nominated Stegosaurus and also with K-T exticntion recently.
- The reason I like the free flow of articles on all sorts of subjects is that it is fascinating to see what people write about as important to them, rather than some patronising view as to what is importnat or vital. Amusing also to see the similarities and differences between the top 500 viewed articles and the vital article list. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're talking about two different things: some of us are saying that an article may be too obscure, where others are saying a subject may be too obscure. While I don't disagree with the former, I do with the latter. It's easy enough to get caught in the trap of writing too technically, alienating your readership. But in an encyclopedia read and edited by millions of users, there probably are very few articles which have an overly obscure topic. It's just that FAC is based on consensus, and with few people weighing in on many FACs, there isn't much consensus to promote, meaning one or two out-of-process objects can derail a FAC.
- Say what you will about Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Norte Chico civilization, but despite the relatively small number of people weighing in, at least there were quite a few insightful comments. Compare that to Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Styracosaurus, which did not receive any meaningful commentary. There was a PR and a Scientific Peer Review, luckily. But with Scientific Peer Review now defunct, and Peer Review now reduced almost entirely to automated suggestions from bots, articles aren't getting the attention they require, either from the experts or from outside editors.
- Getting back to the idea of obscure subjects, in a truly NPOV encyclopedia, Styracosaurus would receive roughly the same number/quality of reviews as Tyrannosaurus. Of course, that fails drastically in practice: T. rex is just better-known (to the public) than Styracosaurus:. And I know better than to even bother submitting some FACs on more obscure dinosaurs: no one's ever heard of them, and they won't receive good (or any) reviews. I don't think it's likely that there will ever be a Triassic dinosaur FA: outside of the WP:DINO editors, no one's ever heard of Herrerasaurus, Massospondylus, or Plateosaurus, and these articles seem likely never to make it higher than GA. this was the actual "scientific peer review" for Herrerasaurus, left open for over four months in the vain hope that someone -- anyone -- would comment. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I disagree about those triassic dino FAs - the only one which has had a collaborative workout is Herrerasaurus which has gone a bit pear-shaped. I haven't looked at the others recently but all these are meaty enough to become FAs. Gawd Firs, yer gettin' all pessimistic all of a sudden..at least there are some active editors in WP dinos, compared with WP Fungi it's a wealth of talent, enough of whom are keen to point out things and assess at FAC to allow Raul to see there is a consensus of support (though outside input is always much appreciated).cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not at all pessimistic about WP:DINO, Cas. These articles, however, are not getting reviews from the WP community, at any level of review. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Styracosaurus received 5 comments in early June, only three from outside the WikiProject. Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Daspletosaurus/archive1 received only one comment in mid-June, none from outside the WikiProject. Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Massospondylus received only the one automated comment in early November. As linked above, the Herrerasaurus peer review remained uncommented-on for four months. The numbers are trending downward: based on these figures, future dinosaur PR and FA attempts may deteriorate to 0 comments (PR is already at 0). Back when WP:DINO was collaborating on the more "exciting" dinosaurs, we had decent reviews. But now that we're working on more obscure animals, the commentary has dropped to nil. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
100-FACs soon
Right now there are 97 FACs on the list. I recall when there used to be no more than 40 or so. Some have been there since Sept. I don't recall us ever hitting the 100-FACs at once limit before. I can't help but wonder if Raul654 is overtaxed on his FA director duties.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- We've hit and surpassed 100 quite a few times in the last few months; Raul is letting FACs go longer than he used to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I remember, there were about 130 or so FACs before the last facification. And this has happened in the past also, if I remember correctly. DSachan (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- But is the current trend because Raul has less time to spend on it or some other reason? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea. Probably Sandy should shed some light on it. I was also wondering it last time. DSachan (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because allowing more time means more issues are being addressed during FAC and more articles can ultimately succeed to FA status. If you look at many articles at the bottom of the list, you'll see that if Raul had to close sooner, many of them would fail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is that such a bad thing? It seems like a lot of articles get posted to FAC which need to be more thoroughly peer-reviewed first. The FAC process, IMO, ought to be a relatively simple up-or-down vote, with some minor discussions about dashes or image sizes if needed. Instead, I see people nominating articles in order to find out what they should work on. I've thought it might be good to have something on the FAC page about how this isn't a peer-review process.
- Because allowing more time means more issues are being addressed during FAC and more articles can ultimately succeed to FA status. If you look at many articles at the bottom of the list, you'll see that if Raul had to close sooner, many of them would fail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea. Probably Sandy should shed some light on it. I was also wondering it last time. DSachan (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- But is the current trend because Raul has less time to spend on it or some other reason? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I remember, there were about 130 or so FACs before the last facification. And this has happened in the past also, if I remember correctly. DSachan (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was very lucky to have Awadewit guide me through my first FAC, and she stressed the need for multiple PRs and thorough going-over before annoying people with Honoré de Balzac. I see the FAC flood as a problem stemming in part from an overload of people shooting in the dark for the star, and then scrambling to fix things on the fly when people oppose.
- Maybe it's just me. – Scartol • Tok 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It could be both reasons. PR is pretty much a waste of time--lots of articles don't even get looked at. The longer the FAC list gets, the less time the few reviewers we have spend on each article. I see the concern with Raul654, simply because of the time it takes to do all his wiki jobs, it's no doubt for him equivalent to a full time job. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it's just me. – Scartol • Tok 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- If every FAC reviewer will try to do one Peer review daily, PR could regain usefulness, and articles would come to FAC better prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- But they don't, so let's deal in reality here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aawww give it a chance, there's just been a big overhaul 'n' all...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- what big overhaul? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aawww give it a chance, there's just been a big overhaul 'n' all...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- But they don't, so let's deal in reality here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- If every FAC reviewer will try to do one Peer review daily, PR could regain usefulness, and articles would come to FAC better prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that's a valid concern. I have never been convinced by the rather opaque FA system (no clear time limit, no explanation for the decision), depending as it does on the judgement of one person who will inevitably find himself increasingly over-worked as the volume of nominations increases. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be archiving it in the near future (like tomorrow or Monday). Raul654 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The PR overhaul is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Content review/workshop. Marskell (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)