Misplaced Pages

Folks, please! First, Raul, you might really want to let this one slide off for a while, as there is a massive amount of heat and very little light in this deliberation, and I don't think the people objecting are being too picky. That said, Raul doesn't have to give up writing, or nominating, FAC's when he takes on the job of promoting and featuring them, because that job is not simply left to his discretion. Raul has to, and has, follow the voters here. Otherwise, he'd just promote it in spite of objections, so the hand wringing over conflict of interest is a bit hysterical and licensed. Second, Giano, you were being provocative, but not insulting. Tony was prepared, however, to see an attack anywhere, and you had to know that. Third, Tony, you need to shrug off things. Giano doesn't approve of the way you do things. Ok. So? He's one person. If you think he's baiting you, he's not actually attacking you, and when you rise to the bait, you're showing an interest in escalation. (Otherwise, you'd just be sly, yourself.) FAC is supposed to be deliberative, and not a tragic stage or political tabloid. If we stay focused on this article, we're going to get on with our lives and actually make for better FA's than if we start playing the who-struck-John. Geogre 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could move the slanging match and comments on Raul's role (as opposed to the article) to the talk page; anyone thinking of adding a comment will take one look at this discussion (41K already!) and run away. It may not be too late to fix objections if we get back to the matter in hand. Mark 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Object: deliberation is now longer than the recommended article maximum. :-) (What a mess!) Geogre 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am not happy about what has gone on here at all; I have a right to contribute without degrading comments from this man. PLEASE remove this appalling exchange NOW. Tony 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Try not to blow it out of proportion. Take a break, have a cup of tea. Giano's comments weren't degrading or appalling, and even if they had been, the best thing you can do is ignore it. But Giano - please - go ahead and remove whatever Tony1 finds insulting. Step up and defuse this sensitive situation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• As long as this diversion remains here, there's reason to pursue the issues it raises. If this page is to be ruled by the the anti-intellectuals, by those such as Giano who, by their own, admission, can't write to save themselves, then all is lost. Sloppily written FACs will still be promoted, sending a signal to all WPians that amateurism is the accepted standard. Tony 23:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, you really should stop, there. You're getting into dangerous (and silly) areas, and it is never wise to assume that style sheets are eloquence or that standardized diction is euphony. Bunchofgrapes has good advice: you're really getting bent out of shape over nothing. Geogre 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• I said what I mean, and I won't step back from it. I don't see my self being bent out of shape at all. Tony 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, my friend, "anti-intellectuals", is a bit harsh. I think PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS would be a more accurate term in this case, don't you think? That aside, I must disagree with you about this article. I think it is feature quality. Raul did the subject justice and he has every right to submit his fine work. I believe everyone here should be a CONTRIBUTOR FIRST with all else is secondary if not tertiary. Let us try and keep focus on the matter at hand here...please. I have let Giano, and those holding his leash, know exactly what I think of his insulting remarks and their threats against you. There is bias here, my friend, you are right about that. But it has nothing to do with this article or its main contributor. Peace mate...for now :> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ciao Ghost - Well fancy us being on the same side (well almost) I see you have put a link above to the kerfuffle following Tony's RFA failure. That is a little bit below the belt to Tony, and I don't think you should have done that. It's not fair to him. Even I don't go there to discredit someone. Regarding your comments immediately above "pseudo" or "anti intellectual" it does not really matter what we are because all we can do here is regurgitate information and reference it to creditable books - preferably not those we may have written ourselves. Own research and all that is frowned upon. As for not being able to write, half the encyclopedia knows I'm dyslexic, and if they don't then they have pretty poor powers of observation, as for grammar, I tend to treat it a little like house-work - let those that enjoy it - do it. However, as for style that is individual and we all have a perfect right to our own, as much right as Raul or even Jimmy Wales himself to write what we like, when we like, where we like, in whatever manner we like. So long as it is generally acceptable English. It seems to me Tony has a problem accepting the views and styles of others on many subjects - and sees threats and insults all around him. That must be difficult for him, but it's not my problem. Regarding your final point about bias here - Perhaps you should make a comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bishonen which seems the current place for discussing her behaviour. I don't think there is bias here, just look at the link you put in above - pretty nasty stuff and you're still here to edit. No there's no bias just a lot of opinionated people, of whom you and I can probably be included. Giano | talk 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a newsflash for you Sunshine, I'm dyslexic too (Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!). I battle against AADD as well. But I don't use them as a crutch for my mistakes nor an excuse for being a jerk (I can find myself plenty of other excuses for that, thank you). By the time I was diagnosed, I had almost completed my masters, so clearly it is something which I can overcome. You seem to have overcome yours pretty well too. So that dog don't hunt. BZZZZZZ, Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for playing! As for Tony, his only major problem I see is he needs to try and abide by the principle of DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. Even you must conceed, Giano, that NONE of us came away from his Rfa and aftermath smelling rosey. It was a grand mess which created a lot of bad blood that has now fermented and spilled into this discussion. Given the personalities and egos involved (and no I'm not letting mine off the hook here either)I don't see this going anywhere but down...possibly to the road of another Rfc...once everyone stops snikering about "Hollaback" Wilerding's.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, and now pseudo-intellectuals? Astonishing! Go straight to arguing the person instead of the issue, and you set the stage for either your own personality coming into question or the other defending his person. That's a fool's game, and only a fool would set it forth. Geogre 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting age

Hello there. Sorry to interrupt. Can anyone tell me how long I have to be a registered user, before I can vote on Featured Article Candidates? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. Aspern 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FAC is more a discussion than a vote. The important thing in deciding if an article makes "featured" status is not that it has more "support" than "oppose", but that all major objections have been taken care of. If you've got suggestions on how to improve an article, feel free to add them. --Carnildo 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and don't be put off the place by the "discussion" above, we all love each other really, even old Ghostie has a soft centre. Giano | talk 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your views will be taken into account, although a lack of edits, if you are in a startling minority, will probably be used to assess how familiar you are with Misplaced Pages's policies and articles. There is a fallacy in such things, but it's the best defense we have against vote drumming and article wrecking. (I.e. if you are the only objector, and your objections are wild, folks will look at the number of contributions. If you're supporting in the face of a number of objections, it won't make any difference at all, as articles are promoted only when all substantive objections have been addressed.) Geogre 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No new FA?

Did you recently up your standards? I use to enjoy reading all the new FA from the lists at signpost, but for the last two weeks no new FA. Hopefully you don't run out of articles to front page. I would help if I wasn't busy trying to get wikiproject Nebraska off the ground.--Rayc 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No - Raul654 just didn't promote any last week, but there were lots (14!) the week before, and he has just promoted seven more today (see WP:GO). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just as long as one is produced per day.--Rayc 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current average is running at well over 1 per day, but there is a large backlog of old ones still to go on the front page (if that is what you are worried about). In any event, we could always start from the beginning again. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Double whammy today

OK, Giano may never speak to me again and it's inappropriate to focus in any way on individual contributors, but I will mention that two articles mainly authored by Giano grace the English and the French Main Pages today: Holkham Hall and Baroque sicilien. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

Amost a triple whammy: Baroccu sicilianu was L'articulu dâ simana last week on Sicilian. -- ALoan (Talk)

There is a *Sicilian* Misplaced Pages as well?!

Good gods, this is a huge project...

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

References -- the new witch hunt

Don't get me wrong. As much as anyone, I understand the extreme importance of referencing sources, especially true due to Misplaced Pages's free-for-all-edits nature, and as much as anyone I like reading verified information.

However, I cannot deny the fact the massive referencing paranoia recently flooding this page (as well as the FARC page) to object or remove articles. Why? Because its so easy to pick on it. It has came to the point that users who don't like an article for WHATEVER reason (think its POV, covers a subject they'd rather keep secret, don't like another editor, don't like the prose, etc etc etc) decide to pick on the slightest misreference because they can make a valid (if lame) point, and often successfully wikilawyer their way to having an article bounced off featured for a minor technical point that has to do with references.

I mean, how lame it is to object an otherwise perfect article because it uses a footnote rather than inline citations? How dull is it to knitpick every word and punctuation, and pounce on a comma being placed outside quotations when a source is cited? To what length people go to expose flaws that it would have taken them much quicker to correct themselves, and then use it as an argument against the article's quality? How many times have you seen people follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of Misplaced Pages, in regards to "properly referencing sources"?

Referencing is no doubt important, but we should NOT tolerate this paranoia concerning it. It is true that FA's are supposed to be our best work, but perhaps you should remember some other important principles we have concerning:

• WP:IAR
• A perfect article cannot exist
• WP:POINT
• Wikilawyering

I think the approach to references should be JUST LIKE ANY OTHER part of our review criteria. That is, it should definitely cover the main bases, and provide justification for the article's text. However, this does not mean that truly MINOR matters (such as referencing in a style you don't like), or not having a reference for an unimportant point where the bigger subject is referenced, should be a CAST IN IRON argument for defeaturing or denying featured status to an article, much like the same way we don't approach prose, composition, or pictures in a die-hard manner.

Once again, I'm not denying the importance of referencing, or asking that it should be dropped from requirements, but I do ask that

• 1. Approach the rule, like any other rule, with a "certain degree of elasticity" (quote from our MOS)
• 2. Understand nobody and nothing is perfect
• 3. Understand, that referencing, like any other principle, should first and foremost apply to the general theme, meaning and interpretation the article conveys, rather than every word and letter
• 4. Admit that using a less-than-perfect referencing style still does NOT mean the article is unreferenced
• 5. Try fixing minor errors you see yourself yourself before bringing them up here

And most importantly:

• 6. STOP using "references" clause as an ironclad principle of arguing against articles if it is obvious its not references what you are after, but other issues, but you choose this one because it's so easy to pick on.

There's something to think about.

Sincerely,

Elvarg 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please show me a clear example of what you are talking about, because otherwise, you're violating WP:AGF. I strongly doubt that any significant portion of wikipedians have so much malice in their hearts as to lie about the nature of their objections to an article. My personal stance is found at User:Spangineer/inline citations. With respect to your claim that it's "lame" and "dull" to have the citations in the correct locations, I heartily disagree. While I wouldn't oppose an article's candidacy on those grounds, professionalism is all about consistency. Scientific journals use a set format, Brittanica uses a set format, for that matter, any notable publication uses a set format. By the nature of Misplaced Pages, we can't, but there is absolutely no reason to ensure that the articles we call our best should not have consistent formatting. Some people, however, take issue to people changing their formatting style, and as a result, bringing it up on a FAC is the polite thing to do.

Perfection is impossible, but what we're asking for is not perfection. Perfection in references might be using all printed sources, using no source more than twice, using multiple sources for the same point, maintaining exact formatting, and not overburdening the reader with excessive inline citations. Some of these are easily attainable, some are not. To say that the ones that are easily attainable should be allowed to be ignored is unwise and unnecessary. If it makes the article better, and it's easy to do, why not do it?

Finally, you seem to suggest that when it comes to referencing, we fail to see the forest for the trees. Sometimes, that may be the case, but at the end of the day, if the article states something that someone will at some point want to verify or use in another work, that something should be referenced. Period. I will not ignore blatant referencing problems in FAs, because if our best articles lack something that crucial, we have proven that our critics are right; that this is an encyclopedia that can never be taken seriously. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just thoroughly reference any WP:FAC article, thereby avoiding the need to speculate about the motives of people objecting over poor referencing? Jkelly 19:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, an article with a decent number of references is fine with almost all editors either during the FA voting or FARC.--Alabamaboy 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what Elvarg (talk · contribs) is more referring to is the feeling that some people who comment on FACs are more willing to complain about a problem than fix a problem. In my FAC experiences, I do see some of this and I think it has somethin to do with the way FAC is setup. A nominator is expected to guide the article through FAC so often users come in and make comments opposing, expecting the nominator to make all of the changes, regardless of their magnitude. Of course, often those users never come back to change their votes, but that is an entirely other matter. I think this is a common sentiment, yes, but if the nominator decided to nominate the article, that means they are willing to do whatever it takes to get to FA status. I know I was! :-) — Scm83x 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The nominator does not "own" the article (and neither anyone else does). The nominator merely points out the quality of the article, and offers some reasons for why it should be nominated. The opposers also have to present valid reasons, and together a consensus is supposed to be reached. FAC is not supposed to be a battleground, although too often it is, and the nominator should not carry the burden of proof when "defending" the article he nominated -- and he does not have any more responsibility than the next editor (including his opposition) to improve the article. Elvarg 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are two rather good reasons why people here ask for references rather than just inserting them: firstly there are a lot of articles going through the process at any one time, and no-one wants to start fixing 20-odd articles; and secondly the actual author of the article is best-placed to tell us what references he used. Incidentally, if anyone is really objecting because they don't like a particular style of referencing, then Raul will certainly ignore their objection when it come to tallying up. Mark 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Based on my last two months in FAC, I think this discusssion is timely and important. The points made so far do miss a critical aspect of the situation. The insistence on (heavy) use of citations creates a variety of cases where the quality of FAs IMO can be significantly diminished, and in to a great degree takes our eyes off the goal of identifying "really good articles" by putting a lot of focus on an ill-defined area. References can be used to give the appearance of objectivity and academic credibility where it may not exist, they can be misused by referencing extremely dubious sources for the specific material they are supporting, and they can plain clutter up an article making it literally hard to read. These are the three obvious types of problem I've noticed. Examples from recent FACs:

• Schabir Shaik Trial - promoted despite standing objections related to use of inline citation. Here, the nominator, in attempting to meet requests for citations, started footnoting everything in sight, then gave up partway, explaining that it seemed an ineffective approach. This left a bizarrely formatted article that I imagine would cause most thoughtful readers to question what was going on. The first three of eight main sections have at least one citation per paragraph (30 in total); the rest of the article (75% of the text) has no citations.

• Radhanites - promoted despite standing objections related to sources. Here, my conclusion as a FAC reviewer was that the article did not internally support itself. Without getting into too much detail, who the Radhanites were is (based on the article iteself) largely scholarly speculation, as only two paragraphs from a single historical account exist to describe them (again, as noted in the article). I felt that the article should have been more properly titled "Jewish merchants of the Early Middle Ages", of which much more info is apparently available, instead of making it appear that the Radhanites were (likely, or, possibly) these "Jewish merchants". It seemed to me like some sort of propaganda exercise. I'm not claiming ANY scholarly insight or even general knowledge of the topic, but was simply working from the article. A rather "impressive" list of (print-based) references were cited. I did some searching and found that one of the central titles was a book from the 1940s which expanded on the above mentioned two paragraphs, IOW one scholar's opinion, and many others were encyclopedias which may have drawn from that source. In the FAC discussion, another reviewer stated that some citations were simply wrong (e.g. did not refer to what they claimed to). That was a heated exchange, and no clear outcome was evident, but clearly, someone there was wrong, IOW some citations may have been simply window dressing. So here is a case where the article clearly wouldn't have made FA without citations, and where the citations bolstered a (again, IMO) dubious conclusion, and the supporter of the nom didn't see fit to address the questions in any detail.

• Bulbasaur - currently in its third week of FAC. Here, in the lead paragraph, a double citation, to CNN.com and TIME Asia online, supports a claim about the Pokemon character's popularity. In this instance, the use of contemporary news media seems entirely inappropriate for the claims being supported. I looked at the source material, and these were both "casual" articles, one of which stated in effect "as a quick look at some Pokemon web sites will tell you...". This rather indiscriminate use of "any old source material" just to for the sake of citation is, IMO, ridiculous. At least, a formal survey of some sort, some kind of formal statistical undertaking, should be used to cite for something like measurement of popularity. Recent news media are OK for facts and figures, quotes, and to illustrate perhaps the type of popular coverage given a topic at a point in time, but not for quantitative stuff.

These aren't isolated examples. The Radhanites situation is I suppose exactly what references are for in an academic setting, but they are difficult to take to task (foreign language is another problem I ran into, e.g. Spanish-language refs, which isn't BAD, but a problem if and when checking). The other instances, are more common. particularly loading up articles with unnecessary citations (as addressed in the original comment in this thread: "3. Understand, that referencing, like any other principle, should first and foremost apply to the general theme, meaning and interpretation the article conveys, rather than every word and letter").

I fully understand and support WP:Verifiability and its related guidelines, but this shouldn't be pushed to the point of creating spurious and pseudo-references for the sake of appearance.

My current approach in FAC review is to scan the References section, treating it as a bibliography. If a sufficient number of general titles are presented, and nothing there raises a flag, I'll read the article, where any problems are usually quite evident simply from reading... That only makes sense. An article should first stand on its own (clear, logical, easy to read, self-contained, consistent), not on its citations. I think that, at this stage of WP/FAC, this is sufficiently reasonable excepting those specific cases where possibly controversial assertions are being made. (Sorry for the length, I'll come back and try to edit down.) --Tsavage 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Shot down

How do any articles ever make it to Main Page when 90% of nominations get shot down by unanimous objections? Captain Jackson 00:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The other 10% are what you see on the Main Page; this is consistent with Sturgeon's Revelation, incidentally ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of articles unanimously shot down would reduce if nominators spent some time reviewing how other unanimously promoted articles meet the FA criteria. Most editors don't, so the noms get shot down as a result. Spending some time on WP:PR and actually listening to and implimenting the suggestions given there and asking for more is a good start also ignored by most. - Taxman 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

References: the new new witch

Look, folks, let's be absolutely clear, eh? There is no requirement for one style of citation over another. There isn't one at WP:CITE, and there isn't one for FAC. Citation is mandatory, but parenthetical vs. inline is an absurd battle to wage. I do not like inline notes. When I see a note, I expect it to be an emendation, to actually say something. Otherwise, it's as John Barrymore said: "Reading a footnote is like running downstairs to answer the doorbell on the first night of marriage." Provide a parenthetical, and, if I have read the references first (which I have), then I know which work you're referring to as I go. That's far better than a tiny number and flip-backs, for me. I've written my share of Featured Articles, but I will never use the inline style. Remember: it's a style. It isn't an obligation.

I demand citations for controversial facts, and I demand citation for inaccessible facts, but something like "he was a noted controversialist" doesn't need a note when the body of the article is going to explain how many controversies he fought in. When the evidence is right there in the biography, the adjective is supportable and NPOV. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source of information, but it's not an academic clipping service: it's an encyclopedia, and that means that things are said that are supported, not that are repeated.

I object stenuously to anyone who goes through substituting style over all other considerations and who goes into style wars with an aim to reducing rather than increasing choice. Don't ask me to use a reference style that will render my article un-editable. Don't ask me to use a style that is unreadable. Don't demand that I violate my professional academic procedures and my personal aesthetics because you have a bur in a sensitives spot over footnotes or some other bit of fustian. Geogre 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You have a big vocabulary... :) --Tsavage 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You could have shortened that entirely because you are correct there is no consensus for one style over the other and therefore any consistent style within an article is acceptable. Anyone wishing to change that should propose it in WP:CITE and will face a huge uphill battle. Objections based only on which style of inline citations are used are invalid. Simply point that out and point people to WP:CITE. - Taxman 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And, from WP:CITE, I think this is particularly important as a starting point: Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below. --Tsavage 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That should probably be modified. Featured articles are required to have some form of inline citations (be it footnotes, or harvard style parenthetical citations). Simply posting a list of references at the end of an article is not good enough as it does not tie specific facts to specific sources. Raul654 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul, that refers to certain situations like Charlotte Charke or Laetitia Pilkington or Sarah Scott: the biography is not controversial, and all of the factual information comes from the personal memoirs of the subject and a DNB entry, so putting a note up saying "Got this from DNB" and "Got this from there too" and "Got this from there and the novel" and "Got this from there, too, but I also read it in the memoir" is kind of blunt. There simply aren't many good sources for some of these folks. (The folks I mention there really haven't any biographies other than what one finds in biographical dictionaries, and specialists tend to read the primary source document.) Geogre 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing a memior that could easily be 100,000 words long isn't particularly helpful to anyone. The cases you cited call for inline citations with specific page numbers. Raul654 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Or Schabir Shaik Trial, where the nominator/main supporting editor noted in FAC review: I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious. --Tsavage 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If it were a research paper, Raul, we'd demand that facts that are inaccessible, phrasings that are peculiar, and structures that are unique be cited. Otherwise, "I'm reading this here book, and this is what's in it" is a references page matter. Similarly, "I'm reading this biographical dictionary, and these are the facts from it in a new order, in new wording, with implications expanded and inferences drawn, with hyperlinks" is a reference. Otherwise, like Tsavage says, you just keep saying, "Ibid," "Ibid," and "Ibid" and sound like a swamp full of frogs. (And, for the record, I've read the Memoir of Pilkington like a mosquito on a pond -- alighting here and there -- and so to AC Elias's work I add things from the Memoir, but they're not quotes. I haven't added the Memoir to those references yet, because I got lazy and didn't go find out when the modern edition is. (I used an ancient one when I read it, but I had a great lieberry.)) So the short version is that I don't think the "sometimes References is enough" needs to be changed. Such an article might not get promoted, but it should be possible. What I wrote to object to, though, was the current run of "not inline citation!" for objections. That has gone unchallenged every time, and I should hope that we'd all be reminding voters that references are required, but notational vs. parenthetical is preference. Geogre 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Peer review automated links

I'm amazed at home many people take their article to FAC without peer review when it's clearly in the instructions at the top. I'd like to be able to see instantly if, when, and how an FAC was peer reviewed. Is there anyway we could make an automated link to each nominee's corresponding peer review? So if I nominate Foobar, it would automatically post a link to Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Foobar. That way, articles without peer review show up as redlinks. Lovelac7 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere do the instructions say that an article has to go to WP:PR first, before being nominated here; it is, however, often a wise thing to do. You may be being misled by the "path" to a featured article: it is simply guidance, not instruction. Some other Wikipedias require a period of peer review before selecting their equivalent of featured articles, but we do not. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would be nice to have the links nonetheless. Lovelac7 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the feedback at Peer Review is sometimes non-existent. It leads to me to believe some people take their article to FAC in place of Peer Review because of its greater activity. Gflores 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I'm just now getting the hang of FAC. Lovelac7 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Didn't go through Peer Review yet": the newest witch hunt

I'm amazed at the amazement expressed above by Lovelac7, but it was perhaps to be expected, since recently a lot of people seem to be objecting to articles on the basis that they "didn't go through Peer Review 'yet'". Admittedly, I haven't so far seen an objection where that is the sole criticism offered, but I fully expect to any day now, since the lack — or "lack" — of Peer Review is so often objected as a separate point. If the "path to a Featured article" is really making people think PR is obligatory, the "path" should be edited to make it clear that PR is not a Featured article criterion. Never was, and I hope never will be. Such confidently-stated but quite untruthful statistical observations as "very very few articles have without " reinforce the notion that there's something wrong, something careless or downright immoral, about nominators who offer their articles directly to FAC; that these people are wasting everybody's time regardless of the quality of the article.
Please keep referring to Peer Review if the article genuinely needs it (I often do this myself, and sometimes if the nominator won't take a hint I boldly move it to PR), but please stop scaring off nominators by implying that the PR detour is mandatory. In my experience, as FAC nominator and also as PR housekeeper (a while back) a stint on PR sometimes produces excellent input, but more frequently little or none, or mere kind but useless compliments. PR has problems as it is; it needs to be more dynamic; it needs to keep out the mere content disputes placed there without appropriateness; what PR doesn't need is being choked with articles placed there by reluctant FAC nominators under duress. And we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all. Bishonen | talk 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

• I definitely don't want to scare off anyone with mandatory PR. I'm a relative newbie to the FAC page. (I have one FA to my name: Michigan State University.) I do think the "Path to a Feautred Article" box makes PR look mandatory. It fooled me. Lovelac7 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"We don't want to scare off (new editors/veteran editors/FAC nominators/etc)" - the default witch hunt?

I see this used quite frequently, elsewhere as well as here in FAC. As in the comment above. As in a comment just made in Bulbasaur (now entering its second month as a FAC): "Neutral. I feel it's too short, but it's borderline, and I don't want to discourage contributors, so I won't oppose." It's one thing to be civil, contribute rather than complain, and so forth, but it is difficult to reconcile the high and quite explicitly stated FA criteria with what amount to concessions favoring enthusiasm over quality. FAC isn't deciding whether to delete articles, it is supposedly to review articles according to a high and rising standard. The general principle here is, IMO, not not force peer reviews (though that is an explicit pre-FAC guideline requirement), but to consider that a good percentage of articles end up being extensively revised as part of the FAC process. As I've noted many times recently, I find this can completely skew the FAC process, putting most of the load on objectors to certain articles. "Hollaback Girl" (failed), Celine Dion (promoted), Bulbasaur (ongoing) are all nominations that took/are taking WEEKS (not to mention second and third renominations within days or weeks), and undergoing dozens even hundreds of edits, requiring objectors to spend hours and hours following all sorts of revisions. I think that's a central point here. From what I've seen, PR doesn't seem all that effective in generating decent feedback, but if the result of that shortcoming is putting the PR load on FAC, that's a different and real problem... FAC should not be a substitute for (or be seen as "better than") a peer review stage, or simply regular article improvement. --Tsavage 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)