Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 25 January 2012

• WT:FAR

Archives

Archives for former FARC process Archive 1: May 2004 – Feb 2005; Archive 2: Mar 2005 – Sep 2005; Archive 3: Oct 2005 – Feb 2006; Poll: Mar 2006 poll on policy; Archive 4: Feb 2006 – Jun 2006 Archives for current FAR process archive 1: to July 2006; archive 2: to Sep 2006 archive 3: to Dec 2006; archive 4: to Feb 2007; archive 5: to mid Jun 2007; archive 6: to Jul 2007 archive 7: to Jan 2008; archive 8: to Feb 2009 archive 9: to Mar 2010; archive 10: Apr 2010 to 2011 archive 11: 2012; archive 12: 2013–2018 archive 13: 2019–2021; archive 14: 2021–2022 archive 15: 2023–

and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags

Articles in need of FAR

Hi everyone - Since the list on the FAR page is fairly short right now, I thought I'd go ahead and list some articles here that have had notifications of work needed in the past and now could stand to be listed on the FAR page:

• Dog Day Afternoon - nominated by TenPoundHammer on 9/22/11 - Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Francis Petre - Nom'd Brad (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Island Fox - Nom'd Brad (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Order of Canada Nom'd Brad (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Hero of Ukraine Nom'd Brad (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Templon Nom'd Brad (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Sylvia (ballet) Nom'd Brad (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sunset Boulevard (film) Nom'd Brad (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Fauna of Australia Nom'd Brad (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• The Relapse Nom'd Brad (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Rosa Parks Nom'd Brad (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

All of these articles have had notifications of a possible FAR over the past couple of years, with little or no follow up. Everyone should feel free to either nom these or pick them up for cleanup work! Thanks to Brad101 for updating Misplaced Pages:Unreviewed featured articles, from which I compiled this list. Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll nominate one article a week until I get tired or someone else wings in here. Or we could throw caution to the wind and do a nomination bombing. Brad (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it really fair to encourage people to nominate one of Bishonen' pages the day after she announces that she will be away with a health problem for some time? Even by FAR's standards that seems pretty low. Giacomo Returned 17:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, I don't have a problem with you noming more often/once a week or so (unless the page starts getting backlogged with more than 20-25 noms; it's no-where near that right now, though). If other users have an issue with that course of action, though, they are encouraged to post here. Per Giano's comment, you may want to hold off a while on The Relapse, to see if Bishonen is able to come back. Giano, you make it sound like it was deliberate...many of these articles have editors that are away at the moment or have been for a while - hence the reason they have had work needed sections on the talk page go unanswered, in some cases for years, and hence why they are listed here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yom Kippur War. Talk page notice was given in May 2010 (now in talk archives). Skimming over the article I can see that it is in very bad condition. Promoted in 2005 it had a FAR in 2006 and can be listed for another FAR at anytime. Brad (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated today. Brad (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR on auto-pilot

Could we please try to avoid "FAR noms on auto-pilot"? One of the aims of FAR is to improve articles when editors are willing to work on them, yet I'm seeing lots of vague nomination statements that don't engage WP:WIAFA with specificity and clear examples, to encourage article improvement. A driveby "this article needs FAR" without providing specifics isn't in the spirit of FAR-- some of the recent nominations include non-specific statements with no examples like:

• Some very short paragraphs that also fall under 2b below. A general copyedit never hurts either.
  • Unless you can explain why the short paragraph is a problem, how do we know it is? Of course a general copyedit never hurts, but you shouldn't FAR an article unless you can identify specific prose issues and no one is working on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• There are a few areas that are lacking citations. Several dead links.
  • Perhaps those areas don't require citation? Examples would help. Links go dead over time-- check archive.org-- that the links have gone dead doesn't mean the article has fallen out of compliance-- it means someone needs to update the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Could use a bibliography section.
  • We don't prescribe citation methods, and bibliography sections aren't required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• 1d and maybe 1e. Article was the subject of an arbitration ruling for edit warring and POV issues. While this issue may have come to an end it's possible that some of the warring and POV still remain in the article.
  • Maybe? It's possible? No-- demonstrate that the article fails 1e please if you want to FAR it on that basis. 1e by the way is greatly misunderstood-- we don't penalize articles because they are subject to edit or POV warriors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• 2c There is little uniformity in citations. Full information of sources are missing.
  • Not a single example-- how does that help someone trying to improve the article.

This is an alarming trend, based on only glancing at the top of the FAR page-- one that I'd not like to see also take hold at FAC (if you oppose an article without specifics, I'll be likely to ignore the oppose unless someone else provides specifics and examples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I raised this issue three months ago, but it hasn't been addressed. For example, a month later, on the Kolkata review, we find:

1a: The prose is in need of copyediting

without a single example. Nominators and reviewers here are not engaging WP:WIAFA with enough specificity for editors to know what improvements are needed, or in fact, for delegates to determine if statements are accurate. If a reviewer at FAC said, "Prose needs copyediting" without offering a single example, that would not be actionable. The nominator statement at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Héctor Lavoe/archive1 is pure conjecture, not a source supplied. If the FAR instructions aren't being followed, and if reviewers aren't engaging criteria, why are reviewers being allowed to put up more than one FAR at a time? We need valid FARs, with good rationale and explanations of work needed, to help encourage editors to engage to improve articles, or so that they can offer valid rationales for delisting articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You really don't understand FA editor retention do you? After a comment like I have yet to see a nomination from Brad that addresses WP:WIAFA I think you should start looking in a mirror after cleaning your glasses. That statement is completely false and unwarranted. Brad (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples above-- never addressed, ongoing. Additionally, for a reviewer to speak of FA writers like this indicates other issues that may need attention. So, here's what I'm asking:

1. Don't put up another review until your current ones are in FARC.
2. Stop making personal attacks and disparaging remarks on FA writers.
3. When listing issues for FAR, please address WP:WIAFA with specific examples.
4. When notifying article talk pages of FAR issues, also engage WP:WIAFA with specific examples.

One of the goals of FAR is to help improve articles, even if the star can't be saved, and neither improvement nor restoring of featured status can happen if we don't list the deficiencies and engage with editors to improve them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another (Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Francis Petre/archive1):

1c The obvious problem is the overall lack of citations throughout the article. The lack of citations leaves "well researched" and "high-quality and reliable" sources questionable.

2a Lead section lacks a lot of points raised later in the article body.

2c Lack of citations leaves this criteria open to later question.

All of this is speculative, nothing specific, no examples of problems; FARs like this should be questioned by the delegates, and enough specifics (including sources) to back assertions should be provided so that others can determine what work is needed and delegates can determine if WIAFA is engaged.. We don't FAR something because we think it might be questionable. There is very little actionable in this nomination statement, and yet the FAR was passed to FARC with no further followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This FAR however is an improvement: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Katie Holmes/archive1. Specifics are listed, so I have now seen a FAR nom from Brad that does engage WIAFA. Much better.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Transhumanism/archive1 (not a Brad nom) is also a deficient FAR declaration-- it is full of opinion, but no sources or examples of the alleged deficiencies. It would be helpful if the delegates would guide nominators towards engaging the criteria, and review the pages closely so that deficient noms are identified and removed: my concern is that the example set in earlier deficient nomination (including the failure to check for notifications, which should include all Projects) has been followed here, and folks aren't even noticing that nominations are not specifically engaging WIAFA, giving examples, sources that back assertions, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another sample: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Polish–Soviet War/archive1

• Red links all over the place, particularly in the refs. These should be checked to see if any have article potential.

• Red links are not a breach of WIAFA.

• 1a TPH mentions several prose issues but the entire article suffers with prose problems. Thorough copyedit needed.

• No samples.

• 1c Is a major problem. Many citation needed tags, several paragraphs without citations and dead links. WP:NOENG should be followed.

• Brad says: "Many citation needed tags". NO. There are 2 (dos, dwa, two, 1+.9999999999...) cn tag in the article currently. That's not many, that's something that can be easily fixed. Let's not have a replay of what happened at the Katyn massacre FAR. Please take some time before making comments here. Volunteer Marek  22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1d Seems to be a long standing problem with this article. Talk page threads are full of disputes.

• According to Volunteer Mark on talk, all old disputes. No samples of current disputes given.

This is not the way to run FAR; folks, please get the nominators on board with how to list and nominate a FAR, and how to do it in less offensive ways. Specifics, sans hyperbole. Perhaps a review of some older FARs will help re-set the tone here. There are too may stalled FARs, running much longer than the previously too long of two months, and there are apparent issues here.

This is how a nomination should be written: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Azerbaijani people/archive1. Specifics, samples, and sans hyperbole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok; you win. Congratulations on driving another editor away from FA processes. Things were fine here until you began following me around various places with your Magda Goebbels posting style. You're not a FAR admin, you resigned as a FAC admin and you aren't the FA director (thank God for that). I will no longer do any FAR articles that upset you because I won't be doing them at all. No one had a problem with my noms except you. Nobody deserves this sort of harassment. Brad (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Updated

Getting messy up above here. Articles are in order of how old the notice is; old and really old at top and more recent at bottom. Brad (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Gas tungsten arc welding
• Raney nickel
• Scotland in the High Middle Ages Nom'd Brad (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Katie Holmes Brad (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Humpback whale
• Free will
• Gas metal arc welding
• Restoration spectacular
• Superman Nom'd by Dana
• Chennai Nom'd by User:Secret_of_success
• Federalist No. 10 Nom'd Brad (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Read my lips: no new taxes

Question about how things work around here

Please excuse me -- I have some experience with FAC but almost none with FAR. Doc James nominated the caffeine article for review because it had important problems, specifically lots of medical-related statements that were inadequately sourced. I believe that all of those important problems have been fixed, and lots of other improvements have been made as well. Is there a prospect that the article will be demoted anyway due to the same sort of trivial MOS shit that dominates reviews at FAC? I have spent a lot of time fixing the important problems in an article that I had no part in creating; I would be very annoyed to see it demoted for reasons that have no bearing on its actual quality. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen article fail at FAC because of "trivial MoS shit". Can you give us any examples? Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Is it just a bluff? If I don't bother to make sure that all the page ranges use endashes, or that all the cite templates consistently use last-first instead of authors, will the article be promoted anyway? Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It'd be up to delegate discretion. On the topic of your broader question: both FAC and FAR are bound by the FA criteria, and there's some overlap of participants. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a delegate to say whether an article would pass in its current state, and if not, what would be needed to make it pass? Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You could ask. I don't know what kind of answer you'd get. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether you're referring to Brain or caffeine, but the answer to whether a delegate can tell if something will pass is "no". They can sometimes tell you if a nomination will be archived if errors are numerous and glaring, but only consensus can determine if an article is promoted or demoted. I've never seen either happen based on "same sort of trivial MOS shit", although that "trivial MOS shit" does have to be cleaned up in an article that is otherwise passing before it is promoted. As of now, I see all kinds of "trivial MOS shit" that should be cleaned up in caffeine, but again, that's not typically a reason for defeaturing, since if all else is in order, generally someone can be found to do that cleanup (like me). But there's no point in cleaning up MOS issues on articles that are poorly written or poorly cited and won't pass anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to caffeine. I pretty much understand how things work at FAC. Thanks for the information. Looie496 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at caffeine and as far as I can tell, it still has lots of medical-related statements that are inadequately sourced. I have left some comments on the FAR page. These need to be corrected or it will be odds-on to be delisted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Double checking before nominating

Selena is a FA which was promoted in July 2006 and on the Main Page in December 2006. In October 2010 it was kept after a FAR. At that time the article was 2236 words; it is now about 8637 words. The prose is nowhere near FA standards, there is all sorts of trival detail and many, many references of questionable value have been added. In October 2011 AJona1992, who has added most of the new material to the article and has been pretty uncooperative at the FAR and on the article's talk page, opened a peer review where he said the article no longer met FA requirements. Brianboulton and I agreed that the place to take this was not PR, but FAR. I wanted to check here before nominating - it seems to me the easiest thing to do would be to revert back to the version that was kept at FAR a year ago. What do you all think? Ruhrfisch _><>° 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Did Ajona start editing it after the FAR? If so, a new FAR would be in order; he doesn't understand Misplaced Pages policies. But wouldn't it be much more expedient-- and better for the article-- to get ANI attention to Ajona's editing, have him banned from editing Selena articles, and revert it to a featured version? At one point, I worked on it (not sure if that was at FAC or FAR), and it wasn't too bad-- a revert is probably better for the article if Ajona has damaged it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm ... I just looked back several years, and I can't locate a revision worth reverting to-- I think FAR it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive. I asked WP:RfC if I could expand it and they were in favor of my additions. I don't know why people still think I am a bad person. Jonayo! 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My gods. FAR for sure. WAYYY overlinked. No need to link things like "backup dancer" or similar. Weird capitals: "At the time, Selena was not of Legal drinking age." Lack of knowledge of the context: "drew a crowd of nine thousand to the summit in Houston." "The Summit" is/was an arena in Houston, not a "summit" of a mountain. Patoski is listed in teh further reading, but it's used extensively as a source. Bad. And very very bloated. Why is "The gun used to kill Selena was later destroyed and the pieces thrown into Corpus Christi Bay in 2002." considered encyclopedic? It belongs on a fansite, at best, not in an encyclopedia. Opinion without attribution: "Tejano music has not recovered since the death of Selena...". All that from a quick look at the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those can be easily fixed though. The part about the gun is encyclopedic and has been there since the article was promoted and passed with that statement. The last sentence is sourced and true. Jonayo! 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are just the things that jumped at me. They are just the tip of the iceberg with the problems with the article - FAR is the correct spot for it. And it needs a severe cut of prose and bloat. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg indeed - the article is riddled with problems. From POV content to nonsensical sentences that are, to put it mildly, grammatical nightmares. I worked on the article a bit a few months back and I also found problems with sourcing (ie sources present that do not support the content it cites, etc.). Ajona asked for opinions about the article recently and quite frankly, I do not believe (s)he is terribly interested in other editors' opinions about the article as most comments about the content are being met with responses that basically dismiss the many problems present. I think Ajona is under the impression that as long as something has a source, it belongs in the article. My suggestion to Ajona was to look at a version that predates the additions that introduced all the problems to at least get an idea of what the article should contain. In reality, I believe the article should probably just be rollbacked because, at the present, it needs to be extensively pruned and reworked to bring it up to at least basic Misplaced Pages standards. I don't know if a topic ban is in order, but a mentor might be highly beneficial. Pinkadelica 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies again Pinkadelica. I asked at WP:RfC if I can expand the article because no one did not want me to do anything. So they took in favor of my additions because of WP:BOLD. But like I said on the talk page, I didn't leave the article for other users to clean up after myself, I left a section where I asked users if anything should be fixed. At first no one even commented on it until months later. I am a guy btw :) and no one would even want to mentor me after looking at my history - they would all run away just like the first two I had :( Jonayo! 22:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(OD) The October 13, 2010 version of the article appears relatively stable. Reverting to that version is the best idea atm. Just follow the link, open the edit tab and save. Brad (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

However, that goes against the WP:RfC (that I had requested) and the ethos of WP:BOLD. Jonayo! 22:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jona, "Be Bold" does not mean "Be Reckless". You have added added more than 6,000 words of text, including several new sections and large-scale expansions of existing material, to a featured article. Nobody is saying that you are a "bad person" for doing this, but it is clear that you took on a task to which your skills as a writer are unequal. In a recent peer review nomination you wrote: "But as you may know, my English isn't very good..." I accept that you edited the Selena article in good faith, but with little knowledge of or regard for the procedures for making wholesale revisions to a featured article, and in blind disregard for your own shortcomings. Your editing efforts are I think misguided rather than malicious. It would benefit you, and the encyclopedia, if you voluntarily desisted from editing Selena articles for a while, and accepted mentoring. As to the article itself, under the provisions set out in WP:OAS I think it should be reverted to its FAR "keep" version of 13 October 2010, as a starting point for any further development of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad, I've reverted. If Ajona's destructive editing continues, ANI might be a good venue-- I haven't looked at this version for WIAFA compliance, but it is most assuredly better than what's there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll stay away from the Selena article but I'll try and ask other editors if they can improve it with suggestions instead of just expanding it myself. However, I know that no one will want to add anything I would suggest as I tried that for a year. Well SandyGeorgia continues to call me a "destructive editor" even though I pointed out that I did not expand the article without any authority and I did not leave the article to be improve my other users. Also, I tried the mentorship but no one wants to even mentor me. I had three past mentors and two of them left me for unknown reasons. I asked my third mentor but hes way too busy in RL. Jonayo! 23:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I did no such thing ("call you a destructive editor"): I said "destructive editing". That you may have done it in good faith doesn't help the article, but the editing is not the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well "destructive editing" isn't a nice thing to say either. How was my edits even destructive if I asked for permission to expand the article with the content? Jonayo! 23:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AJona1992, you yourself wrote in the second peer review "The article is currently a WP:FA, however, with my additions, it no longer meets the criteria ...", which seems to me to indicate that you recognize that your edits "destroyed" the FA status of the article. The most important thing here is the encyclopedia - edits and actions which improve it are good and to be sought, while those that make its quality worse are to be avoided and prevented (and undone). Despite everything you may think, this is not about you. Ruhrfisch _><>° 01:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is adequate notification of issues on a FA that could trigger a FAR?

I have started a FAR on Encyclopædia Britannica, but this FAR was delayed, because a reviewer claimed that there was inadequate notification that had to be on the talk page according to FAR rules. I nominated the Encyclopædia Britannica article for a FAR, because the article text fails criteria 2c, because of inadequate in-line referencing of the prose and also no referencing in the table. There has been a very visible {{Out of date|section|date=August 2010}} template on the article on a poorly referenced section for about one year, and so potential editors had plenty of notice to revise the article already, and I feel that extra notification and discussion on the talk page about a FAR unduly delayed improvements or de-listing. The maintenance template was recently removed with this edit having been on the page for more than one year. The "Out of date" template invites users to make improvements by saying; "Please help improve the article by updating it." I think that notification with this maintenance template that has been in the main text of the article for more that a year is adequate notification, and, in cases like this, I see no need for additional notification on the talk page of a Featured Article prior to triggering a FAR. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The maintenance template and the FAR notification are two separate issues. The FAR instructions require that you start a section on the talk page of the article signalling your intention to and reasons for nominating the article for FAR, and give interested contributors a week or two to respond. A maintenance template does not count as an FAR notification. The talk-page step does delay delisting, but need not delay improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I understood the gist of Snowman's comment to be that he wanted to change the notification rule so that if there was a maintenance template in place for a certain period of time (a year?) then the requirement for a talk page notification would be waived. I don't agree with this, for reasons I have given previously, but I am very interested to hear the community's input on the matter. One quibble, though: It was not a reviewer who said there was inadequate notification, it was a delegate (Nikki). Mainly a technicality, though. Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I agree that the notification requirement should be waived in such cases-- it's just not that hard to do, and you may discover something about why the template is there that you didn't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Maint tags aren't always accurate. I often see tags on articles that don't need to be there. I believe the original idea behind the talk page notice was to prevent frivolous nominations and it seems to work well. Brad (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What happens to a delisted article?

What happens to a delisted article? It becomes a good article or a normal one? ژیلبرت (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When an article is delisted, the article has all "class" status (Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA) removed. The projects concerned with the article can then reassess at any level other than GA or FA. When an article becomes featured it loses its GA status, so does not return to GA status when it is defeatured. Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not agree with you. articles to become featured article should be good article at first. It means being good is pre step to being featured. Then coming a level back for a featured article lead it to be a good article.--عباس ☢ ✉ 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles do not have to become a GA first; it is perfectly valid to take an A class article to FAC without going through GA. I do not see why articles should lose their GA status if they have one, because the FAR process does not re-evaluate them on GA standards, but solely on FA standards. An article that fails at FAC does not lose its GA status. The GA review outcome. if there was one, should stand unless a GAR is carried out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Technically no article at FAR has GA status - this status is removed on promotion to FA, not demotion. I'm not sure myself why that is, but I do agree that GA is not a prereq to FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times in archives (please search them). GAN and FAC are community processes, and GA or FA status can only be conferred by going through those processes. Individual WikiProjects assess at other levels. Most articles that are de-featured no longer meet even GA criteria, so assessment is removed when an article is defeatured, and it is up to individual WikiProjects to re-assess (A, B, or C-class) and GA status can only be conferred by re-submitting the article to GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC to make FA leaders elected, not appointed

An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.

TCO (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the leadership of the featured article process

An RfC on the leadership of the featured article process has been opened here; interested editors are invited to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Notifications

Folks, this is the second time I've visited a FAR to find that no notifications were done. Here we have a FAR that could be moving to FARC, but no one checked notifications. I used to do that task here-- who is doing it? Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Héctor Lavoe/archive1. How are we going to get Puerto Rican editors to work on this article if notifications aren't done, and why isn't someone checking notifications? Also, the nominator didn't address WP:WIAFA in his nomination statement, which is another trend I'm seeing here. This article needed a FAR, and I can give a list of reasons, but is someone reviewing the nominator declarations to make sure they speak to WIAFA, not just IDONTLIKEIT and ITHINKSOMETHINGMIGHTBEWRONGHERE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, it isn't necessary for nominators to state 1.a, 1.c, etc. The Lavoe nomination speaks mainly of comprehensiveness and neutrality, in my reading. The nominator posted to the article talk page, as required, about these issues and prose problems and got absolutely no response, and therefore brought it to FAR for further evaluation. That seems to be a very solid following of the nomination procedures to me. If others disagree with the nominator's opinion - well, that is what FAR is for... Dana boomer (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I notified additional WProjects tagged on the talk page (we really need to-- or at least we used to-- make a good effort to bring people in for article improvement, not just delist). Yes, we need specifics as to what is wrong with articles as relates to WIAFA-- otherwise folks don't know what needs to be fixed. That nomination statement is wholly deficient, and gives no guidance to anyone as to how to work on the article, and the nominator statement was based on opinion, and gave no sources. That wouldn't work at FAC, and shouldn't work at FAR. In the event someone shows up, I'll list the deficiencies as it should have been done. FAR is for saving as many stars as possible, improving as many articles as possible-- not just for running 'em through and delisting as many as possible. And you can't expect to bring people in to work on articles if you don't do notifications, and don't explain exactly what work is needed, per the criteria. The decline at FAR can be addressed by going back to the kind of work that was done here years ago. If you disagree with the FAR instructions that were established long ago, then please open an RFC to change them, but don't just ignore them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)