Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:28, 12 February 2012

• WT:FAC

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image or source checks pending

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5 (reliability of sources and spotcheck for accuracy and close paraphrasing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1 (See my comment at the bottom of the page: I noted two images with iffy license claims, but nominator was not responsible for uploading them to Commons and so doesn't know how to substantiate PD-old. I'm not sure what to advise, so a second review may be helpful. Removal? Substitution?) María (yllosubmarine) 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me look in on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4 (WP:RS check) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hadji Ali/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing question

Hi everybody, I've started getting involved in FAC lately and am thus far enjoying myself. I have a question about reviewing though. usually if I'm reviewing an article I just look at the prose for errors and clarity and manual of style issues. I typically don't think about the images/if it a neutral comprehensive survey of all the literature/if all the references are sufficiently reliable. So, my question is, how should I qualify my support (without writing all this each time)? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I wish everyone would-- per WP:WIAFA. For example,

• Support, 1a only, or
• Support, 1a and 4 only, or
• Oppose, 2 (reason) ...

Some of the FAC pages are insanely long, with narry a mention of Support/Oppose or WIAFA-- one wonders if a FAC page is longer than the article, why someone hasn't opposed? On a separate note, I've often wondered why folks work on prose if reliable sources aren't in place-- that is, if the text has to be rewritten anyway? This was an issue I raised with the GOCE eons ago, when it was new-- why are folks spending time improving prose that is plagiarized or will need to be removed if it is not reliably sourced? So, I always find it curious that people can work on prose independent of sourcing. I'm all ears :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about video game articles when it comes to references. They tend to use a lot of websites, and it's hard for me to figure out which ones are OK/questionable so I just look at prose for them (though I've only reviewed one Video Game article so far). So, for the type of review I mentioned above, I would support on 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, and 2b? (Agreed about the GOCE, BTW). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Guilty with an explanation, Your Honor. If I have copyedited and supported the article in a previous review, and I got the sense from that review (even if I don't have proof) that there aren't significant sourcing issues, then I will generally try to copyedit the article again as soon as it gets to FAC, before the article changes so much that I have to start again from scratch. OTOH, if I haven't copyedited the article before, I support what Sandy is saying here ... before we know whether the article is faithful to the sources, it can actually hurt the FAC reviewing process to copyedit and/or support on prose, because copyediting includes fixing a number of problems which are sometimes better left unfixed if the sources haven't been examined. The writers' original words can be important clues that they were confused, or that the voices aren't their own. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That, too ... but generally, why are we copyediting (in many cases, almost entirely rewriting) articles at FAC anyway? Are we changing our purpose from "does this article meet criteria" to "if we keep this here for a month, we can pull it over the line"? Is that what folks want? Is that part of why we don't have enough reviewers? Because "in the olden days", you just had to say if an article met or didn't meet WP:WIAFA, and provide examples. I'm concerned about reiewer burden when I see FACs that are longer than articles, with narry a support or oppose, or articles that have been copyedited three times while they're at FAC, and yet when I read them after they're mature for promotion, I find significant prose errors introduced after the copyedits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria... Too many nominators disregard this. So do many reviewers, alas. The only solution I can think of is to allow delegates to close nominations where it is clear that a peer review or a major copyedit is taking place. Would that be unreasonable? Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You've still got 14 days.... Brianboulton (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems equivalent; there was general agreement that this can be done last time it was discussed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that was the consensus, and that was how I was operating, and ... well. Delegates have to respect reviewers, and reviewers are digging in and pulling them over the line, and nominators are screaming at delegates when they close them. So, instead of a new RFC, we end up with "elections". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, are you suggesting that spotchecks should be conducted before copyediting? Spotchecking can be a gutbusting process. It certainly helps for someone to have done the "are these sources even acceptable / formatted correctly" before spotchecking. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• My observation is that Nikkimaria generally gets in there pretty quickly to do a check for reliability of sources, but sometimes folks plow ahead on copyediting (which I wonder why we're doing at FAC anyway) in spite of Nikkimaria having identified iffy sources. If sourcing isn't in order, what are we copyediting? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both can be fixed; I see no reason why one or the other should be prioritized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• You'd want to check for issues with close paraphrasing, etc. after copyediting, to avoid regression. --Laser brain (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Andy, are you saying that after I copyedit something, someone should do another spotcheck to see if I accidentally made the text (which was not previously a close paraphrase) into a close paraphrase? We're having a hard enough time finding people to spotcheck once ... and also, it's not a copyright violation if I've never seen the source, and I accidentally use the same word the source used ... that's my work, not theirs. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm saying that it doesn't seem logical to spend time doing spotchecks if substantive prose issues have been identified. The prose can and will change, and you'd want to check the "final draft". --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sturm, the problem is (for example), there's a nomination up now that has been up for two months, reliability of sources was questioned right off the bat when the nom was new, reviewers plowed ahead anyway and copyedited and supported, and there it sits-- two months later, still unresolved questions on reliable sources. Brilliant prose is nice, but WP:V is policy, so I can never understand why articles that don't have clear sources are supported. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, reviewers should explain which exact criteria they support. Its much more helpful for a writer to know what to take care of in the current and future nominations.--WillC 16:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• If the article is factually correct, then it should only be a matter of digging up better sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• But wouldn't that be assuming that a) the material based on "bad" sources is actually correct, and b) better sources are available? Neither is necessarily true. For example, when prepping Ray Farquharson for review, I found an unreliable website that said he was knighted. That may or may not be true, I don't know, but I couldn't find any reliable source that said so, so it wasn't included in the "finished" article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since Hawkeye7 writes MilHist articles, and I suspect his statement is more often true in that realm than in say, popular culture realms, he might not realize just how often copyedited text turns out to be ... deleted as wrong ... in other types of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• If at an FAC I am reviewing sources, I will say "Sources are OK" or words to that effect, subject to issues I have raised being resolved. I don't say "Support on the basis of sources only", neither does Nikkimaria, neither did Ealdgyth when she reviewed sources regularly. The same applies to image reviews (which I don't often do). I believe that a "support" declaration should be taken as covering the whole article, though it might in some circumstances be qualified by something like "subject to all issues concerning sources and images being resolved". Basically I will not declare support unless I am satisfied all the criteria have been met, and of course I'm prepared to rely to an extent on the judgements of others. I think supports based only on selected criteria are confusing, with the delegate having to weigh the value of each declaration. And after all, we don't qualify our opposes; an oppose is an oppose is an oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 18:28, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

• That's exactly my position as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, I recall that Tony1 did qualify his opposes, typically in the form of "Oppose, 1a)". Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is realistic given how complex FACs are. That there are independent source, grammar and image reviews attests to this. If we look at this current review for example, you can see separate source and image reviews. One reviewer, who has done a great deal of research into the Korean War, marks a support with: As far as content is concerned at least, it contains everything it should. This is clearly a content review. It is precisely the kind of review that we want. Given how difficult is is to get good reviewers, I don't want to turn reviewers away by insisting that they review everything. Rather, I would prefer to encourage reviewers to take on a part of an article, a single aspect or perhaps a single section. My preference is for the delegate to synthesise the reviewers' reports. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it's perfectly realistic, just as Brian says. Nobody is asking that reviewers look at everything, but if another reviewer has checked images, sources, whatever, why should I not take them at their word, perhaps after checking for myself if something doesn't seem quite right to me? Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree: otherwise we'd descend to the situation at DYK reviewing, where apparently reviewers are expected to review everything (but don't). Tony (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Source spot-checking

What are the requirements for source spot-checking and is this something anyone can help with? If I review an FA, what proportion of citations should I check for it to be considered properly spot-checked? How much information should I then post to the FAC page? SpinningSpark 15:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Spinning-- there are quite a few nominations listed in a section above that are awaiting spotchecks.

Since the Halloween 2010 discovery of copyvio in a Featured article, we have attempted to have every nominator see at least one spotcheck of their sources for 1) accurate representation of sources and 2) no close paraphrasing or copyvio issues. It would be optimal if every FAC could be checked, but we just don't have the resources, so at minimum, I tried to make sure every nominator was checked, on the notion that it just doesn't make sense to expend resources on, for example, checking Brianboulton nominations when he has never been discovered to have sourcing issues.

How many sources to check depends on what you find as you begin checking-- if there are concerns, you'd check more.

What to check for? We're looking for too close paraphrasing, text not accurately represented by sources, text not in sources, etc. Close paraphrasing can involve some judgment, so if you find anything iffy, you can just post it to the FAC and let others decide.

I hope we'll hear from others here, re how they spotcheck. It would be good if we could somehow standardize this, in the sense of asking nominators to link to any of their previous sourcechecks, and keeping records on what sourcechecks have been done on what nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple questions, how many sources need to be checked and is spource spotchecking meant to be the final step? LittleJerry (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy provided an answer above about the number of sources. I will generally check 2 or 3, looking for close paraphrasing, mis-attribution, etc. If I find problems, I oppose the nomination and suggest a full source audit. This task should not fall on the shoulders of FAC reviewers—the nominator should go seek an interested party, preferably someone familiar with the topic and ideally someone with access to some or all of the print sources used. Sourcing problems indicate that the article has not been properly prepared for FAC, and the nomination should be withdrawn. The source check does not have to be the final step of the FAC, but it should not be done if the article is undergoing copyediting. --Laser brain (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I know User:Fifelfoo wrote a very detailed how-to a while back (I think for the Bugle?). Iridia (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of this: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/News/June_2011/Op-ed? Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Sandy's comment "It would be good if we could somehow standardize this, ..." it may be worth considering a checklist similar to the one often used in GAN: Template:GAList. A FAC checklist could be like that, with the addition of a couple more items such as CopyVio check, spell check, disambig check, Source check, etc. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of those have to be redone if editing takes place during the FAC. And I think objections to templates and checklists have been raised before. I suspect what delegates are looking for is a mix of 'checklist' style reviewing and 'holistic' reviewing, with them ultimately pulling things together to decide if the article has met the criteria. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest reading all citations of the most-cited source that you can access. I suggest sampling sources at 10% of total sources, and 10% of total citations minimum. I suggest interrogating sources to determine which are most likely to involve a failure to support claims, close paraphrase, or copyvio—and spotchecking those. I strongly suggest that when you note your spotcheck to the FAC, that you say how you did it; and, which sources you checked!  :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Would you be able to advise on the best way to state such concerns in a FAC review? I know from personal experience that this can be a sensitive subject. Close paraphrasing in particular is something that can be argued over, with some insisting that something is close paraphrasing, with others insisting it is not. What then? Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  I like to quote the source, giving a fullsome academic citation. Then I like to quote the article. Then I provide an analysis of how it is a close paraphrase with detail. So for example:

  Source: "I walked my dog down the road, and then had a porter at the lady's bar of my pub." Kevinson, Kevin, "Places I like to Drink," Kevinson's bumperbook of Kevinsonisms London: Palgrave, 2012: pp110–112.

  Misplaced Pages: "He was walking down the road, and then drank beer in the side bar of the hotel."

  Close-paraphrase from verb clause, " down the road, and then"

  Close-paraphrase from sentence order, "Walking" "road" "drank" "location in" "hotel."

  And similarly for trivial inversions containing the same fact set per sentence / per para.

  I mostly pick close paraphrases from sentence order, identical sentence composition, and from verb clauses. I'd also suggest that identical sentence order in a paragraph starts to become very very worrying, and again can be evidenced. The largest reason I've spotted for close paraphrase is inappropriate mention of facts that aren't significant. When noting shocking encyclopaedism in an article, it pays to be fulsome with the explanation. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  My experience in two venues, DYK and FAC, has been that if people are convinced of something, they will argue about it rather than talk about it, even if a full analysis is done like you say. And sometimes with justification. Different topics areas have different breadth of sources (some have only limited sources, so internalising and summarising is far more difficult), and some are very fact-dense, so again, summarising can be difficult. And if a source presents something chronologically, sometimes that is how it needs to be presented in the article as well. I should give examples, but those involved at DYK and FAC would probably not like it if I did that. Is there a way to use actual current examples and discuss them somewhere? And have you ever encountered a situation where someone disagreed with you on a spot-check, and what did you do at that point? Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  For historical reasons: here's an example of why we do it. It's also an example of how to do it. Note the page has since been scrubbed and rewritten but not by the original editor who has hundreds of unscrubbed pages littering this place. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  If people won't listen to expert reason, I oppose with a copyright and/or plagiarism rationale, and rely on the delegates to note that my opposition relates to basic encyclopaedic standards. Last time there was a kerfuffle I looked for an appropriate expert noticeboard, but the copyright crew don't deal with issues like this. (Close paraphrase is both a copyvio and plagiarism.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Thank-you both. I do have further questions, but I'll take this up at Fifelfoo's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've done one (Franco-Mongol alliance). Let me know if that was all right and I might do another one sometime once I have recovered from the shock of just how long that took. SpinningSpark 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• That looks like a good spotcheck for me. I prefer to put "good" cites in a single line Checked okay (fns 23, 33, 43, 53, etc...), and break out only the concerning ones / AGF ones. Yes, spotchecking takes ages. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about including speculatory material

Would an FA biography be expected to include speculatory theories about someone's personal life? I'm talking about my nomination for Katharine Hepburn: the issue about sourcing that came up in the FAC page today made me question if I should be including the speculation that she was a lesbian/bisexual. It's a fairly well known rumor but it really is nothing more than speculation, not based on any solid research and dismissed by people who knew her. But I wanted to check now before the issue was potentially raised by a reviewer (as being in breach of NPOV, or something). --Lobo512 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The question you should always ask is: what do the reliable sources do? If this speculation is prominent in reliable sources (e.g., academic biographies), it should be covered; if it's limited to fansites, it shouldn't be. Ucucha (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Well I wouldn't say there have been any "academic biographies" about Hepburn yet, unfortunately, but it is a central argument of William Mann's Kate: The Woman Who Was Katharine Hepburn and that claims to be a serious biography. It has been widely discredited by people who knew her though. James Curtis writes (author of an excellent Spencer Tracy bio) "the book inspired a backlash from fans, relatives, and friends who often knew the situations far better than the people assigned to review it". None of the other bios I've read suggest she was bisexual, although there are some other seriously trashy ones that do. My inclination is not to bother including it (which is why I haven't), but I don't want to face challenges of "not presenting all viewpoints". --Lobo512 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

One more thing, Curtis' book definitely would count as an "academic biography" (extremely well researched and sourced), and a considerable amount of that includes Hepburn. And like I said, he dismisses the Mann book. He does say "a thorough criticism of will have to wait until an authorized biographer is granted access to Hepburn's journals", but he hasn't incorporated any of Mann's "research" (which also claimed Tracy was gay) into his own book. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I've decided it's for the best to include a brief reference to it. By a bizarre coincidence, I logged in this morning to find an ISP editor had added a comment related to this speculation (the same guy Mann used as his source that Hepburn & Tracy were gay has published his own book ). So that felt like a sign, heh. If someone thinks it's inappropriate, however, I'll remove it. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with Cosmo Gordon Lang, the bachelor archbishop who was subject to unproven charges of gayness, during and after his life. Nothing was proven, but I thought it necessary to mention the rumours briefly, without dwelling on them. You appear to have done much the same thing, and I think that's fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw out a few more examples: James Dean, Anderson Cooper, Shepherd Smith, and Whoopie Goldberg are all gay/bisexual who did/have adamantly avoided discussing the topic in public, though it is essentially an open secret. Ucucha's position is correct - we should defer to the reliable sources and do what they do. Raul654 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Very sensible. For example, we are keeping out the fringe theories that have recently arisen about Richard Nixon and the claims that John Diefenbaker had an illegitimate son. If such things become substantiated by multiple mainstream writers, every case being different, then you cover them neutrally and tastefully. Giving them no more or less emphasis than anything else in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think speculatory stuff shouldn't be included unless/until it is accepted by multiple writers? --Lobo (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that the terms we use today for lesbian and bisexual were not widely used when Hepburn was young. I'm sure you know the arguments revolving around Eleanor Roosevelt, who had an intense relationship with Lorena Hickock, evident in a series of letters they wrote to each other. Roosevelt discussed acts of affection we would most certainly connect with being a lesbian in today's society, but in the mindset of someone writing in the 1930s, who had grown up around the turn of the 20th century, it might be jarring and confusing for her to be identified as a lesbian. At the time, "lesbian" would be synonymous with a mental disorder, specifically a woman who refuses to adhere to the strict gender roles of the day. Ditto for Jane Addams, who had two long-term relationships with women. Affection between women at this time was very different from what it is now and completely free from neat boxy terms like "homosexual" or "bisexual". So the way you might present it is "Historian X documents relationships Hepburn had with Woman A, B, and C," and have the historian's words identify Hepburn as possibly lesbian or bisexual, then rebut with the evidence against. Or decline to place a label on her at all. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no there is no documentation to suggest she had any sort of relationship with a woman. She had very close friendships with a few women, and sometimes lived with them. The speculation more or less stems from that (along with her fashion sense and small behavioural things like that). I agree that sexuality wasn't so boxed-in back then, but people certainly knew of homosexuality and there were definitely rumors that she was gay. I don't think it's inappropriate to say "rumors have persisted that Hepburn was a lesbian or bisexual" - especially since they are just rumours, and there's no specific examples to cite. And the source I'm referencing specifically says "Rumors accusing the pants-wearing actress of lesbianism date to the early thirties" (my emphasis). --Lobo (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your first two sentences are confusing. Friendships are, of course, relationships, and it was fashionable (actually, it was virtuous and honorable too) in the 19th century for women to have very close friendships with each other, often living with each other, with all the trappings of writing each other love letters and such. Very little of this written documentation addresses outright sexual acts. This behavior now we call "lesbian" or we raise an eyebrow and wink at it, warranted little suspicion or character questioning until after World War II. You might also consider that when accusations of homosexuality--particularly for a woman--became enough of a weapon to be considered a rumor, it meant that the woman in question had quite a lot to lose. Such rumors may have been spread by people simply wishing to kill Hepburn's career. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what your ultimate point is...do you think it's appropriate to include a reference to this or not? Because that's all I'm trying to find out. In a nutshell: there were rumours that she was a lesbian (I don't know the intricacies of these rumours, but I really don't think they were that different from any rumours you'd get now..and the majority of time we're talking about is after WW2); a couple of trashy biographers have attempted to prove this was the case (that she had romantic relationships with women and/or was not interested in men); there is no eye-witness or documentary evidence to support this speculation (while there is concrete evidence of heterosexual relationships); people who knew her have denied it; the majority of Hepburn bios (and the brand new Spencer Tracy bio) present her as heterosexual, and do not suggest any of her female friendships were in anyway romantic. So - warrants a mention or not? --Lobo (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just finished one of the trashy biographies of Hepburn and I think that it should be mentioned as speculative and that nothing can be confirmed one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck swap, anyone?

The articles I've currently nominated, Nyon Conference (FAC), needs spotchecks - there are PDF articles that cover the vast majority of it I can provide to an email address. If someone takes this on, I'm more than happy to do the same for another nomination if the FAC in question has online sources (Google Books, for example) or they can provide me with enough. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, Grandiose, I completed spotchecks on that article several days ago and doublechecking to make sure I'm not going crazy noted my findings on the review page - you're clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Nikkimaria, I have no idea how I overlooked this. Will attend to shortly. I would extend the above principle to any FACs I have in the future. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Made a start on spotchecking 1907 Tiflis bank robbery for the good of the 'pedia. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Submarine articles

Can short (less than 750 words) articles about SSBNs, the operational nature of which is heavily classified, become FAs? Or are those articles can only advance to, and be perpetually stuck at, GA? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they hypothetically could make FA at less than 750 words. My pagesize script is showing Tropical Depression Ten (2005) at 625 words, and that is featured. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, Misplaced Pages:Featured articles/By length is a really fascinating page. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the FAC page for Tropical Depression Ten, much of the support for its promotion seems quite begrudging. I imagine that with an understandable cap on sources size won't be seen as an obstacle but it might mean that the other aspects of the article will need to stand up to a much higher degree of scrutiny in way of compensation. Small but perfectly-formed, as they say. GRAPPLE X 05:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess if it were easy to get <1000 word articles to featured status, a lot more people would be doing it! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thing shown by Tropical Depression Ten is that FA has become a much more difficult and torturous process since that time. SpinningSpark 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I may be kidding myself here, but I'm *only thinking* about bringing a host of articles abut SSBNs (American nuclear-powered submarines that carry nukes) to FA. They'd be really easy to write, certainly much easier than Michael Jackson. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 03:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to challenge them on the grounds of completeness, but that's a problem with information that should be in an article, but isn't available and how that's treated. Personally, I tend to be rather strict on such things at the A or FA-class level. Some articles just can never qualify for either of those two grades, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With the caveat that I'm not exactly a subject matter expert, I'm quite sure there's a lot more out there that could be written about them than 750 words. There's whole books on the subject which could be used. Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule I agree with Storm that some articles just won't qualify for A/FA, and that's one reason we have GA -- as an end in itself, not simply a stepping stone to higher things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sp33dyphil: This topic seems to resurface every few months. I'm sure you've now seen that there is no straight answer, but that people will be all over your article like flies on a rump roast trying to discover which sources you've neglected. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And, those very short articles are typically stalled at FAC for a very long time, since reviewers don't like to engage them, so they aren't a good route to a win, btw. YOu could probably get two serious articles through FAC in the time you could get one quickie through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN-730), the service history section is blank, which one could see is typical if that is classified. I'm sure it could not get through FAC without a service history - otherwise it is presumably just a standard member of its class, and one could repeat almost the same article for each vessel in the class. Better to put the class article up. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(repetition) Do the class article. You can pull Janes and Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet and then get a bit more and go to town. The individual sub articles will have very low viewership, will be repeating class info, and the interesting aspects of the ship in terms of its service history or modifications are mostly classified. All you do is some simple things like dates of refueling. It's really churning, Sp33dy, to do these individual sub articles. Besides boomers never do anything interesting, just hide with pride and wait for a phone call to end the world. Fast attacks really do play all the games from the movies and have interesting service histories, but then that is all TS SCI for good reasons and even any sources you get that opine on such need to be couched with a caveat that they are speculating, etc.TCO (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

@Raul654 Sorry, I should've made myself much clearer. What I was referring to were individual ballistic submarines such as USS Ohio (SSBN-726), USS Georgia (SSGN-729) and USS Rhode Island (SSBN-740). Of the five (US, UK, France, USSR/Russia, China) traditional nuclear powers, the US is about the only country that declassifies its command logs and documents years following the events (, ). Although these are no way as transparent as surface vessels, the US is much more transparent that the remaing four countries, who put thick blankets around the operations of their ballistic subs. Yes, SSBN is much much easier to write, as there are plentiful resources to choose from.

@Sandy Thanks for the valuable tip.

@JohnBod After a short search, there are documents about operations about the boat, but those are about the only reliable sources you'll get for the article. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 09:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

<cough> Reliable? Recommending someone digest pure primary documents and commit original research on a history article? The appropriate place to use those logs is in a reliably (preferably high quality) publication that we could then cite. We aren't in the business of conducting vessel histories, we're in the business of writing encyclopaedia articles based off other people's vessel histories. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, can you find any reliable secondary sources that could help fatten an article? Besides, doesn't the guideline that recommends the usage of secondary sources exist to dissuade editors from adding OR statements and to adhere to NPOV? I can't see any problems regarding such issues in those sources, as they are 100% observations, and as such, are hard facts. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 09:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No, just no—these are documents produced by a portion of a military of a government, all with certain biases. Military reports regularly systematically under-contextualise their subjects, and don't speak to meanings. These "hard facts" turn into limp opinions in the hands of editors; not because our editors are flawed human beings, but because the facts were never "hard" to begin with. See Historiography for a start. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think the military service would contextualise the operations of its SSBNs, which are designed to be ultra-stealthy. Remember, the sources you're reading are supposed to be classified, but they were released to the public years after the events documented in them had taken place. As I said above, and I will illiterate further, the whole point of Misplaced Pages is to produce a reliable Misplaced Pages, how? Mostly by using facts from high-quality secondary sources to compose articles. There are some subjects for which such sources do not readily and widely exist. In such case primary sources may have to be called upon. The purpose of WP:SECONDARY is too discourage editors from inserting OR and adhere NPOV, is it not? What about a primary source which tells black and white almost 100% of the times? "The Blue Crew conducted a series of acoustic trials followed by one month of Demonstration and Shakedown Operations. This shakedown period culminated in the firing of a Trident C-4 missile." -- now I don't see a lot of OR and NPOV in that. Well, maybe "a series of acoustic trials", as it can be three or ten acoustic trials, but my point is, these sources list observations, which are facts, which are in turn desired by WP, isn't it? Also, they're "hard facts" because they don't include opinions, which are produced by the authors. I feel that some of your reasoning are based on non-verifiable findings -- please produce some evidence if you do have 'em. Having said that, I withdraw my comment above that are the only RS, and I will try to find more secondary sources. --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo here. Short stubs are possible, but using vessel logs to try and pad things out, or write an original account that has never been written before, is problematic. If no-one else has yet written a history of the individual vessels, Misplaced Pages is not the place to start. Primary sources, as well as being used sparingly, have to be bolstered and supported by secondary sources. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Four more days

I should say here and now that I'm petrified that I'll go on automatic pilot some day after my resignation is effective, and accidentally close a FAC !! If I do, please Assume Old Memory, and quietly revert me  :) I'd appreciate it if someone else would start updating the urgents; that task was exhausting even when I was delegate, I wished others would help, and don't want to do it now :) I've said many times here that if the community doesn't use and update that page, we should send it up for deletion. Also, I don't know how to fix the editnotice at WP:FA, so will some techie person remove my name from there on the 7th? Thanks in advance for your forebearance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I used to only edit the "urgents", but since have had a change in philosophy & think hitting earlier is better. Do a poll thingie here on FAC and ask if anyone relies on it heavily. If not, delete. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I use it, but I wouldn't say that I rely on it. If I'm out-of-pocket for a few days (or months, as was recently the case) it helps me prioritize. I will volunteer to update it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I use it too (or I did when I was reviewing last year, haven't reviewed in some time now, but that is for reasons unrelated to the current discussions as I've been consciously trying to write and edit articles more instead, albeit not entirely successfully). One way of getting an idea of how many people use or did use it is to see how many user pages it is transcluded on. If it has become unused, I suggest marking historical rather than deletion, as that enables it to be revived later if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing link (FAC RFC still open)

The link to the RFC has disappeared from this page as a result of bot archiving. Is the RFC closed? If not, maybe someone will reinstate it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It closes tomorrow-- you can find a link at the top of the archive identified as RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't need it myself – but you know how conspiracy theories begin... Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here we go: Misplaced Pages:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the info above-- no closing date in sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for consensus on promotion?

I assume Raul and his delegates exercise some discretion to not promote if they see real problems even in a nomination with only supports, but I also take it they will not promote even the finest content without some supports on which to base a finding of consensus. Is there a rule of thumb on the number of supports that is considered sufficient for consensus at FAC?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never promoted articles with fewer than three supports. Of course, three supports are not a guarantee for promotion if there are issues that the supporters did not address; for most articles I'll also want to see an explicit image review, source review, and spotcheck. Before promoting an article, I'll read over it and see whether I can find any glaring issues that the reviewers missed. Ucucha (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to expand on what Ucucha has said, another thing delegates generally like to see is that the supports don't all come from members of the same wikiproject as the nominator, e.g. (to take an example close to my heart!) MilHist articles aren't supported purely by MilHist people. This isn't so much that bias is suspected, but simply recognising that it's good to have fresh eyes to pick up jargon and so on. Delegates giving a nom the once-over can accomplish the same thing, of course, but best it comes from someone else again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC is not a !vote, meaning the number of Supports is not entirely relevant; the question is, has every aspect of WP:WIAFA been examined, by both content experts and uninvolved editors. There is no set number of Supports to assure promotion, but on the other hand, articles are not promoted with less than three Supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. I was really looking for the minimum support threshold only. Three it is. I am certainly aware we are not counting heads nor conducting a straight straw poll.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC workshop, panels or talks at Wikimania?

In case you don't follow the signpost or village pump closely, I want to make sure FAC people know about Wikimania 2012. It's in Washington, DC this year, in July and hope to see a good number of content people there. The call for participation is open (and travel scholarships) and I think hearing about aspects of the FAC process and content issues at Wikimania would be fabulous. Types of sessions can be panels, talks, workshops, etc. and there will be an unconference day which is more suited for working sessions, discussions, workshops, or whatever. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

The pre-RFC discussion brought up some areas that bear discussing. In particular:

• Increasing the quantity and quality of reviews and reviewers (including ways of giving reviewers feedback)
• Whether or not it would be worthwhile to clerks for FA-related processes (and what they would do if the position existed)
• Emergency FA blurbs which could be used in case of a snafu. (Creating the blurbs is no problem. I'd be more concerned about defining the circumstances under which someone is allowed to 'break the glass' and make the swich, and who that person or persons will be)

Now, given that we've spent most of the last two months discussing/arguing about FA, first on this page and then later on the RFC, I know that everyone is probably more-than-a-little tired of this conversation. I agree. So we're not going to talk about them just yet. Everyone relax, take the time to think about them, and them I'll kick off a new discussion in a few weeks.

Second, as promised, now that the RFC is concluded, I'm going to appoint some new FA delegates. They are user:GrahamColm and user:Ian Rose. I'm confident they'll do a fine job. Raul654 (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)