Wikipedia talk:Featured article review: Difference between revisions

WikiProject FAR Notifications; view; edit;
Biographies	notify here
Medicine	notify here
Military history	notify here
Novels	notify here
Video games	notify here
Regional notice boards	list
	Main directory

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:11, 11 July 2009

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
Galaxy	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Step 3 should be removed

Step 3 of the guide for "Nominating an article for FAR" is done automatically. Step 3 should be removed. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not usually; you submitted a FAR that had a previous FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nicer, though, if they were all automatic.. WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New FAC and FAR delegates

See this Raul654 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notification template

I've noticed recently that the template used to notify primary editors of a FAR relating to an article they've been involved in bringing to FA has a few deficiencies. By following the instructions given, the template doesn't automatically sign the name of the editor posting the template, generally leaving an unsigned (and apparently disembodied) message on someone's talk page. As well, it doesn't provide for a method of "personalizing" the message: there is no place for the editor initiating the FAR to add in the reason for the FAR, or to provide any article-specific information that would be helpful to the recipient, or to make a more direct communication. I'm completely incompetent at writing or modifying templates, but would be willing to look for others to help make the modifications if other FAR regulars think it would be helpful. Risker (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tested a field for the reasoning. I guess you can add a less rigid personal statement underneath it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me the test was eminently successful, happy to help. :-) Risker (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, Geogre has made some additional comments on my talk page suggesting improvement in the wording of the template; you might want to take a look at them and give them consideration. Risker (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only see comments by Utgard Loki. Is he Geogre? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please page ban Mattisse from FA-related pages

Day before yesterday, I received a FAR notice on my talk for Restoration comedy, the first FA I wrote, five years ago. Time flies! I do still have most of the books I used for reference, but I must admit I don't remember the page numbers in them, even approximately, so it'll take a while to add inline cites. Well, if I add them, please read on for why perhaps not. Anyway. I started a version in a text editor and went to paste it in, but I went first to FAR to see if anything was happening at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration comedy. Yeah, whaddaya know, there was, a pertly protective note from Giacomo (wouldn't you know) ... and a consoling message from Mattisse to the nominator of Restoration comedy, which seemed relevant to myself and my miserable article:

I suggest you read Featured article review Buckingham Palace so that you know what is in store for your nomination. Buckingham Palace was nominated on similar grounds. The editors who rose in defense are predicted to be the same group as for this one. Don't take it personally. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[1][reply]

How much time does one have, exactly, to fix up an old page before Mattisse gets the steam up on his/her crap machine / self-pity generator and spreads tentacles of bad faith all over it? Answer: about 8 hours apparently. Click on the notes in this post, check out how all Mattisse Crap is caused by Bad Faith (the bad faith of other people, of course). Thus, the current Crap is Giano's fault (the favoured recipient yesterday of 6 Mattisse "NPA warnings" on his talkpage in one hour; why isn't Mattisse even blocked for harassment? Risker? Sam Korn?), Casliber's fault (he opened an RfC on Mattisse, how disgraceful), Sandy's, Moni's, whoever's fault. Oh, hey, and Risker's fault, she has boldly criticized Mattisse's warnings of Giano![2] Sam Korn's fault! [3] Durova's![4] And presumably my fault for fucking "rising in defense" of Buckingham Palace, as well as for ever writing Restoration comedy, oh noes, even if it was a long time ago. Raul, Sandy, YellowMonkey, Karanacs, I request that Mattisse be page banned from FAR and FAC and related pages, so as to improve their working climate. Why are we expected to work in this poison miasma? It's intolerable, and I for one won't do it.

Incidentally, is this the same Mattisse who got her/his most recent RfC briskly closed by swearing that s/he would never again post on FAC, FAR, or any related page? Apparently so, and proud of it.[5][6] It's in other words no use to get a mere undertaking from Mattisse to not post on the FAC pages, or to post only non-poisonously. Please do a real page ban (=with blocks if it's violated). Bishonen | talk 15:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I second this motion. I can happily collaborate with, and help, most people in mainspace if they are seeking to improve or write a page, and fequently do. However, I cannot work with Mattisse, from what I can see she is on an ego trip to, make herself appear useful. Her only joy is to snear at and dengrate the hard work of others, which is why she is a parasite at FARC feeding away. When thwarted she cries with self pity and appolagies, yet it all amounts to nothing. Frankly, she is a menace and a handocap to the project. Giano (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting situation. There was a recent RFC on Mattisse, brought by Casliber (a sitting arb) and others. One of the main reasons for the RFC was Mattisse's attitude and disruption on FAR. Mattisse begged for days to have that RFC closed and mentioned (of her own free will) that she would stop commenting on FAR and FAC if the RFC were closed, see here. Since that RFC was closed on Febrary 9th, Mattisse has continued to stir the pot in FAR with such gems as this where she "warns" another editor about a "group of editors" that will treat them badly. She has also, on numerous occasions accused Casliber of "bad faith" in bringing that RFC. She also refuses to assume good faith on Casliber's part in that she will not leave the Buckingham Palace FAR alone and let Casliber go to the library to check out the books like he asked. It seems to me that most of Mattisse's actions on FAR are disruptive and just completely unhelpful. Does that mean she needs to be page banned from featured article work? I'll leave that to others to decide. Tex (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse also just added to a post almost a day later without making a note of the addition on the Buckingham Palace FAR claiming that Sandy Georgia "invited" Mattisse back to comment on FAR. Unfortunately, Sandy's comment was actually posted some 14 days before Mattisse promised to stop editing FAR. Strange behavior if you ask me. Tex (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question and most of a thought. Should a 'topic/page' ban be conducted here? or at the administrators noticeboard? Based on the previous RfC, and continueing lack of good faith in anyone who is critical of Mattise's work, I'm sad to say that some sort of enforcable rememdy seems needed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Buckingham Palace goes, there is no need to add any more commments. The cards are all on the table. Only the article contents can change this. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the page ban, with blocks for violation. Part of the problem is the pages. The F** pages are extraordinarily vulnerable to bad tempered, weak minded, or bad faith abuse. As long as there is a belief that all FA's are inherently guilty of badness (see the FAR warning template) until whoever is completely satisfied, and as long as FAC is built along the idea that any objector, and especially a voluminous or constant one, has to be mollified, then any editor who has consistent bad faith, ill temper, or dullness can become a major problem. Given that Mattisse has shown a curdled temperament coupled with a "reformist" zeal (that messianic impulse that says that only You are right, that only You know what should and should not be allowed) and a obsessive's desire to come back and back and back, he or she cannot be at the F** pages. What's more, he or she is already forsworn on the matter. I do not believe in following the personality to play the game of "is he or she nice elsewhere" or "is he or she capable of goodness": I'd like to think all persons are capable of goodness, and I'm certain that most edit well somewhere. The question is an inherently poorly constructed process and a passionately disgruntled person; they should not be together. Geogre (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not favor a ban. There is fault on both sides. It takes at least two people to have an argument. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it takes one person to say "No, Mattisse". An then she erupts and trolls, she is a menace. Just look how easy life can be, Risker though some facts could do with citing, quietly went and obtained the reference books (listd) and cited. How simple life is. This is what people should be doing. I suspect some just go keenly through pages looking for fault with no intention of helping fix that fault, then gleefully plaster a template on someones page and sit back hoping they have forced others to jump through hoops, while they go on to the next page. Like some tin-pot,second rate, acnied, junior prefect in a failing school. Such behaviour in not beneficial to the project. Giano (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined not to favor a topic ban because Mattisse adds to FA processes as much as she does not. I find her unpredictable and unsettling: excellent reviews one day and nutjob accusations from left field the next. I think that truly abusive behavior should warrant a topic ban: consistently nominating articles at FAC that are clearly not ready, vandalizing FACs or FARs, becoming belligerent during discussions and showing an evident POV in an discussion. Which leads me to the fact that Mattisse's behavior may be construed as abusive by some. In comparison to the majority of editors, her behavior certainly is provocative. I would, I suppose, compare her provocations to Giano's civility, which begs the question of how does harassment or incivility negate improving the encyclopedia. I don't mind the incivility, and after getting used to the unpredictability of Mattisse's accusations, I've learned to pretty much stuff my fingers in my ears and sing loudly, particularly when she hurls accusations at me and the articles I've written. Just because she says stuff over and over doesn't make it so. Should most of the FA regulars determine what they consider abusive? Maybe. I am just as inclined to say that editors who are apparently unable to follow the peaceful review procedures without discussions devolving into fights that drag others in to sort out their interpersonal squabbles are abusing the system just as well. But again, these contentious few also have good points, and I would not want to silence valid criticism just so we can all get along. Should ANI handle determining if a topic ban is in order? Since most editors who have come in contact in some way with Mattisse here at featured content she has also accused of being against her, that is probably the way to go. But ANI should know how beneficial her reviews are as well. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point, Moni3; I will simply state that it was only because an article that I think is an excellent ambassador for Wikipedia was at serious risk of being demoted that I finally galvanized myself to address concerns about it, despite having tolerated significant harassment from Mattisse in the past for having praised the article and having held it up (during my Arbcom candidacy) as a shining example of what Wikipedia is all about. In fact, I suspect my having done so is one of the reasons Mattisse nominated it for FAR. The cloud of behavioural volatility that you characterize so well above may be tolerable to FA regulars - but are you sure about that? How many FA regulars have faded away in the past year? How many newer FA regulars have come up from the ranks? Are editors sticking around to do multiple FAs after close encounters with one or more of the reviewers who "are apparently unable to follow the peaceful review procedures"? The level of vitriol has gotten to the point where I hesitate to assist non-"FA regular" editors striving to prepare articles for FAC for fear my username in the article history will be sufficient to incite a round of harassment on an innocent bystander. After all of that preamble, I will confirm that, yes, WP:AN is probably the best place to take any discussion with respect to topic- or page-bans. Risker (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're treading difficult water in trying to determine which editors new to the FA process leave due to specific comments. I recently read in the long discussions on the Featured Article Criteria page about sources, that the editor who nominated Jackie Robinson will not nominate another article again. I was one of the people who opposed the article, and my point was quite valid, and I was civil and encouraged the editor to go find the best sources, improve the article, and return. It's very unfortunate, but such is the atmosphere in a system that should promote the best work on Wikipedia. I know of a few editors, myself included, who did not know what to expect during an FAC and either met severe criticism or failed in an early try only to take the criticism and improve the nominated article. In this case, it is a worthwhile process that weeds out editors who are not dedicated to the topic, and strengthens the ones who are. I understand the frustration, however: I think Harvey Milk has been criticized unfairly and without grounds repeatedly by Mattisse, and she included some fairly laughable comments about me in her RfC. I think we're going to have to determine where the line is to resolve this. Mattisse's RfC was closed with ambiguous results, delaying an inevitable confrontation. There are no apparent consequences for editors who are abrasive at FAC and FAR. There are no precedents. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a precedent: Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. EE was "placed on parole" for behaviour remarkably similar to Mattisse's (with EE having an additional sockpuppetry habit), although her parole was nearly impossible to enforce because of her use of dynamic IP addresses. It's believed she eventually faded away. Three years later, such a parole would most likely come from the community (via a discussion on WP:AN) rather than a full arbitration case. Risker (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Your link does not work though, and I'm interested in reading the case. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Link fixed. Risker (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply to moni3: well, I participate a lot less than I might, due to the generally snotty comentary at both FAC and FAR. There is a bit to much mingling of specific comments on an article, and general comments about the article, subject, editors, and other unrelated materials. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, (per Risker/Moni's comments above) in terms of tools as our disposal, I don't think a full community discussion is necessary. If an editor is behaving in a consistently disruptive way, I can instruct the delegates and FAC/FAR participants to give that person's comments no weight. So they can continue editing here, but nobody is to respond or in any way give them attention. Second, I think this discussion is, at least for the time being, moot. Since Bish started this thread, Matisse has avoided participating at FAC/FAR. Third, I'm interested in continuing the discussion about why good people leave FAC/FAR, and what can be done to prevent this. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any actions or consequences that the community or you, Raul, feel should be implemented, I strongly suggest that they be outlined as soon as possible. I fear that to avoid any more intense unpleasantness, this particular matter will drop for now, only to be picked up again in the future in some other forum. I believe that ArbCom cases happen because editors engage in this kind of repeated brinksmanship. I'm the first to point myself out as someone who does this. I'd rather not deal with bothersome personality problems, leaving it for someone else so I can write articles and stuff.

I also think there is value in discussing why few editors participate at FAC and FAR. I find it interesting to wade through the differences between "snotty commentary" as Rocksanddirt said, and valid criticisms that nominators and other editors may take offense to. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, generally stay clear of FA participation because of the "snotty commentary" as Rocksanddirt so eloquently put it. Rather than review pages, why not help fix the problems? I see people listing tons of little nitpicks on the FAR page so that the primary author can go back and fix them. What exactly is keeping the "reviewer" from fixing those little nitpicks while he/she is reviewing? If there are serious problems with the article, then that's one thing, but giving long list of stuff that you could have fixed yourself is worthless. Then you have folks like Mattisse who say "delist" and then come back 10 times to say "delist, delist, delist" and demand that SOMEONE fix this terrible article. That's worse than worthless, that's disruptive. Tex (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe leaving it to the author(s) is considered politer than rewriting it yourself? I mean the author(s) may have valid comments to make. I don't mind genuine nitpicks at all but I'm sure everybody here can tell the difference between serious if tough reviews, and reviews that are used as a stick to beat people with. Why anybody should be expected to put up with the latter I don't know.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Raul, others, this situation is not one and done. Did you guys click on the diffs Bishonen provided? Seriously, folks, please look at diffs, when people supply them. I know this is no court, but it's good practice to inform oneself of the particulars that lead a person to seek a page ban. Mattisse is already forsworn, and not once.
As for the "as much good as bad" done at FAC, let's consider that for a moment. Suppose one works all week on some grand article like the "First move advantage in chess" (which, incidentally, has the most turgid, poorly written lede I've seen in a long time), and then the article goes to FAC. One has not been a "regular" at FAC, but one is eager to know what it's about. Well, Mattisse is in one of his Hyde phases, demanding a shrubbery and then that the forest be chopped down with a herring, and then listing eight screens of minutia. What impression will there be? What will be lost? Every schizophrenic performance loses people, but, and this is critical, seeing someone with boorish, bizarre behavior treated with silent assent by the others, treated with tolerance from the "people in charge," treated as "not a problem, because every so often he's not that way" will mean that the newly arrived and the long timers will say, "Beans to this! Let them have their rotten little pissing game."
When it comes to FAR, the situation is much, much, much worse. Any one having a labor of love tossed up there for irrational or meaningless cause will not simply walk away but grow hostile. A moment of "incivility" there means absolute enmity thereafter. It destroys the most critical feature: people volunteering to build. It is the very heart of a violation of the real civility necessary for Wikipedia. There should be zero tolerance for pigheadedness and pettiness when it comes to these two pages, because the consequences are at the highest level of article construction. You don't lose a kid who might fill out twenty-eight band articles: you lose the people who create long, researched, well written articles.
Mattisse has already cost long time reviewers that we know of, and he has done much more with the first timers. All of this is without even considering the quintessentially wrong practices and matter of Mattisse's "objections." A questionable demeanor is impermissible here, and a completely freakish one isn't even a matter of consideration. Geogre (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree. I think the chilling effect of Mattisse is underestimated by the old hands who've "seen it all before". Not only does it make hardworking editors feel disinclined to put up with all the unpleasantness but it also makes people feel utterly disenchanted with Wikipedia for its inability to deal with the problem. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all deserve to be disappointed and annoyed at Matisse's continued provocative behaviour. I wrote a conciliatory, "understanding" comment at that RfC, because I believe in giving users ample opportunity to adjust their behaviour. I am surprised that someone who is clearly as intelligent as Matisse is cannot get the point. What she needs to do is to recognise obtusely negative posts before she hits that button, and back off. Tony (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC) PS I should also add that we are in the midst of one of the leading experts in the topic of restoration comedy: WP is very lucky to have her on board. Rather than sniping at a distance, I contend that we should be learning from this expert as whatever citations are appropriate may be added to bring the FA up to more recent guidelines WRT these. A little respect would go a long way, yes? On the matter of Buckingham Palace, we have a beautiful article that is a joy to read. We should be full of encouragement that this be updated. I find the negativity unhelpful; FAR is supposed to concern article improvement above all. We need this type of article in WP's treaure trove. Giano should be proud of it. Tony (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change in FA criteria 1c

Please note that it now reads

well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate

YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New FAC/FAR nomination procedure

We missed the Signpost deadline, so this may run next week: Wikipedia:FCDW/FACRollout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did this slip through the cracks

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A I don't think this meets a single FA criterion. Clearly non-notable, not a single independent source, not comprehensive, poorly written. --129.10.244.225 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was promoted in 2006, and things have changed since then. You're free to nominate it for a FAR if you feel it is necessary. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many people complain about bad FAs and do not participate at FAR YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A should be reviewed as it no longer exists. 129.10.244.151 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin's attention is needed here; a featured article was redirected out of existence, with no discussion. Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title III#Merger proposal. This should be reversed, and the article can be brought to FAR, as suggested above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reverted, but please someone take it to FAR, as I believe there is a valid point being made here. Risker (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FAR started. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A/archive1. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An admin's attention is needed here; a featured article was redirected out of existence, with no discussion." A discussion was opened, no one raised any objections (thus an implied consensus). A notice was displayed on both pages for twelve days; that's easily in accordance with WP:MERGE. There was no discussion because the article is a non-notable orphan (which is exactly why it shouldn't exist to begin with). 129.10.245.24 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

Having a look through the Vancouver art, I highly doubt it would even pass a GAN. Isn't it about time is had a review? Firstly its lead has 7 paragraphs, the media and to a large extent Transportation section are both unsourced. Demographics are a mess and many sections have "citation needed" templates. BTW, I'm not familiar with FAR processes, Thankyou Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your FAR is legitimate YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Some reviewers around here might want to keep tabs on this current featured article. It was promoted on 7/28/2008, but due to the incredibly large amount of traffic after his death yesterday, the article's integrity versus the FA criteria could potentially be compromised. I'm not advocating nominating for WP:FAR, but it would be good if some experienced reviewers kept an eye on it to make sure that information stays up to par. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted User:Realist2? He may be waking up and shaking his hangover, but should be notified since he constructed the article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the high level of interest, traffic, etc, probably should not evaluate this until at the very least I'd say two weeks or more from now. WP:FAR does not seem like the right way to go at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It would be nearly impossible to even attempt to maintain high quality when the article is being viewed millions of times per day. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'd wait longer than two weeks if it were put up for FAR. The Coroner's report isn't due for 4-6 weeks and until that comes out there is going to be a lot of unfounded speculation about how he died and what caused his death. I'd extend it to a few weeks after the Coroner's report coming out. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to try to go through it while it's still front-page news; once things settle down, I'll go through and clean up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incentive system

Although people are always saying that it will generate rubbish reviews and such, in the case of FAR, I hardly think it could do any damage. Especially as the articles are getting checked out even less than the supposedly bad GA reviews, as a lot of people like to say, eg I got a bit adventurous and delisted Mumbai even though I went though the FAR was not entirely clear Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mumbai/archive1, but to me it was clearly not up to standard and I explained and elaborated further after I closed it User_talk:YellowMonkey/Archive125#Mumbai; many problems can be spotted within 2-3 minutes. The article is now at GA, see Talk:Mumbai and even after a lot of improvements it is still on hold. As for the current set of FARs there are a lot of with a lot of glaring problems but nobody is biting much even with though some are not much better than a GAN quick fail if at all and the problems can be diagnosed in 4-5 minutes. I guess an alternative would be for me to become borderline involved and make big reviews and then close it myself, which is anything but ideal, or not say/elaborate what the problem is, and then delist the article anyway.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am already closing a lot of obvious 1-0 delists with no references etc, but there are always a few that are about 70% referenced and nobody will bite YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, most reviews are one-line, because people tend to pick the FAs that they consider to be the worst, and those fished out are those with a complete lack of citations or articles where 40% of the paras have none. In those cases, there isn't really a need to bother doing a 30-minute thorough review of MOS or prose or whether the cites even match up accurately. But the problem is those articles that are fixed to some extent; while these now meet no-longer meet a quick-fail for GA, most are still clearly below FA standard, and the problems could be picked up in about 10 minutes, in less or similar detail to a standard GA review. However, there is a chronic, severe, Zimbabwean style famine of reviews on these articles. To be frank, I don't think there is any chance that an incentive would lead to reviews that would bring down teh average detail in the reviews.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An incentive system might work, but what would the incentive be? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars, etc. I should have mentioned that YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping by here per a request on my talk page. For GA Sweeps, we started it (well, I didn't come in until later) with the intention of reviewing all GAs before a certain date, which amounted to over 2,800 articles. No incentives were offered for reviewing 25, 50, 100, etc. amount of articles, it was pretty much a volunteer opportunity to help improve the quality of GAs and the reputation of the GA process. As reviews were initially completed, participation eventually wore off (see File:GASweepsReviewsbyMonth.jpg). I believe I was awarded the first barnstar for reviewing 100 articles, and then Jennavecia created a special barnstar for the process which she awarded to the top reviewers. I had initially thought the process would be done very quickly (was hoping a year tops, but I guess I was a little off), but we're now just under two years with about 800 articles left to review. I plan on awarding members at the conclusion of Sweeps barnstars based on their level of participation. I wasn't really advertising "Review 50 articles and you get a barnstar", instead hoping that volunteers would step up, complete some reviews, and finish Sweeps.

Okay, getting to FAR's incentive structure. These are just some ideas that we implemented from FA's little brother GA, and I don't know if they'd apply here or not. For the backlogged GAN, I started the first elimination drive offering barnstars for reviews, which was quickly followed by others. The backlogs dropped, we gained new reviewers, and then eventually the backlog would return, and the cycle would repeat. GAN is really backlogged now, but that can be attributed to the fact that multiple reviewers are focusing on Sweeps, editors are nominating more articles, or some editors just won't review unless there are barnstars offered. If FAR is looking to review all FAs before a certain point then an incentive structure could be created to reward reviewers at the conclusion. Or you can offer a barnstar for reviewing x number of FARs. It needs to be taken into consideration that if awards are offered, you will see an increase of participants, but their contributions should be reviewed to ensure that they are actually reviewing the article against the FA criteria. For GAN backlog elimination drives or for Sweeps we try to keep an eye on new participants to ensure that reviews are performed properly. I would say that you should determine if FAR needs to go through a Sweeps-like process or if you're offering incentives for reviewers just picking a set number of articles and leaving some comments. FA differs from GA in many ways, so I would gauge the reaction of the normal reviewers to see if they would be more likely to review more if incentives are provided and look to past reviewers to see why they stopped reviewing. Sorry for the long message, but hopefully this provides some ideas for a FAR incentive system. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a thought, so I'll throw it out and see if it's any good. In a nutshell, why not make a WikiCup for reviewers? It could cover all the main content review areas: FA, FAR, GAN, GAR, DYK, and Peer Review. It doesn't have to be a year; a month (like the GAN spring backlog elimination drive) would work too. Shubinator (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been brought up before. The main problem with such a contest is that it would encourage users to strive for quantity over quality in their reviews. Worse, there would be no way to counter that as it is impossible to objectively judge the quality of a review. By the way, you left out FLC and FLRC, and I would hardly call DYK a "review" process. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues you've raised could also apply to the GAN backlog elimination drives, but that has worked out well. Sorry for the omission; I mentally include the featured list stuff in with the featured article, since they're both "featured". DYK is a review process. It is the easiest of the three of course. DYK also suffers from a lack of reviewers at times, and more reviewers would be the point of an incentive. Shubinator (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I've helped out with reviewing submissions, mostly because I had submitted a couple and I wanted to reduce the backlog so that mine might be reviewed (in general, I think that it should be a rule across all content-related processes that if you add to the backlog, you should help relieve it by reviewing another nomination). In some ways, yes, you have to examine the article and make sure it's decent and that business is taken care of, but it's a lot more like a checklist than the other processes (inline citation, length of article and hook, date). True, some go above and beyond in checking for plagiarism or making sure the article is in a state to be linked to from the Main Page, but all in all, it can't be considered a "review-based process", although some review of nominations is needed. (I'm not putting down the DYK process in any way; these are just my thoughts) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure FAR is the same as the GAN backlog elimination. Part of the problem is (IMO) we were too gung-ho at the beginning, starting with just a handful of reviewers. It petered off because who wants to sit around grinding? (which just makes it true: Wikipedia is a MMORPG!) I think it's picked up now partly because we were all guilted into doing it by the worst month in the history of the drive, and it's picked up now because the end is finally in sight (hopefully only a month or two over the two year mark?) if current levels continue.

FAR, however, is more of a "I found this bad FA by accident" thing. Many of the old contributors are gone, and so there's no defending of titles, as it were. I try to actually improve articles, at the very least taking care of image issues since those are easiest, but I've got so much other stuff on my plate it's hard to do more than chime in with a delist. Offering incentives wouldn't really help my participation ('cause I'm busy with my own research/writing, the elimination drive, et al) but I defer to others on how it might affect their habits. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should also give props to YellowMonkey, though, for making the hard choices on delisting and still managing to top my output of FAs though, I'm not sure how you do it :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had proposed a reviewers cup some time ago and everyone thought it was the craziest idea. I still think it would work, but don't expect it to ever be approved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start giving them out, not sure on what basis though. I don't have a good mechanical criteria YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counting by size of review prose might work. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps new barnstars/awards related to each specific type of reviewing (FAR/FAC/DYK/etc.) could be created. It's just one more barnstar available for the collectors and would also shine light on the process if other editors ran across the award. Perhaps you can have differing levels of the new awards (gold/silver/bronze, first/second/third, etc.) which could cause some reviewers to strive to improve on or increase the number of their reviews. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To YellowMonkey: perhaps, but the prose generated by the review may not be original (i.e. text taken from the article to identify problems). To Nehrams: that sounds like a start; obviously, a simple "support - the article is awesome" or "delist - how did this ever get promoted" would not count for much, if anything. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sigs would have to be discounted, quotes discounted, and personal attacks/arbitrary disruption etc discoutned YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to incentives, but in really desparate situations, you might post at visible noticeboards to get more eyes (e.g. Village Pump, WT:FAC, maybe even WT:RFA if you're feeling bold). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've informally started using incentives, as you would have noticed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should focus less on saving FARs. I know one reason that I am leery of participating much here is that I do not have time to save articles - to do so means basically doing the research that the original writer(s) did and more. Perhaps we should have a more up/down voting system? That would also make the process more similar to FAC - people could review articles the same way in both places. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring more to the reviews and Mattisse's comments below. Most FARs follow the pattern that a person nominates a way outmoded article with no refs and does a 3 minute nom, because frankly, nothing more is really needed. Then no work happens, and then when it goes to FARC, you do a one line "Delist" as nothing has changed. In about 70% of cases there is little work done so no thought is needed in the review. But in the 30% of cases where there is some work, and the basics are (apparently) done, people are reluctant to do a deep 15-30 minute check to see if refs actually work (sometimes they just whack in a ref at the end of the para that only covers half a sentence) or the prose is still really poor, but nobody wants to do a detailed proper review. Mattisse alludes to it below. I know of one FA that went to FAR last year and there was some work done and the nominators got bored to check it properly for subtle problems and it got kept. Half the paragraphs are unreferenced and the ones that have one ref often only cover 10% of the material. I wasn't worrying about articles being demoted; the article hasn't gone down in quality because the star is gone. It is mostly up to the WikiProjects and authors to fix up the articles, they are ones who brag about themselves being so great anyway. I am aware of your outlook on writing articles Awadewit; that one should read up on some books to gather all the info, then write up. Others just add stuff that pops into their head and then google up, so they could miss stuff. I personally agree with that method and try to read lots of books. So yes it is a lot of work to write a real quality FA because at the end of the day, the writer should be their own toughest master. The reviewers aren't going to read 20 books to see if the author missed stuff. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was reviewer apathy "Ok, close enough" towards half-improved articles which is why some improved articles that are worse than GA can pass FAR. I think if you look in the FAR archive you will see a lot of keeps that are pretty dubious. Which is why I was looking for the tough reviewers, or just any reviewers, so that default keeps don't happen. If they do silly reviews then it will be ignored. At the moment there is too much of an imbalance between FAC and FAR. Some half-cleaned up articles, I can see heaps of problems in five minutes but I am reluctant to speak up otherwise I can't close it, and I do want to close them because past history tells me that it might be kept very generously at GA standards by other closers. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this entails just looking at the FAC urgents list where I have added the FARs to it. If the article is obviously fail by miles then I don't add it there, but if some work is done and/or people are lurching towards a possibly disinterested/apathetic keep, then I will add it there for rigorous review User:Deckiller/FAC_urgents. There is no need for a detailed review at things like African American literature that are clearly far below standard unless you want to clean it up largely by yourself (from the history it seems you have spent an hour looking at it), unless/until other people clean it up so it is close to the mark. I don't have a problem with getting rid of FAs nor do I insist that people have to fix the article if they want to participate. The main concern is a lack of rigorous reviews and resulting soft keeps. If a WikiProject/author wants the glory of a FA then it stands to reason that they should keep their articles up to the mark, and if they are happy to just make the bare minimum pass and not lift their game until the article gets sent to FAR three years later, then that isn't a sign of a good attitude towards self-improvement. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support giving Awadewit's idea some consideration. Standards were so much lower in the past that most older FA articles need basically a rewrite. Even articles that are "saved" like Buckingham Palace do not really meet the current FAC standards, such as 1c, in my opinion. It just means that many FAs, although surviving a FAR, still do not meet current criteria and so will have to go through another FAR in the future. I personally am not motivated by "incentives" but I am motivated by a sense of accomplishment that I am ensuring articles are truly meeting current standards, whether GA or FA, rather than just "saving" an article in FAR from the block. The GAN reassessments are more rigorous in that there is less of a drive to "save" articles that are far from the criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit said "Perhaps we should focus less on saving FARs. I know one reason that I am leery of participating much here is that I do not have time to save articles ". I guess the wording in the template is "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them", well that's idealistic, if nobody bothers to improve old articles then either the author has left, the wikipoject doesn't care or they just do/did the bare minimum to get through FA and collect a star (often with WikiProject piling on without caring for quality) and won't do anything unless a threat of confiscation of a star is made against them. I suggest not feeling guilty about nominating other people's work or feeling obliged to not participate except to fix up the work for other people (unless you like to work on the article of your own accord). That wording was from years ago when blogrefs were allowed, MOS wasn't enforced, lots of articles passed with missing sections, 1a was low, only 20% refs were needed so any outsider could just save any article much more easily. Now you need a full re-write and expand in some cases, aside from just a full copyedit. If people want the wording can be changed if it scares people off, maybe

Ideally, an article will be restored to meet contemporary standards, but in practice, many FAs may need to be changed so much that a new article results if it is to be retained. Nominators are not obligated to re-write the articles.

Or something like that. In the old days, there were a lot of people who helped third-party articles but this has decreased over time and the fixing culture doesn't really hold any more. Some people who didn't like their articles being questioned tried to kill off FAR (see the 2007 archives) by rioting or driving off reviewers and some even mooted deleting FAR so that their articles would be above the law even though the people that nominated their old articles used to help fix them as well. Too bad for them. The result was that now, only the vote-off is around, apart from people from the Australian, Astronomy and Greek WikiProjects fixing up their own stuff. The only problem is a lack of reviewers to scrutinise the worked-on articles properly. Because they are the incumbents, the article owners/WikiProject members sometimes try to stall the reviews by only fixing one explicit example and then going "what" and waiting for the reviewer to basically list every [obvious] thing out for them until they get tired and a default keep results. Explanaiton YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions needed on the RS-ness of a source widely used on FAC/GAC/GA/FA

A lot of Eurovision Song Contest articles, some of which have been successful and unsuccessful at FA/GA use a few websites that have been contested and are the subject of some debate. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2 and WT:EURO YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll take time... keep the FAR warm for me in the meantime :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is an open RfC on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 ::::::Yeah, I've informally started using incentives, as you would have noticed '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">cricket calendar poll!</font>]]'') [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_YellowMonkey|paid editing=POV]] 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::::Perhaps we should focus less on saving FARs. I know one reason that I am leery of participating much here is that I do not have time to save articles - to do so means basically doing the research that the original writer(s) did and more. Perhaps we should have a more up/down voting system? That would also make the process more similar to FAC - people could review articles the same way in both places. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::I was referring more to the reviews and Mattisse's comments below. Most FARs follow the pattern that a person nominates a way outmoded article with no refs and does a 3 minute nom, because frankly, nothing more is really needed. Then no work happens, and then when it goes to FARC, you do a one line "Delist" as nothing has changed. In about 70% of cases there is little work done so no thought is needed in the review. But in the 30% of cases where there is some work, and the basics are (apparently) done, people are reluctant to do a deep 15-30 minute check to see if refs actually work (sometimes they just whack in a ref at the end of the para that only covers half a sentence) or the prose is still really poor, but nobody wants to do a detailed proper review. Mattisse alludes to it below. I know of one FA that went to FAR last year and there was some work done and the nominators got bored to check it properly for subtle problems and it got kept. Half the paragraphs are unreferenced and the ones that have one ref often only cover 10% of the material. I wasn't worrying about articles being demoted; the article hasn't gone down in quality because the star is gone. It is mostly up to the WikiProjects and authors to fix up the articles, they are ones who brag about themselves being so great anyway. I am aware of your outlook on writing articles Awadewit; that one should read up on some books to gather all the info, then write up. Others just add stuff that pops into their head and then google up, so they could miss stuff. I personally agree with that method and try to read lots of books. So yes it is a lot of work to write a real quality FA because at the end of the day, the writer should be their own toughest master. The reviewers aren't going to read 20 books to see if the author missed stuff. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">cricket calendar poll!</font>]]'') [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_YellowMonkey|paid editing=POV]] 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::The problem was reviewer apathy "Ok, close enough" towards half-improved articles which is why some improved articles that are worse than GA can pass FAR. I think if you look in the FAR archive you will see a lot of keeps that are pretty dubious. Which is why I was looking for the tough reviewers, or just any reviewers, so that default keeps don't happen. If they do silly reviews then it will be ignored. At the moment there is too much of an imbalance between FAC and FAR. Some half-cleaned up articles, I can see heaps of problems in five minutes but I am reluctant to speak up otherwise I can't close it, and I do want to close them because past history tells me that it might be kept very generously at GA standards by other closers. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">cricket calendar poll!</font>]]'') [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_YellowMonkey|paid editing=POV]] 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::Basically this entails just looking at the FAC urgents list where I have added the FARs to it. If the article is obviously fail by miles then I don't add it there, but if some work is done and/or people are lurching towards a possibly disinterested/apathetic keep, then I will add it there for rigorous review [[User:Deckiller/FAC_urgents]]. There is no need for a detailed review at things like [[African American literature]] that are clearly far below standard unless you want to clean it up largely by yourself (from the history it seems you have spent an hour looking at it), unless/until other people clean it up so it is close to the mark. I don't have a problem with getting rid of FAs nor do I insist that people have to fix the article if they want to participate. The main concern is a lack of rigorous reviews and resulting soft keeps. If a WikiProject/author wants the glory of a FA then it stands to reason that they should keep their articles up to the mark, and if they are happy to just make the bare minimum pass and not lift their game until the article gets sent to FAR three years later, then that isn't a sign of a good attitude towards self-improvement. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">cricket calendar poll!</font>]]'') [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_YellowMonkey|paid editing=POV]] 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::::I support giving Awadewit's idea some consideration. Standards were so much lower in the past that most older FA articles need basically a rewrite. Even articles that are "saved" like [[Buckingham Palace]] do not really meet the current FAC standards, such as 1c, in my opinion. It just means that many FAs, although surviving a FAR, still do not meet current criteria and so will have to go through another FAR in the future. I personally am not motivated by "incentives" but I am motivated by a sense of accomplishment that I am ensuring articles are truly  meeting current standards, whether GA or FA, rather than just "saving" an article in FAR from the block. The GAN reassessments are  more rigorous in that there is less of a drive to "save" articles that are far from the criteria.  &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
+Awadewit said "Perhaps we should focus less on saving FARs. I know one reason that I am leery of participating much here is that I do not have time to save articles ". I guess the wording in the template is "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them", well that's idealistic, if nobody bothers to improve old articles then either the author has left, the wikipoject doesn't care or they just do/did the bare minimum to get through FA and collect a star (often with WikiProject piling on without caring for quality) and won't do anything unless a threat of confiscation of a star is made against them. I suggest not feeling guilty about nominating other people's work or feeling obliged to not participate except to fix up the work for other people (unless you like to work on the article of your own accord). That wording was from years ago when blogrefs were allowed, MOS wasn't enforced, lots of articles passed with missing sections, 1a was low, only 20% refs were needed so any outsider could just save any article much more easily. Now you need a full re-write and expand in some cases, aside from just a full copyedit. If people want the wording can be changed if it scares people off, maybe
+{{quote|Ideally, an article will be restored to meet contemporary standards, but in practice, many FAs may need to be changed so much that a new article results if it is to be retained. Nominators are not obligated to re-write the articles.}}
+Or something like that. In the old days, there were a lot of people who helped third-party articles but this has decreased over time and the fixing culture doesn't really hold any more. Some people who didn't like their articles being questioned tried to kill off FAR (see the 2007 archives) by rioting or driving off reviewers and some even mooted deleting FAR so that their articles would be above the law even though the people that nominated their old articles used to help fix them as well. Too bad for them. The result was that now, only the vote-off is around, apart from people from the Australian, Astronomy and Greek WikiProjects fixing up their own stuff. The only problem is a lack of reviewers to scrutinise the worked-on articles properly. Because they are the incumbents, the article owners/WikiProject members sometimes try to stall the reviews by only fixing one explicit example and then going "what" and waiting for the reviewer to basically list every [obvious] thing out for them until they get tired and a default keep results. [[User_talk:YellowMonkey/Archive126#FAR|Explanaiton]] '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">cricket calendar poll!</font>]]'') [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_YellowMonkey|paid editing=POV]] 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 == Opinions needed on the RS-ness of a source widely used on FAC/GAC/GA/FA ==