Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
| FACs needing feedback view • |
|
|---|---|
| CMLL Championship | Review it now |
| Old Pine Church | Review it now |
| 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 | Review it now |
| Featured article removal candidates |
|
|---|---|
| Enceladus | Review it now |
 Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |
|
|
| Threads older than 2 weeks may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
Image/source check requests[edit]
Withdrawing FAC for "Shine"[edit]
Hello, I was wondering how do I withdraw my nomination for "Shine"? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've done the right thing requesting it on the FAC page -- I'll take care of it. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Quick heads-up[edit]
This harebrained PR stunt thought-provoking proposal to ensure any passing aliens are brought up to speed on hurricanes, 19th-century coins, disused Buckinghamshire railway stations and the works of Square Enix looks likely to pass. Since the stated aim is explicitly to "create a strong intensive [sic] for people to bring their favorite topics up to featured status" before a 5 Dec 2016 deadline, expect a flood of well-intentioned newcomers nominating their favorite bands, movie stars, sports teams etc at FAC, and a flurry of mutual back-scratching which will likely make WikiCup circa 2008 look tame. This isn't (necessarily) a presumption of bad faith and it may well bring in a number of people who will make productive contributions, but it's safe to say it will draw quite a lot of "I think this article is cool" nominators who may get upset when it's explained to them that their pet project isn't up to scratch, as well as creating a huge incentive for sockpuppetry. (I am sorely tempted to push Scrotal inflation through FAC just to see Jimbo's expression at the press conference.) ‑ Iridescent 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a well-founded fear, perhaps FAC should adopt some of the best practices of processes like RfA: a couple of good essays on what should be brought to the process in the first place (Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship etc.) and good snow close practices (Wikipedia:Not now). Once doomed-to-fail RfAs start attracting many oppose votes, they are generally closed in a way that leaves no one 'upset'. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Impulse will not stop to read.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, because RFA is such a smoothly-functioning and well-managed process which we all should be aspiring to imitate… ‑ Iridescent 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am by no means an expert on either FAC or RfA, so it might be that I overestimate how the latter functions and misunderstand what the former needs. But my impression of what's wrong with RfA is precisely the opposite of the concern raised here: there are too few RfA applications. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, looking at the last three NOTNOW closes at RFA, one has since been blocked for sockpuppetry and one hasn't edited for a month. I think you'll find there's a general consensus that RFA is the single most broken process on the whole of Wikipedia (just in case the decade-worth of proposals to abolish it in its archives isn't a clue.) The issue with RFA isn't "too few applications", it's that it's a thoroughly discredited failure which only exists because nobody can reach agreement on what to replace it with. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am by no means an expert on either FAC or RfA, so it might be that I overestimate how the latter functions and misunderstand what the former needs. But my impression of what's wrong with RfA is precisely the opposite of the concern raised here: there are too few RfA applications. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Pardon me for bringing this back around to FAC, but I was thinking just this morning about the pros and cons of giving potential nominators a clue as to what's expected at FAC. I'll give the same answer that Gandhi may have given when asked what he thought of modern civilization ... I think it would be a good idea. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've always understood Gandhi to have been responding to a question about western civilistion, not modern civilisation. Eric Corbett 19:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I thought so too, and I think they said "Western" in the film. The link (wikiquote) tells a different story. I'd like to know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Just some thoughts from someone who has sloshed around through several levels of review processes:
- Check list is needed on what is expected. Per Dank's comment, people need a clue on what is expected.
- Keep the criteria all on one page, and don't assume everyone knows what core policies are.
- Ergo, GAC at least has templates to help.
- Too many rules make people snooze.
- Essays make people snooze.
- Put in a criteria of how much WP experience is needed to nominate/review.
- Shouldn't be any drive-by newbie/sock/IP can nominate an article.
- Reviewers sometimes stick their own criteria into a nomination, and oppose the nom if not complied with.
- Nominators sometimes balk at criteria, based on what amounts to no rules apply to them.
- Nominations are already backed up for months at all levels of reviews. What has been proposed will only make it worse.
If I thought about it, there would be more. But in all review levels, I see too much wait time, too many egos, too many reviewers who don't know what they're supposed to but are given equal weight. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- What he↑ said. Add in "don't feel you have to comply with every demand a reviewer makes of you, but if you disregard a suggestion, or if you go against the MOS, be prepared to explain in detail why you're disregarding it". ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- (adding) This would probably be an opportune moment to take a long hard look at whether Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is fit for purpose. There are ten criteria, five of which are completely subjective ("prose of a professional standard" could apply equally well to the crappiest tabloid newspaper), and one of which it's literally impossible to comply with for most topics. ‑ Iridescent 19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- So is it "high quality reliable sources" or "comprehensive" that's almost impossible to comply with? (Myself I'd also had it's almost impossible to comply with all of the MOS, but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I take it you haven't actually read every significant book on William the Conqueror ever written? Reviewers have been routinely turning a blind eye to 1(c) ever since it was introduced, but newcomers can't be expected to know that. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The biographies? I've read most of the recent ones from academics. (No, I haven't read the ones that argue that Billy the Bastard was really from Alpha Centauri). He's actually surprisingly unpopular in the academic press. Stephen would be the hard one... or Henry II. William II is easy - there are .. two academic bios of him. I figured that was the criteria you were referring to but wanted to make sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The best example I know is UK railways, as Ottley's means one can actually quantify how many RS's there are. The thing is the size of a phone book and lists over 20,000 books (and remember, this is just listing significant works about trains in a single country). Jesus is an FA, but I doubt even the Pope would feel confident in saying he'd conducted "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd feel very confident in saying that the Pope has read rather few books on Jesus. And why would he need to anyway, as he's infallible? Just like certain other editors I could mention here, who peddle their own unsubstantiated opinions. The fact of the matter is that the editors of Britannica or ODNB articles haven't read all of the sources either, they're simply writing an opinion piece based on whatever their preconceptions happen to be. Eric Corbett 19:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but presumably ODNB et al don't tell new writers joining them that they're expected to perform a thorough survey of all relevant literature before they start typing. I'm not suggesting "thorough and representative" is what we should be aiming for, I'm saying it's an unrepresentative policy which just puts off potential participants. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think a thorough survey of the literature about Abraham Lincoln would be practical. You wouldn't live long enough to complete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or be able to find the willpower. Those of us who've written an FA know that the vast majority of books repeat old material, very little new, they just try to spice it up. You could probably write a credible FAC with just three or four of the key references, but that wouldn't be allowed under the current regime. How many references do the editors of Britannica or ONDB use? None? Eric Corbett 20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most ODNB entries are written by the subjects' biographers so the question doesn't arise, since they're 'citing' their own research. IIRC, Britannica does sometimes reference articles if they're not the product of original research. More to the point, why are the WMF flying a Wikipedia CD-ROM to the moon? ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because they can, I suppose. I approve. It reminds me of the caches of knowledge found by explorers in science fiction after the alien civilization's been destroyed, as in "The Star". Or if we get wiped out by Bronson Alpha and the moon survives.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but I doubt Clarke ever envisaged alien explorers reconstructing human civilization from Fuck the Millennium, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and Pig-faced women. (Anyone think we can get Rachel Marsden up to FA level by December?) ‑ Iridescent 21:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because they can, I suppose. I approve. It reminds me of the caches of knowledge found by explorers in science fiction after the alien civilization's been destroyed, as in "The Star". Or if we get wiped out by Bronson Alpha and the moon survives.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most ODNB entries are written by the subjects' biographers so the question doesn't arise, since they're 'citing' their own research. IIRC, Britannica does sometimes reference articles if they're not the product of original research. More to the point, why are the WMF flying a Wikipedia CD-ROM to the moon? ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or be able to find the willpower. Those of us who've written an FA know that the vast majority of books repeat old material, very little new, they just try to spice it up. You could probably write a credible FAC with just three or four of the key references, but that wouldn't be allowed under the current regime. How many references do the editors of Britannica or ONDB use? None? Eric Corbett 20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think a thorough survey of the literature about Abraham Lincoln would be practical. You wouldn't live long enough to complete it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but presumably ODNB et al don't tell new writers joining them that they're expected to perform a thorough survey of all relevant literature before they start typing. I'm not suggesting "thorough and representative" is what we should be aiming for, I'm saying it's an unrepresentative policy which just puts off potential participants. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most FACs are on micro-topics where this issue is not such a problem. I think a realistic approach is taken on larger or better-covered subjects, skimping on "thorough" if necessary. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd feel very confident in saying that the Pope has read rather few books on Jesus. And why would he need to anyway, as he's infallible? Just like certain other editors I could mention here, who peddle their own unsubstantiated opinions. The fact of the matter is that the editors of Britannica or ODNB articles haven't read all of the sources either, they're simply writing an opinion piece based on whatever their preconceptions happen to be. Eric Corbett 19:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The best example I know is UK railways, as Ottley's means one can actually quantify how many RS's there are. The thing is the size of a phone book and lists over 20,000 books (and remember, this is just listing significant works about trains in a single country). Jesus is an FA, but I doubt even the Pope would feel confident in saying he'd conducted "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The biographies? I've read most of the recent ones from academics. (No, I haven't read the ones that argue that Billy the Bastard was really from Alpha Centauri). He's actually surprisingly unpopular in the academic press. Stephen would be the hard one... or Henry II. William II is easy - there are .. two academic bios of him. I figured that was the criteria you were referring to but wanted to make sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I take it you haven't actually read every significant book on William the Conqueror ever written? Reviewers have been routinely turning a blind eye to 1(c) ever since it was introduced, but newcomers can't be expected to know that. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- So is it "high quality reliable sources" or "comprehensive" that's almost impossible to comply with? (Myself I'd also had it's almost impossible to comply with all of the MOS, but...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly the aliens can proceed as in this story to grasp our language from articles on universal shared concepts common to all civilizations. Like Disco Demolition Night.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Question - Is this ever enforced? Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. If it has not been enforced before, it should be if the above proposal goes into effect. What I've seen a lot of at GAC is that, regardless of what the guidelines say, many articles are nominated by people who have had no part in editing the article. So when questions arise, they're silent. — Maile (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Certainly in Sandy and Raul's day, they'd quickfail nominations from people who hadn't worked on the article and didn't have the consent of the article's authors, on the grounds that if the author thought it wasn't ready it almost certainly wasn't. I'd be very surprised if the current delegates don't do something similar. ‑ Iridescent 20:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- We always try to enforce that rule, and we always try to act promptly when a reviewer recommends withdrawal for an unprepared nom. I don't have time just now to comment more on this thread, later I hope. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that one is still enforced. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Quite apart from anything else, what seems to be happening is a very nice vote of confidence in the work we and our colleagues on other projects do.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
In-Universe perspective in Featured Article plot sections[edit]
 |
|
I am making this request due to a discussion I initiated here. The discussion centered on whether the in-universe template should be applied to the article on the The Phantom Tollbooth, which happens to be a featured article. My understanding of MOS:PLOT and MOS:INUNIVERSE is that the entire article, including in a plot summary section, should be written in an out-of-universe perspective, and therefore this article should be changed to fix this. To me, it seems that there are a few possibilities:
- I am misinterpreting the plot summary in The Phantom Tollbooth, and it isn't in the in-universe perspective.
- I am misinterpreting the guidelines at MOS:PLOT and MOS:INUNIVERSE, and it is acceptable to write in an in-universe style, as long as it is within a plot summary section.
- There actually is a problem, and we should be taking steps to resolve it.
Thanks, Gluons12 talk 15:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC).
- This is a ridiculous complaint; since the section in question is captioned "Plot", no reasonable reader is going to conclude it's a statement of fact rather than a plot summary, and any article on a work of fiction which doesn't include a plot summary is going to have serious issues. I strongly suggest you close the section now with appropriate policies, as you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the MOS says. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's a fair concern - just labelling a section of an article "Plot" doesn't exempt it from other policies and guidelines. In-universe plot summaries can still occur and should be avoided. I just don't think this plot summary is written "in universe". (If anything, I would argue that there is no reason that the summary of this book cannot be sourced to secondary sources, given its classic-ness, but that's not a requirements) --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not really an in-universe perspective. It is told from the POV of an observer, and not as if events were unfolding in real life. Out-of-universe doesn't require that the plot being discussed relative to the work (eg "At the start of the book, ..." type language), just that it avoids putting the reader in a narrative framing that acts as if the story is real. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Source review request[edit]
Hi all,
I am requesting a source review for the 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division article, as part of the FA process.
Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]
Many participants here create a lot of content, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
