Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive53

Make science a featured article

I (and others) suggested above that collaboration was a way around some of the problems that can arise with very broad articles; and I also suggested working on the elite nine articles. Looie496 responded that they would be willing to work on science. I'd like to try it; I would love to be part of getting a "top of the pyramid" article to featured status.

I don't believe this is achievable without a group of several editors experienced at FA, and a further group of editors very knowledgeable about the topic. Are any FA regulars interested? If so, I would like to post a notice of intent at Talk:Science, and start canvassing editors with a background in the practice, history or philosophy of science to see if they would like to participate. It would be a significant test of Wikipedians' ability to collaborate on a large topic, and I think it would also be helpful to have participants who have successfully collaborated on a large scale on articles in the past. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any competence in the field, but I will be happy to help out with the grunt work of copyediting and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much background in the field, either, but would also be happy to help with "grunt work". Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got a couple of vanilla history of science books (and thick ones, at that :) Barring that, I'd be fine with grunt work. Buggie111 (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be up for that. The history of science has long been an interest of mine. But as to whether I can do the collaboration thingie I'll leave for others to judge. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally heart (RESPECT!) what y'all are doing here. I am such a troll, so not sure if it is better if I stay away and stay gadfly or jump in. In any case, I did bookmark the article to read it. I think the major challenge is content. Deciding what should be in/out. Which is GOOD actually. Now of course different people will make different decisions. And it is not a deterministic problem to solve. All that said...looking at that article, I can see obvious issues (like lacking some description of the major subfields, emphasis on neoliberal points (and leave them, keep the peeps happy, but just tone it down in amount and add an occasional small alternative). Omitted areas like "big science". Heck...go get ORLady and Carch in there to help a bit...those are some smart dude/ttes.). Anyway...congrats. Be smart...work hard. Good luck!!!!24.131.1.132 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The best thing about a mix of science folks and laypeople is we should be able to balance jargon vs accessibility. M'kay?

NB: The biggies that I've gotten to FAC have been interesting in their epicness - quite a different experience to the more esoteric ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Cas, without wanting to flatter, you'd be a good guy to drive this and make it happen. What is needed here is someone to bring people together. I hate to put you on the spot, but know you are an idle bastard on wiki with feck all else to do. But for some reason people seem to respect you. So.... Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not one to be herded, so I'm afraid it'll be down to you Ceoil. Malleus Fatuorum

Wouldn't it make sense to wait for Cas to say something? I'm not one to be herded either, but I'm not too worried about it. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It was meant more as a quip, but as large a project as Mike proposes (and I really welcome his proposal, its very exciting) needs a center to my mind. Wheather that is an individaul or a group I dont care, I was just hoping that the idea does not die out. Malleus your about the last person I would ascribe the word "herd" to, fair play to you, and as somebody who grew up on a farm dealing with very cranky cows and sheep indeed, I know what I'm talking about. I dont want to put pressure on Cas either, though. Ceoil (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(sticks fingers in mouth and whistles) hey, I figured some folks would check the talk page while gasbagging over here....say something Rents... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say the only way to approach an article like that is systematically, and I'll say more on this on the talk page over there, but commenting here on the general approach, the issue is usually whether the subarticles are in a good enough state to aid the project of improving such an article. You don't want to get to a state where the main article has been rewritten to such an extent that it contradicts the daughter articles, so for topics like this some degree of working on a set of articles, rather than just one, is needed. Not all the way from the bottom up to the top, but at least ensuring that the foundation is there underlying the article. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding possible doubts about impartiality

A possible conflict of interest arises in any case in which a delegate directly supports or opposes a nomination at FAC. The question arises because a delegate may be seen by reviewers, nominators, and other delegates as more powerful than other editors involved in the FAC process. To please a delegate or to avoid irritating a delegate, nominators, reviewers, and other delegates may give undue weight to a delegate’s declaration of support or opposition. To prevent hard feelings that might arise from any possibility of such a conflict, I suggest that paragraph 4 of the FAC instructions be altered to say: "The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, and Ucucha—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. Although the director and the delegates may comment during the process, they will not directly oppose or support promotion. A nomination will be removed... " The suggested change is italicized here only to make more clear what change I'm proposing. If the change is adopted, it should not appear in italics. Finetooth (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there an occurrence that this is in response to?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Finetooth (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The delagates, in fairness to them, seem to be scrupulous aware of this and tend to recluse if there is even a chance of a COI, precieved or otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

They might like my idea. It's not an anti-delegate proposal. Finetooth (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
They're not awful, granted. That said, the older I get the more Balkan cynical I get. Watching Sandy pass that Iri-leaker train station, while discounting A330 because she hates the kids at that aviation project...;-) 24.131.1.132 (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC) So get a user name and start bitching on nom pages (again). And by the way leaker is way off base. Tut tut. Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Gotta agree with Ceoil re leaker. Also the train station was well-written - I read it at FAC; I also read A330 and the prose was dodgy. Prose is a problem for us and it's a reality that well-written pages will have an easier time at FAC. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC) 80% of that short article was covering the railroad, not the station. It was padded out star-cruft. Only a single reviewer engaged with the thing and he critted minor refs and prose issues, vice content. The other couple supports were one liners. That was a directoress failure (so was Carabane). And Sandy is actually better than Karan or rhodocene-Andy, so it's not an issue of an individual.71.246.147.40 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I for one am getting tired of this. Either reclaim your previous identity or fuck off. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I would say the same things, regardless the signature, Malleus. If all this place wants to be is a steadily shrinking and more inbred pond, then it makes me want to be there even less. And want to leave you to your old ways and avoid disturbing your social dynamics.71.246.147.40 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC) The problem is that you don't have a page so this discussion is taking up a lot of space on a project page when maybe some of it should go on a user page. FWIW. I hadn't realized you'd vanished until about 30 minutes. Shows you how hooked in I am! Truthkeeper (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC) TCO, per your block log, you invoked WP:RTV, which states "Vanished users have no right to return under a new identity or as an IP.". Please log in and re-claim your old account, as has been requested multiple times earlier on this page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Sure, but we dont need to be rule-nicks here, most of what TCO is saying is bang on the money. We all know him, and his, eh, ways; I just meant he should actively participate. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC) An agreement is an agreement, fuck the rules. It's about honesty. TCO is accusing others of dishonesty while behaving dishonestly himself. That's unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I think it is more like "flouting the rules" than "being dishonest".71.246.147.40 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC) No to be fair I think he let his tounge slip, on two counts and was slapped for it, twice. End of story. These things happen, no reason to derail a thread or halt what has been a constructive discussion. This should prob be hatted and is a good example why thread discussions never build and why any insight fails to get traction and just gets lost in noise. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC) MiszaBot II has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.71.246.147.40 (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I only accepted a position as a delegate with the caveat that I could still review occasionally. It's good for me to put on each of the hats (editor/nominator, reviewer, and delegate) in turn. None of us is going to promote an article that we've entered a declaration for. Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'm not suggesting that delegates be precluded from reviewing or editing or nominating, just precluded from registering a support or oppose during the FAC process. If I were a delegate, I would find it more difficult to disagree with another delegate than I would with anyone else. Although the tilt might be imperceptible, I would have a self-interest in supporting the people I have to work with every day. My proposal is meant to reduce the importance of any such tilt, which I think is part of human nature, not just my nature. The change would be minor in its importance and effect, but it would draw a more clear distinction between the functions of a judge (delegate) and the functions of an advocate (supporter or opposer). Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand the concern now. If it helps ease your mind - Sandy has no problem promoting articles where I've opposed if I haven't made my case very well, and I believe she's archived some where I've supported! It's also important to note that comments play just as large a role as an actual declaration. I've archived FACs where there may have only been one oppose (and several supports) but multiple "neutral"s listing as issues whatever it was the oppose was based on. So for your proposal to have the full effect, we'd have to stop delegates from reviewing at all. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My concern is with the process rather than particular cases or people. A support or oppose by any delegate (now or in the remote future) may be thought by anyone else involved in the process to carry more weight than a "regular" support or oppose. While it's true that comments by delegates might also be seen to carry more weight than "regular" comments, the impact of an oppose or support is greater than the impact of a comment. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The same bias could be for editors who come by and review a lot as opposed to those who do fewer reviews.∞陣内Jinnai 20:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

From a delegate perspective, Finetooth, this isn't necessarily true - "the impact of an oppose or support is greater than the impact of a comment". In terms of perception, perhaps, but not in terms of weighing consensus. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what Jinnai says is extremely true - a long-time reviewer who is known to have a solid grasp of the FAC criteria is going to have their support/oppose weighted more heavily than a user who no-one has ever seen around the page and who demonstrates little knowledge of the FA criteria ("SUPPORT!! This is an awesome article and I really liked reading it and I think it'll make a great FA!) And long-time reviewers (Malleus, Dank, Jimfbleak, Sasata, the list goes on) are people the delegates have to work with every day too. So should these people be barred from supporting/opposing too? Their !votes are not going to be "weighted" any less than those from Karen/Sandy/Ucucha... - and, for example, I wouldn't blame delegates from giving more weight to Sasata than Karen if it was a mushroom article, but the reverse could be true if it was an article on Texas history. I see no reason to bar delegates from supporting/opposing - I have never seen evidence that they are biased in favor of their own, nor have I ever seen anyone suggest that they are (I have seen them blamed for/accused of many things, but never this!). I think you have a solution looking for a problem here... Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What a fantastic idea ... if you ban me from FAC, I'll make more money and write more articles. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs, Jinnai, and Dana boomer all make good points. I withdraw the proposal. The best course is to assume good faith, which I do. Thank you all for taking the suggestion seriously and not simply dismissing it out of hand. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The perception of impropriety can be as dangerous as actual impropriety, so if there are ever any cases where reviewers/nominators feel that there was some collusion/improper weighting going on, please bring it up here so we can address it - either by explaining the thought process or identifying and learning from a mistake. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Random articles

Someone asked me at my Meta talk page to make a tool for a random featured article. I've already got two tools that can be used for that: random article and random article - simple. They both redirect to a random article in a category. So both may be of interest for you. In most cases the simple tool will suffice as it uses less resources and is therefore more likely to work for categories with many pages. I explained the differences at Template_talk:Random_page_in_category#New_tool. In any case:

• Random featured article
• Random good article
• Any other category: random article or random article - simple

Perhaps you'll find them useful. --Erwin (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

YOU ROCK!!!!96.238.184.111 (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.∞陣内Jinnai 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

For the delegates

There are some routine notifications that I've been making directly that the delegates have asked me to put up here at WT:FAC. I'll add stuff here as I get to it. - Dank (push to talk)

• WP:Featured article candidates/Hobey Baker/archive2: A delegate said this one could be re-instated when Nikki's 3 points from the previous review had been addressed; the nom and I have done that.
• WP:Featured article candidates/RAF Uxbridge/archive1: Sandy asked for a ping on this one so she could re-instate it, which happened here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank-- doorbell is ringing, I will look as soon as I can (unless someone else does first)-- I do appreciate the heads up here as they will get more eyes when delegates are busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, wouldn't a note on the affected FAC be sufficient? If it is simply a note to the delegates, don't they have a page where they communicate in Sandy's userspace?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Dank has previously posted such notices at Sandy's userspace page, but she has requested that they appear here instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That explains it then. Ho hum, back to Mark Hanna then.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll put my responses here, so others can see why it's helpful to have this here (that is, other FAC regulars can help when others are busy):

• Hobey Baker: this was my message-- has Nikkimaria been pinged?
• Uxbridge-- I said to have him ping me, I did not say I would reinstate it, although we can discuss whether that exception to FAC instructions would be fair to other nominators. In the interim, Malleus's circumstances changed, which is why I haven't taken action on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll ask him to withdraw his request, just so we're all clear. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please, by all means archive the RAF Uxbridge nomination. I'll nominate it again once the two week limit is reached. Harrison49 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with disruptive editing

I've opened a discussion on whether/how to change the process with which WP deals with disruptive editors. All input/ideas are welcome - I'd love it if we could develop some proposals to put to the broader community. Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about repeat links

There is |an RfC regarding best practices for repeat links ... it is asking if LINKS should mention the convention used in many FA articles, where links are repeated when first encountered following the lead. --Noleander (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability RfC....

Dear all, there has been ongoing armwrestling for years about the wording of the WP:V, which finally might be laid to rest now with over 300 folks commenting and counting. I obviously have an opinion on it, but did wonder about other folks who do alot of content and referencing work (i.e. FA writers), as I didn't see a huge number of our names there...just saying is all....and I won't hold it against anyone who likes the wording as is (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)