User talk:Dweller/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates

Three comments

1. Featured Article Candidates (WP:FAC) is a rigorous procedure in which nominated articles are subjected to the scrutiny of peers who critique each article for quality, completeness, and verifiability.

   Do you really think that's true?

3. Similarly, the article talk page should be amended to update the Article History template.

   Please, Please, PLEASE do not tell people to amend {{articlehistory}} themselves. Almost NO ONE gets it right, and editors who do it themselves create extra work for GimmeBot. {{fac}} specifically mentions that GimmeBot will update the talk page; GimmeBot will do it correctly, including archiving. Please tell nominators, instead, to wait for GimmeBot to update the talk page.

5. WikiProjects that have tagged the talk page should be notified of the promotion, so that they can upgrade their article assessment for the page to FA status.

   GimmeBot automatically upgrades article assessments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Great to have your feedback, thanks. I've numbered your comments to help respond to them.

1. What do you think is untrue about it? Are you saying that I'm stating an ideal which isn't really attained?

   Yes. The truth is, many FACs slip through on fan support and shoddy reviews. I think you're overstating the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

   OK, I'm all for honesty. It's my experience of FAC that all my submissions get ripped to shreds (!) but I'm happy to tweak. Please see what you think of my imminent amend. --Dweller 08:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

   Getting closer :-) I've seen more slip through than get ripped :-) And now, with the volume as high as it is, methinks it's even worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Thanks - I'll amend with this advice. I think my original draft said something vague about it happening, but it got sharpened to this incorrect advice.
3. Didn't know that.

Cheers. --Dweller 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A good summary, but another couple of commments:

• another nitpicking complaint that often comes up is   between numbers and their units (for example, 4 litres)
• you recommend heavy use of "cite.php" to give a source every fact or statement. Many consider this to be excessive - compare, for example, medieval cuisine, S. A. Andree's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 and Palladian architecture, all of which are much more sparing in their use of references. Other referencing styles, such as Harvard referencing, are also acceptable, and many consider them less distracting than footnotes.

-- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that ALoan. You'll note that in the advice about finding copyeditors, I omitted my preferred method...! --Dweller 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did! To be honest, I don't think it matters who copyedits an article, just as long as someone does - preferably someone who is reasonably familiar with the topic, so knows the vocabulary, but who was not involved in writing the content - and ideally more than one person - each will have their own linguistic foibles, and hopefully they can catch each others's nits. How you find and motivate such persons is left as an exercise for the reader :)

Tony's page (mentioned below) is certainly helpful in making an article's writing tighter and more professional, but dare I say that it is not the last word in "compelling" prose. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see this page as becoming a good pointer for peer review. Many editors write that they would like to get their articles to FA status. I would like to point them to something like this which has all the info on how to do so. I do think the layout could be a bit clearer - that needs some work in my view. And how about a link to Tony's writing guide? Which is quite simply excellent.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 11:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a... The Rambling Man 11:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice ideas. --Dweller 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, though citations and other aspects are well covered, the need for good prose needs to be given more prominence. I think it's only mentioned once. A section after the citations with perhaps a link to Tony's guide would be useful.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Citeweb

Just noticed The "citeweb" methodology seems to be preferred amongst FAC peers. I don't think so - a lot of "us" hate the cite templates. I wouldn't express a preference for them. Maybe you can just refer to correct and complete formatting (by whatever method) as in WP:CITE/ES? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate those tags too, as I run into them everywhere and consider them clutter. But, if you place them yourself, with the intention of (quickly) replacing each with a citation, I figure no harm done. Though I have to agree with Sandy that we shouldn't encourage their use. The Transhumanist    01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I also hate the tags but they achieve a purpose, that of notifying the main editors during an FA drive of claims within an article that should either be cited or removed. This method has been used successfully during the five FA's that Dweller and I have had promoted since January, so I'd consider it a useful approach. The Rambling Man 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be two different issues referred to here. The citeweb issue is also tackled on this page by ALoan. The {{cn}} methodology is a matter of preference... I might make that somewhat clearer. --Dweller 10:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was about the cite templates, not {{cn}}. Someone else added cn to my post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I think I've addressed the issue in the text now. --Dweller 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three issues:

• many people find the {{cn}} pretty damn irritating, but it can be helpful if used in a targetted manner, and/or as a short-term way or locating things that need to be cited
• the {{cite web}} template and its friends are preferred by some and not by others
• cite.php is widely used, but not the only way to add citations (Geogre, 2007).

-- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak grammar?

"... a rigorous procedure in which peers scrutinize nominated articles and critique each article for quality, completeness, and verifiability. Once the concerns of peers have been addressed, they may provide their approval, and the article is then granted featured article (FA) status." That was the wording after my proofread of the opening paragraph. It was undone with an edit comment about "weak grammar". I don't see any grammatical errors, and I feel it reads more easily (with less verbosity) than the current pass. It could still be refined, but that would involve excising more verbosity, not restoring the previous stuff. -- JHunterJ 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was changing the very beginning, and inadvertantly restored the whole paragraph to the previous wordy version. After reading your above comment, I went back and discovered what I had done. I like the way you corrected the wordiness. I merely wanted to correct the tone of uncertainty at the beginning of the intro "Theoretically, maybe, kindof sortof..."  :-) and not the whole thing. Thank you for catching that. The Transhumanist    01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good. My grammarian ego is unharmed. :-) -- JHunterJ 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...

... quite strenuously with the advice to "ask editors who are experts on the topic, and others who are novices or unfamiliar with it, to come to the FAC and comment." Asking anybody at all to come to FAC and comment is a bad idea, and a bad fit with the previous assurance that it's all right to ask for comments at Peer Review because as "PR is not a vote (or even a !vote) this does not violate Wikipedia's no-canvassing rule." FAC is certainly a !vote, though not a vote, and attention from reviewers is the one thing there that's in the shortest supply. Asking people to come and comment there is... well, to my mind it's a lot like asking for a larger slice of attention than your article might otherwise have gotten. Or even, depending on circumstances, it can be like asking for support. Treat your FAC nomination like your RFA, would be my advice: put it up and let it take its chances for attention and support. At most, mention it (not garishly) on your own talkpage. I know that can hurt. There's little justice in the way some perfectly good, but insufficiently glamorous, articles get ignored on FAC. Leaving such articles to fend for themselves can feel like leaving your baby on the steps of the orphanage in a snowstorm—but it's still the decent thing to do.

Secondly, asking people to come to FAC is also a poor fit with "Whatever you do, don't take the article to FAC until it's really, really good... nominate your article at WP:FAC when you believe it is already worthy of featured article status." Good advice, which contradicts the idea of asking people to give advice at FAC. Ask them to do that at Peer Review. (Don't wind up your Peer Review with any broad hints about FAC, either... ) I do think this issue ought to be brought up on the Classroom page, but with a different conclusion. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Interesting and thought provoking.

I maintain that FAC is neither a vote nor a !vote, since (in practise) one well-founded object will overturn 100 well-founded supports, and prevent the article being promoted. As such, it's also not even really a consensus-gathering exercise, but one of hurdle-jumping. Therefore, I don't have any worries about WP:CANVASS. If you want your FAC to pass, you're best off telling nobody and hoping hardly anyone contributes.

However, I've had no personal experience of an article withering without attention at FAC! I know it does happen (someone recently dropped me a line about a candidate article he'd nommed... earning an oppose from me for his trouble). I'll revisit this in the light of your comments.

Thanks for helping me improve the essay. --Dweller 08:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a considered edit to the article on this issue, which states my position, while nodding to Bishonen's (and maybe others'). I've also asked Raul to come here and make his thoughts on the subject clear, as this would of course be valuable. If Raul thinks that FAC is subject to CANVASS, I'll amend the text... and my behaviour! lol

Meanwhile, I'm glad that this has been raised. Thank you Bishonen. --Dweller 10:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by common sense and common modesty rather than written guidelines, which are round holes for this square peg anyway. Requests like that make me cynical. For instance, why haven't the specialists etc. already been asked to come to Peer Review? That's the obvious place for improving, as opposed to evaluating, the article. Or if they have been, should the author really be bugging them all over again? People can also be asked, in a more one-on-one way, to review, again before FAC. You do say the FAC author ought to make sure the article is the best it can be, before putting it on FAC. That principle makes the advice to bring in the specialists on FAC stick out like a sore thumb. It's inconsistent with the rest of the page. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Comments

• -- the experience can be compared to going through a meatgrinder! I don't know why this is said; articles that come to FAC prepared — having taken advantage of peer and Project review — can sail through. "Meatgrinder" might apply to controversial articles or those that didn't take advantage of peer review. [1] [2] [3] [4] Why not highlight instead the fact that FAC can work best — and not be a "meatgrinder" — if articles come to FAC prepared?

  Some of that wording's not mine <grins> but I'm happy to amend. However, I do think it's important for people new to the process to go in open-eyed and realise that it can be somewhat hard work. --Dweller 12:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Being among the finest is supposed to be hard work; if you have to tell people the obvious ...  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you highlight WP:DASH in particular in the article, when WP:MOS is vast? Some may remember that a few months ago, almost every article that came to FAC needed reminders about footnote punctuation/ref placement (WP:FN). After a few months, the message got through; I haven't had to use Gimmetrow's ref fixer on a FAC in months, and they almost always appear now with correct footnote placement. WP:DASH will eventually go the way of WP:FN; as more articles use dashes correctly, it will probably become less necessary to point out that guideline. And, WP:MSH, WP:CONTEXT, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:MOSNUM are overlooked as often as WP:DASH and WP:UNITS, so it's not clear why those particular guidelines should be highlighted. If you're going to highlight a few, why not the whole list of items that are routinely missed on MOS ? (By the way, have you read WP:DASH? The article uses hyphens as punctuation, rather than mdash.)

  Well, I'm not trying to rewrite the MOS and I'm also not trying to rewrite the FA criteria. All I'm doing is trying to highlight some specific issues that have been useful in my experience and may help someone new to the process, without submerging them in policies and guidelines. --Dweller 12:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is wrong: Place your references at the end of sentences or paragraphs, after the full-stop (period), according to the instructions presented in WP:CITE.'

  Good spot. Thanks. --Dweller 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)