Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive92

ACE 2023

WP:ACE2023

There are too few strong content contributors on ArbCom; ideas for 2023 elections, approaching soon? Vanamonde93, Amakuru ... others? David Fuchs, return? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Both Amakuru and VM93 said no on their talk pages. Next ? Anyone ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sign the Draft Ealdgyth Petition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I would totally suck at it even if I had the time, which I don't. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ealdgyth no you wouldn't. And you can do it. You are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Who else is an admin who writes content and has been active at WP:AE, or some other dispute resolution forum? [1] Firefangledfeathers ? We need at least three accomplished content creators to push back from the research library and do their time, else we are likely to see an increase in arb decisions that don't reflect concerns and issues affecting the work we do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks! V93 would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Others who show up here and write top content: HJ Mitchell, Bishonen, Drmies, Masem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Sandy--I'm not going to run in that popularity contest/online harassment gauntlet again, but thanks for thinking of me. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

<grrrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha, I know ArbCom needs people like us, but the harassment and humiliation and public shaming, I am really not prepared to do that again. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero could you speak here to what kind of skills are needed, how much time it takes compared to creating content, and add anything to dispel the negative press from our good Dr. Mies ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Same question for Wugapodes who also wrote FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think FA writers generally have the right skills though it's arguably more time consuming than content creation. So much of what Arbs do is drafting: decisions, emails, motions, position papers, warnings, requests, etc. A lot of these need to be written well and in a way that takes into account various perspectives on an issue. It's not a skill dissimilar to synthesizing research and taking feedback from FA reviewers and article collaborators. There's also a fair bit of research, but that varies by day: delving into the depths of our archives, organizing timelines of events across multiple pages, understanding some of the more esoteric concerns of content-heavy cases. These are places where I think the skills gained from bringing an article through the FA process are most transferable. They're also probably the most time consuming since there are so many stakeholders and the "research" you're summarizing is usually something someone you know said and will get to comment on (so more rounds of revision).

As for the "negative press": I don't share Drmies' perception but that's like saying my RfA went well so there's no problem at RfA. I think there's just a wide envelope of experiences, and the emotional experience of having your beliefs and actions picked apart isn't trivial. What I'll say is many candidacies are relatively uncontroversial, and if you've gone through RfA and FAC you probably have a good knack for compartmentalizing criticism which makes the experience more palatable. It's not fun, and the reward on the other side isn't exactly sunshine and roses, but it's actually pretty rewarding work. You get a lot of opportunities to help people and make their lives easier. People told me things would be way worse than they were, and while there are rough times, I think the positives outweigh the negatives by a fair margin. — Wug·a·po·des 01:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ha, not everyone here has a set of trolls building websites and doxxing them and whatnot. Turns out what's his name, Hotbling or something, is not being prosecuted after all. Admins like me and Bbb23 seem to catch flak that not everyone else does. If I'd only stuck to article writing! So, besides that I can confirm what Wugapodes says, and I was happy to be on the committee; it felt like I was doing something useful. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly part of my reluctance to run, though it's far from the whole reason: not having enough time is the real deal-breaker at the moment. I've had a few years of closely watching ACE pages, and a year as a commissioner; I've seen a good bit of what was thrown at candidates, and I'm not terribly keen on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it's time commitment that's a major blocker, I'll say that the workload isn't bad, but balance means you'll be pulled away from a lot of the content writing and internal discussions. And it's not like you become divorced from those on-wiki goings-on, you just wind up playing a later role in a lot of things. I don't think I'm spending any more time on Wikipedia tasks now than two years ago, it's just that most of it is over email rather than on-wiki. — Wug·a·po·des 19:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The time and email load is much better than my first term in 2016. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So, with almost everyone meeting the three criteria (admin, top content producer, active in arb enforcement) declining, one of the three has to go, and it can't be admin; non-admins are not electable. So we can lower to the non-FA level of content writers, or search for an admin who is an FA writer who isn't active in arb enforcement. The latter will be harder to elect than the former. Ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 3: an FA-level content writer runs for RfA now, passes, and immediately stands for election; would have to be someone very experienced to avoid looking like a hat collector. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That would have to be an FA writer already active in arb enforcement; I glanced down the Arb Enforcement list from page tools and no one jumped out at me-- did I miss someone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 is there an active GA writer who is also an admin and active in Arb Enforcement and related dispute resolution, eg AN or ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternately, is there an active FA-writing admin who would like to become very active at Arb Enforcement prior to Arb elections, so we would have some basis on which to judge decision-making? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Harry? - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ditto ... waiting to hear from HJ Mitchell (who I pinged earlier). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm toying with the idea... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth, how would HJ Mitchell rack up in your Arb Guide? Let's get any shortcomings addressed up front :) :) And we still need more candidates! (Including Ealdgyth.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Sandy. I have some thoughts. In general there are a few buckets of work ArbCom does:

1. Arbitrating through cases, motions, amendments, and clarifications
2. Appeals of ArbCom blocks, ArbCom bans, private evidence blocks, AE blocks, CU blocks, and OS blocks.
3. Appointing, removing, and managing the functionaries
4. Diplomacy with the WMF, global bodies, and other projects
5. Solving issues that can't be dealt with in public, oftentimes due to privacy

The results of each of these have first, second, and third order ripples that effect content creators. Any admin who has FA experience would be an asset to the committee. Don't count yourself out because you don't have CU/OS or AE experience or any of the other hoops that guide writers like. All of that can be learned on the job. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero the reason I originally stipulated AE experience, is that it is my impression that getting elected without it will be hard. Perhaps that is wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement is probably the closest thing admins do to drafting an arbitration case; some AE requests are essentially mini cases and you have to analyse a pattern of edits to determine whether someone's editing is problematic, then decide what to do about it and hopefully get other admins to agree. But the skill set in bringing a broad article through FAC and defending your sourcing is similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think AE experience is particularly important. The most important factors are name recognition (in a neutral or positive sense) and willingness to do the work. For the past three elections in particular, we have had quite few candidates relative to the number of seats; last year it was 8 seats for 12 candidates (frankly, only 11 candidacies were viable). There is an "advantage" as far as being elected roughly in the order of incumbent, bureaucrat, functionary, experienced administrator, and administrator; all of that is provided there has been much controversy regarding a given user. If someone reading here is curious about serving as an arbitrator—not definitely sure but also serving at least one year won't be the end of the world—wait until the last day of nominations, and if it looks like we're heading to another choose 8 of 11 situation, then put your name in, and there's a very good chance to get in. As for non-administrators, I could see an FA writer actually scraping a solid mid-60% in an election, and depending on the vote distribution, that just may be enough for a seat. Maxim (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I get the sense that, partly due to the paucity of candidates over the last three elections, the community is open to admin candidates with a wide range of experiences. Clerking, AE, CU/OS, etc. definitely help, but so does writing content. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on my experience, arbwork is something that dovetails pretty nicely with featured content skills—lots of reading and evaluating "sources", such that it is. Like Wugapodes says, there's lots of writing, but a lot of it is just staying on top of emails (I developed a filtering/labeling system in my mail client that helped a ton.) It's not a huge timesink (especially more recently as the actual caseload has decreased) but I think unless someone has more time to devote to the project than they already do, it's by necessity a drain on one's other availability for wiki-stuff. Drmies' experiences is, I think fortunately, relatively uncommon; the project's history is replete with arbs who showed up and left and didn't suffer consequences for it. At the very least I'm not entirely sure it makes you any more a magnet than wading into any potentially controversial area onwiki (and if there's anything I've learned from ArbCom, it's that any topic is a potentially controversial area.)

I do encourage people to step up and run (maybe I'll run again sometime, but I've always felt that my role is mostly 'helpfully diligent seat-filler' and don't consider it my best contributions here.) New blood makes for a more dynamic, responsive, and considered committee. And like Guerillero says, scutwork with CU/OS and AE is certainly beneficial, but not necessary, and there's plenty of tasks that need doing beyond that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Dumbfounded on page length in lieu of subpages

So I'm a fairly new editor so I do apologize if I am missing some context here. Why do we need the FAC Nomination Viewer to begin with? Why not just list the FAs with a timestamp and a link to its own review page like WP:GAN or WP:PR? I would assume the idea is to get more eyes on the other FACs, but there are so many FACs at the same time that the page is just completely unwieldy and lags up my browser without the Nomination Viewer. This seems like it would actually make it more confusing for new reviewers to navigate the page than if they were just linked to like GANs. Generalissima (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

GANs are (typically) reviewed and promoted/archived by a single editor, so once someone has claimed it others really only need to look in if something is going seriously sideways. FACs, on the other hand, are reviewed by multiple editors and consensus is assessed by coordinators. Having to click through each individual nom to see what types of review are missing and where consensus is at would be very time-consuming. Surfacing all reviews IMO also helps newbies understand what reviews can look like. (PR, for what it's worth, typically transcludes full reviews on the PR page until they become large; not sure what the cutoff for large is). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It'd be nice to have it structured into a high-level summary: the discussion is this old, it has this many independent commenters, a source review is (not started/in progress/done), an image review is (not started/in progress/done), etc. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You should be getting the first two on the nomination summary if you have the right tweaks, and the latter two are usually but not always evident from a review's ToC. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the PR solution- transclude until it gets too big- should be considered? Because I've definitely noticed issues just loading this page. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support linking over transcluding. It's honestly such an odd choice to transclude all reviews onto a single page, then blame reviews and reviewers when that inevitably gets unwieldy. The arguments for keeping it as is are some peak "it's a feature, not a bug" appeals. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The page is unwieldy because FAC is being used as peer review. The purpose of FAC is to state, via Support or Oppose, whether an aricle meets the criteria. There will be occasional comments. When there is commentary as long as the article, FAC is no longer being used to evaluate articles vs. the criteria; it's being used to pull through articles that weren't ready. FAC is not peer review. The purpose for having all FACs on one page is that, in theory, the Coords are reading through the entire page regularly and dealing with trends and the big picture to keep the process functioning optimally overall. It's becoming apparent that there may now be too much division of labor, and this is no longer happening, and in fact FAC is becoming like GAN, with individual pages that not everyone reads, leading to variable quality and trends/problems being missed. Dividing the page will into subpages as GAN or PR will worsen what is now ailing FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The page won't load. Either the Coords need to start archiving sooner, or they need to start enforcing the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• +1 for linking rather than transcluding subpages. I've brought this up before but the main nom page is far too unwieldy and would be much more accessible in an index format à la ChristieBot. An index surfaces much more detail about the nom and where editors would want to contribute than scrolling through the entire discussion. czar 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Going to have to disagree with you on that one - as both a FAR coordinator and a FAC reviewer, I much prefer the complete view. I of course don't mind if there are alternatives available for those who have other preferences, but I would object strongly to getting rid of the transcluded version. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree; these summaries of the status of FACs are always misleading, discourage real review, and can further the very problem that brought us to these debates. I wish they didn't exist as they are so misleading, as is this new (against the instructions at FAC) trend of highlighting supports and opposes in sub-headings. If scripts show that the John Wick nomination has five supports, other reviewers are less likely to look in and see what the real status is. That's why the only way for a Coord to review the page, IMO, is to read the whole page every day top-to-bottom. Since there are now four Coords, one hopes they'd do that once a week. The entire page is what we should be using. The length problem is because FAC is being used as peer review, reviewers aren't using talk for peer review comentary, and some Coords are furthering and encouraging that behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the FAC page has serious load time issues (and has for days), and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nestor Makhno/archive1 (which is too long and could have resolved commentary moved off to talk, but I digress) is filled with {{tq}} templates. If the @FAC coordinators: could arrange their separation of duties such that at least one Coord reads through FAC daily, to address these as they come up, the page could again become accessible to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

2. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phoolan Devi/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

3. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1873–74 Scottish Cup/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

4. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Spencer (snooker player)/archive1 (that's two now where a Coord commented in the section and did not ask that the tq templates be removed, although there have been load time complaints for days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

5. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John B. Creeden/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

6. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Israeli citizenship law/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

7. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Berlin/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

8. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red Clay State Historic Park/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

9. And at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benty Grange hanging bowl/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I am able to access individual FACs, thanks to Czar for setting up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article alerts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And, after fixing all those, it loads ... very ... very ... slowly now. After being in there, I can see why. 1. FAC is peer review; almost every FAC is ridiculously long, and clogged with commentary that could well be on talk. 2. Even after removing the xt and tq templates, there are still so many other templates that they are probably also now slowing down the page, just because of the sheer number of reviewers who think they have to greenify text. The FAC page has become inaccessible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC instructions: Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background

I have seen this question raised a couple of times and it is currently part of a much more involved thread in which it is being slightly lost. To put the focus solely on it, rather than the rest of the thread, a separate discussion would probably be better, with the possibility of an RfC if needed at the end. Of course, if there is a consensus in the discussion, the RfC step isn't needed. Currently, Template:FAC-instructions, appears at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It states that there are four grounds on which a nomination can be archived:

A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

There has been some debate over the final point ("a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn"), with disagreement over that this means co-ords cannot archive an under-prepared nomination until a reviewer suggests withdrawal, or whether a co-ord should be able to archive based on their own judgement on whether it is under-prepared.

Proposal

I suggest we make the grounds for archiving more clear by adding a fifth bullet point:

* a coordinator considers that a nomination is too unprepared for FAC review.

All comments and suggestions on whether this is a beneficial step and/or whether the additional bullet point is sufficient or necessary would be welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Addendum at 8:53, 9 November: As there is an alternative proposal (changing the fourth bullet to include either opposition of the FAC or the suggestion it be withdrawn) I'll leave this running for a few days and we can always got to RfC if there no clear consensus arises. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yep, looks good. A ludicrously minor point: "co-ordinator" could be dehyphenated, as we don't usually write it like that here. But I like the idea of a separate fifth point rather than cutting off bits of the existing rules. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd prefer to have the decision that a nomination is unprepared and the decision to archive separated (as it is right now). If we can't trust our reviewers to review properly, why even have the process? With four coordinators, it is easy for one co-ord to recuse and oppose (or suggest withdrawal), and let the others decide in re archival. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• For reference, here is the discussion that led to this wording, implemented via this edit. As far as I can tell the reference to "Steve" in that edit summary refers to Steve Smith's comments here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• I wonder if changing from "has suggested withdrawal" to "has opposed" would be a reasonable medium? Explicitly recommending withdrawal isn't something everyone is comfortable with (many people, for various reasons, are uncomfortable making strong critical comments about another's work), and I don't think an oppose-based line would overlap too much with the "actionable objections" point, which I've generally read as closer to 1. situations where a nominator is no longer able to engage or 2. complex cases. This avoids the concern of having insufficient separation that Eddie raised, while still making it possible to archive premature nominations without waiting for them to time out. Vaticidalprophet 17:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why not both? If we change the fourth bullet point to "at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn or has opposed" and have the fifth bullet, then they can withdraw any unprepared nomination on any basis they wish. This gives them the ability to archive anything they or anyone else deems unsuitable. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not yet sure this is where the problem lies: I queried Gog in the section above. One thing is getting unprepared noms off the page as soon as they appear, to avoid other reviewers engaging the hopeless; an entirely different thing is point 2, which gives Coords broad discretion to archive with or without suggestions of withdrawal. I'm not sure this proposal solves the problem; we first need to better understand what the problem is, and why Coords aren't archiving sooner. I'm keen to do whatever it takes to "give them the tools they need", but doing that means having them explain why they aren't archiving sooner, and suggesting the wording they need to do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the discussion between Sandy and I above under John Wick#Break 1 summarises the situation at some length. To somewhat simplify, if the community wishes coordinators to be able to "glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination" the rules need to be changed. Currently there are not infrequent complaints that we do not do something which the rules do not allow us to. It would certainly be helpful if the community could clarify how much authority it would like to give the coordinators in this respect. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't helping me understand what you need, and indicates we still are talking past each other. One thing is your broad discretion to determine the timing to archive when there has already been an oppose lodged and in spite of multiple supports, regardless of whether the word withdrawal is used. The withdrawal option was originally a different beast, meant to deal with drive-bys. (And dates to the time when we didn't botify or codiy in articlehistory the drivebys, as they were thought to prejudice future noms-- an entirely different thing than we are discussing here.) The current example wasn't a drive by (although some of the supports were). In the current example, you already had a valid oppose, and certainly could "glance at the prose" yourself and see the issues were valid and close in spite of premature supports with an indication that copyedit needs were still evidenced in your opinion. So I still don't know what wording you need to 'give you the tools' to close noms earlier, and your post shows we still aren't understanding each other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

PS, maybe I am way dumber than I look, and am completely misunderstanding. Could you lend me a cluestick and state exactly what wording you believe you need to move noms faster? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

[2]

At no time during the discussion above have I been talking about or referring to the John Wick nomination or its close. I have been responding to your more general point - [3]. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

While I was talking in the specific context of this example. Gog, please stop running me around here; we're all on the same team, seeking solutions, and you aren't clarifying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not running you around. Perhaps reread the discussion above? I stated at 16:22 "I am not talking about any specific case, I am responding to your more general point". Your 15:30 post which prompted the discussion was a reply to Z1720's clearly general point and seemed - and still seems on rereading - to be general. In case it wasn't I had hoped that my start to my 16:22 post clarified where I was coming from. Rereading our exchange under Break 1 it all seems pretty clear to me. If it wasn't/isn't to you then my apologies for my poor communication. This is in danger of taking over community discussion of the merits or otherwise of the proposal, so I shall be stepping back. If you wish to continue this debate, perhaps we could do so elsewhere? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Back to you, SchroCat on the original proposal; there's nothing more I can suggest when it's not clear to me where the misunderstanding is, and what precise wording or lack thereof has led to the clogging of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I trust our present coordinators; at the same time, this is a considerable change from current practice, where essentially two different individuals are need to agree that archival is appropriate (reviewer + coord), to just one individual (coord alone). As a general principle, I prefer having a second pair of eyes on any decision, and I'm inclined to oppose this unless there's more evidence that this policy is slowing FAC down. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I share Vanamonde's concern about leaving the archiving decision to a single person. If a coordinator deems a nomination underprepared, they can oppose and recuse, allowing another coordinator to handle the archival process. For instance, in a recent FAC with unworthy supports, I had to step in and lodge my oppose; admittedly, I had overlooked Aoba's oppose. Gog, seeing this, took charge of the archival process. This approach is better than if I had archived it myself without any previous objection (at least from my perspective then).

  Additionally, I wouldn't mind adding to "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." It shouldn't solely be restricted to a withdrawal recommendation but should also include a reviewer suggesting that the article is not ready for promotion, i.e. an oppose. FrB.TG (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm completely ignorant about FA so can't comment on the merits, but I'd just like to confirm a point of logic or grammar: that or at the end of bullet three means that only one of the four bullets needs to be satisfied; is that your intent? If so, consider appending "...any one of the following is true:" to the lead sentence ("if, in the judgement...") for clarity. Having the or only on bullet three might require a reader to reparse what they've read already, if they assumed and at the semicolons (like I did). Front-loading the logic would reduce assumptions when reading. If I misunderstood your intent, then adjust as needed. Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have a few concerns with this. First, from a purely technical point of view, it would need to be "a coordinator considers that a nomination is too unprepared for FAC review", as it is completing a sentence which starts "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators..". Secondly, if we agreed this should be a valid rationale, then it would completely supersede the existing fourth bullet point, because that would become redundant: there would be no need for a point which says "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn" if we have another which says "a nomination is too unprepared for FAC review". They are the same thing, except the first is more restrictive. My preference, as a couple of people have mentioned would be a slight change of wording to the existing fourth bullet point, to "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has opposed it, or suggested it be withdrawn". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• If we want to modify things then I think Harrias' wording is preferable to other options suggested (perhaps "and/or suggested it be withdrawn" -- I don't think I've seen a withdrawal recommendation without an accompanying oppose). In the end it will still come down to treating the comment on its merits, i.e. an oppose must be actionable, within the FA criteria, and not simply a driveby. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• So, with now multiple options on the page, I would oppose the initial proposal, and be inclined towards Harrias's wording instead. But considering the back-and-forth here, it would be optimal to see this re-launched as a new proposal, in a side-by-side format (current vs. proposed), to hopefully engage more participants towards a broader consensus. My sense is that a significant number of current and former FA process participants are concerned that the initial wording proposed here gives too much leeway to Coords to be the sole arbiter, rather than providing more discretion to override premature supports in those cases where an actionable oppose has been lodged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevant discussions

It wouldn't have picked up either of the above two posts, but would there be interest in setting up article alerts for FAs? (Obviously excluding the FAC/FAR notifications). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria clearly needed, but I have no idea on the technicalities. How can this page stay better informed of every proposal out there that deteriorates "Wikipedia's best work"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Article alerts would pick up discussions/tags on FA-labelled articles. If you're interested in proposals from elsewhere (like VP), you'd want something more like Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Style_discussions_elsewhere - but that's manually generated, so we'd need at least one person to do it on a regular basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria ... Who can do/how can we do article alerts? The manual discussion looks awful. What if we just added a section to our {{FA sidebar}} and reminded FA people to add to it whenever a discussion relevant to FAs comes up anywhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone; instructions here. Adding a section to the sidebar would still require people to remember to manually update it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can help here. I've configured this to post to WP:FAC/AA automatically. We'll see how well it runs. It can potentially be formatted to fit in the {{FA sidebar}} similar to how the sections of {{VGA}} populate automatically. czar 16:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Czar thank you ever so much; will keep an eye on it, so we can add it to the sidebar. The instructions on that page left me clueless! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Czar, now that it's up and running, I think it's not quite what Nikkimaria and I were suggesting, It is pulling up a list of all Featured article candidates; it would be surprising if an article at WP:FAC had any ongoing alert/action like an RFC or an AFD. We were looking for article alerts on all Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood. So you're looking for alerts on all FAs that are not FAC and FAR (i.e., including FLC, FTC, and TFA)? I'll set that up here: WP:FA/AA. czar 13:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, except I'd much rather not have it cluttered with featured lists; could that be removed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I've removed FLC and FLRC (removals). czar 14:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured article: Alerts working

Czar thank you once again; Wikipedia:Featured articles/Article alerts is working! But the idea is to be able to spot places where there are issues. Would it be possible to remove the first bit (Today's featured articles), as that is only a list of TFAs scheduled, not where there are issues occurring, and Today's featured article requests, for the same reason (unless Wehwalt sees some usefulness for these lists)? We want FA folk to be able to hone in on where broader community feedback is needed, without plowing first through a list of places where feedback isn't needed. SchroCat could you look at this page and see what you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also unsure if adding Featured topics in there is useful, or just increases bloat. Nikkimaria?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I've removed TFA/TFAR and FTC/FTRC. Happy to add them back in a separate alert if anyone wants them. czar 13:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This is brilliant! Thanks to everyone involved for suggesting & getting it set up. Since we lost the TOC on the FAC with the new skin it's been impossible to see all the nominations and links to their discussions without fiddling with the sidebar TOC. This is just wonderful to see. Victoria (tk) 14:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added both pages to the FA sidebar, under scripts and tools. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

First-timers' welcome

• Looking at the table, it's interesting (and encouraging) to see so many first-timers nominating. Is this about average, or are we seeing a higher-than-average number go through? - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not something - so far as I know - which is tracked, so it is not possible for me to be sure. But my "feel" is that this is an unusually high proportion of FACs by first timers and a very unusually high absolute number. Although note that two of the "first timers" in the table are actually making their second nomination (in itself an encouraging point) and their first did not receive a spot check. (Hopefully the new system will reduce or eliminate such errors.) Also, from memory, one, or possibly two, of the "first timers" have previously had successful nominations at FAC, but 12 or more years ago and it was felt that another spot check etc was appropriate. Nevertheless, a quarter of FACs being from (actual) first-time nominators is pleasing. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Would if be worthwhile drawing up a 'Welcome to FAC' template to drop on the talk pages of first timers with a few bullet points about what to expect (spot checks for the first one and a rigorous examination of every aspect of the article); advice on how to deal with the comments (keep calm, deal with act in a timely fashion and don't take any of it personally); and how to get the best from the process (review the work of others to get a good idea of the process from the other side)? I was woefully underprepared for my first nomination and have seen a few newbies struggle with what is, for them, an alien process, and something along these lines may be of assistance for them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a wonderful idea. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I also like this idea. We could encourage new nominators to broaden their engagement by reviewing nominations in their areas of interest, emphasizing that this not only helps others but also heightens the chances of attracting reviewers to their own nominations. However, we should remind them that FAC doesn't operate on a quid pro quo system.

Another point that I've been meaning to bring up for a while: when coordinators highlight potential risks of a nomination failing due to inactivity, suggesting that the nominator reviews other nominations (also with the reminder that it's not a QPQ arrangement) could be effective and reminding that reviewers are more inclined to assess nominations from users whose names they frequently encounter in other people's nominations. FrB.TG (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've put together a quick mock-up at User:SchroCat/littertray 4 as a suggested start. If anyone wants to tweak, rework or delete and start from scratch - feel free to use the space to work in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I like it, but have tweaked it a little. See what you think. I would also prefer to make it standard prose in its own section, rather than be in a box. Opinions on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm entirely flexible on the formatting - whatever gets the message across to people is the key. ps. I like the text changes - much better. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I prefer it as a box presented section-wise with bullet points (i.e. the status quo) because it is concise, is aesthetically pleasing and avoids the wall of text format. In the template, I would make two additions: addressing the editor by their username and making an optional parameter for the link to the article to give it a more personal feel. Also, I think File:Cscr-candidate.svg (the FAC/FLC symbol) is more suitable than File:Cscr-featured.svg in this instance since at the time of posting this, their article hasn't actually been promoted yet. PS I have nothing to add to the actual text; it reads very well. FrB.TG (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, with bullets and subsections; as Schro wrote it. Yes, definitely address the nominator by name. Given that we shall be pasting this at the top of the article's nomination page, linking to the article seems redundant. I have already purloined it - thanks SchroCat - and pasted it to my FAC boilerplate page, ready for use. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I prefer the box version only if it's posted on the nominator's talk page, but if it's at FAC, it should be in standard prose in its own section. FrB.TG (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd presumed this would be pasted on the first-time nom's talk page like the "Promotion of X" messages that you get when an article gets promoted. With that in mind, I changed the style a bit to be more like that one: it looks like I was wrong, so feel free to switch back. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If posted on talk, it can be done using {{subst}} form. For example, {{subst:User:SchroCat/littertray 4|user=FrB.TG|page=Leonardo DiCaprio}} would show the following result (see "Example" box). FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel dizzy just looking at that. It is far too complicated for an old timer like me. I assume no one will object if I stay with my Neandertal-style cut and paste? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Is the box ready to be given its own template page? That is, if SC doesn't mind it squatting in his littertray. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Umm. Was there consensus for this to be pasted to nominators' user pages? I am not inclined, personally, to give advice to a FAC nominator about how to manage their FAC as an FAC coordinator anywhere other than on the FAC page of the nomination in question. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully disagree. If nothing else, it's great for a first-timer to get a welcome message, which isn't always the case on the FAC nom pages themselves. "What to expect" is a decent thing to include, and a small package of advice isn't a bad thing either. As a current first-time nom myself, I would've been fine with getting the message on my talkpage. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether or not to give all first timers such a greeting, that has been agreed; and it is an excellent idea. Nor the wording, that has also been agreed. Just where it would be most appropriate to place it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, right. Still maintain that the talk page, not the FAC nom page, would be most appropriate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've added a version in the example with the text size reduced to normal for comparison, as having it at 1.25 is a bit too shouty (although that's just my view and happy to go with the consensus, obvs).
  I agree with the suggestion about that if it's going on a nominator's talk page, the box sort of works, while it would be better in plain form if it goes on the nomination page.
  I am relatively ambivalent as to which location it goes in - either is appropriate, I think (a co-ord giving general advice to a first timer about the overall process works in either location): to me the key driver is which location would be most efficient and effective for a first-time nominator. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. And if the first thing they do is ask for clarification regarding that FAC issue which they have not understood, having their query on the FAC page both opens the discussion up to a wider range of inputs and enables the coordinators, and anyone else's, response to be viewed by a greater number of those who care and understand. And be readily referable to by other coordinators coming to the nomination later in its time at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also think user talk page is the most appropriate. If we take the current number of first-time nominations, this message would be displayed on 1/4 of nominations, making WP:FAC page lengthier than before. Also, given this is just general advice not strictly related to the nomination itself but the user's experience (or lack thereof), talk should be fine IMHO. FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think the talk page of the nominator is the best -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is concern that putting it on the nominator's talk page takes discussion off-FAC, and wanting their query on the FAC page, then use the most logical and most under-used page on all FACs-- the talk page of the actual FAC. That will give some good training to new nominators that it's possible to use the talk page of the FAC to lower the off-topic, page-clogging content of the actual FAC page. That offers the advantage that you don't have to watchlist the user talk page for queries or concerns, and anyone who has the FAC watchlisted will see posts to the FAC talk page (presumably all the Coords have all FACs that are close to maturing watchlisted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. This way we don't clog the FAC page with the same message displaying on 1/4th of the nominations and at the same time, no discussion will take place off-FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Example

Welcome to FAC Normal size text Hello, FrB.TG! Thank you for your nomination of Leonardo DiCaprio to FAC. What to expect As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style. Dealing with reviewers Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion Remember the reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you! How to get the best from the process Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side Reviewing also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC. Finally, good luck with the nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC) At 1.25em - for comparison Hello, FrB.TG! Thank you for your nomination of Leonardo DiCaprio to FAC. What to expect As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style. Dealing with reviewers Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion Remember the reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you! How to get the best from the process Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side Reviewing also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC. Finally, good luck with the nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Number of first-time nominators by month

In response to the query at the start of the section above, below is a graph showing the number of nominations each month which were the earliest nomination by that nominator. The data I drew this from only goes back to late 2006, so of course everything in August 2006 is a first-time nomination, but it looks like the pattern is fairly consistent after that. It's been fluctuating but steadily below 20/month for the last ten years, but there have been other peaks similar to the current one. One other note: this reports on nomination date so it doesn't correlate perfectly to "number of first-time nominations open at once" or "percentage of open nominations that are by first-timers", but it should be a good proxy for those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Excellent - thanks Mike. Good to know that there is a constant stream of first timers. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Great stuff. Mike, does it count first-time nominations, or all nominations prior to the first one which is promoted? And how are co-nominations handled?

Is there a technical reason why it shows zero for September, which was not the case. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I had to think for a second but I now realize that as the data only includes completed nominations, anything nominated in September (or before, for that matter) which is still open is not included in the numbers. From July back it should be correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Cheers. And my first question? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Got too interested in the second question to remember the first! It counts first nomination regardless of outcome, and regardless of whether it was a conom or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Fascinating stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Mike Christie, I know you're busy, but, how difficult would it be to:

1. Redo the graph to just show the last ten years or so, which would give a more useful scale.
2. Produce a similar graph, but show the first nomination any editor had promoted, which would give us slightly different information.

If either is a pain, don't worry about it. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog, easy enough to do, so here they are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Mike. Very handy. That Oct '21 spike is odd. In fact, the whole of q4 '21 is odd; any idea why? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just coincidence, as far as I can see. The spike is I think at September 2021; the editors whose first FAC was that month were AlexanderVanLoon, Apollo 16, AryKun, CactiStaccingCrane, Dracophyllum, Edmund I, Eewilson, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, GreatLakesShips, Isaksenk, Kavyansh.Singh, Kusma. I checked a couple on the facstats page and the list does appear to be correct. For Q4: 6 in October, 1 in November, and 5 in December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Mike, I should have said, I am looking at first promotions, not first nominations. Strange that there were nearly as many first promotions in that quarter as the first three quarters of this year, which has not been a bad year. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That list is Amanuensis Balkanicus, GhostRiver, TheDoctorWho, ZKang123, Apollo 16, AryKun, Dracophyllum, Edmund I, Eewilson, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, Isaksenk, Kavyansh.Singh. Again seems to be just coincidence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Tool for accessing Library databases more easily

User:smartse came up with the idea of using a browser extension to redirect links to the various Wikipedia Library databases so that, for example, when you click on a Science Direct or JSTOR reference, your browser will arrive not at the normal link – which will usually not grant you access to the article because you aren't logged in to anything – but instead your browser will arrive at the Library's version of the link, giving immediate access to the resource without further effort. I then developed more of the "redirect rules" so that now about a dozen of the most-used (my guess) databases work this way.

For directions, see SmartSE's original post at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Any gadgets to convert links? (permalink [4] with some discussion). Note that it is not a "javascript gadget" as such, and requires a browser that can use extensions.

To put this in the form of an example: you click on a JSTOR link to view an article, but can't access it because you are not recognized as authenticated. Now you have to consult your bookmarks/browser history and use the Wikipedia Library's interface, normally. No! With this tool, your browser automatically goes to [5], the authenticated version through the Library – no effort involved.

I am announcing this here because I don't think enough people are aware of this potentially very useful idea. If you have any questions or want additional databases set up for redirect, let me know (somewhere). Outriggr (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see this tool making article writing a little bit faster. Which for a very long list of sources to consult, can be quite useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Zotero (open source citation manager) has a browser extension that will handle TWL proxy redirection much the same way and without the script. Thanks for the notice and I'll reply in the main thread. czar 16:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's really annoying to get to a database & not be recognized, have to find the way to TWL, login, find the database in the available, & then research for the entry. I'm not really bothered which script cuts down the steps; only that some of them can be cut. I'm also very very sorry not to have responded to this earlier. I saw it when it was posted, but was busy at the moment & didn't reply. Now we're down an FA writer, reviewer & one of the best copy editors I've every had the honor to work with. Riggr, very sad to see you go & huge apols for not replying earlier. Victoria (tk) 20:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton at TFA?

Ernest Shackleton's 150th birthday is in February, and the article could use an update before it is considered for a TFA run. This is an article that was stewarded by Brianboulton, so an editor suggested that I post a message here. If you are interested in fixing up this article, please go to the article's talk page to join the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Z1720. Shackleton and Robert Falcon Scott suffered from some disruptive edits some years ago. See this when Ruhrfisch protected Shackleton. Since Ruhrfisch and Finetooth aren't around to verify that the text is okay, it needs a deep dive to check that the disruption stopped and whether the text is okay. I had both on watch for a long time but decided to remove them because there was so much edit warring. Victoria (tk) 15:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I see the talk page is the place to respond. Will cross post there. Victoria (tk) 15:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Jefferson Davis

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Formal proposal re: Page loading issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since this is an issue, and people keep bringing it up in relation to other stuff, here is a formal proposal: Do like WP:PR and, when a review gets too long, no longer display it. Please keep the discussion here focused on this proposal and not others. And otherwise stay on-topic. Please and thank you. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - takes something like 5—10 seconds to fully render. Just too long; we're no longer in the dark days of the early 2000s, after all. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Oppose now with the creation of /AA, will likely be using that now instead. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, and can we create a new page where all of the reviews are loaded automatically? Maybe WP:FACFULL or something similar? This way new editors won't have to worry about page load times under the new system, and if more experienced editors still like old system they can use it. Z1720 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this would replace one inconvenience with a worse one. Instead of five or ten seconds to load a page which then contains everything, and for a which a viewer exists that allows instant expansion of the FACs of interest, a user would have to click through to separate pages. Any review over the minimum size would surely receive less attention, since it would take more effort for reviewers to glance through it and see if it's ready to accept another reviewer. Perhaps another page (presumably bot-maintained) which functioned this way and which could be used by those who don't like the current page size would be better -- then its use would be optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mike. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The payoff in making the FAC page more accessible (not just in pageloads but in reading) would be tremendous. The omnibus GA proposal drive had many of these such fixes, i.e., the proposal isn't perfect, but it's in the right direction. Also the right direction is setting up separate subpages for the coords and regulars to get the various views they need of each nomination's progress, such as all reviews transcluded into the same page. Bots could be doing a lot more of the heavy lifting here, but first we have to want it. czar 22:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed solution seems worse than the problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:FAC/AA now exists for those who experience page load issues and just want links to individual discussions. Should be highlighted somewhere prominent, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mike Christie's vote, and Hog Farm's comment below. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mike Christie & Hog Farm. Also it's a very radical solution to a problem that's not yet been properly defined. Not everyone is having page load problems & problems finding the bottom of the page. The solution might be as simple as eliminating subheaders or some such thing. Also, before a proposal such as this can be considered we should discuss first & consider creating a mock up. Victoria (tk) 14:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mike, who explained it well and I share his concern. Though I agree that, in principle, we need some sort of solution for this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Page load discussion

• I've taken the liberty of adding these two sections to separate voting from discussion. Remove if you don't like it. Thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Technical question I don't ever have missing reviews, and the page loads instantly for me. Why do different people get different experiences? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I believe it's because of the nominations viewer - without it, the page loads instantly. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, while WP:NOMV makes it very slightly slower, both ways work fine. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The page was loading slowly for me for a few days, but cleared up recently after some archives/promotions got made for articles hanging around. (I use nomviewer.) I have a lower-mid-range laptop from 2021. I tested it out of curiosity on my phone and got a "don't even try" level of freezing-up, but my phone is a "was a flagship...in 2016" model and really not fit for purpose, so that's roughly what I expected. Vaticidalprophet 18:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• The last time we had this discussion (a couple of years ago?) the page was loading grindingly slowly and sometimes not displaying the last few nominations. This was fixed and since the worst I have had is a 4-5 second load time, on a 2017 clunky PC (the same one that previously struggled) and an iPhone 7. Using nomviewer or not makes little difference. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Stupid question: back in the day I watched & participated in PR quite regularly but when the page was redesigned no longer see the noms being added & thus no longer participate (a quick glance over there shows a couple I'd be interested in reviewing). How does one see PRs as they're added? Or is a periodic visit to the page needed? I'm asking because my knee-jerk reaction was to oppose here, but Czar's comment made me think it's maybe time to think outside the box to avoid lots of issues that seem to crop up with some regularity. Victoria (tk) 00:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Re: Czar: Does this proposal actually include other views? I don't see that it does. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  If this were to pass, anyone who wants/needs the all-in-one transcluded view would still need it, so we would have multiple views. czar 00:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this !vote is a little premature, given the multiple threads and discussions going on at the moment, and the lack of concrete proposals elsewhere on the page, let alone an absence of focused discussion on this specific point (one that didn't go off into other realms of FA/FAC processes). There isn't even agreement on whether there is a problem, or how it manifests itself (different people seem to be complaining about different things), let alone the 'cause of that problem or problems. Establishing the cause(s) ahead of any solution would be the better way of the horse and cart set-up (as well as being part of WP:RFCBEFORE). Can I suggest the !vote section is closed until we have a better grasp of the full situation, which can be done in the "discussion" section? Once that's done, we can go through a more formal RFC with realistic options that address actual problems that have been identified? - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd add that if the new page is to be bot-maintained, and is in addition to WT:FAC which seems from Czar's comments to be the intention, there's no need even for an RfC -- those interested can create an additional page and watch that if they wish. Then if more people like that than the current format, it could be the subject of an RfC to make it the default if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

They can always watch Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Article alerts if they just want a list of the currently active FACs. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that this proposal will just create a situation where, if you have to go to another page to find the oldest nominations, that we will just end up in a situation where fewer and fewer people make a concerted effort to get to the oldest nominations. We'd then have either 1) the oldest nominations rotting on the vine in obscurity and/or 2) a bunch of pissed-off nominators who are angry because their nominations which nobody sees anymore have to get archived because they sat around for forever. This isn't helped by the growing trend of nominators who view 3 supports + source + image as automatically allowing for promotion, rather than that being the minimum (see certain discussion further above on this page). A fairer solution would be to archive whenever the nomination reaches a certain age regardless of status and then just re-start the FAC - say somewhere in the 45-60 day range. From a look at my past nominations in the FAC stats tool, I've had six hit 50 or more days, and I would especially agree that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Marmora (1862)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Landis' Missouri Battery/archive1 drug on way too long and might well have been better off re-starting. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duckport Canal/archive1 likewise should have been archived long before it was. Hog Farm _Talk 16:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  A fairer solution would be to archive whenever the nomination reaches a certain age regardless of status and then just re-start the FAC -- I think I'd have zero FAs under this. (I'd have one FA by this off of length alone, but I wouldn't have nominated it, because I wouldn't have wanted to risk it timing out with support.) People vary a fair amount in how long it naturally takes them to execute changes in an optimal way, decide how to query suggestions they disagree with, work out the correct resolution for elements with ambiguous resolutions, etc. There are on top of that many outside-of-FAC reasons an active nomination receiving attention might wait for a while. FAC age inflation is tricky to resolve, and does need resolving, but something that can archive FACs with multiple supports and no opposition doesn't seem to be the right way. (I'm working on getting in the right mentality to handle comments more quickly, but I think that'll be a learning period.) Vaticidalprophet 17:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coord recusals

As in the above threads, a discussion about the increasing trend of Coord recusals might be helpful.

I offer the example of WP:FAR where Coords Nikkimaria, DrKay and Casliber never have to recuse, as they leave reviewing to reviewers, and they focus on the overall functioning of the process. Nikkimaria's only pings at FAR amount to status update? which lets us know we're stalled (which happens as we're waiting for another reviewer to finish).

There are clearcut cases where Coords should review or where their recusal to review or in general is called for. Examples are:

1. Nominations in their area of expertise-- we shouldn't hamstring our best content experts when a topic within their expertise comes up, and we should encourage them to recuse and review in those cases. (Eg, in my day, I would recuse to review medical content or where sources were predominantly in Spanish. We want Hog Farm reviewing Civl War, Fuchs reviewing video games, and Buidhe reviewing Holocaust, and Gog reviewing 100 year war, etc.)
2. Nominations where they have a clear COI or bias.
3. Nominations where they see drive-by or unqualified support, in the absence of any actionable oppose, is leading to possibly unwarranted promotion, and no one else is weighing in, so intervention to oppose an unworthy promotion is warranted. (If someone else has already opposed, not their job to pull the nom through.) Examples.
   1. My first ever, and one of my few recusals came because I saw multiple very experienced reviewers supporting a nomination with unreliable sources (this was before we instituted source checks). Those issues were corrected after I recused, and the nominator became one of our most trusted image reviewers at FAC (and someone I consider a friend, so whew, I lost sleep over that, but it ended well). This is an example where there was no Oppose I could use to archive a nomination with clear sourcing issues.
   2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1. Same situation: a deficient article with a strong of supports from good reviewers. I recused to review after seeing several promotions from the same nominator that gave me great pause (something picked up on years later at WP:FAR by Hog Farm, resulting in demotions of the nominator's body of work).

Other ideas for when Coord recusal is a good thing for the process?

Outside of whatever areas the community finds it helpful for Coords to recuse to review, I submit the blurring of roles is not helpful to the process overall. The trend of Coords also serving as frequent reviewers, or recusing to advance stalled nominations, has resulted in a damaging effect to the process and furthered sub-standard nominations -- fishing for us rather than "teaching us to fish". The Coord role should be to manage the process overall, make sure its functioning is optimal, and not to act as copyeditors to pull through deficient noms. Having too many Coords, so the Coords can wear two hats, is not the solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Well this discussion seems to have stalled, so I thought I'd stop by to advance it... ;-) (Pardon all for my absence from the page, btw, I'd have gladly traded my day on the road to have been here earlier.) Back to this topic, remember that the coords are typically strong content writers and reviewers, and they nominate articles at FAC like everyone else. In doing so they don't expect people to give up time reviewing their noms if they don't also review. There is nothing new in coords continuing to nominate at FAC -- and therefore recusing to review as well -- it was my sole condition on accepting the role when it was offered to me. (If the community deems it more proper that coords should not continue to to nominate their own articles, then by all means have an RFC to write that into the guidelines.) Now as to why a recusing coord chooses a particular article to review, I can only speak for myself with surety but I think most of it comes down to areas of interest/expertise, and occasionally an early oppose or withdrawal recommendation for what appear to be premature noms. The suggestion that coords might recuse to help a deficient nom along seems to question not only their motivation but also their integrity. If I review then I take the article as I see it, and it might be deserving of my support for promotion or it might not, that's all there is to it. Finally, I think you could argue that coords reviewing -- as well as writing -- featured content might just as easily be considered "teaching to fish" as opposed to "fishing for us" -- by example. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advanced advancement, with is most useful. Viewed in that helpful context, then my entire concern should be re-formulated. From this perspective, the issue is not Coords recusing to review, but back to the old issue of any reviewer (Coord or not) taking on reviews that are too lengthy and too convoluted on articles that are too ill-prepared, rather than simply entering an Oppose and moving it off the page to Peer review. It's unfortunate if anyone's time-- Coord or not-- is taken to pull through those which shouldn't be here because others are afraid to oppose as they'll get sucked in, or because of premature supports; that's the clog.

So my concern is rephrased to, can we find a way to discourage all of us-- Coord or not-- from pulling deficient articles through, when they have early/premature support or absence of opposes? This is exactly what I fell in to at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1, and sure 'nuff-- all of that author's work has had to be de-featured years later. Would shortening the archival time not reduce the number of times we end up in this trap? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a bit of "mission creep" going on here. We started off with coord recusals and now we are talking about shortening archival time. I have never seen a coord stepping in to help an inadequately prepared article to pass. In fact, I have found the opposite to be true, and have benefited from a nudge with several of my articles over the years. I heartily endorse what Ian has written above. As an editor who works on many obscure articles on subjects where many sources are not in English, I am against shortening the archival time, as the obscurity and non-English sources of an article can often result in a longer period to attract sufficient reviewers. Not sure what "problem" is that we are trying to solve here. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Re, mission creep, yes ... if we want to have free-flowing discussion to decide what, if any, RFC topics are needed, that may happen. I think Ian showed my initial premise was wrong, so I moved on; I hope that's a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, please excuse my ignorance, but what is "archival time"? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Two weeks used to be my outside limit for retaining a stalled FAC on the page with no consensus or no participation (unless there were outlying factors, such as those mentioned by Peacemaker67 or raised in the RFC Mike diffed, as examples only--- there are obviously as many exceptions as one can think of), and where I aimed to keep the Older nominations marker; now it seems to be three weeks, best I can tell. And it also seems that many go several months without consensus. I'm seeking anything we can do to get the page back to a size where it will load, and one week might make enough of a difference. (An even bigger difference would be seen if we could just get the ultra-long reviews off the main page; but that never seems to gain traction here, so I'm aiming for something/anything else. As someone who read all of FAc, top-to-bottom, every single day-- I just can't even do that anymore-- the page isn't accessible.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving completed comments to the talk page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here and at #Dumbfounded on page length in lieu of subpages we have ongoing examples of why the first priority of the Coords should be to manage the process and make sure it is functioning optimally. It's wonderful that Coords want to, are able to, and (think they) have time to also review articles, but when the process is faltering, reviewers don't understand the instructions, Coords themselves don't follow the instructions (and revert reviewers who do), and the page is so stalled it won't load, I question whether Coords are prioritizing reviewing over keeping the process running optimally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'm not sure how comfortable I feel moving other people's comments but if my fellow coordinators and the FAC community don't have a problem with moving resolved comments to the nomination talk, I'll be happy to do that if that means making WP:FAC's size more manageable. FrB.TG (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a significant change such as this should only be made if there were a clear community consensus to implement it. Possibly it could be added to the RFC which it has been suggested is coming? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure: I can add that in as a separate point for !voting. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I would/always have fully supported Coords removing lengthy commentary to the talk page of the FAC, particularly after its resolved, and did it often myself. The Coords need to do something here to get the long FACs moving, the page unclogged, and that's one thing that is in your toolbox. Long reviews discourage further review, as reviewers see there are problems and may decide not to engage. Having gone through to clean out the templates, it is obvious that there are about a dozen FACs that are well past the point they should have been closed, and that the number of templates on them, even if not of the discouraged kind, are probably stalling the page on their own.

Better still would be to start reminding reviewers that when they are entering commentary that has nothing to do with Support or Oppose for Coord review and consensus building, it can go on the talk page of the FAC to begin with. Nitpicking peer reviews can be on the talk page of the FAC; substantive items that Coords need to know about belong on the FAC. Prose review is good, but Coords don't need to know that an instance of use was changed to purpose. They do need to know if there is POV, or comprehensive, or sourcing issues, for example. And if prose is so bad it takes pages to clean up, the article should be opposed on 1a and archived.

Example: not a single comment I made here would lead me to oppose. But neither do I consider it responsible to Support an article when the FA process has long had and known about an IP expert who should be pinged in before supporting. (Coord job descriptor item: know the FA reviewer crowd and know when to ping in an expert, and make it a habit to know who those experts are.) So neither does resolution of my nitpicks lead me to a Support until I know Elcobbola has looked in. There is no need for my nitpicks to clog the FAC page, as they contain nothing that impacts whether I will support or oppose-- when and if they do, then that is lodged on FAC for Coord review. We've had objections in the past from one Coord who doesn't want to follow a link to talk, which raises serious concerns. I hope all Coords are following everything they should be following everywhere, which includes ALWAYS checking the article talk page and archives for any hidden problems, checking previous FACs and peer reviews, checking for any friendly supports that haven't been declared as such, and quid-pro-quo and it goes on ... closing a FAC always should involve looking at more than just what's on the page, and that can include the talk page of the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ps, FrB, if you are uncomfortable removing resolved commentary to talk, other options are to ask the reviewer first, and remind them you will add back a link to the talk page, or ask them if they might do that themselves. There are plenty of different approaches you can take, depending on how well you know the nominator and reviewer (ie, whether they will be any sensitivity to moving comments). Even if we get only some of the lengthy reviews moved, that will lower the loadtime problems, and then allow more flexibility to let new nominators and reviewers find their way without bothering them (yet) with these technicalities. Just remember to always leave a direct link to the moved commentary. And thank you again for engaging here constructively, in the face of my bludgeoning persistence :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the superiority of moving to talk page over collapsing resolved comments? As a reviewer, once I've done my own comments, I like to look at other comments and it's convenient to have them all on one page. Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

From my point of view, the page load problem needs to be addressed - again. Not being able to see John Wick (and others) at the bottom of the page is problematic. I haven't seen the bottom of the page for a long time - but that also has to do with losin the TOC with the new skin.

We did discuss some years ago which mark up affects page size. Mike Christie do you remember that discussion? You were looking at various templates in relation to the P something something (I don't remember the acronym). This was when we decided to remove FAR from the bottom of the page. If I remember correctly we learned that the collapse template isn't very expensive but the tq template is expensive. I see that the instructions are in a collapsed section. Maybe a quick fix would be to uncollapse & remove all expensive templates? Victoria (tk) 15:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The main advantage is that people reading in edit mode don't see them and that removed comments, unlike collapsed ones, do not contribute to the page size. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I've done a number of reviews on the talk page and like working there. No pressure to worry about page size, plenty of space to spread out. A link to the talk page discussion is always supplied and clicking that link vs. clicking to open a collapsed comment costs the same to the user but page size is decreased. Victoria (tk) 15:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a reviewer I agree with Wehwalt, I am not even fond of comments being collapsed. Speaking as a coordinator and just for myself it makes that job more difficult and I would support it only as an option of utter desperation. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It's all much of a muchness for me: move, don't move, collapse, don't collapse, noodles, don't noodles.. As Victoria says, it's all a maximum of one click away anyway, and if it helps people view the page, I think it should be done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, just out of curiosity why do you say that moving comments (with a convenience link pointing to them) should happen "only as an option of utter desperation". I've been involved in some quite lengthy and contentious reviews when it was necessary to move discussion the talk page. If coords have reviews on watch then presumably they're seeing the interactions, whether on talk or not. Victoria (tk) 14:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I wrote "Speaking as a coordinator and just for myself it makes that job more difficult and I would support it only as an option of utter desperation", emphasis added. I find myself unable to carry the details of 40 odd discussions spread over 2 months in my head. So when I come to close an article I like to go through the full FAC discussion. I find that having this all on the FAC nomination page per the instructions greatly facilitates this, which is no doubt a sign of senility and/or laziness on my part. I know as a reviewer that some nominators are inclined to hat or move to talk as "resolved" comments where I have supported but expressed concerns or doubts. As these are just the sort of things which I want to be aware of before closing, I feel that I cannot take "Resolved, moved to Talk" as a sign that I do not need to at least skim through them. And bitting and bobbing between pages seriously does my head in. (See senility comment above.) Other coordinators, with a firmer grip on their faculties, may well have a different opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are the only one of 22 FA process closers (Director/Delegate/Coord) over the years to have expressed such difficulty with shortening pages once they become lengthy and clogged by removing resolved comments to talk. Perhaps we could prioritize instead the many reviewers and nominators who may be put off from engaging FAC, and seek together ways to make the page more accessible. (I share the "growin' old ain't for sissies" concerns: I had a similar issue navigating the reviewer tickmarks and the distracting colored text when trying to figure out what was actually done according to the reviewer, when a simple "done" would suffice.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Victoria, the template limits and page load size are (I believe) separate issues. We're currently at about 2/3 of the limit of the page size as far as templates go. Removing some of the templates such as {{green}} would reduce that some more, but I don't think it would impact the page load time. That's more a function of the rendered page length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. What is the limit?

In terms of not being able to see the bottom of the page - the Vector 2022 TOC doesn't render well. It only shows newer and older nominations; when expanded it shows every single level four review & tends to snarl/hang/whatever when trying to scroll to the bottom. So since I switched & the old TOC was lost, I haven't seen beyond the first 2 or 3 entries. Basically I've stopped looking. But this morning I tried to look and realized the instructions are in a collapsed section & think in the least they should be more visible. Victoria (tk) 20:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the prose size tool, which tells me that the current page is 282 kB/79 kB (13871 words) "readable prose size". Looking at the Nov. 6 version of the page (which definitely loads very slowly, wonky toc or not) the tool size reports 284 kB/80 kB (13948 words) "readable prose size". This doesn't make sense to me and I scrolled down a bit & see that it's not reading bullet points, so very little prose is being reported. I don't know another way of checking for the page size - other than adding up each individual transcluded page. Mike Christie, am I seeing this correctly? Victoria (tk) 21:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Take a look at User:Mike Christie/temp5, which I just built to answer your question. It's about seven screens of text (on my monitor) and the HTML is about 186K; I think this would load pretty quickly on most computers. Now do the following: click Edit source, then hit the "Show preview" button. Scroll to the bottom of the page. You'll see (below the edit window) a section called "Parser profiling data"; you may have to click on the triangle to expand it. One of the entries is "Post-expand include size" (PEIS). The value it gives is 1,438,848/2,097,152 bytes; that is, almost 2.1M bytes are allowed, and this relatively small page is 70% of the way to being too big. That's because it transcludes a page which transcludes a page and so on, and it also uses templates that increase the transclusion size. This is an example of a small page with a large PEIS; if I made it not very much longer it would hit the transclude limits and would not display.

Now open up WP:FAC and hit "Show preview", and go to the bottom and look at the PEIS there. That page is several hundred screens long, but has a lower PEIS than the test page I made. The HTML for WP:FAC right now is over 5Mb; that has little to do with the templates; it's just a reflection of the large amount of text on the page. There's no hard limit for page size in this second sense; it's just a limit on how big a page gets before it annoys too many editors and we have to find a way to shorten it. The transclusion limits are hard limits -- when you get over 2.097Mbytes the page doesn't fully display, and there's nothing to be done about it except eliminate transclusions or swap expensive ones like {{tq}} for cheaper (but not free) ones like {{green}}. Since we're not near the PEIS limit at the moment I don't think we need to worry about the templates; they are not slowing down the page.

Re the ToC, have you tried the nominations viewer? I (and I would guess others) use it as a ToC for FAC, and it works very well for that. It does contain counts of supports and opposes, which I know some object to, but you don't have to pay attention to those if you want to, and it makes navigating FAC very easy indeed. I tend to read FAC from the last nomination upwards, and that would be impossible without the nominations viewer. (Post ec) I wrote the above before seeing your last post but I think it answers that question anyway -- let me know if anything is unclear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That's perfect & what I meant when I said "P something something". You did explain it once before but I couldn't find that discussion (maybe because of the archives snafu that Sandy tackled). I'll keep the link to your reply so I'll have it can experiment.

Re toc - yes, I know about the viewer but am lazy, lack energy & am not that invested these days to fiddle. In my view the new skin is good enough to keep even though I've lost the ability to see the FAC noms. That said, I think of myself as a cockroach (when you see one there are more) - if someone pops in for the first time the TOC is just overwhelming and not at all intuitive, and those first timers won't know there's a viewer, which requires fiddling, and will quietly go away. Not sure if that's problematic but thought I'd mention it. Victoria (tk) 21:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Older nominations marker

The page has quite serious load time issues right now. This has been raised repeatedly over recent years, the discussion has been stifled every time a return to following the instructions on the page is raised, and the clogged page, discouraging reviewers, is a reflection of some of the editing trends discussed above. FACs need to be archived sooner, and lengthy reviews can be placed on talk initially, or moved to talk by Coords, so as not to slow down the page and discourage others from looking in. It is not Coords' job to be handholding/babysitting and pinging to inquire for a declaration when none has been entered. And alerting nominations that a close is imminent only results in premature Supports so the nom won't be closed.

I propose a concrete step, returning to how the Older nominations marker was set historically, to stop at least one of these trends.

The older nominations marker is now set by bot; it's doing nothing helpful, as almost every nomination is taking too long, and most are so old that their age alone indicates there are issues and the noms should be taken off the page. I used to set the "Older nominations" manually. Where I set it was based on the overall state of the page at the time-- it was determined by engaging brain, not bot. It let reviewers know where to dig in. At times, if the page wasn't clogged, it was OK to let nominations run longer; other times, not. But the place I set the "Older nominations" marker was my clear indication to reviewers and nominators that, if you're below the marker, I'm likely to close (with exceptions obviously). The automatic setting of the marker means it has lost all meaning, and instead, Coords are pinging FACs to advise they are close to archiving.

A return to setting the older nominations in a way that puts nominations on notice they are subject to being closed as soon as the next Coord looks in is preferable to this handholding and babysitting. For contemplation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How about the "newer" noms are shown in full, and then the "older" noms are below and in a bulleted list (with notes next to it listing what is needed for promotion), and then expanded on in another page? So, you have the "Nominations" section as normal, and then, for example:

Older nominations

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Older nominations

• Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (source review needed)
• Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina (source review and additional supports needed)
• Israeli citizenship law (source review, image review and additional supports needed)

et cetera, and then the full pages displayed on a subpage, like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Older nominations. Speeds up load time and give older nominations their own pages, whilst also being shown on the main FAC page. Not a perfect solution, but a suggestion to address this comment. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I think it could kick the can down the road. The load time problem is because noms aren't being closed soon enough, and moving them elsewhere decreases the likelihood they'll get looked at. I decided long ago to stop reviewing until these trends are addressed; I'm unlikely to go to another page to view noms that should have been closed weeks ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it would decrease reviews. People who watch both pages might be inclined to go review an article which has just been moved to the Older nominations page. I'd like to see faster reviews too, but Wikipedia is growing and is outpacing FAC: too few reviewers, too many articles. The answer, Sandy, to your issue is simply: more reviewers. FACs go faster with more eyes on 'em. The setup that you describe with the older style of Older nominations is before my time here, so I'm not sure what you mean by it. Anyway, just an idea. Best — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm worried about where my meaning is unclear? I moved the "Older nominations" marker manually, and that was my way of indicating which noms might be closed at any time, rather than pinging reviewers on individual reviews, which sends a beacon. Please let me know where else my writing is typically unclear :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah right, suppose I was overthinking it a bit. Nevermind. Your writing was clear. My bad, not yours. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thx (wouldn't be the first or the last time my writing was muddled :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

To my mind, the "older nominations" subheader has only purpose—giving the coords an immediate check on "has this nomination been open for the minimum amount of time (three weeks, it seems?) that it can be promoted/archived?". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we still need the "newer" & "older" demarcation? Victoria (tk) 00:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• No, because they're almost all over-aging, and the purpose of the demarcation is lost.
• A much more useful demarcation would be those that have passed a source review, and those that haven't, but that proposal got stalled here two years ago. If we instead had a line below which only those that have passed source review advanced, it would encourage reviewers that their time spent on those looking at prose and other matters is not wasted, as the sources are good.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

John Wick

Can someone please remove John Wick from the archived nominations for the moment please until David Fuchs is online? They've archived it despite me having the support to promoteDarkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link to the nomination. Per the discussion at the bottom, it does seem like it would have been helpful to offer a rationale as to why the FAC is being archived vs. promoted? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: FYI. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no urgency ... if it gets FACbot-ified and later has to be undone, pls ping me, as I know all the manual steps to undo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Which does not mean I see consensus to promote at that FAC; just offering to help on the technicalities if manual steps are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Endorse close, post-mortem:

When I first looked at the nomination, it looked like David Fuchs had made an error on the close, but that was because this edit had broken the template; Fuchs clearly archived the nomination as he should have.

This was a good close, which should have happened nine weeks ago, when a serious list of real deficiencies was posted. The fastest route to promotion is sometimes through archival, by re-working an article off-FAC and, in a case like this, locating a copyeditor for future collaborations. The list of deficiencies raised by TompaDompa on 3 September warranted a close at that point, busy and valued reviewers should not have to come back again, a month later, when there are this many problems, and yet the nomination stayed open another month even after that. Without even looking at the neutrality concerns, the prose issues-- even after months at FAC-- are still apparent. The extra time at FAC served no one. The article does not have FA-level prose, there is lack of clarity and ambiguity to be found just at a glance, and the need for prose tightening mentioned by Tompa Dompa weeks ago is still there.

Going back to view the versions of the article that others supported, in consideration of the level of issues in the version first reviewed by TompaDompa, reveals the prose problems in those versions and renders the first three opposes moot; they clearly didn't engage the prose at the FA level. First, two of those supports had to be prompted by a Coord; why is that happening? Coords aren't babysitters; if there are no supports, just close the nomination so nominators will realize to come better prepared next time and the drag on FAC can be minimized (the page won't load now, and that's because of the ridiculously long reviews of ill-prepared articles like this one, allowed to linger for weeks. Why did three Coords look at it and not close it, until Fuchs mercifully finally did?)

Considering the obvious prose problems one can see by pulling up the version supported by TheJoebro64 reveals that review was not to FA standards. Piotrus didn't pretend he had reviewed the entire article; he looked at whether there was academic sourcing, and admitted not having read the article, so regardless if the declaration was a weak support, it shouldn't count as a support at all. So at the point of TompaDompa's identification of numerous issues, the article, the nomination, the reviewers, the nominator, and the FAC page would have been better served if the FAC had been archived then. Keeping a deficient nomination on the page for another nine weeks serves no one and is unfair to reviewers who have to visit and re-visit, and doesn't help nominators learn the standards or understand their weaknesses and, in this case, that they need to develop a better network of collaborators to come to FAC better prepared to begin with. FAC is not peer review, and not for pulling up to standard articles which appear here far off the mark. Following TompaDompa were two essentially drive-by supports which didn't engage the standards at all (evidenced by the prose infelicities still in the article) and in light of TompaDompa's list of deficiencies, can be completely discounted.

Process concerns: WP:WBFAN shows Darkwarriorblake has 24 FAs; unless this nomination was an anomaly, something is wonky. The FAC stats tool reveals that TheJoebro64 is a frequent reviewer of Darkwarriorblake's work; that's another concern, as this nomination was not reviewed to FA standards, and TheJoebro64 may want to examine their reviewing. Zmbro, who supported this nom as basically a drive-by !vote, has multiple FAs and many reviews; both warrant scrutiny. The Corvette ZR1, this was your first FAC review; FAC is not a !vote, and all you've done by adding on a Support for an article that is not at FA standards is signal to the Coords that your reviews can't be taken seriously. While you are still learning the standards, you can spend time reading other FACs or enter comments without entering a declaration, and work up to being ready to support only when an article meets the standards.

David Fuchs I do agree with The ed17 that you might have added a closing note, if for no other reason, to start re-educating FAC folks that FAC is not a !vote. Something like this would work: I've reviewed TompaDompa's Oppose and the article, and have found that the prose problems they raise are valid and are still in the article after months at FAC. I recommend the nominator locate an independent copyeditor to help tighten the prose, clean up the ambiguities, and review the neutrality concerns before returning to FAC in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but what are you talking about? TompaDompa's oppose was on neutrality which Frb.TG disagreed with, accurately, the claims made were sourced by dozens of references and TompaDompa dismissed every one. Every single one of the other issues they raised I accommodated even if I didn't agree. You're also being incredibly rude and you may wish to assess how you discuss other editors and their work in the future. This, "ill-prepared articles like this one", is out of order, I've brought many articles to FA now and it was as prepared as I could make it and up to the standard I want which i think others would agree I do not cut corners or half-ass these things and I have always been receptive to feedback, they are the result of months of work and each one goes through the GOCE as well. I asked for help with this being archived without explanation, you gave me a slap in the face, and that's not acceptable for your role. You also keep raising TompaDompa's review as if I didn't address any of it when that is the furthest thing from the truth, I addressed every single point. You make it sound like the article is a write-off from top to bottom when the end point was disagreement over neutrality primarily about one section which, as stated above, was heavily sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

QUOTE: Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words. ... articles shouldn't be longer than they need to be ... judicious copyediting could "trim the fat", as it were. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) ... I don't think the prose quality (conciseness, use of quotes, wording, and so on) is quite up to WP:Featured article standards, but I also don't think those deficits are so serious that my objections on those grounds alone should hold up the nomination if all other reviewers agree that it's fine [ed note: I don't] TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) UNQUOTE.

That bit from TompaDompa is still true, and doesn't address the parts of the text that are ambiguous to the point I can't decipher the meaning. The article was ill-prepared for FAC; developing a set of collaborators to copyedit before approaching FAC will serve you well in the future, and retaining deficient articles for months on the page is hindering the entire process.

I do acknowledge you tried to address the concerns, but allowing a FAC with lengthy issues to drag on this long is not optimal FAC functioning, and not helping anyone understand FA writing or reviewing standards. I'm very sorry the critique bites, but in the long run, I hope it helps-- you as a writer, the page which is so bogged down it's no longer readable, and particularly those who are conducting drive-by, prose-light reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Or just stop being rude? Learn to be better Sandy, I know you have it in you somewhere. A process that is entirely reliant on the goodwill of editors putting time and effort into writing these articles shouldn't be so blasé about unacceptable attitude from those representing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixes after edit conflict. The process is entirely reliant on reviewers, a precious resource, whose time shouldn't be misspent. I hope you can come to see their value. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No editors doing the work, there's nothing for you to review, and one job is significantly harder than the other. You've got it backwards and alongside the rudeness you may need to reassess your self-overvaluation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

An idea that might help you appreciate the selfless work of reviewers, without whom we would not have FAs. You have 37 nominations, and 35 reviews, according to the FAC stats tool-- a ratio of 0.9. Maybe spending more time on the other side of the fence would change your perspective? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This can go tit for that all day. According to your tool you've never nominated anything, do more of the hard work and less of the chatting. I spend my time taking articles from nothing. That you're comparing months of work, purchasing books at my own expense, vetting references, and writing swathes of text carefully pulled from hundreds of sources, with commenting on that work is a joke. Your dismissiveness of the amount of selflessness required to BRING an article to the point that it's even on this page is a joke. That is why we have FAs at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the tool :). And medical FAs can rarely be written in months; they take years and require ongoing constant maintenance. I've done quite enough to know and appreciate how hard it is to do what you have done. But being active on both sides of the fence means also that I insist that if reviewer time isn't highly valued, FAC fails. And FAC is failing-- because the page is bogged down, and Coords are feeding writers the fish rather than teaching them to fish for themselves. You should be out there developing a network of collaborators to help copyedit, rather than relying on Coords to recuse and copyedit. Coords should be rarely recusing, and shouldn't need to talk backchannel; FACs should be closed sooner so we can focus on the worthy. The entire FAC process has been turned upside down on these trends ... which are unproductive and the reason the numbers are failing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Endorse close by David Fuchs who read the room correctly. User:Darkwarriorblake claimed on the nomination page that the article had four supports, a weak support and one oppose. This is disingenuous. No offence, as Burke would say. Two of those supports were extremely short and drive-by (zmbro / The Corvette ZR1), and while there might 'only' have been one oppose, that oppose was, in fact, from the longest and most thorough review the nomination received. And bearing mind that, per WP:FAC, an oppose is given considerably more weight than declarations of support, much of that support crumbles away and is canceled out. So, effectively, your article had a hypothetical two supports and a well-based oppose and clearly lacked any consensus to promote whatsoever. HTH! ——Serial 13:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, SN. Well, to be exact the instructions state that resolution of critical comments (which might not necessarily include outright opposition) is given considerably more weight than declarations of support, but the point is that FAC is not a vote, and a single well-reasoned, actionable oppose can trump any number of supportive comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Break 1

Apologies for letting it run for as long as it did. Ian and Gog wanted David and me to express our opinions on this as newly appointed coordinators so quite a bit of communication took place. Re "Why did three Coords look at it and not close it", strictly speaking for myself, I looked at this with a view to closing at the time of my posting at the FAC, mainly focusing on the neutrality and prose issues raised by Tompa. I found myself in disagreement on certain sourcing/neutrality issues, and I did quite a bit of copyediting of the prose trying to ensure brevity and eliminate the use of quotes, which could easily be paraphrased. This is why I thought it was best for me to recuse as I got too close to the article for me to remain completely neutral on this. I hope it clarifies some things. FrB.TG (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that; the clarification and communication and transparency are most appreciated and helpful. (Just an aside: previous "administrations" held the policy of minimal back-channel discussion, which was reserved only for serious situations, eg COI and the like.) I did also notice (and appreciate) that you copyedited away some of the major things that were troubling me in the earlier versions I diffed, but there's still more tightening and amiguity clarification needed.

Separately, because David's close was challenged, when I found it the right close, I felt it important to speak up and lay out all the reasons, so a new Coord doesn't get or feel undermined, and to (surprisingly) still have to remind others that FAC is not a !vote (which the opening statement here seems to imply). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the coord's communication could take place at Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination, so it is easily pointed to in a discussion such as this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That was exactly what previous delegates did, except in very rare circumstances, where confidentiality was required. That Coords feel they have to discuss how to close a FAC is concerning. If they are all adhering to the instructions, there should be rarely ever a need to discuss. That they so often have to recuse to pull an article through is even more concerning. This trend has obscured what FAC is supposed to be, decreased the network building and peer review that should be happening off-FAC, increased the prima donna factor (writers who really don't understand they would not have a star without reviewers and don't even realize the reviewer time they waste by showing up ill-prepared), and bogged down the page. It is a mystery to me why this is still going on when the stats show how badly this has impacted the numbers. But I don't think anyone even follows the numbers and trends closely enough any more to realize all of this. Teach 'em to fish has been replaced by buy the worms, bait the hook, and catch the fish for them. It's as if they think their job is to keep the promotions running at a certain percentage, and keep the page bogged down so much it won't load. So ... that is why I applaud seeing Fuchs do the right thing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

An all-caps initialism, initially cryptic, but apparently quite rude, directed at another editor.
YCKGFYATWUYA Sandy :) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, WP:FACC was established precisely for that purpose—to minimize the reliance on back-channel talks, create a transparent communication platform between coordinators, and facilitate the tracking of nominations, thereby preventing any oversights in mandatory spot-checks for text-source integrity for first-time nominators. Regarding my mention of "Ian and Gog wanted David and me to express our opinions on this as newly appointed coordinators," I might not have conveyed it clearly. It wasn't an obligation to discuss but rather an opportunity for us, as new coordinators, to share our perspectives (emphasis being on the "new" aspect as in a one-time occurrence). FrB.TG (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer time is precious, and co-ordinator time is also precious. If a co-ordinator needs to copyedit an article so much that they need to recuse, then I think the article is not ready for promotion. This is especially true if the copyedit involves significant paraphrasing of quotes. Instead of spending hours copyediting (as that's how long it takes me to complete a significant copyedit of "my" FAC articles) the coordinator should state their opposition to the nomination and explain their concerns. This is not meant to be a criticism of co-ords, but rather an encouragement and empowerment to co-ords that they are not responsible for "fixing" articles at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternately, they glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination with an indication that an independent copyedit is needed. Do that three or four times, and a nominator will understand they need to better prepare, and the page won't be so backlogged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

At the moment the FAC rules do not permit the coordinators to do that. There are four current grounds for archiving a nomination. The one closest to what you are proposing is "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Perhaps you would care to start a discussion to have the last ten words stricken? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's wrong-- particularly in this specific case. First, those instructions haven't changed; the interpretation of them has, in ways that has led to fewer promotions, a clogged page, and an increasing success rate that indicates other issues. No article or nominator is owed promotion (although we can look at the start of this thread and see that the idea that X number of supports = promotion, and that idea has gained traction at FAC and has in fact become the practice). It must be demonstrated an article meets the criteria, and when that hasn't been done, you can archive at your discretion (you were delegated by Ian Rose because he trusted your judgment). Second, you had a clear and valid and lengthy oppose that could have been acted on. You don't act on these opposes as soon as they occur, instead let them drag on and on, and that is what is clogging the page and worse, leading to substandard FAs being pulled through in spite of deficiencies, because you're announcing that a nomination is about to be archived means premature drive-by supports come in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about any specific case, I am responding to your more general point [6] immediately above my comment. Coordinators cannot "glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination". If this was ever done, it was in flagrant disregard of the FAC rules. If you would like the coordinators to behave differently, you may wish to consider giving us the tools to enable us to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you can, when a credible reviewer has already raised the problem and entered an oppose on that basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed we can, and we do. Which is completely different from what you suggested above we should do. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So, to make sure I'm understanding where we are misunderstanding each other; is it your position that you can't archive a nom that hasn't gained sufficient consensus for promotion after a certain time, at your discretion, and then look at the article yourself and see (possibly) why, and add on a statement in the closing that you can see a copyedit is still needed, and that may be why reviewers aren't engaging, so you recommend independent eyes and an off-FAC copyedit? Or is it your position that you can't archive a promotion when the supports outnumber the (valid) oppose? I'd be happy to try to give you the tools you need, but I've first got to understand what is happening and I've been frankly mystified about what criteria you all are using. Seeing that you have to discuss these things back-channel means maybe you all aren't clear either, so I can't decipher which tools you need. You have discretion to close when consensus for promotion is not evidenced, and the timing is at your discretion, and you can add your own observations where they may be helpful to the close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My position is that coordinators cannot "glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination". If you wish them to be able to, the easiest way would seem to be to gain community agreement to remove the last ten words of "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, wow. I may be seeing (now, finally) where the problem lies (I may not :) Are you saying that you don't think you have the discretion to archive unless some wording about withdrawal is used? If this is the interpretation of wording that has led to the stalled noms, holy cow-- you shoulda said so years ago, and by all means, let's fix that. A strenuous and valid oppose trumps any need to suggest withdrawal, and those words don't need to be used when a serious oppose is on the page. The withdrawal wording came about for premature, drive by noms to get them off the page before multiple other reviewers had to engage. If I am understanding the dilemma correctly, this needs a proposal to clarify and rectify that Coords can certainly archive on strength of oppose alone, even if no one has specifically suggested withdrawal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I assumed that you were well aware of it. Eg, the last time you reviewed, you opened your review with "Oppose and suggest withdrawal and procedural archive." The emphasis was in the original. I was grateful that you were (or certainly seemed to be) aware of the restrictions on coordinators and were (I thought) carefully giving us the form of words we would need to be able to act. I archived that nomination nine minutes after you posted your review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a very unfortunate misunderstanding, with years of lost bandwidth  :( :( If I think back to how the withdrawal wording came about originally, and why I tend to use it, there was a time when Ealdgyth got in first or very early to do source reviews, and it was an indication to not bother, as much as anything else. And it related to that brief period (we realized it didn't work) when withdrawals weren't botified or added to AH. I was not meaning to send a message, and really didn't know that you interpreted that you needed this wording to archive. But I do appreciate those speedy archives-- now let's figure out how to solve this in a way that everyone is on the same page (in SchroCat's section). I feel truly bad now about years of misunderstanding over the use of one word. :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You are understanding the dilemma correctly and your suggestion, if incorporated into the rules along the lines suggested in the current discussion, should indeed make it easier for coordinators to swiftly get under-prepared nominations off FAC. It would allow us to "glance at the article, see that a significant copyedit is needed, and archive the nomination". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Re, "giving the tools to enable you to do so", a comprehensive RFC is well overdue here. So let's make sure pre-discussion is not stifled this time, as it has been every time for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I understood that part; the intent is commendable, but the problem here is that they each looked in at stages when the nom should have well been closed, and didn't do so. Leaving two new Coords in that position was a problem. In contrast, once Raul delegated me, he never once recommended any course of action with me, or even discussed a nomination with me. I emailed him one time about a nomination, to let him know why I archived a nomination from an editor with a serious COI situation, a professor citing their own (POV) content and then launching a FAC while both main editors were on travel breaks and without consulting the main contributors, and then accusing me of abuse of power when I followed the instructions and withdrew the nom. And even through six Catholic Church FACs, the FAC delegates at the time never spoke back-channel; then, there were very different standards regarding what should be discussed off-Wiki, and we just didn't do it. The instructions at FAC haven't been followed for years, Coords have turned into copyeditors trying to pull deficient articles through, and if you have to consult back-channel, it seems there's not a good understanding of how to determine when a nomination should be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, the reason my review was relatively short is because my mindset is that it's much better if I make uncontroversial prose edits myself rather than fill a review with a bunch of bullet points that amount to "add a comma right here. Add a semicolon right there. Split this into two sentences. Rewrite this into this." If you look at the page history, you'll see I made quite a few copyedits to the John Wick article. From my experiences at FAC I'm of the mind it's better for the nominator as it slightly reduces their workload and makes it easier to identify larger issues (structure, missing information, etc). I frequently review DWB's nominations because his submissions (film articles) are a subject I hold an interest in. (Hell, every FAC I've submitted is for a form of entertainment media.) A lot has happened in my life since August so my memory on the John Wick review is a bit fuzzy and I'll have to take some time to look back at it. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that editing the easy stuff directly is much preferable to filling a page with prose nitpicks, and your explanation is a valid one, so please accept my apologies for the criticism. I would ask you to think about something going forward: when you/anyone frequently reviews a specific editor, it's possible to grow lax in recognizing their prose infelicities. FrB.TG's copy edit cleared up the most glaring, but a fresh set of eyes is still needed at the article. The bigger problem here is the new trend of Coords pinging reviewers for support, which was done in both you and Piotrus' cases. If a reviewer didn't enter a declaration, there may be a reason, and it's not the Coords' job to go back seeking clarification, which is just a beacon that the article is going to be closed if there is not support-- and that leads to premature supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear for others while Sandy continues making baseless claims, this is the extent of FRb.TG's copy edit which, while very much appreciated, hardly constitutes such a substantial change that it was otherwise riddled with "prose infelicities" or that the previous text was "glaring"ly bad, and I doubt, in any way, that Sandy has spent a substantial amount of time reading the article that they can keep bringing up their continually rude remarks. Also the coords ping people because people forget, you're trying to manufacture an underlying cause instead of applying Occam's razor.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop misthreading your responses here; get in line so the thread flows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

In the coordinator's defence, the wording of the ping is—"I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory."—which is not quite the same as "pinging reviewers for support". I think it is perfectly acceptable for coordinators to be a collaborative part of the process. Indeed, with four coordinators, I also think that it is excellent that it means various of them can recuse and take on reviews themselves, as many of them gained their position off the back of excellent reviewing skills. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

^ Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Harrias. The given phrasing seems neutral to me, and the ability to recuse and review is a benefit of having four coords. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether the ping is neutral; I'm stating the result is a beacon that pulls in premature supports-- exactly as evidenced in this case. This nom stayed on the page weeks after it was shown deficient after Coord pings resulted in two premature supports, and that situation endured long after there was a clear and actionable oppose that should have led to archival. This manner of managing the page is damaging FAC, misleading nominators, discouraging reviewers, and resulting in sub-standard promotions. It's time to start pre-discussion of the RFC that needs to happen, covering a multitude of issues and problems that need RFCing. This is only one of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Another manufactured lie Sandy. How does pinging specific people for a response draw in unrelated third parties? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you're going to dialogue in an unhelpful way here, don't expect a response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't need a response from someone who doesn't deserve my respect or time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am mildly confused. Was there a problem with my (limited) review? Did someone ping me incorrectly at some point? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, Piotrus. Some time back, the idea of a partial support (that is, not full reviews) took hold at FAC, when one editor would declare a "support on prose". I ignored those unless there was sufficient other review on the FAC (you can't "support on prose", because you can't support an article without looking at the whole picture - comprehensiveness, sourcing, etc). We pass source reviews, pass image reviews-- we can similarly pass prose -- but Support should be based on all criteria. My point in this case is that what you declared as "weak support"-- acknowledging that you had not read the article in detail, but you had looked for academic sources -- would not count as a support anyway. The nominator was under the impression they had enough !votes for promotion, which isn't how it works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

From my experience, I haven't seen long closing statements on nominations pages, but I'm happy to do so going forward, and I apologize that I didn't have more wiki-time available to answer questions. I considered the question of promotion or archival an edge case, but to me, the oppose was comprehensive and substantiated. While there had been effort to ameliorate the concerns, TompaDompa kept it registered, and driveby supports that don't specifically rebut the issues brought up by opposers, or don't demonstrate they were comprehensively evaluating the article on all aspects, aren't weighed the same. Which left pretty weak support that it met standards after months, and probably should have been archived much sooner, which is collectively the coords' fault and is probably exacerbated by the fact the old coords have been patiently onboarding us, and (at least I have) been a bit gun-shy about jumping in.

I'm always happy to have the other coords revise the close. I'm certainly not a stranger to mistakes. But I don't personally feel I made one here, DWB. The point that you have been through FAC many, many times I think is something that should prompt another consideration: this is far from the first nomination where systemic issues have been brought up at the FAC, and respectfully I'd say that there might be a lot of reviewers who just don't touch articles because they aren't interested in what they see as an adversarial experience (and broadly, this is probably why opposes are fairly rare in FACs, rather than failing due to lack of support. I don't think this trend actually makes for better articles, though.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

David, I don't think you should have to do them (closing statements) often, or even most of the time. But because this nom had some premature, some incomplete, and several driveby supports, an explanation might have been warranted. This was a chance to remind both the drive-by supporters, and the nominators, that there are problems in how they are approaching FAC. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I addressed every single one of Tompa's issues David, they retained an oppose on neutrality which was their right but unfair because all that content was sourced, such that even FrB agreed. To say it was heavily substantiated when I addressed every single point they made bar, I think, two, is a ridiculous statement to make and at no time was I adversarial toward them. Your wording implies that their wall of comments was not addressed when it was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I went to the nomination and I have to say that something jumped out at me as a serious problem. In this diff, Darkwarriorblade says "Ok I put the text into chatGPT and asked it specifically "Does the tone of this text seem like it's promoting John Wick as an underdog story?"" We are basing whether or not an article has NPOV issues on the output of chatGPT now? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Tompa and I couldn't agree, he said it was non neutral, I disagreed, I used a third party neutral entity because I can't do an RFC in a FA nom. It was a quick and easy way to settle the disagreement on a very specific piece of text. Give me a better solution, I'm all ears. The other option is to not comment where it's not necessary. To be clear, reviewers shouldn't have free rein to say "this needs a copy edit" or "i think this is non neutral I don't care what you think" and that is allowed to cancel a nom outright as Sandy up there is suggesting. There was a disagreement, I solved it in the way available to me.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we're going to have to disagree that a chatAI program is a "third party neutral entity". You can run an RfC on the talk page of the article or ask at WP:30 for a third opinion. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw the same statement and was flabbergasted that someone would outsource critical thinking to a chatbot. TompaDompa is demonstrably correct in stating that the 'context' section of the article is the author crafting a narrative. The mainframe of that section is composed of citations 163 and 164. How many times is John Wick mentioned in those two sources? Zero. How many times is Keanu Reeves mentioned in those two sources? Zero. This being the context for John Wick then, is the opinion of the editor, not of high-quality reliable sources because while the statements within the section are sourced, their relevance to the subject of the article is not established by the sources. There is a reason that the opening paragraph of WP:OR contains the phrase ... published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article ... (emphasis in original). The material there is supported by sources that are unrelated to the article topic. That's a subtle example of original research. That paragraph needs to be removed or supported by relevant sources before the article is re-nominated.

I have to echo SandyGeorgia's concern that unless this specific FAC was an unfortunate anomaly, there is likely to be a systematic issue ('something wonky'). The specific issue raised here isn't a minor oversight, it's a major concern that an entire article section is supported near exclusively by sources that do not comment on the article topic, even in passing. Only the last sentence has relevant sourcing. I also note, SandyGeorgia, that you have quite admirably ignored the incivility directed towards you to stick to the substantive matter of upholding FA standards. I'd have clapped back.

I hold suspicions about the quality of GAs and FAs on pop-culture subjects, because I have encountered repeated failures of due diligence. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis, and the kind words. I can't afford to "clap back"; I've watched the decline of FAC from the sidelines now for ten years, have been silenced or ignored every time I tried to bring forward problems, and I wasn't going to watch a competent new Coord be criticized for doing what should have been done all along. FA is only as strong as the weakest link, and anyone who values the bronze star might start being pro-active about engaging discussions here to address the stagnation and restore the prestige of the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The section sets up what the year is like, it isn't crafting a narative, and the uncivility came because Sandy was rude and doubled down on being rude, but I see she's not alone in being passive agressive. YCKGFY2! :) Feel free to clap back rnddude, I doubt you've got what it takes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, Is that a variation on "You Can Go Fuck Yourself"? Can you translate for those of us who use real words? - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You missed the UYA part, which is equally easy to figure out :) Ah, invective is so much more forceful and fanciful and creative in Spanish. Anyway, I'm not worried about it; we have an upset nominator, and these were unfortunate problems that have been allowed to grow and fester for years, and they popped on this page with DWB's nom. Could have been any one of dozens. Let's not get sidetracked from the real issue here; the state of the overall FA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait... I didn't realize that "YCKGFYATWUYA" and "YCKGFY2" were variations of "You Can Go Fuck Yourself"? Can anyone confirm this? And if it IS that, how is that considered at all civil and why isn't anyone pushing back against it or asking the editor to retract that? I'm not generally a person who gets too uptight about cussing, but having one editor say "You can go fuck yourself" (even if in acronyms) is bit beyond what editors should have to put up with. And is an excellent example of why reviewers may not want to engage with the FAC process, if that sort of thing is tolerated. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand it either. I'm thrown off by the "K" there, though: @Darkwarriorblake, can you give us a response? Be honest. If it does mean that, just retract it. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Either the K, or the G, doesn't make too much sense. The second part is probably, "...all the way up your fucking ass". Dropping the 'K', gets you "You can go fuck yourself...", which makes sense, linked to the second part, but then, there's that 'K'. Another interpretation for the first part is the somewhat awkward, "You can kiss goodbye forever, you asshole"—which seems like it needs a copyedit to: "You can kiss off forever, you asshole", leading to "YCKOFYA", but doesn't pair well with the second half. (Don't 'thank' me; this was only about 10-20% my effort; the rest is all due to ChatGPT, who [which?] besides coming up with the interpretation of the second half, also pointed to the awkward first half. Pretty much only the "kiss off" part was all me. Now I know how Garry felt.) And here you thought AI had no practical benefit. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I assumed the K was "Kindly", and Urban Dictionary seems to suggest that's correct. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

To answer the query ... why isn't anyone pushing back against it ... on my end it's because, though the message is uncivil, I'm an adult for whom schoolboy quarreling – using an acronym in the hopes that the teacher (admins) won't decipher it – isn't a concern. There are far worse behavioural infringements I've encountered in my time here (I mean on-wiki, not at FAC) that are tolerated without question compared to this mild outburst. I wouldn't want to seek sanctions for it. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What Ealdgyth said. I thanked Schro when he asked what it meant because, well, I didn't. It's not acceptable behavior and should be pushed back against. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree; this beyond "robust language" and into unacceptable, and I don't think there's any doubt about what is meant. I don't know how the coords are supposed to deal with this sort of behaviour if it happens within a FAC -- I know it's happened but I can't recall if they archive or warn or what. Here on the FAC talk page I think it's more of an admin issue. I know we have many admins reading this conversation; however this would be dealt with elsewhere is how it should be dealt with here, surely? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Behavioral problem relative to Coord role

This is a pattern (read the edit summaries from bottom to top) with DWB when people criticise his articles. I can't be bothered with reviewing if that's the response I get. Which is a shame, because DWB writes nice article on interesting subjects; none of us writes perfect articles and we should be grateful for a chance to improve our writing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, HJ Mitchell just returning to this. I've sub-headed this as the systematic behavioral problem is obscuring the more important systematic problems in the FAC process.

So we have YCKGFYATWUYA Sandy :) from Darkwarriorblake at 10:48, 8 November 2023 and YCKGFY2! :) Feel free to clap back rnddude, I doubt you've got what it takes. at 21:01, 8 November 2023, after Mr rnddude highlights the systematic problem. These could be viewed as reactions to the FAC page just noticing-- after 24 FAs dating back to 2013-- that FAR may have to now do what FAC hasn't (and I wonder why the Coords hadn't noticed and brought this problem forward-- that's their job). But setting aside the intemperate reaction of an upset nominator, HJ Mitchell points out a problem pre-dating this, to edit summaries from January 4, 2021 that spell out fuck j michel after HJ Mitchell's oppose got that FAC archived.

What's troubing about this just now surfacing after 24 FAS is, why aren't the Coords dealing with these sorts of things, and why did we need NEW Coord David Fuchs to finally come in and do the right thing? Separately, how much work does FAR have to do now? Were there problems in all 24 ? Why are Coords hesitant to bring forward problems when they see them, or did they not even see them? Coords can spend their Coord time reviewing if everything is functioning well and they have extra time. Everything else isn't functioning well; perhaps they could spend more time using Mike Christie's tool to uncover when some reviewers are systematically pushing sub-standard work through. That's their job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting on that FAC that Ealdgyth did her job, leads me to another query. There are indications of late that there is a lot of back-channel communication among the Coords of the type that was once considered should always be public and transparent. Ealdgyth knew there was a problem on that nomination, and stepped in to stop it. David Fuchs had to come in years later and close a FAC on a problematic article, when none of the other Coords would or did, leaving the FAC to drag on weeks/months after it could have been closed. Why aren't issues like this behavioral problem, and possibly friendly supports with little scrutiny, brought forward transparently by the Coords on the FAC talk page? Knowing long-time FA writers and reviewers are leaving FAC because of these kinds of process problems makes me very concerned that Coord accountability needs to be discussed. When Coords are seeing faulty reviews (assuming they are following the page closely, and are seeing them), they should be bringing that here to talk, not discussing it amongst themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

To my mind, the issue is less the petulance of an unsuccessful nominator but the idea that you can get an article through by brute force if you just renominate it, as DWB did with Die Hard a month later and that FAC dragged on for over two months before it was eventually promoted after opposers got sick of arguing. Nominators need to be receptive to feedback or the process doesn't work, and if the coordinators don't stamp on this sort of behaviour FAC isn't worth any more than GA (ie wild variations in quality depending on which reviewer turned up and how much interest they had in the article). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. But as a past delegate, I've got to also say that the "Coords" (a misnomer) need support on this, so they don't get too tangled in behavioral issues, which can affect their neutrality. They need to start doing their job, but others need to speak up as well, and defend them in cases like David's good call on this FAC. It helps for others to bring the problems forward so the Coords aren't always on the hot seat.

But if others aren't bringing forward the trends, problems, issues, patterns, suggestions, the Coords need to. And if they aren't going to coordinate when warranted, then they shouldn't be called Coords; their role is to spot trends and raise issues that need attention, much more than it is to coordinate their recusals so they can do the job of reviewers to pull through sub-standard FAs which should have been opposed in their first week.

If the Coords aren't Coord-ing, or even willing to take leadership, we need to hold an RFC about going back to having a Director who will oversee the process, and who delegates promoting/archiving to others, so he can be on the hot seat for behavioral problems or other, while they just pr/ar. FAC is broken, and has lost prestige in the community, and we are increasingly seeing that the voice of FA has become irrelevant to the broader community. That brokenness resulted from an impromptu RFC, launched without prior discussion, that fired the Director for reasons that are hypocritically ironic with hindsight and considering the current situation, where we appoint Coords for life who in turn appoint other Coords for life, in a self-perpetuating downward cycle (which maybe Fuchs will reverse) and it was FAC's biggest mistake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, you've been banging the drum of "FAC broken" and "go back to directorship" for a very long time; why don't you just start this RfC and see if there's a consensus? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Because starting an RFC without prior discussion is exactly what got us into this problem to begin with. I still hold out some hope that some of our current "Coords" will start engaging constructively here, rather than shutting down or obfuscating every time issues are raised, and I actually hold out great hope that Fuchs will turn things around. But I've always been a Pollyanna. I actually hold Tony1 more responsible for FAC's decline than anyone, because he launched that surprise RFC at a time of discord, and without prior discussion, and the community responded by doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. I keep trying and trying to get the Coords to dialogue and discuss the problems. The latest infobox kerfuffle and discussion with SchroCat, and discussions with other long-time FA people who now want nothing to do with the process, has led to me to try again. And if we were to hold an RFC, it needs to be a comprehensive one like the one Mike Christie shepherded back in 2013; we're overdue. (You can read this entire archive for the thoughtful discussion that went into building the 2013 RFC.) And if y'all don't do something, then we're all to blame for the fact that the bronze star has lost prestige or relevance ... at RFA, in the halls of Arbcom, in infobox disputes ... and everywhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that FAC has problems and has deteriorated in recent years. And you were an excellent delegate, Sandy. The decision making was still a little opaque but your decisions were feared and respected by nominators. I'm not sure that ousting Raul was the root cause of the problem, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Feared? (Ouch :). Anyway, that's why we need to discuss, not jump to RFC prematurely. It's probably apparent that I have long believed we have two problems. One, a new problem is a completely untransparent process whereby one Coord chooses subsequent Coords, and some are serving too long (I had the decency to self-limit my term), and the downward trend has been self-perpetuating as change isn't pursued by the regime, and what we're doing isn't working. Two, by firing an overall director of FAC, FAR, and TFA, we diluted the process and created three separate feifdoms, that don't always work together (one big aim of WP:URFA/2020 was to help FAR and TFA, for example, but I launched that after giving up on getting any meaningful dialogue out of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And a third problem is that we do now have Coords who do seem to believe that FAC is peer review; Fuchs harks to a time and knows how FAC functioned when FAC decidedly was not peer review. The last kerfuffle over a sub-standard FA was a year and a half ago; what has changed, what has been addressed or discussed since then?

A fourth problem is, what is the Coord role? It's not to pull through substandard noms; it's to oversee that everything here is working. Another example of problems, that previous kerfuffle went completely missing in FAC archives until I relocated it, mis-archived, at #Archive mess up. Again, it's the Coord's job to mind the shop and keep the process functioning. Why do Harrias, Mathglot and I have to find threads misarchived a year and a half later? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, since you mention my name, I feel I should comment that the reason I'm not volunteering to draft such an RfC is that I don't agree with the premise. Of course it's true that the way FAC works has changed over the last fifteen years, and I'd be interested to hear more from Harry on what he thinks any current problems are with FAC, but my own opininon is that it works well. I have a great deal of confidence in Ian and Gog's judgement, and I've also been very impressed by the comments made so far by our two new coordinators: they have been measured, thoughtful, and clear. In particular I like the fact that our coordinators are reticent about joining conversations like these -- they are coordinators, after all, not owners of the process, and it would be unseemly if they were to jump in and defend themselves or the current system. Their role makes it harder for them to comment here; they should be implementing the consensus, not defining it. I can't speak for why others haven't commented here, but for myself I've been refraining from posting comments to support the coords because I don't see a consensus forming here that there is a problem.

You're arguing here or have previously argued that FACs should be closed more quickly; that opposes should be more frequent and used in lieu of long lists of issues; and that long FACs hamper participation. Mostly I think these issues are related to the lower level of participation and are not cultural. I think archiving FACs more quickly would do more harm than good, and when there is a good reason to archive quickly, people do indeed step in and oppose -- a look through the archived nominations shows that. I don't want the coordinators taking over from reviewers as evaluators of the quality of submissions except in the most blatant cases, and I think the coords are acting as the community wishes them to act, so I can't fault their behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm been painfully aware for some time now that you and I are now at complete odds re FAC functioning and perceived reasons for the problems, and I regret that we find ourselves in that position. So, it's time for me to rest my case, and let you all go forward with the suicide mission you've been following for ten years now (said with what I hope is read with a touch of humor). If anyone thinks this page is functioning well, then the consequences are what they are, for all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

PS, since those consequences remain painful for me to watch, I'm going to unwatch for a bit; please ping me back when/if the archiving and other technical bits about the FAC and FAR substrings need my attention. What you are painfully missing is the very clear reason for the "lower level of participation"-- from prolific reviewers of which I am not the only one. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

*This link is the difference between the Die Hard article after it's first nomination was closed and before the 2nd one began. It was not "brute forced" through or just renominated without changes, or any other descriptor attempting to discredit my work. WP: SIZE exists for a reason and most of my works fall within or below "> 9,000 words > 60 kB Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." Popular culture articles will be longer than most, comprehensiveness contributes to that. The 2nd nom also had input from 9 different editors, it certainly was not "promoted after opposers got sick of arguing". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is the difference between the closure of the first nomination of T2 on 28 Feb 2023 and the start of nomination 2 on July 28, 2023, 5 months later
• This is the difference between the closure of the first nomination of Aliens in 2021 and the start of the 2nd nomination in October 2022 over a year later.
• This is the difference for Ghostbusters between October 2019 and the 2nd nom in September 2021, nearly 2 years. I don't believe this demonstrates that I am brute forcing articles through by immediately renominating them and not making changes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

The discussion above got bogged down on FAC governance. Not that that's not a discussion worth having but it's a broader discussion. More narrowly, what can or should we (the FAC community) and the coordinators do about nominators who are not receptive to constructive criticism and are hostile to opposers to the point that reviewers stop engaging? What can we do to prevent nominations from succeeding through brute force (bullying opposers, or just renominating without addressing concerns if it's archived)? And now that we're discussing issues with DWB's nominations, do we need to do anything about his 24 existing FAs? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the previous FAs, I think depends on the articles. If they are of FA standard, then they should stay as such - there is no point in relegating them if they are still up to spec. (From a procedural point, I'm not there is a straightforward way we can do this, except throw them all into FAR, but we'd need a strong consensus to do that and a lot of people helping out with the outcome. It's putting a lot of strain onto one part of the process that hasn't been developed as a 'punishment brigade', and I'm sure regulars at FAR wouldn't necessarily want it to happen like that, understandably)! Does anyone know if any of the other FAs are not up to standard as a result of a flawed review? - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If someone believes a current FA does not meet the FA criteria, they should follow the process outlined at WP:FAR; that is the case regardless of why that concern exists. We're not taking something through FAR for the purposes of punishing behaviour - behavioural problems should be addressed via other avenues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. I have just looked at a relatively recent nomination, Aliens (film), which was promoted last October. The FAC discussion seems to have been good natured and the resultant article up to FAC standard. Some stewardship has taken place since. While I can see areas where both the FAC and the article might have been improved they seem within normal FAC expectations. Even with hindsight, nothing jumps out at me waving a red flag. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nikkimaria; there's nothing here that FAR needs to do any differently than what it usually does; it's not like finding a copyvio, which then suggests we must look at the nominator's entire body of work. If anyone finds there are two or three or more problematic FAs, then they can open a thread at WT:FAR, or flag them up at WP:URFA/2020B, so they'll get looked at.

On the behavioral issue, I'd ask what I've asked before-- for Coords to read the full page, be aware of trends, issues and problems, and bring them to this page for community feedback and so we can support your decisions. We can't help the Coords coordinate if we aren't aware of trends, whether behavioral or not-- it could also be something as simple as, "concerned that leads aren't being reviewed", or whatever. Coords need to be supported and backed up, particularly so they don't get criticized for a difficult close, but we can't help if we don't know what's happening as we can't read the whole page because it won't load. In this case, it seems several editors knew there was trouble brewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a mass FAR would be necessary or helpful, and I certainly wouldn't want to FAR an article to punish someone for being rude. I checked a random sample of their FACs; some of the older ones were quite brief but of their time. I see concerns about prose and length were raised in some of the more recent ones but nobody pressed the issue. I pressed it in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terminator 2: Judgment Day/archive1 and even offered examples of verbiage and detail that could be cut but it was DWB's way or the highway. It came up again at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terminator 2: Judgment Day/archive2 but the article was promoted even with outstanding concerns over length and due weight. I thought Sandy was being overly pessimistic in her assessment but now I'm not so sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020B is your friend :) But there is so much work to be done anyway, that if you find anything that truly needs attention, you may find yourself being the nominator at FAR :) The rest of the FAR/URFA regulars have their hands full getting through the very old, much less the old! (I didn't mean to be overly pessimistic-- I haven't looked at the body of work-- I just wondered if it needed to be looked at.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Nominators who are hostile to good faith constructive opposers, to the degree that reviewers stop engaging with their nominations have a civility problem. Those editors should be brought to an appropriate noticeboard, like AE if it's a CTOP article or ANI, so that their disruption can be addressed in an appropriate manner. Whether that involves a TBAN from the FA process, or some other sanction is something that would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. With three of the four current co-ords not being admins, I don't see any other way to handle such a civility issue.

As for FAs that might have been pushed through on the back of such issues, an informal "light touch" review (ideally) by editors who are uninvolved might be a way forward. I'd envisage this as something that would do a relatively quick check to see if the article broadly meets FA standards, and if it doesn't then it can forward it on to a more involved FAR. I'd see this as slightly more structured than what Nikkimaria has suggested, as it's focusing on checking any fallout from a disruptive nominator, but initially less structured and formalised than a full en-masse FAR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

To your first paragraph, yes, that is what should happen. But I think there's a wider problem if deficient articles are getting through by "brute force" and nominators are just exhausting reviewers or re-nominating the same article instead of addressing concerns. That suggests that FAC is not doing its job of generating and resolving critical commentary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what you think is the symptom and what is the cause perhaps? I would see deficient articles passing by "brute force" to be a symptom, as is exhausted reviewers. The cause is nominators renominating a deficient article to the point of exhaustion without addressing feedback. Remove the cause, ie disruptive nominations, and the symptom should abate itself no? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I had various "problem children" (nominators) during my tenure. I can only say the problems were obvious to everyone, and when they weren't, the delegates brought forward discussions here for broader feedback. In two cases, we had to propose rule changes so FAC wouldn't be gamed. Would more use of the talk page when there are problems of this nature have addressed the current issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

One potential solution I could think of is for coordinators to scrutinize renominations more critically early on, examining the article's history to assess the extent of work done to address past concerns. If insufficient progress is evident, a coordinator could oppose the nomination - leaving the closure to other coords - bring it forward to talk page, ping the previous reviewer/opposer(s) or potentially handle it themselves (although our current authority doesn't extend to direct closures). FrB.TG (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@FrB.TG That would be a good start. As would coords checking that reviewers' concerns are actually being addressed, even if they're not explicitly phrased as an oppose. It would also be nice to see coords step in early when there's disagreement between reviewers and nominators over whether an oppose is valid and actionable to prevent things getting out of hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If in this circumstance the co-ord was to say something like "please address the unresolved feedback given in the previous nomination", would that really be grounds for the co-ord to have to recuse themself? I would worry that such a thing would be open to gaming, as there is only 4 co-ords, and you could exhaust the pool simply through recusals by the fourth nomination. I would argue that procedurally telling a nominator that they still have unresolved feedback that needs a resolution should not be construed as involvement in this sense. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they should have to recuse just to point out that previous concerns have not been addressed. And if some work has gone into it but there might still be concerns, asking previous reviewers to revisit (or new reviewers to comment with previous concerns in mind) should also be seen as purely procedural. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't want ANI involved, because people "out there" don't know the culture "in here", and we've never had a situation we couldn't manage ourselves. Going to ANI will increase the idea of FAC dysfunction, which would not be a good look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to the in versus out culture, no-one should be expected to tolerate behaviour that you and Mr rnddude were subject to above. All but one of the co-ordinators cannot action sanctions against editors who display the level of incivility that was directed at the two of you, only ANI or AE can resolve that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd have taken action myself but I'd be considered "invovled". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is what I think can be an excessive reluctance by editors to oppose nominations, especially after they post an initial 'comments' review. I've opposed nominations that I initially was neutral towards or leaning towards supporting when it turned out that the nominator wasn't serious about responding to comments - this isn't a fun thing to do, but it is a legitimate response. This doesn't solve the issue of a small number of editors attempting to push through articles through repeated nominations though, but I'd note that such nominations tend to attract few reviews as the regulars are weary/sick of them. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• If a nominator behaves poorly, it should be handled the same way all disruptive behavior should be handled; by an individual admin or at an admin noticeboard. Bringing behavioral concerns with an individual editor to this talk page does nothing, because this talk page has no jurisdiction to take remedial action. I haven't reviewed the content issues, but I don't see a strong reason why we shouldn't use FAR. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd agree with Nikki's point earlier -- no reason not scrutinize all of DWB's FAs, but nothing should go to FAR unless specific problems are identified. And I agree re disruptive behaviour; this page is not equipped for handling it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC archive request

I am requesting, as the nominator, the FA coordinators archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red Clay State Historic Park/archive1, as there are still some issues that need to be addressed before this has a chance of passing. In addition, I am not going to be able to be as active over the next few weeks as I'd hoped. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks Bneu, that's actioned. For future reference, if you want to signal something like this you could also use the {{@FAC}} notification method. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Fast-loading check marks and X marks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 Courtesy link: Template talk:FAC-instructions § Drop wording suggesting small graphics like "not done" should be avoided

The boxed material near the top of WP:FAC (found in {{FAC-instructions}}) expresses a concern about load time this way:

Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time

without offering an alternative. But in fact, there are alternatives, namely, the unicode check marks and X'es:

View tables of check marks, and of X-marks

✅ ✅ White Heavy Check Mark ✓ ✓ Check Mark ✔ ✔ Heavy Check Mark 🗸 🗸 Light Check Mark ⍻ ⍻ Not Check Mark ☑ ☑ Ballot Box With Check 🗹 🗹 Ballot Box With Bold Check 𐄂 𐄂 Aegean Check Mark ☒ ☒ Ballot Box With X (Square With Cross) ✗ ✗ Ballot X (Cross) ✘ ✘ Heavy Ballot X (Bold Cross) ✖ ✖ Heavy Multiplication X ❌ ❌ Cross Mark ❎ ❎ Negative Squared Cross Mark 🗙 🗙 Cancellation X 🗴 🗴 Ballot Script X 🞨 🞨 Thin Saltire 🞩 🞩 Light Saltire 🞪 🞪 Medium Saltire 🞫 🞫 Bold Saltire 🞬 🞬 Heavy Saltire 🞭 🞭 Very Heavy Saltire 🞮 🞮 Extremely Heavy Saltire

These each take no longer to load, than the period at the end of this sentence. ⟵ yeah, that one. The wording should simply encourage one of these from each group to be used, instead of the image produced by the templates. Alternatively, if desired, the templates could be upgraded to add a "fast" param, so one might code: {{done|fast=y}} and you'd get the single-character, fast-loading version out of the template, instead of the image.

Here's a comparison of the two:

Slow: Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time

Fast: Graphics such as ✔ Done and ✘ Not done slow down the page load time

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The templates themselves take up space that editors didn't want to spare, due to previous issues with the page size of wp:fac exceeding the max loadable. Therefore, using straight unicode or subst:templates that replace with unicode could be an acceptable alternative. All of this could be moot with the new proposal on not displaying the content of all FACs. (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Proposed, at Template talk:Not done#Proposed fast-loading version. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this proposed version does not address the reason that the templates were banned from FAC. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That's right, it doesn't. Do you have a link? Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Not all graphics work on all systems

• What is wrong with “Done"? (Yes, the boring word, rather than a cutesy and pointless graphic). Other words are also available and there is nothing unclear in the resulting text.
  I'll also add that not all those graphics in the collapsible box work on all systems - the image to the right is on my iPad on which I do a fair amount of editing. The alternative to graphics is to use words that people can understand quite clearly. Just as clear as graphics and twice as simple.
  I will remind people what is says quite clearly in the instructions: "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages." Complex or simple, it doesn't matter: just don't use them. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  SchroCat, thanks for your comment; it made me rethink the proposal above and I recommend withdrawing it now, but perhaps not for the reason you might think. In fact, I also recommend removing the FAC advice about not using graphics on this page, which makes the proposal moot. Here's why.

You made a valid point adding the image you posted, showing which characters (not graphics) are displayable or not displayable on some systems; that's one of the reasons I included so many of them, because if we go that route, we need to find one that is viewable generally.

However, let's not confuse two separate issues, namely font availability on different user devices, on the one hand, and slow page load time due to use of graphics, on the other. Where you quoted "Do not use graphics or complex templates..." there is an implied reason behind that advice—namely, the part you didn't quote right after it: "Graphics such as {{Done}} and {{Not done}} slow down the page load time". In that view of things, slow load time is why graphics (i.e. images) should be avoided, and the reason they slow down load time is because images are huge compared to characters. For photos, this is certainly true (photo thumbnails may be tens of thousands of bytes), and even the very tiny X_mark.svg in its 27px size shown, is still 1.41kb (roughly 1443 bytes); in contrast, the utf-8 encoding of one of the X-characters in the box is at most three bytes. This means the X-mark graphic image is roughly 500 times bigger than the X-character, and the idea behind the "don't-use graphics" exhortation is that if you have, say, a table on this page with a hundred "done" and "not done" templates, the tiny check and X-mark graphics alone add up, and would slow down the page load time.

That's the implication, but I don't really buy it. If it was ever true (doubtful), it's not true now. The comment about "slow load" time was first added to the FAC instructions in this edit in January 2008 as a page comment (promoted a year later from a comment to header advice (here), followed by minor tweaks through the years). On that same January day in 2008, the main page FAC was 58,185 bytes (rev. 186019500 of 01:52, 22 January 2008), and a theoretical 100-row table having a "not done" checkmark graphic in every row added to that 2008 version of FAC would have quadrupled the page size to 202,569 bytes. (By way of comparison, WP:ANI on that day was 337,330 bytes.) If this was ever an issue, even back then (maybe for those with a 15-year old laptop), AN/I wasn't concerned enough about it to require smaller pages.

      (Note: not theoretical anymore; see this discussion, and the mocked up FAC page linked from there.)

Bottom line: the advice about avoiding (small, icon-sized) graphics probably wasn't true in 2008, and certainly is not true now, and thus the advice to avoid them should probably be removed from the FAC instructions, as it is at best misleading. (That would moot the proposal made in this section, and I'm fine with that; less work for everybody.) The question about "complex templates" in the FAC instructions is a separate issue, which buidhe alluded to, and as a template writer myself, I'm not even sure what that advice is referring to, but perhaps it's worth looking into whether it is still the case, if it ever was. Mathglot (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I can answer your last question; it's the post-expansion include size of the templates. If you search for "PEIS" further up this page you'll see a relevant explanation, though if you're a template editor you're probably already familiar with the limit. We had to ban the use of {{tq}} a while back because it was causing the PEIS limit to be breached; it's a particular problem because the FACs are individually transcluded and so tq causes (if I remember correctly) eight times as much PEIS usage as the length of the text it is used to quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Ah yes, familiar with PEIS but "complex template" didn't bring up anything for me. If it's okay with everyone, in order not to fragment or unfocus the discussion, I'd like to limit this discussion section to the relation, if any, between graphic images and load time of the FAC page. The template issue could be addressed, if needed, in a separate section. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Further note to Schro: the characters in the "slow-fast comparison" above, are &#x2714; (Heavy Check Mark) and &#x2718; (Heavy Ballot X) and those two *are* visible on your tablet, per the image you supplied, so maybe we should just continue with those two, if that holds up on other devices as well. Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe just use the word “done”. I don’t see a need, advantage or even a desire in using these, or in changing the instructions. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I also think that we shouldn't add check marks when a simple Done will do. Things should act similar across platforms. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Schro and Guerillero ... the excessive color and other markup cluttering FAC pages is off-putting, and "a simple Done will do". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.