Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive76

What's the consensus on ISBN formats for FAC? I've seen inconsistent use of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, and even inconsistent hyphenation, attract comments in source reviews, which I then parrot in mine. Is this something we should be looking for in source reviews, or can we let it slide? Factotem (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I assumed we should stick to ISBN 13 following endless FAC comments, but it seems, from a discussion at the Citationbot talk page, that this isn't agreed on by everyone... FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be correct. Let the books retain the ISBN that they were printed with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaking just as an editor, I'm with Sturm. I think if the edition you use has a 13-digit ISBN then use it, if has 10-digit only then use that and don't convert, and if it has both then use the 13-digit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an extreme form of pedantry. Just use whatever is in the actual source. There's a point beyond which "consistency" becomes an obsession. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait... if I understand you correctly, obsession is a bad thing ;-)? Far more seriously, I almost always just let Citation Tool for Google Books bother with all that.  ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk)

02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I tend to convert to 13s and be consistent with that because that is what source reviewers are most likely (in my experience) to ask for. I don't care greatly about the matter, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Curious to hear from the @FAC coordinators: what the 'official' line is. Would a candidate be 'marked down' if a nom refuses to address this issue after it has been raised by a reviewer? Factotem (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• See Ref:
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  10:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am with Wehwalt. I never comment on isbns when reviewing but always convert to 13 when nominating because it is one less thing for reviewers to object to. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Factotem: Our job isn't to weigh in on such issues, just to assess consensus. Personally, if I saw a reviewer and a nominator at an impasse over something like that, I'd encourage a third opinion or other consensus-building methods and hope it's worked out. I case could be made either way, so we rely on others to weigh in. --Laser brain (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation tools and GBooks links

Thanks everyone for the clarification. All makes sense. Follow-up question: are there any on-wiki talk pages for the citation tools mentioned, specifically ones that relate to GBooks links? When reviewing articles that provide both GBooks links and ISBN numbers in the bibliography, I often find the two are mismatched; GBooks links to one edition, while the ISBN relates to a different edition (a problem compounded by the fact that GBooks often lists the details for one edition on the "about" page, but offers a preview for a different edition). This becomes a problem when the two editions have different paginations. If there's a tool that automates the generation of the bibliography, then maybe it needs tweaking. Factotem (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't link to Gbooks if it's at all avoidable. If it's full text, it's usually out of copyright and it's often possible to link to an archive. If it's not full free text, to my mind it's basically then a spam link, not to mention that what you see depends on what country you are in and when you access. I've never provided a link to Gbooks in my FAs unless it's free full text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but in the majority of cases you just do it because it is simpler than arguing about it, and arguing about it may not be the wisest course of action. In the final analysis, if a reviewer wants it, it is likely to happen. Same with alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, properly formatting references is the most excruciating part of article writing. I tend to simply accept whatever Citoid and the cite tools offer; I do check whether the ref points to the correct source however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that some editors find reference formatting so painful. Having recently returned to FAC source reviewing after a gap, I find that most nominators have a generally good grasp of this aspect, certainly far better than used to be the case when FACs were often littered with unformatted references. I believe we need to maintain our standards of presentation and uniformity, although I agree that sources reviewers can ease off on such nitpickery as ISBN formats without detriment to these standards.

On the matter of Gbook links, they are mainly useless beyond evidencing that the book exists, especially when no preview is available. They could easily be dispensed with, and should certainly never be asked for in a source review, although if nominators choose to include them I don't object. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Links to Gbooks or perhaps Amazon are very useful, assuming they are stable. Quick case in point, see

Lingzhi2 (talk)

02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Where Gbooks links to the snippet you want, I'll put them in. It can save buying the book, which isn't a negligible consideration - the last FA and the one I'm working on now have cost me just north of £100 on sources. And it helps the Source reviewer, as Lingzhi indicates above. Where there's no snippet, I'll link to Worldcat. As Brian says, although he reaches a different conclusion, it proves the source exists and allows easy access to the book details. That said, I appreciate why other editors strongly dislike them and, as here, will drop them if there are objections. If editors go to the trouble of giving me a review, I'll go with their preferences on this. KJP1 (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

One problem I've heard of with regards to Google Books is that often not all people have access to a given page. One editor might get a whole chapter and another one might only see a snippet. And there is a systemic bias issue - Google Books tends to host mainly NAmerican books out of copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Its trivial to look up a book title, and google books is neither stable nor consistent across territories, so why include? I feel strongly against the use of snippets; unless its for a very specific details, dates, measurements etc, should be avoided. Otherwise their used can be very suspect given the lack of visibility of a (literally) broader context. Trying to dress this up with a link is to be avoided; per Brian "they are mainly useless beyond evidencing that the book exists". Ceoil (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Trying again

My question was not about whether or not GBook links are a good idea, but about the accuracy of citation tools used to generate bibliography sections. The problem came up in the Marchioness disaster FAC with https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59XvXKbyvZIC. Plugging that URL into http://reftag.appspot.com/ gives:

• 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0

but the GBooks preview is actually:

• 902-page print edition published in 2008 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8.

I've notified the app owner, but they do not appear to be very active on WP these days. Factotem (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• And thanks again for picking up the inconsistency: I had assumed that there was a publishers' master file from which the information was taken, ensuring the same information from all outlets, but I guess I'll have to double-check them all in future. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome. I'm pretty sure this is a GBooks issue. The GBooks listing for a given book (complete with bibliographic details) relates to one edition, but the preview is of a different edition. It looks to me that the app pulls the data from the listing page, as I'm sure most editors do, and not from the information actually shown in the preview. Factotem (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Also see

• WT:Featured article candidates/Siege of Berwick (1333)/archive1
• WT:Featured article candidates/Apollo 11/archive1, J
• WT:Featured article candidates/William de Ros, 6th Baron de Ros/archive1, J
• WT:Featured article candidates/Red-bellied black snake/archive1
• WT:Featured article candidates/Rwandan Civil War/archive1

Pinging the noms: Gog the Mild, Hawkeye7, Kees08, Serial Number 54129, Casliber and Amakuru. I can ping the supporters, but that's probably not necessary.

Also promoted in January: Teresa Sampsonia, Æthelberht, King of Wessex and Irritator. These three will run at TFA in late April; see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2019. Please feel free to edit the blurbs or add comments to their talk pages. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh ... and keep an eye out for Pyramid of Unas, also promoted in January ... I'm told it will run in early May. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The external link checker, which appears in the toolbox on each FAC nomination, is currently returning me a 404 messsage saying that the page doesn't exist. Are others getting the same message? Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, all the links in the toolbox are returning 404 messages so there appears to be some systemic fault. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tks Brian -- I tried it soon after you posted this, and again just now, and still appears to be down. I note that a message has been left on Dispenser's talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The tool seems to be functioning again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive2 has not been transcluded on the nomination page. I should automate this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, tks Hawkeye. I don't mind manually transcluding because it gives us a chance to vet them beforehand but if Andy and Sarastro like the idea of automating then it's fine by me... The mere fact that FACbot alerts us is a big help, and is appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop for a while, and I seem to have lost my JSTOR access – previews are all I'm getting. I wonder if this is general, or whether I've missed something somewhere. Can anyone enlighten? Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It may have expired

WP:LIBRARY, you'll be able to request a renewal of your account. Cheers - SchroCat (talk

) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"American former astronaut" is in the class of problematic phrases that have just started to appear. Most of you probably learned in school that in the phrase "some American astronauts", "some" is an adjective, but over the last 20 years linguists have reached a consensus that that's either wrong or it's not the whole story ... "some" doesn't obey the usual rules for adjectives at all, so it's now considered to be a new part of speech called a determiner. Determiners almost never follow adjectives, which is why all of these sound horribly wrong: "the American four astronauts were selected", "American some astronauts landed on the moon", "one of the American later astronauts", etc. "Former" isn't a black-and-white case ... it might not be a determiner, but it's so similar to other words that are determiners that "American former astronaut" sounds as wrong as "American four astronauts" to many listeners. Could we ban this phrase in Featured Articles, please? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserted: Sorry, "first" was my first example. I should have been more careful ... that's a special case, it's sort of a determiner and sort of not. Either way, before today, I had never heard anyone speak up in favor of "American first astronaut". - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I see no issue at all with "American former astronaut"; the alternative, "former American astronaut", is ambiguous as it's not clear whether the subject has retired as an astronaut or has renounced American citizenship. To take the "first astronaut" example, Yuri Gagarin was both the Russian first astronaut and the first Russian astronaut, but Alan Shepherd was the first American astronaut but not the American first astronaut. We'd say Armstrong was "the American first astronaut to land on the moon", not "the first American astronaut to land on the moon", because the latter implies a non-American got there first. ‑ 

Iridescent

16:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you don't like the idiots who are trying to save a few bucks with a "no humans in the loop" approach to writing, you'll probably want to avert your gaze from the WMF's vision of our Wikidata-powered future. ‑ 

Iridescent

17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Love that. We're all going to be machines in a few years, right? So this is just future-proofing, removing "nuance" etc, it's the best thing since sliced bread! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@

Iridescent

20:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Does that sound right to everyone else, "the American first astronaut to land on the moon"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'd say "an American who was the first astronaut to land on the moon", but if obliged to use either "the American first astronaut to land on the moon" or "the first American astronaut to land on the moon" I'd unequivocally use the former, as the latter implies that the Russians were there waiting for him as he disembarked. Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister, not the female first prime minister. ‑ 

Iridescent

19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a set order for adjectives in English which, apparently, we intuitively follow even if we don't know about it (I didn't know until I read this). It's so intuitive to me that "American first..." is just plain wrong, regardless of how technically correct it might be in some contexts; so wrong, in fact, that I would recast the statement to avoid those contexts rather than get the adjective order wrong. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thirded. Rephrase to avoid the awkwardness (which does itself avoid the ambiguity, but introduces clunk). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Rephrase" is my vote too ... "first American astronaut to land ..." is also wrong, for the reason you give, Iri. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The IOC rapped me over the knuckles for describing someone as a "former Olympian". There is no such thing as a "former" Olympian. Off to code the Rambling Man Bot in Lua. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could also get over our obsession with identifying the nationality of every person in the first sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have just shy of ten years of data now, and when I noticed there is only a single oppose in the tables above, I thought it might be interesting to look at oppose frequency. Not counting image and source reviews, the most frequent opposer by far over the last ten years is Nikkimaria, who has opposed 172 times in 397 reviews -- that's 43% of her content reviews. I think this is because Nikki has long been one of the reviewers who are willing to quickly point out that a new FAC is really not ready and should be withdrawn; Nick-D and Brianboulton, among others, have also often quickly opposed substandard nominations.

Here are the top ten in total opposes (content, not image/source reviews) in the last ten years:

In terms of percentages, and assuming at least fifty reviews, the only other reviewers who have opposed at least 25% of the time are Squeamish Ossifrage 37/97 - 38%, and Karanacs 27/94 - 29%. Note that none of these numbers include struck opposes.

My own numbers are 30/280 (11%), in case you're curious; I can post the numbers for anyone else who wants to know, though I should repeat that this is only from May 2009 onwards, which is probably less than half the total FAC reviewing data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Depends on language use to. Some people use a polite "comment" when it is pretty clear that some material needs fixing and the article shouldn't be promoted without same. SOme would use an "oppose" from the get-go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cas. I'd rarely type '''Oppose''' unless the FAC was a clear non-starter, but I'd regularly write a long list of problems that needed addressing. To my mind, "oppose" can be off-putting, especially to newcomers to the process, whereas "here's a list of problems, it's up to you whether you fix them or withdraw this nomination" has the same effect but allows the nominator to withdraw with dignity and not end up feeling as if they've been flamed off. ‑ 

Iridescent

13:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who pings me to review FACs can expect to be shouted at, after the abuse, the threats, the belittling I received here. Tony (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

...On this talk page, specifically? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like someone pinged him to comment on the National Front (UK) FAC, as he'd commented on the first one; I presume that's the connection. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

I saw a thread here recently about a shortage of reviewers. I do some work through various programs/events training or otherwise encouraging subject-matter experts to learn to contribute to Wikipedia. Sometimes it's through a weeks-long process, sometimes through edit-a-thons, and sometimes just an informal conversation, etc. As we all know, for better or worse, and for a range of reasons, writing articles on Wikipedia just isn't a good fit for some people. An open question is then in what ways they could contribute to Wikipedia apart from writing? Reviewing articles is a common suggestion, and there have been a number of projects/experiments involving just that, with mixed results. Sometimes they've been quite helpful, leading to article improvements, sometimes it's well-meaning but nobody actually does anything with the review, and sometimes the reviews miss the mark, maybe because of a misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's assume that for the sake of my question below, that this last scenario won't be an issue, and that people will have a reasonable sense of the fundamentals (NPOV, RS, V, NOR, etc.).

Here's my question: Is there a place at FAC for people who aren't experienced editors but have subject-matter expertise and want to help?

Obviously they won't be able to help with comments about things like MOS, but they may have a good sense of the body of literature, sources available, weight, prose quality in general, etc. At this point I'm just asking to see if it's a possibility worth looking into more. Of course, if the FAC community doesn't think it would be useful, I wouldn't want to pursue it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Content-only reviewers would be extremely welcome; we have a high proportion of prose/MOS-only ones as things are, & balance on this would be great. At least here they can expect to have a review responded to, which of course you can by no means count on if you drop one on the average talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod; this is a good place for them, though I think it's likely to be hard to find SMEs that are a fit for most FACs. It might also be worth keeping a list of SMEs and what their expertise is, since knowing that there's an SME available might help someone decide to work on a given article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I fear POV. Some "experts" are very very POV. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk)

05:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What about a trial run at peer review?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

PR is a good idea. POV is of course relevant for some topics but not others. My point would just be to prepare for that possibiloity by considering ways to handle it. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk)

05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't know how it would be a "trial" - we can't prevent anyone posting on either pages. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to restrict anyone, but peer review is a good place to start. People get touchy about their FAC nominations and expect certain things from reviewers and I'm fearing if we drop the experts in the deep end (FAC), things could go wrong. We've been discussing and hoping for experts to come along for years, so I'd like things to go right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Will possible POV really be a big problem? Reviewers only make suggestions, an author does not have to implement it. I think the benefits of having experts commenting far outweigh this possible problem. If we just keep the potential POV problem in mind and give it a try? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I think to get to what Ling is talking about, it might be good to clarify to the expects some of Wikipedia’s core policies from the get-go, both so that they can provide more actionable feedback and also so they understand why the articles might be structured the way they are. For example, there’s a lot of scientists or researchers who don’t really understand that we’re mostly a tertiary source, and that original research is not in our wheelhouse (where it’s a key component of their professions.) Likewise even with WP:WEIGHT issues there’s probably still going to be more time spent to alternate (and frankly wrong) or outdated viewpoints because we’re a summation of a body of knowledge and not (or shouldn’t be) trying to be on the cutting edge of scholarship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this would be most welcome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

One potential area in which novice subject expert editors' input might be particularly useful is that of source reviewing. From their subject knowledge they should be able to assess whether the sources used in an article are properly representative of the body of material available on the subject, including the most recent scholarship. It is hard for source reviewers such as myself to do this, hence the frequent use of qualified wording such as "the sources appear to meet the FA criteria". I do wonder, though, how such editors are to be identified and recruited – indeed, what is the evidence that they exist to any significant extent? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Branching off a bit, assume the reviewer gets inspired and sends a four page review that covers many aspects of the article. Does it get buried on the FAC page, placed on article talk with a " no archive" notice, or placed on its own subpage, like /talk/attribution? I like the latter, edit protected, and subsequent discussion on either article talk or subpage talk. ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  21:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Second question: Let's assume the reviewer really is an acknowledged expert in the field, but doesn't want all the attention of posting their name on the review, so wants to be an anonymous reviewer. Can FAC coords recv forwarded emails and post a statement vouching for the authority of the reviewer? ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  22:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments so far. I suppose I should add a bit more context here. From a volunteer perspective, through Wikimedia NYC we are often looking for innovative ways to engage members of the public. Our primary way is through edit-a-thons, but while those are good for a lot of things, they're generally poor venues for any sort of sustained, high-quality engagement with an article, and, as I wrote at the top, editing directly just isn't a good fit for everyone. So one dimension of this is possible experimentation at in-person events. Beyond WMNYC, this comes up at various conferences/events I attend. Along these lines, I should also ping Fuzheado. We've presented a couple times now on "alternative modes of expert engagement" (or whatever we want to call it) over the past few years.

From a Wiki Education perspective (I made this inquiry initially as a volunteer, but should disclose that I'm also an employee of Wiki Education [as Ryan (Wiki Ed)]), we've started branching out from working with instructors and students in classroom projects to working with academics and other professionals directly. This is framed in the context of contributing to public knowledge in their field, with careful consideration of things like COI and POV. There's a lot of enthusiasm for this, but the typical model (an 8-12 week course with video meetings, chat, and on-wiki interactions) is too cumbersome or otherwise a bad fit for some people, so I'm looking for other ways we can help people get involved. Mitigating things like COI/POV is what we can do reasonably well. This is all just exploratory at this point, with no plans for a test run, nevermind regular activity, but I could see this taking the form of a day-long pre-conference sort of thing, a week-long online session, or something a little longer. Who knows. :) I mainly wanted to establish that it wouldn't be a bad idea from the perspective of FAC regulars. This is about adding reviewers, not adding to the workload of existing reviewers, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, the simple presence of POV or UNDUE might be OK (in the review, not the article) if it's openly acknowledged. It's OK for an expert to present their own view, assuming they know and admit it's their view, and are aware of its relationship to academic consensus. Even a POV review might provide insights or resources hitherto unnoticed. The problem is if the reviewer does not see or admit the review is POV or UNDUE. ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  08:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. cygnis insignis 12:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Out of curiosity, wot's "B/C editing"? ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm biting my tongue. I meant improving several article to a quality rating of C to B, towards good article, but not bothering with GA or FA discussions. cygnis insignis 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a pity about the FA, but working on B and C class articles is good work as well of course. And gold star or not, the Setirostris article is in a better place for your involvement so thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, but are there ever any "support[s] converting to oppose"? ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I just show them as opposes. I think I've seen cases where people change their minds multiple times, and I didn't think that was worth tracking; nor is it very easy to be sure you have the history right. The three I decided to track are struck supports, struck opposes, and opposes that are converted to supports. It's a value judgement but I thought those were the most interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be taking a couple of weeks off, several times over the next several months, while I work on linguistics projects. (That's all I want to say about it right now ... I just wanted you to know I'm not goofing off.) Occasionally, I won't be posting a

Best of luck on your shadowy project :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks David. Don't mean to be mysterious ... I just want to wander in and out of some linguistics projects that look interesting, and I can't tell yet what I'll end up doing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Responding to edits at a couple of blurb reviews: if I do a blurb before something gets promoted, that means I made a wild guess that it might get promoted before I get back from my break, and I didn't want people to have to wait too long. If early blurb reviews ever interfere in any way with the FAC, please let me know. Also: except for the blurbs where we can't find an acceptable free image (maybe 1 in 15?), blurb length is generally 925 to 1025 characters. As you can imagine, FAC people and Main Page people don't agree on everything all the time, and blurb length is one of the areas where I'd prefer that we not jerk them around too much, to avoid unnecessary fights. Having said that: if we get enough discussion at a blurb review to establish consensus on anything, including a different blurb length, we can do it, and deal with the consequences later. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As the instructions strongly suggests a mentor for first time nominators (which I am), I'm posting here to see if anyone would be willing to mentor me as I put up The Hate U Give for consideration. I have a handful of GAs and one FL to my credit so hopefully I would be a good mentee. Thanks for any consideration and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks promising, and if you can live with me being quite busy, I volunteer. First thing I noticed is image placement. "She" should look "in", so be right (not left), and not cross a section header. Images should have ALT texts and no fixed image size. - I am not familiar with the topic, so someone else might be a better mentor. We also could "mentor" together: run a Peer review before FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt for your offer. I have gone ahead and made the suggested changes to the image. All things being relatively equal, I would love to move forward with the candidacy at this point. However, I am open to a peer review and in fact had put an earlier version of the article up for one and got no response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I glanced at it and see a couple of issues. Writing theme sections are always difficult and its themes section looks like it overlaps w/ the reception section, but I'd have to give it closer read. It's an interesting story, and I'll try work through it and post comments on the talk page. The new image placement interferes with the infobox (too close), on my computer, fwiw. But that's the type of thing that can happen in a FAC. Reviewers don't always agree, so it's up to you to decide. If I've not posted on the talk page in a few days, ping me. P.s - if you haven't done so yet, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels is a good starting point. Victoria (tk) 15:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The placement of the image looks fine to me, - perhaps it was changed again. Sorry for no peer review response, - I have planned to go to Adele Spitzeder, but had no time yet. How about you reviewing there, and reading what people say, and seeing if you can apply it to your article. You could also check other book FAs. I'm really busy these days, so can't look closer until let's says second hald of next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I have spent a fair amount of time basing the article off of other book FAs, particularly the Hunger Games as another YA book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

..For the impending second FAC of the "All About That Bass" article. I have started a peer review page so that improvements can be made without worrying about premature archival. But I need someone who has experience with writing featured song articles to help me simplify some parts. Which was a major criticism from the first FA attempt. Thanks.--NØ 19:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So, while looking at some FACs I've submitted I got a thought.

Would it be proper to post notifications of a FAC on the talk page of the pertinent WikiProjects or is that improper canvassing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's fine as long as the notification is neutrally-worded. FAR instigators are encouraged to use Template:FARMessage on WikiProject talk pages. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've done so, using a notification text inspired by Template:FARMessage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

I recently nominated my first FA at WP:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1, which was archived 22 May 2019. I understand that the proceedure is to wait two weeks from this before nominating any articles.

I do plan to renominate the article, as I have done some work on the article to meet

Having never done an FAC before, I'm a little worried about resubmitting to early, or otherwise failing etiquette. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Two weeks from closure is the official requirement. Unofficially, the answer is: however long it takes for you to be assured that the issues that led to the closure have been resolved, and that the article meets

the FA criteria. (And, in this particular case, that renominating won't cause edit-warring to kick off again). Nikkimaria (talk

) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't see how it doesn't meet the requirements (or at least the ones raised), and the issues over flagicon are fixed, regardless of anyones thoughts on whether or not they should exist. There has been no edit warring since the closure, so that is all I really have to go on (IE, no one has changed back to flagicon). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think nominators can be held accountable for edit warring "kicking off" when the nominators are working to be MOS (and FA) compliant. The edit warring was disruption caused by those editing against MOS. So in no way would this nomination be premature in being renominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately as stability is part of the criteria, edit-warring - no matter who is right in the matter - would prevent promotion while it is ongoing. As long as that's done with the nomination can proceed at any time. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well if the edit warring only happens at the time of the FAC, then it's a kind of Catch 22 isn't it? So once again, there's no reason to prevent renomination right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

On its face, I tend to agree with TRM, its in the discretionary range. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is suitible, I'll renominate today to avoid wasting too much time. However, if it's deemed wrong I can wait an extra two days for the nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Today is fine. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Supported, and I might get involved. Let us know what you need. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Will support later (on mobile atm), but my featured articles would be a good addition. :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any integration or even cooperation with FAC, for the same reasons
  Iridescent
  14:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Iridescent's points. I don't think this project works well within the "anyone can edit" culture of Wikimedia projects and have consequently filed an oppose in the Meta discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Incidentally, buried in the subpages they're talking about spending vast sums of the WMF's money on this proposal "because the funding is around", including hiring their own staff and having their own travel budget (

  Iridescent

  19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  It might be worth engaging with the suggestion directly so Lane is aware it's being discussed. Is Lane involved in the user group? Richard Nevell (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Other than that WikiJournals can consume content generated on Wikipedia (as anyone is free to do provided they follow the licensing requirements), can someone explain to me what relationship is proposed between WikiJournals and our content assessment processes? I would oppose any system where an external peer review process would attempt to compel revisions on Wikipedia based on authority of the reviewers rather than a consensus-based process. I would also oppose any system where we the FAC community are compelled to accept content as FA/GA/etc solely because it's been peer-reviewed for a WikiJournal. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Assuming their proposed model hasn't changed, it was spelled out last year in response to my challenging it last time round: After peer reviewer comments are addressed, the journal article is integrated into Wikipedia so that it is not a particularly forked version. It is treated as an approved version in the same way that there is an approved version of Featured articles. The Wikipedia page continues to evolve after the journal-organised peer review just as any GAs and FAs do. The public facing version in Wikipedia should 100% be the most recent and up to date version. The stable version of record can be used for citation. Their own mission statement is
  Iridescent
  22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The voting so far supports Wikijournal (hopefully without the camel case). Can't we assume that Wikijournalists (?) will start off by overreaching, at least the ones who aren't familiar with GAN, FAC, and other forms of article review on Wikipedia? That's why I'm not paying much attention yet ... I'm pretty sure they won't get everything they might want. But I'd be interested to know what they'd be willing to settle for, and whether it's something that might work for some Wikipedians. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @
      Iridescent
      07:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, it is discouraged to make substantial edits to the finished products, the published articles (these can be made if approved by the author but would require an additional round of peer review). But this is well in accordance with Wikimedia principles: Same is the case in Wikinews and Wikisource. And I don't see any restrictions in viewing the history either. It is an Academic journal, but is as open as such a journal can get. It does not only allow everybody to edit, but everybody to publish and participate in Academia. As they say, taking Wikipedia articles to the journal would remain a minor route that only few editors will take (it thus has no direct relevance for FAC). But it can be a chance to close the gap between Academia and Wikipedia. Remains to be seen if the journal will be well-received by Academia though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In practice, for the two articles I've published in the WikiJournal of Science, the approach outlined has not been harmful. Perhaps this was because these articles were almost entirely my own work (not to discount the value contributed by the reviewers, of course). There was a point after the journal version was published when the radiocarbon dating article was more or less identical to the journal version because I integrated the peer review changes. I think I have so far neglected to do that with the ice drilling article, though I wouldn't object if someone else did it. This integration is not just harmless, it's beneficial: if peer reviews of journal versions result in improvements I think the authors should feel themselves obliged to transfer those improvements to the Wikipedia articles. If someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia were to write a journal article and then were to be foolish enough to overwrite the Wikipedia article with it with no discussion, I imagine they'd be summarily reverted at any article with active editors, and asked to discuss the improvements on the talk page. I don't think this has happened yet and I think it's unlikely to; anyone that unaware of Wikipedia norms is unlikely to have much interest in contributing to the journal in the first place, and would have even less interest in editing Wikipedia. None of this is to say that the wording quoted could not be improved, but I don't think the reading Iridescent gives is intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I looked at an article in the Wikijournal of the Humanities yesterday and it showed two peer reviewers. However, it did not give any indication of what qualifications they had to act as peers - could be
      T. C. Mits, for all I know. That confused me, as did the entire proposal until just now when I read Iridescent's explanation above. - Sitush (talk
      ) 08:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't get my nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 175/archiveNumber in properly. Could someone help? Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no nomination page to transclude. Follow the instructions in the Nomination procedure section at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Tks DK.

Peer Review first in any case -- I for one would try and look it over there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk

) 00:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please close this nomination as I haven't figured out how to do so? Thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do so shortly. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi FAC,

Long-time listener, first-time caller here. There are a couple articles I'd like to explore bringing to FAC and wonder if someone would be interested/available to help as mentor.

The first is Rhode Island banking crisis, when embezzlement triggered the collapse of a private state insurer and a third of the state's population lost access to their bank accounts (for days, weeks, months, or in some cases more than a year). Protests, questions about organized crime and corruption, long manhunt, etc. (I'm trying to sell it a little because on the surface it sounds like a dry topic, I know). It's a GA now. I sent it to PR but it was archived without a review.

The second is Rossa Matilda Richter, who became the first human cannonball at the age of 14. It's sat in the GAN queue since last August, and is currently under review, but I feel like it's a strong contender for FAC. Working on this article was the first time I felt like I should take something to FAC as I realized, in the process of doing an exhaustive search for sources, that our article seems to be the best overall source about her now.

I don't know enough about the FAC mentoring processes to know how much the topic itself matters, but figured I'd detail what my plans are just in case. Anyone interested? :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I'd be happy to help out with one, your call which. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Great! Thanks. I suppose we should start with Rhode Island banking crisis, since the Richter article still has GAN pending. Let me know how you'd like to proceed? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• Spam alert*: Now up at peer review, if anyone's interested. ——SerialNumber54129 09:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added a proposal on

Noting here that there are currently three FACes in the "FACs needing feedback" box, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1969 Curaçao uprising/archive1 which began on the 25th of April, my own Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Payún Matrú/archive1 which began on the 13th of May and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sega/archive1 which began on the 24th of May. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'll do my part and take a look at the first two today while I have time. Hopefully someone will be willing to return the favor for Sega, which is my FAC. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at the Sega article and perhaps also at Curaçao. I'll admit, I was a bit uneasy with posting this request on my own FAC as it looks pushy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Haha, I felt the same way when I tried to do that at

WT:VG, but alas, did not generate any interest anyway. Red Phoenix ^talk

17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And that's two of three promoted. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A source review for the article would be very helpful. The link for the article's FAC is right here. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this a good way to invite more editors to post comments at the FAC page? Additionally, am I allowed to strike out another user's comments if they have been addressed but the user is not there to strike them out himself? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

To answer your second question, no. Leave them for the person to come back or, failing that, for the co-ords to judge whether you have done what the review asked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You beat me to it Gav -- yes, as long as you've made clear that you've acknowledged and/or actioned the comments, there's no need for them to be struck. Generally I'd be posting at relevant project pages or individual editors' talk pages for further comments, but no great harm in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I exported all FAs a week ago and am fooling around with them. Dunno if we care about alt text size, but here are the largest few examples (sorted by size in characters=bytes). ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  12:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like, in these cases, large alt text is attributed either to describing maps or writing alt text as if it was longdesc (which is how I used to erroneously do it). I will try to poke through the table and at least work on the obvious issues. When I want a second opinion I usually post on WP:ALT, like I did at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images#Alt_text_for_album_artwork. Kees08 (Talk) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day all, I have a query about the one-at-a-time rule. I now have about twenty articles ready for FAC and they generally take about six weeks to move through the system. I also review virtually every Milhist article that comes to FAC, and mostly work in an area where collaboration is not easy to line up. I am wondering if there has ever been an arrangement in the past where a single editor has been able to nominate two articles at a time? What would be the implications of loosening up the one-at-a-time rule, say to a maximum of two articles at a time, whether they are single nom or collaborations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The concern I see with allowing specific editors to have an exemption is that it establishes one kind of editor as superior to the other and Wikipedia normally does not do this. Regarding letting everybody have more than one FAC running is that it might overload the system with nominations, but on the other hand, it might increase the output of the FAC system. I am not sure which aspect would end up being the most important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not asking for a specific exemption, I am after an expansion of the rules to allow single editors to have two noms in train at once, which is currently allowed as long as one is a co-nom. I think the current arrangements make it harder for noms working in narrow subject areas where co-noms can be hard to find. In 45 FAs, I've only been able to find a co-nom two or three times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would be concerned that this brings in an element of reviewer fatigue to the process. There are currently 39 FACs running, many of which are desperately in need of reviews. Allowing productive editors to double up on nominations could add a further five or ten to that process making the process unwieldy. If we go down that route, I suspect many of the relatively new FAC nominators and those working in niche or 'unfashionable' areas are just going to be more overlooked than they are at the moment. (Personally I would like the rule, as I am often in the situation of wanting to have a couple running simultaneously, but I just don't think it's fair for the majority of nominations running at that time.) - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• That is a reasonable concern, and as a fellow prolific FA contributor, I appreciate your perspective. I still think the current arrangements preference those that work in areas that allow greater scope for collaboration due to having more willing workers that can potentially work together on articles. Diversity is important on WP, and editors that work in less mainstream areas can be sidelined to some extent by the current arrangements. I also wonder about the TFA throughput, which I admit I have no visibility of, and perhaps @Dank, Jimfbleak, Ealdgyth, and Wehwalt: have a view. If we need 365 or so FAs every year, are we keeping up with that? If not, what is our plan? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Can you clarify who editors that work in less mainstream areas refers to? ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, it obviously isn't just me, working on Yugoslav topics, no doubt there are many others I'm not aware of working in niche areas who are affected by the current policy. Perhaps you yourself are working on developing articles in an under-represented niche area towards FA and would benefit from a change in policy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Mine regularly take 6 weeks to 2 months minimum. I would willingly allow twice as bloody long if it allowed prolific contributors more opportunities. ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• "they generally take about six weeks to move through the system" As an editor whose first 12 FA nominations have, thanks to the generosity of other editors, just gone through in under 35 weeks (less than 3 weeks apiece) that seems an inordinately lengthy average. I have no real suggestions, although I find myself in agreement with SchroCat. However, I for one, as a reviewer who tries to look at 9 or 10 FACs a month, would be happy to preferentially review your nominations. (I am sure that you can think of a couple of my reviews of your noms which suggest that you would by no means get a 'wave through'.) If you were to ping me each time you nominate a FAC I would see what I could do to get that six weeks down. It is possible that there are other frequent reviewers who may be similarly inclined. I would also be happy to preferentially look at the nominations of other frequent reviewers - not, I hope that it goes without saying, just those who commit their time to pointing out the infelicities in my nominations. I realise that this doesn't really address your issue, but it may go some way towards ameliorating his particular problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Peacemaker for a long time now the supply of new FAs has fallen short of the needs of a daily TFA, which is why we occasionally have reruns. Anything that speeds up the production of new FAs will help postpone the day when TFAs runs for longer than a single day Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Peacemaker, pinging again due to error in spelling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't personally have any issues with altering this rule if that's the wish of the community. It was made to keep the queue more sane—not for us coordinators but for reviewers. A longer queue isn't necessarily any more difficult for me to manage as a coordinator. However, something that may come hand-in-hand with this is more aggressive archiving of nominations that receive little feedback or have little support for promotion. We've tended to wait a month or even longer before archiving such nominations but I think we'd want to start pushing that up depending on what effect this change has on the queue. If the queue increases in size by a substantial amount, we'll have to manage it differently because our reviewers are definitely not increasing in number. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I also think the main problem with this is lack of reviewers in general, otherwise I would have nothing against multiple noms. We are just not quite there, reviewer wise. Articles about obscure subjects have to wait months to get reviews, while military history articles usually just sail through (that seems to be the most successful project in Wikipedia in this regard, as it has a constant high number of writers and reviewers), so it is already unbalanced in their favour. Anyhow, there is the option to ask the delegates for a second nom, so that should be a good compromise that is already in place? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

People have asked to run a second nomination from time to time if the first has ample support and appears to be heading for promotion, but is at discretion of coordinators IIRC...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think technically it's at the coord's discretion but I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've not agreed to a good faith request for a second nom before the first is complete, and generally only then because I like to give every nom at least two or three weeks to run and the request has come earlier. Quite a few people make these requests, no harm in more doing so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You know, has anyone considered whether to do a "trial run" where for a limited period people can nominate two rather than just one FAC, to see what kind of benefits or downsides would crop up? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Along those lines, I suggest we allow two solo nominations for a six month period and see whether any of the problems foreseen above actually materialise, and whether our throughput improves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really in favour of 'trial runs' at FAC. As I recall, adding FAR to the bottom of the FAC page was a trial too and that's still going though I don't think anyone's evaluated whether it's really helped much. We'd have to check the archives to be sure but I expect the decision for one nom at a time was decided by an RFC, and if we want to change that I think it's another RFC. If we want to experiment a bit then I'd be more in favour of the coords being a little more liberal about leave to start a new FAC after the first is seen to be progressing well (granted, still a discretionary thing), thus ensuring we stagger multiple noms. With the best will in the world, I'm not convinced that people doubling their simultaneous noms are going to suddenly double their reviewing effort as well to keep things moving at a good pace and also keep up our reviewing standards. Reviewer burnout is always a greater risk at FAC than nominator burnout, in my experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That hits the nail on the head. The only way this would work—at least, the best way of ensuring that it would work—would be to tie it in with reviewing: only editors who have reviewed X number of candidates get to upload another nom, or something. And that's review here not anywhere else. But even then, I still think it would be manipulable: as I've said before, how to ensure a review that isn't just the fac equivalent of "support per nom". ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good trade off. If we allow more nominations, we also need more reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Surely that can only be assessed on an individual basis? For example, I average five to seven FAC reviews a month and my FACs take, on average, six weeks to go through the process, what would be an acceptable number of reviews per month to enable a second nomination? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing 50% of nominations (incl. older noms) on the board would probably cover it. ——SerialNumber54129 08:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we'd need a quality standard for for-a-second-FAC reviews, not a simple numerical standard. From time to time people on this page complain about "support on prose" and about people ignoring valid concerns raised by an "oppose" argument. This will perhaps go too much into weeds, but one thing I am thinking about is that a for-a-second-FAC a) should not simply ignore valid points raised by others and b) at least when it's prefixed with a "support" it needs to address all the criteria. That in turn raises the question of how to measure and record people's for-a-second-FAC arguments. While I like this concept, I am a little unsure of the practical implementation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any defined standard would work, because it's possible to do a thorough review and only write "Support -- could find nothing to complain about", and it's also possible to do a cursory review that finds a dozen or so minor points. Sometimes it is possible to see that a reviewer is being very thorough, but we don't want to incent reviewers to write reams of text in order to demonstrate their thoroughness. Peacemaker67, I'm sympathetic, but I don't see how to do this in a way that's fair to all nominators, since there are no doubt several FAC regulars in your position. What if we based it on overall promotion rate instead? If more than 30 promotions happen in a month, things are going fast, and extra nominations won't be much drag on FAC. So at the end of the month, if we hit 30 promotions the delegates could ask if anyone with an active FAC would like to nominate another, and give permission for up to five additional nominations? That would motivate everyone who wants to take advantage of this to do additional reviewing in order to speed promotion, but the delegates would be vetting thoroughness of review as they always do so cursory reviews would not help much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, and if 30 promotions a month would be a good yardstick then that would be a step in the right direction, but I still don't get that you can have two if you co-nom one of them but not two if you are a single nom. To me, the current arrangement makes it much easier for those that work in areas where there are multiple productive people working (and therefore areas already well represented on WP), and disadvantages those that work solo because there just aren't people to co-nom with in the less well-covered areas they work in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is the relevant discussion. The co-nom rule was added to prevent co-noms from being blocked from adding their own FACs, rather than the other way around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The effect is the same though, editors that are able to arrange co-noms are privileged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't know if I'd use the word 'privileged' -- that'd be true of 'co-noms of convenience', where you get someone along for the ride just to let you have an extra article in the list, but genuine co-noms, where the participants have collaborated to get the article to a fit state for FAC, and are therefore both capable of fielding questions and comments during the review, are a great thing all round. I also don't think that such co-noms/collaborations slow things up because two people can often action comments quicker than one, and you have an extra person involved who hopefully feels obliged to do some reviewing of other noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If it's just permission for a second FAC that's being sought, then would it be acceptable to permit an 'honorary' co-nom? This could be someone who has not themselves edited the article significantly but has been involved in prior reviews of the article (at PR, GA or ACR), and who would be willing to attach their name to the nom but not be expected to be otherwise involved. This would piggyback onto currently accepted practice concerning multiple noms. The only issue I can see with this is ensuring that only editors who work in areas for which genuine co-noms are hard to find, as pointed out by PM, or who reciprocate by taking on more of the reviewing load, are allowed to take advantage of such a minor(?) relaxation of the current rule, so that it does not become general practice. Factotem (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July. I'll be out of the country for the first part of September, so the August statistics will probably be delayed till mid or late September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)