Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive91

I am thinking of promoting this to FA status, and I’m sure it looks great. However, I would like someone to help me bring it up to it. Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I recently brought Angela Merkel up to GA, and I'd like to take it through the FA review process too. It would be my first FAC, so I'm looking for a mentor; I already reached out to two people from the list a while ago, but they seem to be currently inactive. Thanks :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but IMO the article needs to cite a lot less news reports and a lot more scholarship (historians etc.) IMO before it can pass at FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Could you elaborate a little? Does this refer to any specific sections, or is it a general sentiment (at FAC)? I wanna be as well-prepared as possible :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's fairly general. The

featured article criteria require high-quality sources: I would expect a much greater proportion of academic scholarship, especially for someone as high-profile and well-discussed as Merkel, in comparison to the routine news coverage which dominates the sourcing now. See for example the ratio at J. K. Rowling

.

As an aside, I wouldn't suggest Merkel as a first FAC. It will either not go well, or take a really, really, long time to get to the required quality. Set your first bar lower, and build up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, good to know. When you say that I should set my first bar lower, do you mean choose a shorter article? Or one that's already quite close to FA standards? Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that you should do whatever motivates you most – and if it's this article, I think you should go for it, since it is a very important one. With this article, you will probably get a lot of comments from which you can learn the most. Another shorter article might be theoretically easier to get to FA level, but if there is a risk that you will be less motivated because it's not precisely what you wanted to do, I wouldn't do it. I looked over this article very quickly and there are many small things that are easy to fix but that should be best done before nominating (e.g., sources in the lead, unresolved maintainance tags, some spelling errors etc.). I recommend you to list it at

WP:Peer Review first, and, while waiting for comments, work on the sources issue that others have pointed out above. When you don't get any more comments and you don't know how you could possibly improve the article further, it's time for nominating it at FAC. But don't be disappointed if it needs two rounds nonetheless, getting this kind of article to this level is a lot of work (but very satisfying if you can achieve it finally). Jens Lallensack (talk

) 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest finding a shorter article that is supported by your Merkel research, such as (say) one of the federal elections she won. That way, you gain experience in the expectations of FAC, which will probably make Merkel a better article, and you build your bona fides with the FAC community. Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's good advice. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As it is the article has a heavy reliance on news sources. Due to the limitations of such sources, it is likely better to rewrite based on scholarly sources. (t · c) buidhe 13:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I hate to sound discouraging, but having spent a good bit of my time here writing about contemporary political figures, I would generally discourage bringing them to FAC: the source material changes too quickly for the articles to remain representative without constant and extensive updates. Merkel is now retired, but I would expect the scholarly literature about her legacy is just starting to develop. As such I particularly agree with Wehwalt's advice about choosing an article with smaller scope; something about an election, or a policy, Merkel was involved in early in her career will likely have a reasonably stable literature about it, and will let you write a longer-lasting article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a very valuable piece of advice, thank you! I would expect the scholarly literature about her legacy is just starting to develop; I suppose that's part of the reason behind the current state of the article's sourcing. I found some scholarly analysis of German policies during her Chancellorship, but it was all quite limited.

Thanks also to everyone else, there's lots of valuable input here, particularly for someone new to FAC. I'll probably try to find a different article for FAC. Happy editing! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that there is already a lot of scholarship out on Merkel. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have a new candidate in mind: Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Being a book, I think the requirements for both scope and sourcing will be a bit easier to meet than with Angela Merkel. I've taken a look at some literature FAs, and I think this is quite an achievable goal for a first FA, perhaps more so than a complex political biography. What do you think? Small note: when I started working on it, it was stub. I've already added some content, but there's a long way to go before FAC. I'm really just wondering if you think this is a more suitable subject for a first FAC. Thanks again for your time everyone! Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

In doing source reviews, a point I commonly have to raise is about the casing of titles.

The number of things that aren't required by FAC rules but are still requested as if it was holy writ can be surprising. And perhaps irritating, depending on the placidity of your nature. However, bear in mind that FACs have to adherer to MOS, and that is an even greater collection of ad hoc, sometimes seemingly random, often certainly contradictory, instructions, so quite often you might find that there's something you should do, but not because it's in the FAC regs, but because it's in the MOS. HTH! SN54129 14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying that! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS also says at the tippity-top that ... it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. If an editor can articulate a good reason for disregarding MOS on a specific spot, then that should generally be accepted. I have to say I am not a fan of your declaring in reviewing that [a]ll citations must use the same casing when that is contradicted by both the notice at the top of MOS and by that specific guideline which says that [g]enerally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works .... The word generally implies that there may be exceptions. For example, I would not apply title case to a French source or sentence case to a German one. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The linguistic exceptions do make sense- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I do want consistency in English-language sources, but I wouldn't dream of requiring it for foreign languages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This is all weird to me; shouldn't source titles in citations preserve the formatting of the original source? That seems both more intuitive and more in line with the purpose of citations, that being to identify sources and aid readers in locating them. The more accurate a citation is to the original source, the better, no? Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 14:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See

MOS:FOREIGNTITLES. SN54129

14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Problems arise when the source uses all caps, as many newspapers do. Another is that Worldcat puts titles in sentence case, as do several academic citation formats like MLA, regardless of whatever case is used on the printed book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I linked to the MOS, I did not grant it my approval! we should do what is usual in every other encyclopedia/academic work, and use the house style. It will be occasions very few and very disparate that doing so might have a material effect on the meaning of the title, and of course if there's ever a chance that we are going to mislead the reader by using the house style, then it should be discussed on a case by case style. But man, the MOSheads have got the whole thing sewn up to the super slam. Cheers, Sturmvogel 66, well met. SN54129 16:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

True. We always have IAR if there's a real problem :) Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 16:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their input, very helpful in understanding the MOS's place in reviews. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to get Fleetwood Park Racetrack in shape for my first FA. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've only done this FA thing 4 times myself, but from looking at the article I think you should just go ahead and nominate. I did not see any major issues that would preclude a successful FAC. And even if it fails, you learn from it. My first FAC failed and now I've had 4 of them that succeeded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Reads well, but an awful lot of the refs are contemporary press press reports. Aren't there any books covering the period that have stuff on it? Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Fleetwood Park Racetrack#Books? RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

As a result of a recent conversation at a FAC, I have

The change to CITE has been made. I have now suggested a corresponding change to the close paraphrasing essay, here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2023. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I recently re-expanded all articles related to singer Madonna's first album with more relevant, previously missing information. I'd like to take "Borderline", my favorite song from said albun, to FA status. It would be my first FAC, so I'm looking for a mentor who can assist me :) Thanks in advance! Christian (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#TFA scrutiny needs to be done in a timely manner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 has not been transcluded on the nomination page
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of Bath City F.C. managers/archive1 has not been transcluded on the nomination page

@WP:FAC coordinators: Please resolve. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of Bath City F.C. managers/archive1 has not been transcluded on the nomination page

  @WP:FAC coordinators: This is a list, so probably should go to FLC. Suggest speedy close. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Cheers Hawkeye7. It seems to have been reverted, so should I just stick the archive template onto the blank page? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No need. Fine now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Are the nominations listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FAC urgents ones which have been taking too long or at risk of being archived or both? The reason I ask is because one of the current listings is my nomination, which has picked up three supports and two general supports, and I think is about ready. I don't see why it should be at risk of being archived. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(Non-co-ord comment) You've got three supports, Bneu2013; image and source reviews have to be passed regardless of however many supports the candidate has: they have legal implications. In other words, image and source reviewers won't support an article on those grounds, but they can fail it. Good luck, though; you've stuck it out this far. SN54129 19:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(Non-co-ord comment) If you review other people's articles, there is a possibility they will review yours, which will secure your nomination. Although there is no quid pro quo, people are more open to reviewing people's articles if they see nominators doing some of the heavy weight of reviewing. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It was listed among the urgents almost two weeks ago, but I think we can safely remove it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't at risk of getting archived. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if

• create the 7th FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive7 rather than ...Nonmetal/archive6.
• either

  rename ...Nonmetal (chemistry)/archive1 to ...Nonmetal/archive6 leaving a redirect

  or create a redirect from ...Nonmetal/archive6 to ...Nonmetal (chemistry)/archive1

  this will help anyone going from one review to another by editing the urls, and may help the bots maintain the Archive7 page.

-- Mirokado (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Mirokado. I intend to nominate Nonmetal again, shortly. Barring any other action, it will show as Nonmetal/archive6, as you say, rather than as Archive7, due to the name change from "Nonmetal (chemistry)" back to "Nonmetal". I was going to explain this in my FAC nomination notes. Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe has sorted this out. Thank you, User:Buidhe. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No, Buidhe has not sorted this (which was not a problem to begin with). Buidhe, articlehistory is designed to work so that FACs do not have to move when articles change names, and moving the FACs to a new name causes problems in other ways. I wish people would stop making those faulty moves, which then Mike Christie and I have to spend huge portions of our lives re-sorting (User talk:SandyGeorgia/archFASorting). When an article changes names, do NOT move the old FACs. If there was such a concern about identifying which FAC number it was, a hatnote could have been added at the top of the new FAC. Who is on board for the work to undo this now ? If it was clarified, why muck around? The article history is and was clear, and is designed to not be messed up when articles move. Let the system work; it does. Chasing down errors because people make moves is no fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Faulty ping, Mike Christie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a standard procedure, but I think what I did made the most sense in this specific case.

If the article has been nominated for FAC 5 times under 1 name and 1 time under a slightly different name, depending on how you find the FAC pages it may not be clear what's going on without the move.

Redirects were preserved so anyone looking for the previous FAC page under its old name would have no trouble finding it. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The standard procedure (which works) is that when you subst a FAC, it picks the next open archive, and articlehistory works even when articles move. I haven't tracked back to see if everything is in place; this is more of a general note for future reference, along with general dissatisfaction at positioning of the original issue. I hope most people who can write an FA can also count, and the articlehistory was correct. There's no reason to mess with a functioning system to highlight it being FAC number seven. So what ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandbh, when you subst the FAC, the script chooses the name and the next archive; please ignore this tempest in a teapot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

May help what bots maintain what archive page? The bots work with the AH templates as intended. This bit says all that was needed: The presentation of article milestones on the talk page is quite clear; please stop mucking with article milestones for what looks like pointy/counting reasons. The scripts work, the bots work, the AH works. If you need an archive counter to know it's the seventh FAC instead of the sixth, priorities are off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

After strainin', heavin' and complainin', We was getting nowhere; And so, we, had a cuppa tea... SN54129 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• We are starting to reach the point of needing a trip to AN --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why? It's within the rules that, if actionable comments have been resolved since the last FA nomination, it can be re-nominated (within reason). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Another nomination does not seem unreasonable to me. I would imagine that it can be collegiately handled without needing a trip to AN. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would a trip to AN be needed? (sorry, I don’t know the full back story). I’m not sure it should be done on the number of attempts - I helped someone get S&M (song) through FAC a long while back on its tenth attempt, but the previous nine noms were all done in good faith. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless AN was a threat towards SN54129 for his Right, said Fred! interjection. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. In that case, I'm all for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

but Bernard Cribbins was The Man  :) "Whoops Mrs McGinty, You're Sitting On My Artichokes" etc SN54129 15:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Another nomination is not abusive, and if a nomination in any case is abusive, the Coords can usually handle it without any admin/AN intervention (were previous objections addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Re "don't know if there is a standard procedure", now that the FAC is up, that can be more easily viewed. At the top of

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 23#Template:Featured article tools; the template in question is part of the FAC pre-load so it may be of interest to the regulars here. Hog Farm _Talk 23:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking of bringing Banana slug to FAC. I'm wondering if the book Banana Slug: A Close Look at a Giant Forest Slug of Western North America is good enough as a source for an FA. Its been cited by some journal articles but I don't much about the education background of the author. This is her profile. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is probably best asked at

WP:RSN, but if the work has been cited by experts in academic journals, it's likely to be fine to use. Nick-D (talk

) 22:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2023. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been an honor to serve the community as a FAC coordinator since late 2021. I've had significant life changes in the time since then, and I frankly haven't been active enough to functionally serve as a coordinator for several months. As a result of those same changes, I don't anticipate regaining my 2021 and 2022 levels of activity. I'll hang around until a suitable replacement can be found, but I'm not going to be able to regain the degree of activity I had before. I just thought it would be best to give some degree of early awareness here. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your work, it's been much appreciated! Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded; sorry to see you go, and we really appreciate the dedication you've shown. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Per BN: thanks so much for all you've done, and it's been an honour to share the project with you. Best of luck in all your pursuits. Vaticidalprophet 01:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your service; I'm sorry to see you go. Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for piling on, but I also wanted to thank you for your time and dedication to this community. It is greatly appreciated and I wish you the best for the future.

Aoba47 (talk

) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also butting in to say thank you for all you've done, HF. Wishing you the best :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, HF. Is a replacement coord needed, or is the process able to operate with three? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work, Hog Farm. Ergo Sum 00:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FAC co-ord structure brainstorm

Thanks Hog Farm for taking on the role of co-ordinator and for agreeing to stay on until a replacement is found. To respect HF's wishes and not prolong their departure, I want to start a conversation about the FAC process. What should we be thinking about while looking for new FAC co-ords? My observations are below, and I hope that they focus on the functionality of FAC and avoid evaluating an individual editor's performance.

In 2021, FAC decided to go from three to four co-ordinators. Looking at the FAC page history, Gog the Mild and IanRose promote most of the articles, and Buidhe focuses on archiving nominations quickly and occasionally promoting articles. Is this model working? Does the community feel like we are sufficiently avoiding the bus factor and delays? Do we need a fourth, fifth, or more co-ordinators, or will three be sufficient?

Another concern brought up in the past is the diversity of expertise among coordinators. Should this be a consideration when looking for future co-ords, whether that is now or in the future?

Looking forward to your thoughts below. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think three coordinators are enough and if by expertise you mean depth of knowledge of an academic subject, it should not be a consideration. The coordinators decide if a consensus has been reached. If they have comments other than procedural questions, they recluse. Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: What I mean is that editors have raised the concern that too many co-ords write articles concerning Military History subjects and that there should be a greater diversity of subject expertise among co-ordinators. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That sort of diversity is desirable, all other things being equal, but I don't think it should prevent the selection of a qualified coordinator that did not come from an over-represented area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There has been an explosion in the amount of music FACs (four songs are nominated right now). There should probably be someone music-focused on the coord team for greater quality control. 2/4 of the current coords do not touch music-related nominations.--NØ 18:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Four coords seems sufficient unto the day (although, more the merrier, of course). Many thanks to Hog Farm, whose announcement above I missed. We're effectively down to two coords again, and as you have noted yourself Graham, it is only right to take a coord's activity into account in these circumstances. SN54129 18:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Three or four seem OK to me. Just because we have some music going through now, I'm not sure that means we should automatically have someone music-focused there: aside from the fact topic areas come and go and four FACs is too few to make much of an impact co-ords don't need to be experts in topics, they have to be there to keep the process running and judge whether consensus has been achieved. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I've seen some Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor recently, but no music... SN54129 18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @SN I Knew You Were Trouble... ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Three is probably enough for now, but definitely no lower than that. Four is probably ideal, but not essential. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi y'all and apologies for the delay. Buidhe, who has been quite open about taking a lesser role before this, has indicated she'd like to retire entirely if we find a fourth coordinator acceptable to the community. (There is consensus among the coordinators that four is an appropriate number.) This has extended the process, but we are, I think, well along with it. We hope to have something to put to the community before too long. (We are aware of the comments about becoming MilHist heavy and are taking this into account.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'd like to see some transparency in terms of who is chosen and the process by which that's done. Furthermore, it would be nice to see a coord familiar with humanities or with science/medical. The number depends on the amount of time available to volunteer, but again, shouldn't the community get some input? Victoria (tk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  There's no reason why we can't suggest a name here, or in an offline communication to one or more existing coords. Currently the coords contact editors who might be future coords to be sure they are willing to take on the role, and I have no problem with that process being behind the scenes -- I wouldn't want a nominee to think they were the eighth choice, and be upset by that, if seven people turned down the role. The community will approve or reject any nomination. The coords can't select, they can only propose, and they know what the job entails better than anyone, so I think it works well as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  if we're on the topic of suggesting a name, is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Mike, re "the Coords can't select, they can only propose", when has there ever been a time when those put forward were not chosen? I'm afraid that what you say is theoretically true, but practically, simply not the case. I also agree with you that suggesting names here could head down the wrong path in more ways than one (unnecessarily hurt feelings being the main one ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a sort of "coord emeritus" that's mostly retired but steps in on occasion when one or more coords are unavailable for a time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • As it happens, Coord Emeritus is a concept that's been in place at MilHist for many years... But I think with a team of four active FAC coords we have good backup for almost any eventuality. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Three is enough.
  If Hog Farm is replaced, the replacement should not be another MilHist person, as diversification is needed.
  But more importantly, the selection process has become a closed (MilHist) circuit. In the previous process (meaning, pre-Ian Rose), all FA Coords/delegates (TFA, FAC and FAR) were consulted; now we don't know who is being consulted, or who is putting forward the nominations, but it's obviously not all FA process Coords, which puts all FAC Coord decisions in the hands of pretty much one or two people, with no apparent concern for diversification beyond MilHist, moving around Coords between FA processes, or bringing in Coords with different skillsets, complementary to those already represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ian Rose, you've got (an unprecedented) more than 11-year term in now; what are your thoughts re new blood ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Like it or not, the coord selection process has nothing to do with milhist.

  Anyone can self-nominate to become a MILHIST coord and the results are determined by a public vote (which is ongoing). (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Buidhe, I suspect you're talking about something different than I'm talking about. Ian Rose (MilHist) has been the person putting forward new FAC Coords for 11 years, and that input has ceased to include a broader perspective of all process Coords, so it is not entirely surprising that MilHist nominations have dominated, while nominations of individuals with other skillsets have laggged. One of the main areas that has lagged is people (like Hog Farm) encouraging participation on FAC talk for innovative ideas or change. It happens that Hog Farm was also MilHist ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I doubt it's correct to say that Ian is the sole person suggesting coordinators or that attempts have not been made to get a more diverse range of coords. I'd guess that MilHist has been well represented among coords because a lot of very good editors are active in that project, not for any other reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It would be nice if we knew, rather than having to guess. We have no indication Ian is consulting other FA process Coords (

  WP:WIAFA. As far as we know, the choice for successor coords is made now by Gog and Ian, with possibly Hog Farm and Buidhe contributing, and in that group, I see Hog Farm as the one who understands and works towards FA quality at both ends (FAC, FAR). This is simply far more "dictatorial" than Raul ever was, it's leaving the overall process in the hands of two or three people, and it's not a healthy or transparent process. SandyGeorgia (Talk

  ) 02:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  In short, my suggestion is that the retiring FAC Coords not be replaced until an RFC is held to clarify what's up with this process gone astray. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sandy, I hope Ian has no plans to leave -- his long experience means we have consistency and continuity that will smooth out transitions when we get new coords. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not advocating that he should leave, rather pointing out that the old criticism of Raul as a "dictator" should look ridiculous in hindsight since a) he consulted all process Coords for nominations, and b) he didn't serve 11 years. If Ian is to continue, then at least he should broaden and make more transparent what his selection process for successors is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any reason why FAR and TFA necessarily need to be consulted. I think that the skills to be a coord at either of these are actually rather different than FAC. Furthermore, the people who are chronically active on FAR are also on FAC as well and are definitely on the radar of the FAC coords. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  That you (and the current crop of Coords) don't see why all parts of the process should be considered and consulted, or why the three pages should function as part of an overall, is precisely my concern. Re whether the skillsets are different, I wonder what Hog Farm (who does a fabulous job on both bookends), thinks about that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a FAC coordinator who recently became a TFA coordinator - with no consultation with other parts of "the process" - I see no reason why there should be such consultation, any (recent) precedent for it, or any benefit to be gained, The process takes long enough as it is, why add needless complications? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have noticed that since the move to four coordinators, the time taken for an article to go through FAC has been reduced. This may be coincidental, but I would prefer four coordinators to three. I have no objection to the appointment of a coordinator from WikiProject Australian rules football, WikiProject U.S. Roads or WikiProject Music, but if Ian departs, and I would very much prefer that he did not, I would push for someone from WikiProject Military history to be appointed. The large number of nominations from the Military History project reflects the project's commitment to the production of quality articles and to quality review processes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware only three projects were allowed to contribute coordinators (one of which just did their own Brexit). You're really not satisfied unless every single coordinator is a member of MILHIST? This is demonstrating exactly why we need people who do more than just MILHIST to be part of the coord team. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)}}

  (edit conflict) Just got interrupted while I was typing is all. All projects are welcome! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  In fairness the WP projects mentioned have many of their articles brought up to FAC. There's probably way more FAC articles from other WP projects, but fewer in number each.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  MILHIST is one of the few projects that are not mostly dead, so it is fairly natural that people who are associated with a WikiProject are associated with MILHIST. I don't think project affiliation matters much; we just need coordinators who can act without prejudice in most topic areas and know when they need to recuse. —Kusma (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

As a TFA coord, I would not expect to consult or be consulted by the FAC or FAR coords concerning a vacancy in whatever project. In my six years on the job it's never happened and the projects seem to be doing pretty well, if I can judge based on my 16 years or so of involvement. There have been ups and downs in the past, but things seem good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

An interesting point has arisen at the Liz Truss FAC about whether a BLP of a relatively young (aged 48) and still active politician should be a viable candidate for FAC, given the article may go out of date quickly. The article itself is certainly strong enough in terms of prose etc to pass FAC, but comments would be welcome on the suitability as a subject. Pinging Andrew Davidson as the person who raised the original concern, to ensure I'm not misrepresenting their argument. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't buy this myself. It's one thing to pick up articles that aren't complete because known information is missing, and if something is really active in real time over a period of hours, days or weeks, then sure. Wait it out. But the mere fact that someone is still alive and other things may yet happen in their lives shouldn't preclude an FAC. It's always understood that FAs will be added to if further information comes, and there's

WP:NODEADLINE on "completing" anything. This is particularly so for Liz Truss, who's probably already finished the most high-profile role of her life.  — Amakuru (talk

) 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one, but there have been 12 PMs (if I remember correctly), who have held the post more than once. Although highly unlikely Truss will return to be PM, most ex-PMs have still made news in their own way afterwards. Her memoirs are likely to be published soon, as well as those works from biographers and political scientists examining her, her role and the effects of her short-lived premiership. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I nominated Truss, no idea if I'm allowed to comment here: I will note that Obama, McCain, Clinton (Hillary), Brown, Bush Jr, Elizabeth II, Charles III and Miliband etc. all were GAs or FAs whilst they were still holding the most important role of their lives. With the exception of Clinton and Obama, they all retain their status today. If this was not an impediment to those articles, then Truss, who has no chance of returning to government, should be able to pass FA if I (and I will) promise to update the article source-wise and fact-wise. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You're definitely allowed to comment! As this is a wider point than just the current nom, it's open to all. I'd ignore the GAs - they operate on different standards to FAs. I wouldn't rule out Truss playing a further role in a future cabinet (not in this parliament, but after a Labour government, anything is possible), or as an eminence grise in the background. Milliband is in the shadow cabinet, while Ted Heath didn't give up his seat until 2001, some 28 years after he lost the premiership. Tony Benn was as active and notable after he lost his cabinet position in 1979 as he was before that. Blair and Brown have made headlines for the activities (between them) in the Scottish national referendum, Brexit, Middle East, etc. And while new material can be added to any FA at any time, there is always a danger that the new material weakens it - it's added without the formal and rigorous review that is needed to ensure the standards are retained (look how long the current review is and how many changes have been needed to get the article up to the standard it currently is). I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here as I'm sitting on the fence. There are good arguments on both sides and I haven't settled on where I am going to land. Have no fear though, I will still review the article once UC has finished with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As a different point—and I don't want to sound like a whiny kid saying "no' fair!"—but I've invested quite a lot of time (and also a bit of money on books and papers) on the article, and I'm not generally in the habit of putting in a lot of effort for no result; especially just to be foiled by the fact that "Truss isn't dead yet". We will see. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• There are several reasons why BLPs are risky as FA candidates, including:

1. While people are alive, their future is uncertain and their lives might change radically. When I've spoken to acquaintances who have articles on Wikipedia, they are usually quite concerned that these are not accurate or up-to-date.
2. BLPs require special care, per
   WP:BLP. For a fresh example, see Lisa Nowak which caused quite a stir
   recently so that their time on the main page was cut short.
3. Putting someone's photo and details on the main page might be considered promotional, contrary to
   WP:DYKELECT
   for this reason.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)

We could always not run it as TFA. Maybe we could when Truss retires, as I get your concern about promotion. Like I said, I'll keep Truss up to date. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure who would be promoted by putting Liz Truss on the Main Page. Reminding mortgage holders of her tenure as PM is possibly not good for the Tories... —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Might not help the Tories ... just Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, UKIP, Reform, Reclaim, Alba, etc. ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with the suitability of BLPs as FAs. We should perhaps be quick with FAR and similar processes if the article does get out of date, but "the article may go out of date quickly" applies to almost all subjects, so it is a non-argument. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 – I agree completely with Kusma. While we should consider allowing expedited FARs, I can't see any reason to exclude them from FAC. There might be certain individual cases where it is deemed an article is likely to become very unstable due to changing events in the near future, but that might be more of a tweak to criteria 1e than anything else. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Concurring with Harrias. Of course BLPs need keeping an eye on - whether FA, GA or lesser ranked - but that's no reason to suppose that there should be no FAs about living persons. I have chipped in at this FAC in support. Tim riley talk 18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is more a problem with biographies of very young people, but that hasn't kept them from FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• We now have a
  WP:ERRORS
  again. Both the article and review seem quite short and perfunctory because there isn't that much to say. This doesn't seem to be a serious encyclopedic process – just a rubber-stamping of fannish, recentist material.

Note that the UK recently passed an Online Safety Bill in which child protection is mandated as a duty for online providers such as Wikipedia. Running this sort of material gives a blithe, anything-goes impression which is asking for trouble.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the connection to the Online Safety Bill here? I thought that was about protecting underage website users.

It would be quite sad if we could never feature living children, even those who can serve as heroes for underrepresented communities. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Taken to a logical but overly cautious step, it would mean not having articles on anyone under 16/18/21 (pick whichever jurisdiction you’re in), even if they appeared at the Olympics or in a film, let alone people like Greta Thunberg etc. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to claim exemption from such regulation on the grounds that it's a respectable public institution. But this is not an article about a more historic figure such as Shirley Temple. The subject is still at school and her fame is associated with platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Twitter. It indicates that Wikipedia is a similar sort of service and so should get the same treatment.

Note also that Shirley Temple was a candidate for FA status but was rejected. But I suppose most readers would say that it's actually a better article in most ways. A subject that has not lived long or done much is easier to cover than the full life of a more accomplished person. By allowing incomplete biographies of living people, you create a systemic and recentist bias. You see the same thing at ITN where accomplished and prolific individuals such as Jimmy Buffett are snubbed because they did so much.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I’m not talking about former juveniles, but people on this list, or the 16-year-old Ethan Nwaneri who plays for Arsenal. Should we delete all these articles, despite these people having relativelynhigh profiles and reaching the standards of GNG? - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Are you suggesting no article can be written to a high quality just because the subject is young? Because that is what will happen, taken to its logical conclusion. The FA process is just a means of accurately grading the article's quality; it doesn't automatically mean that an article has to be frozen in place forever. Any BLP article has to be updated, FAs are no different. Just as C Class articles might be demoted to Start Class if they become inaccurate or out of date, so might FAs. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I took an article on a 2,264-year-old naval battle through FAC. 80 ships sank during it and most years archaeologists pluck some of their remains or their cargos off the sea bed and/or publish research based on these finds. Some have fundamentally changed our understanding of the event. Ongoing research is likely to change it further. Perhaps I should have waited a decade or two for our information about the event to stabilise? </rhetorical question> I suggest that contributors to this thread meditate on the meaning of the first two syllables of the encyclopaedia's title. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about Andrew but I'm not suggesting we delete these articles. Notability is a much lower bar (I would argue too low; Andrew would probably argue the opposite. Ironic that we agree here!) than featured article. Of course these articles can be well written but FAC is no longer "brilliant prose". Comprehensive, neutral, and stable are all part of the criteria. A comprehensive article is best written about a person after their career (which may be longer for a politician than a sportsperson, for example), of which Liz Truss may be an example; or once they've reached the pinnacle of their career, eg Taylor Swift. I wouldn't say nobody could reach that point at the age of 14, but it would be a rare exception. I don't think Shaylee Mansfield is that exception. The author has done an excellent job of researching and writing the article but there simply isn't enough to say about her (yet) to write a comprehensive article. Which is why the article is heavily padded out with quotes, tabloidy entertainment websites, and social media posts (including for the subject's date of birth ffs!) instead of high-quality reliable sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of sources for a lot of articles seem to be "tabloidy ... websites". To my subjective eye some appear dubious candidates for "high-quality". Possibly a community debate around this would go a long way towards addressing the separate point being raised here? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem also isn't that such articles shouldn't exist, but that they're inherently too unstable for becoming FAs. Stability is one of the main FAC criteria, and how can the career of a kid still in school, or even someone in their early 20s, be considered stable? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The criterion on stability is "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day" [emphasis added], which is clearly referring to stability in Wikipedia terms, not not some sort of end to the flow of new information. In FAC terms there is not a problem with this article. Of course, the criteria are subject are subject to community consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that the choice of Main Page TFAs will have any influence on how Wikipedia will be treated by the UK's online censors in the future. —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Strange that this is how I found out that the OSB was finally passed, even though it lost its main proponent along the way. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I nominated the OSB for ITN but it was vetoed by a crowd who are naturally not keen on the idea that they have to pay any attention to UK laws. We'll see how that works out as the previous Children's Code has made a significant difference... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Shame. I don't monitor ITN very often at all, but if I did, I probably would've supported. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If it was up to me, all BLPs would be banned from FAC. However, I don't think that UK legislation is relevant to us since the Wikimedia foundation's servers are based in the US and we should avoid allowing government censorship to influence our content. (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, Buidhe, which should get universal acclaim from anyone who knows that a 'free, universal online encyclopedia' is not the most important thing in the world! SN54129 14:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that describing the OSB as "government censorship" is just wrong: it's a bill to protect people from harmful content online, not a crackdown on free speech. As Dorries herself puts it "is it true it will impact freedom of expression? / no, we've put in legal protections in the 19th section". Catchy lyric. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not researched the content of the bill, but if it would affect what content we can legally host on the encyclopedia, it is government censorship by definition, whether you approve of it or not. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Like you said, Wikimedia's servers are across the pond, so Ofcom has no power there. If it was based in the UK, it might mean no images of extreme violence or pornography without a disclaimer saying "this content is not child-friendly". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think I was the first to raise the issue (on article talk, or peer review, I forget), and this was merely in terms of the best analysis probably not having been published yet, perhaps making meeting the "comprehensiveness" criterion hard to meet (in a way it wasn't for eg Elizabeth II when that passed). Neither conventional BLP concerns nor any potential UK legislation were on my mind at all, and I think these are complete red herrings. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  On Tim riley's talk page, it was. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Right, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've written a lot of articles on living people, mostly athletes. Writing articles is easiest when the sources are available, and the half life of sports reporting is not too long. I also took articles on The Six astronauts to featured. Of these, two (Resnik and Ride) are dead. The other four are still living, and
  Kathryn Sullivan, Rhea Seddon and Shannon Lucid ran without any problems. Same with Buzz Aldrin, Frank Borman, William Anders, Jim Lovell and Charles Duke. Never had a problem with an astronaut article until Lisa Nowak. I don't know if the article has been stricken out of process or not, but I would like to see it run. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  03:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The astronauts have all reached the pinnacles of their careers. There's not likely to be much more to say about them until they die and a few years later a new biography is published so once you've written something to the standard that you do, Hawkeye, the article isn't likely to change much and anything new can be easily incorporated. Nowak is the exception to the rule because she's better known at the minute for something in her personal life and nothing grabs public attention like a scandal, especially a fall from grace. It'll be a few more years before public perception shifts to viewing her whole life and career in context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I can agree in generalities that I'd personally wait for subjects to likely be towards the end of their career before trying to feature them; especially with a teenager it's very hard to craft something that won't have to be substantially rewritten. With that said, we don't have anything in the FAC criteria about it (I suppose you could argue stability, but that's clearly not what the criteria was written to address.) If it falls out of compliance, it can go to FAR, same as any article (and we have plenty of issues with FA subjects lapsing out of date, it's not like this is specific to BLPs.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think there is no reason why a BLP can't pass FAC, but they shouldn't be run as TFA unless they have been QA'd just prior to going up on the main page to ensure they are fully up-to-date, recent biographies have been consulted etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wearing my TFA coordinator hat I agree. If there is a BLP rolling off FAC I am inclined to schedule it rapidly, while all of that scrutiny is still current. Eg DiCaprio was promoted on 11 September and I have it pencilled in to run on 11 November. Which fortuitously is his birthday. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• A little late to the conversation! Since the majority of my Featured Article work revolves around BLPs, particularly those of immensely popular figures, I felt I should also chime in. In my view, BLPs, like any other article, should be evaluated strictly based on the FA criteria. Since Taylor Swift's article, which I took to FA status almost seven years ago, has been mentioned several times here, I will use it as an example. It was promoted when she was in her late 20s and already a leading pop star. Today, she's even more significant, yet the article's quality and relevance have not dwindled one bit. If anything, I'd argue it has improved in both sourcing and prose quality, as more academic sources have since become available. Ultimately, it boils down to how dedicated the article's author remains post-FAC. As some have pointed out, there's always the option to take articles to FAR if they no longer meet the FA criteria. However, an outright ban from FAC for BLPs seems unwarranted in my opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I am currently in dispute with Nick-D on my FAC nomination of All the Light We Cannot See. For context, this was my second nomination of All the Light We Cannot See, which I had been working on in some capacity since March 2021, with a successful GA nomination on January 2023. My previous FAC nomination on July 2023 I withdrew due to circumstances in my life rendering me unable to address major concerns. This brings us to the current nomination. Before I begin my complaint, I do recognize that Nick-D is an administrator with experience in FAs, mostly related to WWII. Even with this mind, I do feel my complaints are legitimate.

Nick-D, at least from what he claims, reviews the article from the perspective of having taken the article for the novel's setting, the Battle of Saint-Malo, to FA-status. A lot of his requests stem from a desire for the article to have a comprehensive critical analysis of the novel, which while I admit I am struggling with due to inexperience and the lack of viable sources, I do respect his wants. This isn't why I'm taking our conflict to talk page. The reason why I am taking our conflict to the talk page is because in the edit that voted opposition to the nomination, he refused to engage with some of my latest concerns with his critique on the basis of me being "rude" and opposed on the grounds that I was apparently "looking for reasons to not cover aspects of the book". I do try to remain civil on Wikipedia, but regardless of my tone, all the responses he has dismissed do have legitimate weight to them.

He disengaged from my explanation of why I think the article should not place more weight on the negative reception. The direct sources for "All the Light We Cannot See has received critical acclaim", the awards, and the number of positive reviews compared to negative reviews attest to the novel's positive reception and ignoring this in favor of emphasizing negative critiques would result in

In my opinion, it is the reviewer's duty to take the proposer's concerns seriously if they have shown to be willing to cooperate. In my time on Wikipedia, I have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate through both GANs and FACs, including in this very nomination. The fact of the matter is that while Nick-D wants me to "[make] the best of these sources to ensure that the article is excellent", I'm just trying to make sure the article is balanced and follows

I did not want to do this. I shouldn't have had to. But by explicitly dismissing my concerns and opposing my nomination under the imagined premise of me not wanting to cover its critical analysis, showcasing a refusal to take me seriously, Nick-D has forced me to bring our dispute to the FAC talk page. However, if the talk page discussion proceeds and the consensus turns against me, I am willing to withdraw the nomination and take a break from this project of mine, which has admittedly been the most difficult since my 2022 FAC nomination of Fallout (video game). I hope the consensus doesn't turn against me, but who knows. Lazman321 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

FAC coords evaluate the totality of support and opposition that a nomination receives. An article needs support to pass but if the support is more substantial than the opposition it could be promoted even with an oppose outstanding (not saying that this will happen in your case). We weigh each comment based on the FA criteria.

Posting a complaint on this page about an oppose does not change this process. You shouldn't be pressuring someone to withdraw their oppose even if you think it's misguided. If you disagree with it, note it and move on. (t · c) buidhe 04:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lazman321 brevity is the sole of wit! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I'm sorry. I didn't realize this wasn't standard procedure for FAC disputes and didn't mean to inadvertently pressure Nick-D into withdrawal; I was just looking for outside discussion. I will post a brief note in the FAC and then we'll see what happens. Lazman321 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lazman321 this is probably not what you want to hear, but I'm afraid I mostly have to agree with @Nick-D, especially on "there's quite a bit of material on the book available, but not much that goes beyond reviews dating from when the book was released". For example, have you considered using the following academic sources that could strengthen the article?

• https://doi.org/10.14321/crnewcentrevi.19.3.0241 where the reviewer discusses the themes of "seeing" in literature, drawing inspiration from Anthony Doerr's All the Light We Cannot See
• https://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/Lingua/article/view/9068 - this explores the interconnectedness of Marie-Laure's blindness, thinking processes, and language in the novel.
• https://doi.org/10.18485/bells90.2020.2.ch21 (a journal backed by Modern Language Association) - here, the reviewer says the author weaves together past and present elements, both in the narrative structure and within the characters' minds. The reviewer aims to explore the narrative techniques employed by the novelist to seamlessly integrate these elements.

I think the best course of action would be here to withdraw your nomination and work with both Nick-D and @UndercoverClassicist to resolve the issues and reattempt FAC with a much stronger article. I know it's really frustrating for your nomination to not work out the way you want it to (believe me I've been through this multiple times) but the best thing to do is to work with the reviewers outside the pressure of FAC. I'm sure they would be happy to help but FAC is simply not the venue for that. I hope this helps. FrB.TG (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It takes a few weeks for a candidacy to close, I believe, and I already have one support. As such, I'm not withdrawing. I won't quit just because I'm receiving pushback when I still have enough time to address said pushback. Here's my course of action. I will implement the sources above, keep searching for more sources (particularly academic sources) to improve the article's comprehensiveness, copyedit the article through the Hemingway Editor, and ask around for image and source reviews. Perhaps then, I will be able to set the article back on a trajectory to FA-status. Lazman321 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t looked at the article or FAC, but co-ords can close a nomination sooner if they don’t see any chance of it passing. With two opposes and one support and a couple of others here saying the opposes are justified or suggesting withdrawal, then that’s a step I’d reconsider. There’s no harm or shame in withdrawing and working on it outside the review process before resubmitting. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually they can't. The rules state "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." Note the last ten words. No reviewer has suggested this. You will be able to find past examples where coordinators have been a little inventive in uncontroversial cases, using "actionable objections have not been resolved" or "consensus for promotion has not been reached". But this didn't seem to be one of those. I have just archived the nomination as requested by the nominator, which resolves this case. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You know what. I'm currently copyediting the article and just realized that you might be right. If I want this article to improve any further, I have no choice but to withdraw the candidacy. @WP:FAC coordinators: Go ahead and archive it. I'll come back at a later time. Lazman321 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Good move. Please ping me when you bring it back and I’ll be happy to review the new version. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with revise and resubmit. A fuller treatment of the available sources is required, and it seems possible that there are more available. I'd also suggest, that when you do go back to WP:FAC, you do so in a more civil frame of mind and less inclined to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks. However, good luck with nom next time! Serial 12:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I embarked on an image review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Liz Truss/archive1 but ran into issues I did not know how to resolve and probably did Tim O'Doherty a disservice by making the attempt. The gist is that several images appear to be covered by {{OGL}} but I can't find a solid way to verify that. Could somebody who is better versed in image licensing than I am please take a look? RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting here that @Nikkimaria did a mini-image-review a while ago when the article was at PR. Nikkimaria, if you'd like to take another look at it, go ahead. If not, no problem. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I just marked these two pages as historical:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index - Old list of unsuccessful FA candidates, alphabetically sorted;
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/Summary - Old list of successful FA candidates, sorted by month.

See also this edit request at Template talk:Article history. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been reverted by User:Mike Christie,[1][2] who clearly doesn't get it. Oh well... - Manifestation (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

NB: this is related to my thread above.

I noticed that successful FA nominations are being archived here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log.

And that unsuccessful FA nominations are being archived here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

This difference, "Featured log" and "Archived nominations", is puzzling me. I tried to clear up any potentional confusion with these two edits.

I noticed something else too. Every successful nomination is concluded with this statement:

The article was promoted by [user] via FACBot (talk)

But every unsuccessful nomination is concluded like this:

The article was archived by [user] via FACBot (talk)

However, it is not the article that is being archived, but the nomination. The correct wording would be:

The article was not promoted by [user] via FACBot (talk)

Or:

This nomination was closed as not promoted by [user] via FACBot (talk)

Or:

This nomination was closed as unsuccessful by [user] via FACBot (talk)

I can understand that we seperate the noms that passed from those that failed. But I would argue that the "Featured log" vs "Archived nominations" terminology is unneccesarily confusing, and that the closing statement about archiving a Wikipedia article is flat-out false. Wouldn't it be better to do this:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Successful nominations
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unsuccessful nominations

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Good luck discovering the internal logic to FAC, Indy—I'd suggest a good starting point would be to practice spooning custard with fishing net  ;) Serial 17:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

When you're done with that, you can come over the DYK and see if you can figure that out. RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 and RoySmith: If you *know* that the system is not user friendly, and difficult to get for newcomers, then how about making it *more* user friendly? - Manifestation (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for Roy of course, Manifestation, but it's a lighthearted groan every time someone comes along with a suggestion for improvement—however big or small—that would almost certainly improve the project—again, to whatever degree—but is almost equally certain to never get anywhere because of a small-c conservativism that sometimes seems to be embedded in the project's digital DNA. Resistance is often usually along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", where "broke" means utter chaos and Level I encyclopedic extinction and "fix" means "tinker with it ever so slightly except so cosmetically that no one will notice anyway". When defined like that, of course, then it's true: nothing is really broken. But it doesn't necessarily mean that something could not still be improved. "Perfect is the enemy is good" is another well-rehearsed argument against doing anything, again with a couple of elastic definitions, whereby "perfect" = a slight improvement and "good" = leaving things as they are  :) I suppose a good analogy would be an old house, which has had many occupants, all with different styles and tastes, who add to it as they go, bit by bit, and until the house, as it stands, is a slightly ramshackle affair, held together at the seams on shakey foundations, in a permanent state of disrepair (or rebuilding. In this house, the words are synonyms)... now imagine this project-wide. Serial 13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Hmm, ok, I think I understand what you mean. I don't believe that what I proposed was very radical, though. - Manifestation (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was either Manifestation; unfortunately it doesn't have to be  :) Serial 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The closing statement comes from a combination of {{Fa top}} and the closing bot. I think if there is a desire to change the wording, the simplest possibility would be to change "article" to "nomination".

As to the subpages, I'm not convinced the effort necessary to change this would be worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

None of this was confusing when I started dealing with these pages as a coord, so changing it would be a lot of effort for little benefit. (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Then you are smarter than I am, I guess. If I worked at an office, and approved documents would go into "Featured" and unapproved documents would go into "Archived", then I would probably have a question on my first day. - Manifestation (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Erm.. "Archived" is our polite way of saying "failed". Graham Beards (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Yeah, I'm starting to understand that. But how was I supposed to know that when I first stumbled upon "Featured log" and "Archived nominations"? - Manifestation (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There's much on Wikipedia that you have to learn by experience, as you must have already discovered. Although I agree with the 'article' to 'nomination' change, you are going on a little too much about our use of of "archived". I think its usage has been explained to you well enough. Graham Beards (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This feels like the sort of thing we should fix once the encyclopaedia is finished. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

An archived nomination has not necessarily failed. Sometimes the nominators asks for a nomination to be closed for other reasons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Graham Beards (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with changing the FA top and bottom from 'article' to 'nomination'. On the rest, I've explained to the OP on the articlehistory page why we don't use the word "fail" (we already have enough stigmatization when a FAC is archived without labeling them as 'failures') and removed the unnecessary changes to the log pages. The OP thinks that is unmitigated nonsense;[3] maybe it is, but you should know something about a process and its history before changing its pages. I oppose the use of the word 'fail' anywhere we use it in the FA process; we want people to accept critique in a nomination and want them to be encouraged to make improvements off-FAC and come back for a better chance at 'promotion', not 'success' or 'fail'. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You seem more interested in political correctness than clear language. - Manifestation (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not "political correctness" or anything remotely similar. There is often pressure on FA writers, particularly when their work is critiqued and people don't think it reaches the necessary standard. Not rubbing salt into the wounds is a small enough courtesy to them and encourages them to return. As a couple of people have said above, it's best to know a bit about the background on how and why things are done in a certain way before demanding changes. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I hesitate to take sides here, but I don't think @Manifestation was demanding anything, just pointing out something that was confusing to them as a newcomer and suggesting something that would make it less confusing to them.

One thing I've learned in a career doing software development is that it pays to listen to newbies. People who write software (this generalizes well to all people who develop systems humans interact with) know so much about the system, it's very difficult to stand back and understand how a novice would interact with the system. Things that seem obvious to you may be totally befuddling to newbies. It's really enlightening to do blind user testing. Take a person who has never worked with the system, sit them down, give them a task to perform and watch silently. That's the hard part: just sit on your hands, shut up, and watch without trying to help. It's often useful to do this from another room so the test subject can't see you squirming and sputtering "What's wrong with you, just hit the damn blue button!"

Anyway, I understand that things evolve, and you can't be constantly changing things in response to the latest input, but don't blow off newbie comments as demanding changes. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

With the pushing on the thread here, including and comments like this, I'll stick to "demanding", but people's mileage on these points will always differ. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Can't disagree with any of that, but perhaps the OP in the future will inquire first, edit next. And I hope they will stop pinging me to this page, which I follow closely. My real concern is that the {{

Articlehistory}} not be mucked around like the log pages were. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Another newbie here- personally, I think changing it to Successful vs Unsuccessful archives would, in fact, be clearer than the current pair. With the caveat that I don't spend much time on the internal processes of FAC except reviewing. But for any newbies that might want to, being clearer would make learning the ropes easier. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "unsuccessful" either: often, not promoting an article at a given moment is the right outcome for both the article and its nominators (because it's ultimately what allows the article to become the best it can be), and it would be wrong to describe that as an "unsuccessful" outcome. As others have noted, it would be a shame if FAC became an adversarial process, and putting nominators in a position where they are batting for their own "success" would be a move in that unfortunate direction. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

And you seem more interested in incivility than civility, on all possible counts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a big backlog of source and image review requests at the top of this page. I've just picked off one that was over a month old. If everyone who is commenting on the various threads on this page would also consider picking up one source or image review, there would be a lot of grateful nominators. I know the topics drawing attention are important, but so are languishing nominations. I'm not qualified to give advice on image reviews but would be happy to answer questions from anyone wanting to help out with source reviews. For short articles they can be quite quick to do -- they don't have to be a slog. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll have more time now, I'll see if I can handle anything. Also need to do something about Rupperswil murder case, while not a FA it's pretty badly written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I have been active on FAC. The unsuccessful

Tony, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but if you're just checking that an image review should be looking at the FUR or other licensing information for every single image in the article, the answer is definitely yes. An image review these days is supposed to check that everything is licensed correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I was trying to make sure that remains the current standard because the only image review engagement I have been able to get so far has been generaral and I am makiing sure I am not asking for something that isn't done anymore (since I have gone 7 years without a nomination before last months nomination). I know the FAC reviewer actually evaluated each one, but the response was that nothing was sufficient, but I sort of need more direction on what is needed for specific images. It is not clear to me which ones are because the article content it supports is too trivial and which are because the FURs just need to be better and which are because in the context of abundant FURs this one is considered excessive although with fewer other FURS it might be OK.-

WP:WAWARD

) 00:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm no image expert, but I think what you probably want is a sort of image peer review -- another set of eyes to evaluate the questions you have about those images. Perhaps someone here with confidence in their image policy understanding will comment, here or on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am hoping for. I sort of thought posting at

WP:WAWARD

) 15:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger this is probably not what you want to hear, but what I would do if I were you is remove all non-free media unless, in the existing article, there are more than three sentences in the prose discussing the image. After you do this, there will be a lot fewer images to fix the media rationale for. While you're at it take out the (right) and similar because it doesn't display like that for all readers and it's contrary to MOS. You might consider adding relevant free images if you can find them, such as the 1898 and/or 1962 version of the soup can label (look for ads, many were not copyrighted and would be {{PD-US-no notice}}). (t · c) buidhe 00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Tony the Tiger—roooaARRR!—that I personally can't see the justification for all those images. Certainly, the cheese soup with gold banners and beef soup with black font could be easily covered in prose (I've almost literally just done it), and the image itself is discussed significantly enough to justify its presence. I googled "cheese soup can with gold banner" and various iterations, and so little came up under either news or books that I doubt they've been studied in independent depth to make them worthy of inclusion. Serial 12:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting margin case of

WP:NFCC#8. With some there is the question of whether they are actually copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk

) 11:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Would an image's absence "be detrimental to [readers'] understanding"? If the FUR and the image's use does not clearly persuade a reviewer that the answer is "Yes", then the image needs removing. Obviously there is room for honest disagreement over specific cases, but IMO the emphasis is on the editor defending an image's use to fully justify this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this, my understanding is that images of artworks are usually only fair use in the article about that artwork. Of course, all rules have exceptions, but generally fair use comes in when we otherwise wouldn't be able to illustrate an article at all not when the extra images are "nice to haves" that make an article a bit better or more interesting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• This comment shows a lack of understanding of NFCC and unwillingness to learn despite many people explaining it to you. Being mentioned in the article text is not sufficient for the inclusion of free images, let alone non-free ones, since this is an encyclopedia all article content has to increase readers' understanding of the article topic or it doesn't belong. I doubt you are going to get a successful FAC unless the attitude changes. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• I am finally working through an file-by-file review with
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 05:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• P.S.
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 14:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)