Wikipedia talk:How to review a featured article candidate

Some possible additions to this guide, offered for comment

To authors receiving criticism: no-one’s writing is perfect, so any article can benefit from the critical eye of an outsider. Take criticisms of your work in good part, as intended to improve wikipedia, not to attack you personally.

To editors making criticisms: language is an anarchy, not a hierarchy. No-one has authority to say what correct writing is, and usages and personal styles vary. Comment politely and in a spirit of collaboration. Don’t present yourself as correcting the prose, present yourself as trying to improve it, and accept that others may reasonably disagree about what improvement would be.

To everyone taking part in the FAC process: remember that tone comes across badly in the written exchanges of wiki dicussions. Be aware that what you write can accidentally come across as much more unpleasant than you meant it to; be aware that what you read may not be intended how you read it.

Any thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, Sam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I'd caution against is the "no one has the authority to say what correct writing is." I agree to a point, but it's also true that there are rules that are prescriptive as well as descriptive. Reviewers shouldn't be dogmatic about issues that boil down to personal preference, but some issues (correct use of grammar, spelling, punctuation) should be enforced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed - the reason I wrote it that way was because I couldn't see a way to formulate the correct grammar vs. mere prescriptions about style distinction precisely, and it seemed better to err on the side of anarchy. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd not be happy with advice against "correcting", and I disagree that no one can say what correct writing is. There's an inner core where it's possible to say write or wrong, surrounded by issues that arise from personal style. But is redundant wording right or wrong? It's usually not ungrammatical, but IMV, it should be framed as wrong. Tony 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested below, there is no better authority than precedent. If a reviewer objects to something, the contributor needs to find a precedent for that usage in an authoritative source, with a similar subject matter. The easiest way to do this is by a site search on SEP or something like that. Dbuckner 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think that I, for example, do not know anything about, or do not carefully follow, the rules for the correct use of grammar, spelling, punctuation (well, I AM a bit wobbly with that last actually)?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I got a 790 on the American Graduate Record Examinations and have never been criticized on my grammar, spelling or punct outside of Wikipedia.

I think this page will be a hard one to write, and will take a long time to get right. Good writing, for example, is not just a question of good grammar, sp and punc. I tend not to make basic mistakes in those areas either, but it's nevertheless true that my writing sometimes contains a lot of fatty tissue, and it's always helpful to have that pointed out to me. There's no algorithm for good writing; it's a subjective thing, and yet most of us know it when we see it. So we want reviewers who can spot it, know how to achieve it, and so on, without being dogmatic about personal preferences. I don't know how to word that, but I'm hoping some of the regular reviewers will start to fill out the page regarding what they actually look out for, and we can take it from there. That is, I'm hoping we can derive prescriptions from their descriptions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I do not deny any of this this either. What is going to very difficult,IMHO, is writing this page in such a way that it does talk about redundancy, conciseness, peackok words, et al, and yet distinguishes such legitimate considerations from some of the extrenely dubious stuff proved to be subjective and/or false pointed out by Dbuckner at the very end of the FAC talk page on Putnam.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

If you don't want your material to be reviewed mercilessly or criticized by others, do not submit it to FAC. Zzzzz 10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Zzzzz - why should reviewing be 'merciless'? Why shouldn't it be courteous and collaborative? Cheers, Sam Clark 10:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

reviewing is simply editing by proxy, whenever you press edit you are told "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it", so why should it be any different for reviews? as User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them explains:

Remember, featured article candidates are expected to meet a series of objective and subjective standards, it's not just a prize that rewards any particular editor's work on an article or dedication to a subject. As Michael Corleone once said, "It's not personal. It's strictly business.

"I worked, like, really hard on this!" We are truly sad to report that if the outcome is not up to snuff, no one besides your mother cares how hard you worked on it. Blame Darwin.

FAC can be rough, but try to take any criticism you many receive as constructive. Automatically declaring every comment inactionable can come off as combative, and you may find that the combination of many small notes and resultant fixes become the basis for a substantial improvement in your article. Zzzzz 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's criticizng the critizers and verifying their accuracy. The process should also be accurate and precise. Who's overseeing the overseers?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

On the prose question in particular, I think some of the comments in this review are misguided. Wiki works via consensus and is non-hierarchical. Some objections may be subjective: the admin closing the vote will take that into account. We can't make prescriptions beyond, perhaps, what Tony has already done in his exercises. I don't know that it will be possible to tighten up wording on the prose issue: perhaps that's why I focus more on the technical issues. (And, usually articles with technical issues have prose issues, too.) Sandy 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Things to look out for

• I do not want to see constraints placed on reviewers that will inhibit the arduous process of changing WP's culture towards one that values good prose more than it does now.
• I don't like what I see at the top of this page.
• The FAC and FARC rooms might involve occasional rough and tumble, but the rules on civility are quite adequate recourse in those places, IMV.
• There is a danger that this set of guidelines will end up being so compromised that it means little. That's a problem. Tony 12:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, it's what ends up staying on the project page that matters, not on this one. I think people here are just trying to judge what the parameters should be. As I see it, the aim is to provide a framework within which we can offer advice to reviewers so that they're in a position to offer consistent comments, support, and objections to nominators; and the hope is that this will help to sharpen people's sense of what makes an FA. Ultimately, it would be great to end up with a group of trained reviewers who use standards that this page outlines, so that there's no mystery and no inconsistency across nominations, and so that nominees get no shocks.

I think it would also be a good idea if we avoid discussing particular articles. That should be done on the relevant FAC page. This talk page is to discuss how to construct a set of useful guidelines for reviewers. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Supporters v objectors

in an FAC the problem is not really with thse who "object", but with those who "support" unthinkingly because they are "fans" of the subject matter, they are part of the wikiproject that "owns" it, they are friends with the submitter, they dont realize there is specific criteria for FA, etc etc. shouldn't the same onus of burdens that is being put on those who "object" equally apply to those who "support", especially as all these "supports" are given even weight with the most detailed of objections? Zzzzz 11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, zz, and my hope is that this page will eventually contain a set of suggestions that are concrete enough to allow supporters to see when their support isn't really justified; and objectors can point that out, as well as vice versa. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely concur! We have far too many articles getting through with tortured prose and poor references, simply because enough "fans" support them. Then, another FAC comes along, and the nominator wants to know why his/her article is being held under intense scrutiny, when an inferior article carries the star. The problem is the articles supported by editors who don't appear to have read them, to have checked the references, or to have reviewed FA criteria. THAT is the problem we need to look at here, rather than subjective evaluations of prose, which are very necessary. Maybe we need to start challenging some of the support votes? Sandy 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Putnam case, wrong. Three of the people involved are professional philosophers, who have an obvious mastery of the subject matter. I was not involved in the article itself, but I have a philosophical training and a good track record of publications, and citations. The fact remains that many of the comments were illiterate and misinformed. Franco's point is a good one. There needs to be some process to establish the authority of those who would comment on a technical subject. Dbuckner 11:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "obvious mastery of the subject matter" didn't allow you to see the problems with the article, which were corrected in a successful outcome of a premature FA nomination after a lot of hard work by reviewers (and Francesco). "Authority of those who comment?" This is not the New England Journal of Medicine: this is Wikipedia. We are all volunteers, the project is consensual and there is no hierarchy. The combined effort of many reviewers brings article weaknesses to light. Do you believe, for example, that an article should be submitted to FA without a single citation? We need to clear up the expectations on FA so that the process will be easier on nominators and reviewers – not bash the reviewers who have to point out the FA expectations which are already published in several places. Sandy 18:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A reviewer MUST clearly distinguish issues which are 'style manual' i.e. conformity to a standard to which non-conformity indicates not bad writing, but mere non conformity, from 'bad writing'. Where Franco hit the roof was the spot where Tony came in with a series of trivial (and as it turns out incorrect) objections, then capped it with the comment that it was 'full of flab' and not good writing or something to that effect. In fact he clearly didn't follow his own rules when he wrote (in his 2a article) "While most aspects of good writing in English are widely accepted, authorities may vary in their attitudes to particular technical and stylistic matters. "

Also it should be a basic principle that if there is an established precedent for a certain use in the same context (an encyclopedia), the precedent is decisive. This is a basic principle of English law, which has no equivalent of a 'style manual'.

Be specific - avoid sweeping assertions.

Be sensitive. Sam Clark has already mentioned this, I second it.?Dbuckner 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Be receptive to challenge. I was amazed to be told that one was not allowed to challenge a reviewer's comments. Surely this is not true? Dbuckner 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make this larger issue about Putnam: it was not a typical case. Reviewers practiced good restraint, considering the lack of civility evidenced. Sandy 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Buckner, I object to the comments that you made above. That's your take that my objections were trivial and wrong; this claim is best not repeated here. I certainly do not agree with it.

As far as I'm concerned, the "six points" overleaf are unnecessary and inappropriate. I certainly won't be supporting them. Tony 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, could you be more specific about why you disagree with the points? Let's start with the one about deferring to established precedent. If a reviewer claims that one should not use the word 'perhaps' in the introduction to a philosophy article, and the contributor finds that Anthony Quinton has indeed used the word 'perhaps' in an established encyclopedia, then isn't that a very good way to resolve potentially explosive disputes? And won't it make the job of the reviewer MUCH easier. The burden of proof is on the contributor to find the precedent. Simple. Dbuckner 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Start

I am neither a professional editor nor a regular review of FACS. However I do often review and correct many, many articles on Wikipedia which are catastrophically written (the vast majority of 99.999999999999999%). I think this is an appropriate place to make several observations. 1)The Good Article process has no review process at all. This is an absurdity. People will be led to think that their article really is "Good" in some sense of "better than the vast majority of articles". They will then be likely to go on to FAC and end up, in many cases, being buried alive and forced to try to do the impossible task of transforming an mediocre article into the one that is "compelling and brilliant". Clearly something needs to be done about this. 2) The peer review is non-existent. Right now, there is an article called Global Justice which has been in peer review for several weeks. The last time I looked, it had received one comment: mine. This is an embarrassment. Either the self-appointed (or collectively recognized) "experts" in copy-editing and reviewing should be obliged to work in Peer Review, or the name should be changed to "Who cares about philosophy, mathematics and other difficult areas, bring your latest sci-fi stuff here and we will praise it". --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was very puzzled when I first saw the Good article process, which was just last week. People put up titles; they sit there for a period; and if no one objects (or notices), they're promoted. I fail to see the point of that, and it can lead people to think the next step is FAC. Also, peer review is sometimes actually harmful and leads to editors with little knowledge of the area editing the article badly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Example: an old peer review of mine on philosophy of mind. Click on the Peer Review link on the talk-page, etc.. I had to revert almost every single one of the "improvements".--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a group of us who have experience in writing philosophy to have an informal review process of our own, in order (a) to run a content check (b) to address the purely style manual issues that cause so much unnecessary irritation at an FAC. This was not possible in before, because there simply weren't enough philosophers in WP. That seems to have changed. I am happy to work with Franco (provided he try not to take things so personally - that, it has to be said, was a major problem in the Hilary Putnam thing), with Sam Clark, who is a talented writer, also Brian Morton. I believe the Virginal One has some experience in this area. Is that right, Slimvirgin? There are a few others. The difficulty with the good philosophers is that they are going to be professionals, and have limited time. On the other hand, the number of philosophy articles coming up for review is bound to be small. We could agree beforehand what the important articles could be. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)

Thanks, and I'd be happy to take part in a philosophy review process (PReP?). Cheers, Sam Clark 15:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Putnam was not a typical FAC

Thanks for the invite, SV. I'll look at this once I've done my other daily work. One point: Putnam was not a typical FAC review, although it did come through after lots of hard work. We shouldn't be basing decisions on Putnam, other than to use it as an example of 1) why civility should be practiced in reviews (and here), and 2) what can happen when you put up an article for FAC that is not ready or referenced. I hope we don't get distracted by Putnam, since it wasn't typical. IMO, what we need to work on is preparing editors for the expectations of FAC, so we don't get so many articles that aren't ready.

Peer review and good article are of little help IMO, and the Projects are variable. They are sometimes too close to their own work, and don't see defects. (Several of the philosophers are still insisting that Putnam was ready, when it was one of the most intense FACs we've worked on recently. Another example is copyedit problems in many of the Indian articles. Few Projects have a review process oriented towards FAC: MCOTW is one, but they don't churn out a lot of articles.) Any other review can only be a first step: we need to write an independent page about FAC expectations, going beyond PR, GA, and Projects. One point is that independent reviewers on FAC have distance from the articles, and can spot flaws.

The Dylan article is currently under FAR, and there is a disagreement about the need for references. We may need to look at WP:CITE to see if it is tight enough. Our description of FAC should focus on the criteria: what do we specifically look for in each. What I look for in references is beyond what is described in WP:CITE, so it should be no surprise that FAC nominators aren't always prepared. Sandy 12:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Francesco, could you please keep the discussion about Putnam on the article talk or FAC page? This isn't the place for it. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be discussing particular cases here; and we should also bear in mind that hard cases make bad law. :-)

As for WP:CITE, that's a guideline about how to cite sources (how to write citations); it doesn't say much about the need for sources per se. The policies that deal more fully with sources are WP:V and WP:NOR, and then there's a guideline page: WP:RS. When you talk about what you look for in references, can you say more about what you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To give you a better example, I'll look at all of those pages, and merge guidelines there with what is occurring on the Dylan article. It's not clear to me (yet) if the Dylan editors are misreading, or if WP guidelines aren't clear. More later, Sandy 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dylan examples

OK, I'm back. Reviewing the issues that are coming up on the Dylan article, you are correct that the issues are covered in other places, and they shouldn't be specifically referring only to WP:CITE. In fact, a review of the problems occurring there reinforces the notion that WP policies are well elaborated. Some examples from the talk page at Dylan:

• A question about the need to inline cite direct quotes. (In what universe are direct quotes not cited? WP:CITE specifically mentions direct quotes.)

All quotes must have inline citations per WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• A quote from there: Can I ask why "citations are needed" for statements that have been pretty much done to death in every single book ever written on the subject? I don't even understand this. If a number of books about Bob Dylan reference a given statement, that makes it easy to cite. Why object? Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, and following the Siegenthaler incident, we can't ask our readers to take our word for it: we should cite everything we can.

Any edit that is challenged must be referenced per WP:V, which is policy; all negative material about living persons must be referenced, whether challenged or not, per WP:BLP, which is policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• My grad school training on citing sources was that if it was in at least 3 reputable books I didn't need to cite it as it can be assumed to be common knowledge. I have no idea if WP follows the same rule of thumb, so you might want to ask there. If WP follows this policy, we should change it. We can't assume Wiki readers have read all of the sources: our role is to lead them to the sources, and demonstrate that our content is reliable. If something is in 3 books, citing it should be easy. Why the fuss?

Anything that is challenged must be referenced, and if it's in a lot of books, so much the easier. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Another quote: Readind WP:CITE it looks somewhat ambiguous. But it implies that cites are needed for opinions, or for info that someone is likely to dispute. I don't think WP:CITE is ambiguous at all: here's what WP:CITE says (emphasis mine):
  • Attribution is especially needed for direct quotes, information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes (such as statements that something is the best, first or only one of its kind).

Right, but the policy is WP:V, and it states clearly that if you challenge something, it must be referenced. Therefore, if you are challenging the material, for whatever reason, they must cite it or you may remove it. Period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• WP:CITE is also clear on original research, which is a problem at Dylan:
  • Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.
• Another Dylan example: I was actually surprised that a lot of the statements that could be disputed were looked over. For instance, "Dylan and Lownds divorced in July 1977, though they reportedly remained in regular contact for many years and, by some accounts, even to the present day." Biographies of living persons should be scrupulously cited.

Yes, and it's now policy i.e. mandatory, unlike WP:CITE, which is just a style guide. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• An example of uncited POV: “Dylan’s 1978 album Street Legal” was lyrically one of his more complex and absorbing.” ?

It's original research and needs a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So, in summary, I overstated (above) problems with WP:CITE. We need to reinforce editors' understanding of original research, neutrality, biographies of living persons, etc. What I should have said is that when I look at references, I take *all* of WP's policies into account, not just what is stated at WP:CITE. Perhaps we can expand on the wording there, considering some of the Dylan misunderstanding? Sandy 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where should the wording be expanded, in CITE? It used to be, but then other editors objected that it was getting too long, and so material was removed. There's a tendency on WP to want to keep policy pages short and geared in a particular direction, which means that people who read them get only a partial view of what's required in the relevant area. WP:CITE is a page that has suffered from this tendency. WP:V and WP:NOR are the more serious pages regarding the need for sources, and they are relatively stable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct: I was working on Dylan late last night, and once I reviewed the issues with a fresh perspective today, it all amounts to editors there not understanding policy. Sandy

Guidelines

I've suggested six guidelines in the article. I hope the thinking behind them should be obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway.

The first point is one that is typically given in all guidelines on how to deal with people. People respond better to positive than negative criticism.

The second is for fairness to hopeless cases, of which there are many in WP. Don't lead people up the garden path.

The third is obvious. Don't make any criticism unless you can back it up. There were plenty of criticisms made in the Putnam FAC that simply didn't hold water.

Note the wording in the fourth. Challenge to criticism should be constructive. Tony made some comments that supporters felt was pedantic. But it does absolutely no good to point this out. Tony's life's work is commas in the right place. Commas are the very pivot of his being. Say that his criticisms are pedantic, and you are somehow challenging the very foundation of his being, his world. So don't. If the comma needs putting in or taking out, just do it. If not, cite a reference, and stand your ground. I always use Fowler, which is still the bible in England, though old.

The fifth is the most important. There was clear evidence of a conflict between English and American use in the Putnam case. WP has a policy of being sensitive to local differences. Politely point it out that we write things in different ways outside the US, and stick to your ground.

Finally, be proportionate. Kind of difficult, given that people who think commas are the most important thing in the world, do not believe that an obsession with commas is disproportionate. But let's try. Dbuckner 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I like these, and they do a better job of distinguishing questions of usage from issues of taste than my erring-on-the-side-of-anarchy attempt above. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi DB, you added: "Poor grammar, or spelling, punctuation is not the same as 'bad writing', though the two often go together." How could something be well written and include poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's just been an edit conflict. I wrote, before I saw what you wrote: "===suggestion 6 (proportionality)===

"SlimV, I see where you are coming from, but your edit lost the logic of the point. The point was that some kinds of mistake are not so important as others. I know people who are dyslexic who are brilliant writers. And there are different kinds of grammatical error. Feel free to edit it back, but there must be a way to make this point. I'll think about it. Any suggestions from others would be welcome". Dbuckner 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That partly answers your question. There's a generally recognised distinction between 'good writing', which is all to do with thread, expressing a single idea, balance, all that sort of stuff. But rather than me spout on, I'll consult a few eighteenth century books this weekend over some cold beers. Good work. Dbuckner 16:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a good example is the Vulgate, which includes poor spelling and punctuation, or Shakespeare, which includes terrible spelling by our standards (which is not even consistent with itself). We can read past all that. Another example is the kind of bad English translation of great non English writers. Aristotle, Plato and so forth. Many translations are terrible, and break all the rules in Tony's book, but the greatness is often still visible from the rest. Dbuckner 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and bring in my chum Brandon Watson, who is an expert on style and good writing generally. I'm sure he will have something to say!! Dbuckner 16:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

DB, can you give an example of where something might be regarded as well written in British English, but not in American-English? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. here is a sample of writing from the great CD Broad, a famous English philosopher who has a chatty style, and breaks every single one of Tony's rules and more. For example, you can count 385 of 'we', 365 of 'I', 95 questions, 40 occurrences of 'very' and lots of other things that the WP style police would not allow. In general, English English is much more flexible about informality and chattiness than American English, which we find pedantic and parochial and generally risible. Americans are also obsessive about style manuals. I think, perhaps this will be controversial, that it's due to the lack of an upper class in America. In England there's still this idea of gentleman's English, which you just know about, and has no manual of style (the very idea!!!). In America by contrast there is no such thing, therefore you need rule books and so forth.

JL Austin is another old school writer who breaks every rule in the book but is nonetheless regarded as a great stylist. 86.133.180.63 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another example of Broad at work here. Wonderful. quite unbelievably it begins "Some apology is needed for the tardiness of this notice of a work which bears the date 1910. The reviewer can only plead that the book did not fall into his hands till late in last year and that it deserves something better than a hurried reading.". 86.133.180.63 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the best known style manuals was Fowler's, and he was a master of "gentleman's English," which tends not to include any grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors. Specifically, though, I was asking for an example from Wikipedia of writing you felt would be regarded as good in the UK, but not in the U.S. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

I see a lot on the article page that appears headed in the wrong direction, so I hope changes will proceed at a slower pace, while consensus is developed. Again, tough cases make bad law, and too much of the current content appears based on the wrong premise.

Specifically:

Reviewing a featured article candidate requires a number of skills. In particular, reviewers should ideally be very familiar with the content policies and style guides, have good writing and research skills, good general knowledge, and should be able to criticize constructively while being tactful and sensitive. Wrong start. We need *more* reviewers, not less. Anyone can review on WIki: it's a consensual, non-hierarchical project. We don't want to discourage review: we do want to remind reviewers not to support without thoroughly reading the article. This paragraph isn't heading that direction. Tactful and sensitive are already covered in civility, and it's often the nominators who need to be reminded, not the reviewers. This paragraph needs rephrasing to encourage review, but remind nominators not to take comments personally. I object to this paragraph.

Reviewers have to be familiar with the content policies and style guides, otherwise they're likely to give non-actionable advice. They also need to have solid general knowledge, because you can't review a subject you know absolutely nothing about. Ditto with the writing skills: you can't review writing unless you can write. If you want to raise standards of FAs, reviewer standards have to be high too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's emphasize that reviewers should read policy. Yes, you can review a subject you know nothing about: I review references, form, other issues, and contribute what I can, without claiming to know content. (For example, I haven't voted on the Whitetip Shark FAC that is currently up, because there are content objections there, indicating it needs expert review. I may object to references, then strike my objection once they're done, but I won't vote support if there are content questions. I don't vote on computer game FAs, because I know nothing about them. That doesn't mean I can't check references and do other tasks.) you can't review writing unless you can write. I disagree there as well. My own prose is tortured, but I can still pick out a sentence without a subject and predicate. Sandy

Wikipedia's featured articles are regarded as showpieces, Perhaps somewhere we can work in a reminder to nominators not to make the mistake of comparing to any existing FAs, as they may have deteriorated over time?

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers are encouraged to be rigorous in their assessment of nominations, while being respectful of the amount of effort that may have gone into a nomination, even one that isn't up to scratch. Again focus is wrong here. We need to remind novice reviewers to read the articles and thoroughly review them. Instead, this reads as if there is a problem with the reviewers' conduct, which I haven't seen. While nothing said here is wrong, it misses the larger problem, which is reviewers who support without having apparently checked the article.

I see this as balanced: be rigorous and be respectful. The page aims to address the issue of inconsistency, with some pages, as you say, being supported too easily, and other pages being objected to unreasonably. With a set of clear guidelines, assuming we can get them off the ground, the inappropriate support and object problems will be eased. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's not so much that there is something wrong with that wording: it's that the page isn't addressing the bigger problems of nominators unprepared for FA. Sandy 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to provide guidelines for reviewers so that they're in a position to offer consistent comments, support, and objections when they review nominations. If that is truly the purpose of this page, then I object to the entire page. I thought we were trying to set up some guidelines to prevent the large number of articles that aren't ready for review, and to give nominators guidelines to help them better prepare for review, explaining the large "chasm" between peer review, GA, and FA.

I don't know where you got that idea. I was pretty clear in my explanation of what the page is for. It will, of course, have a knock-on effect of helping nominators prepare better, because the guidelines for reviewers (what to look out for) will help nominators too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

From your message to me: and hopefully also less work for reviewers because candidates will come more prepared. What is on the page now isn't going that direction. Sandy 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Six suggestions Wrong approach. Where are we explaining to nominators what is expected of them? Why is this page about reviewers, implying there has been a problem with review?

The page will explain what the review guidelines are. These will help reviewers and nominators. I don't see it as an us-and-them thing. Both have the same goals viz. to improve articles and to highlight the best ones.

But there has been a problem with review. Many of the reviewers' comments were grammatically, factually and stylistically inaccurate. My suggestion 3. was check your sources. Dbuckner 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this page is heading the wrong direction, and I don't support it at all. I was invited to participate in a discussion of WP:REVIEW. There appears to have been a change in focus, to a re-hashing of the most unfortunate Putnam review. We already have too many bad FAs: if review is watered down by vague guidelines which are already covered in civility (and adhered to by most reviewers), while new reviewers are discouraged from participating, we're likely to have still more problematic FAs.

I agree that raising the Putnam thing again was unfortunate. Francesco has removed his latest comment from the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's still a big elephant in this room, so we might as well get it out on the table. And, I did not mean to point a finger at Francesco. Let's remember that we have two others here, who are not regular FAC reviewers, and appear to be basing some statements on one unfortunate FA. Tough case: bad law. Sandy 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Some contributors might separate their emotions about Putnam from this process, which was to address a long-standing problem. Going back to the talk page discussion of FAC, the tenure of this page has completely changed from the problems discussed, and which I thought we were addressing.

Sandy 16:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, it's very early days. This page will take a long time to get right, because we're trying to derive a set of principles from what many of us do intuitively. And the Putnam cloud is still hanging over everything. Don't give up on the page too soon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, good point. Sandy 17:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Putnam FAC debate does raise some important points about the responsibilities of both reviewers and nominators. From your side of the fence, the fault there was with the supporters of the article, I assume including me. From my side, the original incivility was from a reviewer - Tony - although Franco rapidly responded in kind (I imagine both Tony and Franco would have things to say in their defence, as do I in mine, but that isn't really the point here). More generally, you say 'I thought we were trying to set up some guidelines to prevent the large number of articles that aren't ready for review, and to give nominators guidelines to help them better prepare for review, explaining the large "chasm" between peer review, GA, and FA.' I didn't think that - there's already plenty of advice on that issue, from Tony and Jengod, as linked from the bottom of the page. The problems I (and I think others) had with the Putnam review process are the issues being discussed here, and which you object to our raising: that reviewers need to balance the admirable desire to improve WP against the potential to be needlessly unpleasant and dogmatic about trivial or subjective issues of style. Cheers, --Sam Clark 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. While I don't think you can point to single personal attack on the FAC from any reviewer, there are numerous examples on the Putnam FAC and talk pages of egregious personal attacks on the reviewers from the nominators and supporters. In another situation, these extreme personal attacks would have been actionable. Because reviewers understand that nominators may get upset, there was no action. I believe the record shows very clearly where the problems occurred. So, we disagree :-) I'm interested in strengthening the FA instructions to better prepare nominators and encourage new reviewers to actually read the work, while discouraging undue "fan" support: I am not interested in bashing hard-working reviewers. I have yet to see one of these trivial issues of style. Sandy 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For example, considering the hard, good faith work so many people put into Putnam, should I have to read, then slam the ***ing thing right up there you-know-whats? SlimVirgin put up an honest attempt here to improve FAC: I believe her efforts have been hijacked by one bad case. It appears to me that, as much as SV has tried to keep the discussion on track, the elephant in this room is that this really is about Putnam. So let me ask you a question, SamClark. Are you aware that Francesco was already agitated when Jerry Fodor didn't achieve FA, and that he nominated Putnam just to see what we'd do with it? Re-read the nomination, where he put it up without a single citation, and re-read how upset he was before he put it up. You might not have a complete history of when the problem began. Sandy 17:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can raise the standards of FACs and not raise the standards of reviewers. The two go hand in hand. Good editors will be happy to submit their work to good reviewers. If we have no guidelines for reviewers, and anyone is encouraged to turn up with a comment, then the FAC process is just like peer review. Of course, this is a wiki and anyone is allowed to comment, but a set of guidelines will encourage consistent, intelligent comment. Having said that, we should strongly resist any attempt to turn this into an attack page of current review practices. Rather, I'm hoping that the reviewers will tell us what they currently do, and we can try to extract from that some principles i.e. derive a prescription from a description. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy: 1. I haven't made any claims about personal attacks. The problem which is exercising me is the needlessly aggressive and patronising tone of comments and objections (not from you, I should add: you've been consistently tough but reasonable), and about the need for special care from everyone involved in the heated atmosphere of FAC. I include myself in that criticism. 2. I agree - and I say above - that Franco behaved badly (sorry Franco, but you did get pretty carried away). 3. I regret the one personal attack I made on Tony, refering to his 'self-certainty and egotism'. Tony (if you're reading this): I apologise for that; I don't apologise for calling you on the tone and dogmatism of your criticisms, on which my opinion remains the same. 4. In answer to your question - I'd only just started regular involvement with WP as the Jerry Fodor thing was brewing, and I added a (too late as I thought at the time) support to its nomination, but didn't take any further part in the discussion. I was aware that Franco was upset, sure. But I'm not clear why this is important. 5. 'I have yet to see one of these trivial issues of style' - check Dr Buckner's list of 'baseless objections'. 6. I am still convinced that there is a need for guidelines for reviewers as well as for nominees and supporters, and I think this page is a good start - although SV is quite right to resist its turning into an attack. So yes, we disagree - but hopefully we can continue to do so in a friendly way. Cheers, Sam Clark 17:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I find Sandy's comment strange. I have given a list of baseless criticisms. Perhaps Sandy could comment on any one of them? For example 'most well known' versus 'best known'. Dbuckner 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the Putnam article is the elephant in the room. But let's try and learn from that. If we had not called Tony's objections pedantic, but had simply challenged them with evidence, sources, examples from standard manuals and so forth, this might not have happened. Dbuckner 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to Sandy's point about tough cases, bad law, my professional work involves difficult negotation, and I see this kind of thing all the time. OK, not quite so bad as that. I see the same kind of thing, let's say. The suggestions were on the lines of things we use so that there are clear rules both for 'contributors' and 'reviewers'. I'm a reviewer, actually, and there are fairly strict rules I have to adhere to. This includes being open to challenge, for example. Dbuckner 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the elephant in the room is the 'list of baseless objections'. Not one on the 'reviewer' side has yet to mention its existence. Of course not. Once you have acknowledged it is there, you must say something about it. So, do not acknowledge it is there. Sandy, have you seen the list? Dbuckner 18:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've always thought it was a baseless baseless list, and that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia. For example, if I ask for a rewording of one sentence (one - among a very long list of concrete, actionable objections), the nominator is free to ignore my subjective criticism, but is encouraged to be courteous and make an attempt to address my concern. Others (including the admin who closes the review) can decide if I was just too thick to comprehend the sentence. I hope you will acknowledge that we all worked together to salvage Putnam, and stop bringing that into this page. My final note for a bit on this topic will be that I have neglected some very worthy work on the FAC and FAR rooms (and my own projects) for almost a full week, because of the extraordinary focus that Putnam required (demanded); this neglect has not been fair to other nominators. This page has an undercurrent of a personal vendetta against Tony, IMO, and is not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. I am going to try to get back to some productive work, and check in on this page less frequently. Sandy 18:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure

I've started to expand this a little. Nothing that I'm adding is written in stone. I'm just trying to lay down a structure within which editing can take place, so if people object, please don't panic. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)