Far more practical is for editors to seek out means of addressing copyediting and mos issues before approaching fac. Sandy georgia ( Talk ) 19:38, (UTC) That's only practical if the process is familiar to you and you are on friendly terms with a lot of copyeditors. That is the entire reason we need a system like this. Fa is such an insider club right now. You have to know somebody who knows somebody. That's why tension is so dang high. Wrad ( talk ) 19:42, (UTC) Then we should set up processes that help editors make those connections before approaching fac, rather than promoting articles that still need fixin'. It took me almost a year to build connections to help me bring an article to fac; you are right that it shouldn't take that long.
Is, sometimes, ok, essay
Any article failed for that reason would need to be put in some sort of category to keep things organized as well, and they should only be put in that category if the problems are too many to be listed at fac. A few mos or copyediting problems are no big deal and can be fixed quickly. I really think this living would increase the quality of FAs and decrease tension between writers and reviewers. Wrad ( talk ) 18:57, (UTC) Actually, i think that is a very worthwhile idea. Many facs do fail due to small issues that an editor is not then prepared to go through yet another fac to deal with, and separating out FAs with mild issues that cannot be done by the nominators themselves to be given a onceover. Tension would go down, more facs would be promoted, and the grammar nazis will be kept happy. Does this not seem an idea worth at least trying? Dev920 (have a nice day!) 19:33, (UTC) we can start small and unintrusive by just putting something like category:All-but-ce fa fails on the talk pages of appropriate articles. Wrad ( talk ) 19:36, (UTC) no, it's not a practical or workable idea. In my experience, once an article is promoted, it's often hard to get editors to address minor items that made it through fac.
A system like this would not only create more fas, it would also make the fa page a literature bit more streamlined, since articles would have already gone through copy-editing and issues would be minor. Wrad ( talk ) 18:16, (UTC) so how about if fac can have two more outcomes (in addition to promote/archive "promote pending mos fixes and "promote pending copyedit"? (Or both.) Then a mos-fixing group and a copyediting group could clean them up and produce a diff showing that all that had changed was copyedit and mos work. It would then be promoted. Opposes on fac could then be "mos oppose" or "Copyedit oppose any unstruck ones (that the fac director agreed with) would cause the conditional promotions. Resubmission under those circumstances could be back at regular fac but should lead to very quick promotions if the fixes are truly done. Or they could be resubmitted to a subpage to avoid clogging up fac. Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of? Mike christie (talk) 18:48, (UTC) That sounds good.
They are the ones who really make the prose brilliant, in most cases. Editors do this work, shredder not the writers. Fac seems to demand that the writers do all the work, but there is a reason writers are writers and not editors—they aren't really that good at editing. We need some way to make it easier for people to get their work copy-edited and reformatted. Right now, as everyone acknowledges, it is the hardest thing to accomplish at fac. I'm not saying this because i want the requirements to be lowered. I'm saying this because i want it to be easier for articles to reach those standards by giving articles a place to go when all they need is formatting and copy-editing.
Facs do continue to improve even after they are promoted. Also true, it's great to come to a subject i knew almost nothing about Anglo-saxon history and selfishly write a wikipedia article to become better informed on the subject you're interested in, with the by-product of an fa for wikipedia.- billDeanCarter ( talk ) 04:01. The problem with this perspective is that quite often it is the nominator who has by far the greatest expertise on the topic in question, so fac is not remotely like handing in an essay to a professor. The issue raised by the other comments is a perception that fac is obsessed with mos and its associated pedantry. There is an obvious solution to this: remove the formal "guideline" status from mos, and modify the fa criterion 2 to say that "It broadly follows the style guidelines." Then perhaps fac will become more attractive to reviewers who focus on content quality, while those. Geometry guy 11:03, (UTC) Again, in real life, there are writer/researchers, and then there are editors. Writer/researchers are good with content. There are a lot of them in proportion to the editors. One editor typically combs over the work of several writers to check format and writing style.
Essay topics: do people need to lie sometimes, or is lying always harmful
I also think that there should be some sort of repository for articles that are complete except for copyediting. Right now, the league of copyeditors is overwhelmed by articles with the "copyedit needed" tag which actually have much bigger problems. Wrad ( talk ) 01:23, (UTC) I'd like to suggest that people interested in this topic also consider posting at wikipedia talk:Content review/workshopfac issue, which is the workshop Maclean pointed to above. It did focuses on content review issues. As Maclean says above, we do need to identify problems, but we also need to find solutions, and that workshop's goal is to look for and help implement solutions.
Mike christie (talk) 01:28, (UTC) Perhaps a simple solution would be to sweep through all articles with the copyedit tag and remove the tag from articles nowhere near fa status. If they have bigger problems, copyediting is not the answer. Wrad ( talk ) 01:33, (UTC) I like that idea. thedemonhog talk edits 01:36, (UTC) i've always liked something mike christie once said in a fac (I think fac; can't find the comment which he reiterates slightly differently in his essay as "The reason I don't get upset at fac when someone posts a silly. I just try to have faith that the fac process will work, and comply with (almost) all the requests I get at fac. Usually i find it really does make the article better." even when I disagree with a fac point vehemently at the time, i have found a few months later I may start to see the validity to the point and that I was plain wrong.
So, the 'problem identification' step is done, repeatedly. But what do you offer for solutions? Cla68 offers some solutions if the fa star is the goal. How about mike christie's (and other's) wikipedia:Content review/workshop? The review process is flexible (and often taken on a case-by-case basis) but only goes where its participants want (whether through action or inaction). maclean 17:01, (UTC) I for one disagree with Outriggr's comments.
If he has a problem with the standards for fa, he should attempt to change them. If he has a problem with an mos issue, he should bring it up on the page there. I for one think that nbsp's should simply be coded into the wikipedia engine, but until such a time as the fa rules change or the mos changes, this is the process for better or worse. That said, here is my fa guide (work in progress) — bqzip01 — talk 00:53, (UTC) One weakness I see in the fa process is the assumption that people know the mos or that the average editor will know how to copyedit an article. Telling an editor that an article may need another copyedit may be necessary, but many editors absolutely do not know where. In the real world, only a small fraction of the population has professional editing skills. Wikipedia is the same way. Editors who have these skills, in my opinion, should be more recognized and encouraged to focus their efforts in that area, since their skill is so rare.
Or a lie is necessary sometimes?
His notes prompted me to capture my own thoughts. Mike christie (talk) 13:38, (UTC) I think outriggr's response to Rjgibb should be required reading on this subject as well: User talk:RjgibbRe "An Editorial viewpoint". jayhenry ( talk ) 06:02, (UTC) Those are all some excellent commentaries on the fa process and i've added links to them to my own essay about. Cla68 ( talk ) 06:18, (UTC) Cla68's essay is one i read early on and paid a good deal of revelation attention. There are probably some other fac essays out there; I'd be interested to see a list of links. Mike christie (talk) 10:09, (UTC) Rjgibb analysis and Outriggr's response are useful as personal reflections but they are merely re-iterating perennial problems. Yes, we get it, you want more thorough reviews of facs.
It is much better to review in a positive manner, with plenty of praise and suggestions for improvement: so long as you're doing so it doesn't really matter if you are applying the criteria in a stricter manner. The land ( talk ) 16:18, (UTC) If what you're saying is that you want to check the references in facs and comment on it, i'd say go right ahead. Some checking should be happening already but inevitably improvements can be made. Helping to ensure that potential FAs really are top quality isn't acting like you own the place - kingboyk ( talk ) 18:55, (UTC). First question: Which free encyclopedias are you referring to? Usually spearheaded when a reviewer looks at the article, there is a tendency to casually glance at the sources. Any dubious sources are then brought to the attention of the nominator. There is a project to verify sources: wikipedia:wikiproject Fact and Reference Check, nichalp «Talk» 18:13, (UTC) Some thoughts on fac i hope this isn't an inappropriate place to post this, but i've written some notes about my experience with the fac process, called " How. I was sorry to see rjgibb's notes on his experience with fac; he evidently won't be back.
understand an editor can object on some weak grounds, as in - not an important enough topic, but I'm hesitant to object. I'd like to see if I can get a few more fas before acting like i own the place. Moni3 ( talk ) 16:09, (UTC). I try to check through them. Anyone may comment on any nomination. DrKiernan ( talk ) 16:12, (UTC) i only check sources if I have them to hand - which is rarely - or if they are online sources, when i am a bit more rigorous (because i'm more likely to be sceptical of their worth). In terms of reviewing, jump right.
Ruslik ( talk ) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Or, rather, any "onerous" code could be within the templates. kingboyk ( talk ) 18:57, (UTC) I found it a very interesting discussion, thanks. Hope i was of some help. Did you know of this proposal? "Merge of Hard space and Non-breaking space" (it can be found. Talk:Non-breaking space.), kiyarr lls ton 17:33, biography (utc checking sources. I'm just very gradually getting into reading other articles up for. I'd like to know how closely the sources are checked. I understand that using other free encyclopedias as references is not ideal.
La youth essay contest
Contents, please vote for a better hard-space code. May i point out to contributors that mos requires hard spaces between all instances of "p." and page number, and "pp." and page range. FAs, which must follow mos, typically have many instances of these in notes and reference lists. Inserting hard spaces is writing onerous using the current html code. It is in all our interests to vote for a better code, and to support the subsequent process of having it implemented technically. You can vote, here. Tony (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2007 (utc it may be better not to write. At all, especially when using citation templates.