Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates 

For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list
FACs needing feedback
Charing Cross ... Railway Review it now
German women's football Review it now
The Great American Bash (2005) Review it now
Stigand Review it now
Last of the Summer Wine Review it now
Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal Review it now
Archive
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
Shortcut:
WT:FAC

Contents

Images reviews needed

On a quick glance tonight (I may have missed some), there are several FACs that have sourcing and prose issues resolved, have garnered some level of support, but are lacking image reviews, per crit. 3 of WP:WIAFA. I'm in a spot when I have to keep imploring editors to review images, and then watching as nominators are rude or insulting to image reviewers, so they won't come back. Someone above suggested a checklist; I don't think we need a checklist (I have one), we need reviewers. I noticed at least the following FACs are moving along on other fronts, but have had no image checks (there may be others):

Just to add here, a note of appreciation to User:Ealdgyth for checking sources on every single FAC; I'm a big believer in cross-training, and would love to see others help lighten her load, as well as encouraging our excellent image reviewers and supporting them when they are treated rudely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Julian's been picking up some of the slack, as has Giggy, which helps a bunch! Thanks! I might actually get some of my own articles headed towards FAC now... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see these image reviews have been taken care of. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Awadewit; because of the shortage of image reviewers, I may need to continue to highlight those that are outstanding. By the way, Elcobbola is working up a much-needed image review tutorial for a future WP:SIGNPOST Dispatch (there's a template of Dispatches at the top of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Both your lists and Elcobbola's dispatch should help us fledgling image reviewers. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I figure if Elcobbola can teach me to review images, he can teach anyone :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to Elcobbola (talk · contribs), with help from Jbmurray (talk · contribs) and Awadewit (talk · contribs), for the upcoming Signpost Dispatch article on Free images in content review processes. Elcobbola has plans for a Part 2 on non-free images. It's a bit long, but worth it because it covers all the basics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a bot that runs on WP and Commons that checks on the status of the images and throws up a summary on the FAC nom? I concede that it's no substitute for human intervention, but at least it could flag off potential issues. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review needed:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Masem and I got the above two squared away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ! (Posting these reminders is kind of awkward :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Scolding us into action seems to work though :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? Wow, don't say that twice, or I could let loose a stream :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Both FAC images have been commented on (there needs to be followup work). I really wish there was a way to set up "Hey, these things need attention" using various translucsions on the top of the watchlist page, I'd be all over these sooner... --MASEM 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We have the Wikipedia:Template limits issue in FAC archives; I already have to go through closed FACs and remove hide templates so the FAC archives won't bomb. I suspect that as more reviewers come up to speed on image issues (for example, per Elcobbola's Dispatch), the reminders won't be necessary, so I'm hesitant to set up an entire beaurocratic mechanism for this. In general, it would be helpful if more reviewers double-checked that images and reliable sources had been reviewed, rather than leaving it all to Ealdgyth and Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading and re-reading Elcobolla's dispatch and trying to get it fixed in my head. Before this week, I was careful about licensing my own images, but I wasn't good at evaluating other editors' licenses. My aim is to get better and to spot licensing problems and to suggest solutions before an article heads to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image review subpage

Sandy, I think it might be helpful if we create WT:FAC/Image Review (or a similarly named page) for you to drop requests like the above section on, make sure that you have editors watchlisting it (and possibly link to it at the top of this page), such that 1) this section can actually be archived) and 2) it will be easier to track when an image review is needed without spamming this talk page. --MASEM 22:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. I didn't even see these comments up here. I thought this section was "over". :) Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I support this idea. Criterion three, although important, should not really be separated out like this; it is but one of four (more when counting sub-criteria) criteria. Will there be concern that all other criteria need explicit assertions and, thus, their own such pages? Explicit declarations of "length checks out", for instance, are relatively uncommon. More concerning to me, however, is that it could exacerbate the current problem of reliance on just one image review (i.e. first person to see/heed the notice enters a review, checks the notice as "done" and all subsequent reviewers rely solely on that assessment without checking images themselves). I, obviously, like the idea of having "specialties" at FAC (a jack of all trades is a master of none), but everyone misses things from time to time and everyone makes mistakes.  !Voters, consequently, need to be engaging all criteria when making declarations and, in so doing, ensuring that the system has a "double check". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm not clear - all I'm suggesting is that for FAC's where an image check has not been done after, say, a week of being FAC'd, we should just have a page just like the above topic is doing to shout out for an image review. This is not to separate the actual image review from the FAC on the FAC page, but just to allow Sandy or whomever to give a shout that no image review has been done in a reasonable amount of time; the image review should still be done on the FAC page. (If those that are trying to take up the task left by the dedicated reviewers of the past who have left WP due to recent events are like myself, it is hard to monitor the FAC and every candidate among other things we're dealing with, so a little flag for help from Sandy is sufficient when an article slips through the cracks). --MASEM 15:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the format is clear (basically an urgents-esque list to prompt image comments at a given FAC). The issues I'm concerned about are A) if such a list will be maintained for criterion three, will the other criteria also need lists to bring attention to candidates lacking explicit declarations that a given criterion is satisfied and B) such a list, as has been the case with the FACs listed above, seems to have the propensity to prompt only one (often incomplete) review. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, maybe this is more a temporary solution; we have lost some of the dedicated image reviewers due to recent events, and while there are those that have stepped up to help out, no one has appeared to become as dedicated as those past reviewers; it could be simply a period of transition until we have two or three people that always look at every FAC. I agree we don't want this to be a simple one-person "check the box" for Crit 3, however, so I agree that not having this permanent is a good idea. I just don't know how long it will take for dedicated reviews to come in, so while we could leave it here on this talk page, it might start getting in the way if this goes on for more than a few months. --MASEM 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Elcobbola, and prompting for one specific part of WIAFA wouldn't work any better than the Urgents list, which is a maintenance chore for me that is ignored by all but a few. I've been prompting recently on images only because we lost a lot of image reviewers all at once, as they all got tired of being attacked. At some point, I stop nagging and it's up to reviewers to decide what to review, without my prompts. I try to keep the list size manageable, and when only one thing is holding up promotion, a prompt will allow me to close the FAC. An option is to let the list grow to 100 and hope others will notice :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity

User:Sceptre wrote:

Quite a few FACs are failing because of inactivity, quite a bit more than before. Sceptre (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about this statement, since it doesn't accord at all with either the data in FAC archives or the way I process FACs. Sceptre, why do you have this perception? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might just be sour grapes, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trial of a Time Lord/archive1 garnered no support or opposition, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Trial of a Time Lord/archive2 garnered only one oppose. Yes, TToaTL #2 failed because the opposer didn't consider his objections fixed (some of them I didn't understand, but I think I tried fixing most of them), but even if the oppose was struck, it would've ended the same as TToaTL #1. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/archive2 only got one support and one oppose too. I was also concerned that the Stolen Earth FAC (which I've just noticed was promoted about ten minutes ago) was going to head the same way, because, up until 48 hours ago, it only had one oppose (which I talked to Matthew about privately) and one support. Sceptre (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I had the same thought on the Luan Da FAC; see Sandy's response here. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that was partly why I asked Sceptre the question; I was concerned this idea was taking hold, or that you had restarted a nomination the same day it was archived, thinking it was archived only for lack of review.
In fact, if you look at two months of FAC archives, one year apart, recent, but of similar size in terms of numbers of archives:
you can see that:
  • even though May 2007 and May 2008 have almost identical number of articles archived, the 2008 archive is about double the size as the 2007 archive, with far more commentary on each FAC (whether measured by the prose size script or by external website optimizer packages) ... this reflects that FAs are increasingly being created at FAC, rather than reviewed at FAC (compare the two archives), with a higher burden on reviewers,
  • every single FAC amazingly gets a source check these days (that never happened before Ealdgyth came along, I used to do a cursory spot check), and when an article isn't reliably sourced, reviewers may be less likely to engage, and
  • almost every FAC gets an image check, and
  • there are increasingly more copyeditors involved, Tony is no longer almost alone,
so that, overall, reviews are longer and more thorough than they were a year ago, and we often see line-by-line building of FAs in lengthy FACs. Some nominators then are upset when Opposes come in late, as some reviewers may hold off as they wait for sourcing and other basic issues to be sorted before engaging.
I don't know whether the trend at FAC to build FAs in lengthy review processes is a good thing or not: it's good if it produces FAs, it's bad if it leads to reviewer burnout, because without reviewer support, we don't have quality FAs. But it's distinctly different than a year ago, when many archived FACs had strings of short, straightforward opposes and much less commentary.
But, no, I don't archive for lack of review; if there is truly no meaningful input on a FAC, or if I can't look at the FAC in relation to the article and see why it's getting little feedback, then I will prompt this talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's happened to me before at a few FA's (Halo 3 and Flood didn't garner opposes or supports (or any support after all opposes were struck), but I can't say that it's much more than occasional blips in the reviewing pool. Real life intervenes often, and sometimes FAC's fall through cracks. But I wouldn't say it's a serious issue (although Will, you do seem to have been hit with a big share of it :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue that first, we are in the middle of summer so the usual activity from colleges and schools will be low, but I think a larger problem is that as FA requirements become tighter (for appropriate reasons, this is not a complaint against those), the tools to pre-check an article for FA should also become stronger -- but at the same time, things like the League of Copyeditors, and experienced imaged reviewers have completely dwindled. Particularly for copyediting, it is almost necessary to get a third party (an uninvolved editor and completely outside the topic of the article) ce to really smooth things out, but these people are few and far between. I know from my own pass FA submissions that a badly ce'd article before FAC is not going to get the attention until the ce is brought to par as reviewers don't want to read bad prose. Basically, I think what I'm saying is we're seeing the number of volunteers that help outside of article creation shrink while more and more articles are brought to the forefront each day, and this starts a difficult cycle to break since the volunteer's workload gets harder, and they less want to volunteer that way. How to fix it, I'm not sure beyond mass education and call for help to get people involved in the pre-FA steps as to make the FAC steps as easy as possible. But I think this also points to how much "fixing" we can tolerate in FA. Maybe there's a need to immediately short-circuit articles that editors feel are going to take a lot of work to get straight - assuming we don't want FA to be a editroom. On the other hand, if FACs can take more of the brunt of final polishing, even with the time committments, that needs to be stated (but I don't believe that is the case here). In other words, if we short circuit off FACs with readily obvious problems, we will have fewer to look at and maybe will likely gain more reviewers. This may lead to a better review period quality in that finer details can be polished up. --MASEM 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I am home from a summer that had me on the road more than I was home (Since May 21 I've only been at the house four weeks... blech!) so hopefully I can say... actually review a few articles. I hope. I did notice that while the reviews are more indepth than say six-eight months ago, reviewers are doing fewer, because they take more time. I think the solution is to recognize that if you put an article up for review, you should really review an article also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I can understand Sceptre's "perception", and to be quite honest, am in agreement with it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I no longer copy edit or review for FAC as I have found it a very "in group" and unfriendly place. I understand by the comments made about me in other sections on FAC that I am not welcomed and will not be missed. I believe others are also to intimidated to join in to help FAC and have said so in other conversations. There is a perceived favoritism in FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility reminder

Per several past pleas from Rick Block (talk · contribs), just a reminder to review for WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:LAYOUT:

As explained in more detail at WP:Accessibility, items in the lead should be presented in the following order:
disambiguation links,
maintenance tags,
infoboxes,
images,
introductory text, and
navigational boxes, moving to the heading of the first section.

This is for the benefit of readers who use screen readers.

Another one that comes up often is:

Note also that the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header for similar reasons.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I move images from "just before the header" to after the header whenever I see them; I was not aware they also needed to be below "any link to other article" (I assume by this you mean {{main}} etc; not just inline links in text). --Random832 (contribs) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image reviews of FACs

We really need help reviewing images in FACs! There is no way that I am going to be able to review all FACs, especially since the semester is beginning in a couple of weeks. Please help! (Article writers, please get into the habit of giving images a cursory review before submitting articles to FAC - thank you!) Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading this suggestion, and previous discussion about the load on the FAC article review. Perhaps it might be an idea to provide a checklist (like that in the B-class of the Milhist project) to the process of FAC submission; with the remark that if one or more checks fail, the article is not yet ready for FAC and should be further improved by the current editors. Your cursory review (e.g. Are all images relevant, needed and have a valid copyright statement for the use) could be one of these checks. Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting change

Dear nominators and reviewers

Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.

[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.

Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to FA Criterion 2 (style guidelines). We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guideline on within-article consistency here, which states that:

  • Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
  • Dates in article references should all have the same format.

In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes." Tony (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, "Remove the brackets and double-check that the raw dates that are left use a consistent format". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Sandy. The removal of DA sometimes brings to light inconsistencies (and occasionally even the wrong global choice for an article) that our chosen preferences were concealing from us.
A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. This should be accompanied by a quick check for compliance in the raw formatting of each date that our IP readers (the vast majority we serve) have been viewing from the start. Tony (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Two questions:
Does the consistency argument apply to references, i.e., we should use linked ISO dates to stay consistent with the linked ISO accessdate?
Are you going to get templates such as {{birth date and age}} changed to comply with the new guideline?
Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The consistency issue has evolved to be a requirement for dates in citation templates to be internally consistent, and (square-bracketed) dates in the body of the article to be internally consistent. Thus, ISO dates may be used in ref lists, but one of the two standard formats (US or international) must be used in the running prose. This is spelled out here at MOSNUM.

As for birth date and age templates, sometimes used in infoboxes (and other similar templates where dates are not entered with square brackets), they are fine, although clearly the community will work towards making these more flexible in the medium term (like "link off / link on"—sounds easy to do). Personally, I'd minimise my use of any date templates, but in the meantime, not to worry about this point.

Thanks for your questions. Tony (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script

Question

I'm seeing these templates being thrown out to note who's saying what with comments; do people want us to put 'Comments - David Fuchs' or something similar on the first line then when reviewing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started doing that (comments by karanacs) because FACs seem to be getting more complicated and I have trouble finding my own comments. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes please! I've meant to post about this. Those of us who tend to write very long comments (myself included) could really cut down on confusion, and reduce the need for {{interrupted}}, by simply starting with Comments from Maralia. It would be great if we long-winded folks could get in the habit. Maralia (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec reply) There are a couple of issues, having to do with my eyesight and the way I process FACs (likely, not the same way Raul processes them, and I suspect his eyes are younger than mine). I scan through FAC (usually) daily, and keep a spreadsheet with notes on each FAC. On my initial scan of newer FACs, I look for problem areas that need to be addressed (things like invalid opposes) and I watch for what areas of WIAFA (1 thru 4) have been addressed. I keep notes on how the FAC is going, what is missing, what remains to be resolved, what I'm looking for, etc. Once the basics are in place, and after a reasonable time frame, I 1) watchlist the individual FAC and 2) read the entire FAC. When I scan a FAC, there is nothing harder on my eyesight than an Oppose or Support buried somewhere within a comment rather than at the front of the line. I just don't see the bolding, even worse when they're mixed up with horrific signatures and a lot of extraneous bolding within the FAC commentary. The FAC instructions say to put your declaration bolded, follow by commentary. So, what would help me in terms of how long it takes me to scan daily and sort those that are ready for a thorough look, is:

  • Always place your bolded Support or Oppose at the front of the line; don't bury it within a line. That stands out easier when I'm in scan mode to see how the FAC is doing.
  • Minimize gawd-awful signatures and other bolding on the FAC; they really mean I can't scan the FAC to see how it's going and decide when it's ready for my closer scrutiny.
  • For both nominators and reviewers, please view the FAC through my eyes. Think about adding unsigned templates when reviewers or nominators forget to sign. If I can't tell who signed, I don't know if the declaration is valid and I have to step back through the diffs to add unsigned templates myself. The same thing happens on strikes: often a nominator strikes reviewer comments and I have to go back and check. And, when commentary gets so long and convoluted that the signature of the original poster is separated from their comments by pages, and I can't tell who said what: consider adding an {{interrupted}} template somewhere, so I can see who's talking. Otherwise in these cases, I have to read the FAC by stepping through the diffs.

None of this affects the final outcome, as I eventually read through every FAC; it just has to do with how long it takes me to scan the newer FACs to determine when they are ready for a more detailed look. If there are a lot of opposes buried deep within convoluted threads and messy sig files, I may not see them when I scan, and I may let the FAC run longer than necessary.

Added after edit conflict: I don't disagree with the approach taken by Karanacs and Maralia, but a reminder that excess bolding not get out of control. Editors less experienced at FAC have taken bolding to an extreme, adding a bolded Reply on every single reply, which invalidates the ease of scanning the FAC to find anything! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the done reply to individual comments I put annoys me, so I've been starting to ask people to just respond to my comments in block form so it's easier to follow what's been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it would be good for reviewers if nominators avoided unnecessarily chopping up commentary just to say Done, but from the nominator point of view, they're trying to track what they've done. We have three different POVs here on what and where to bold: nominator, reviewer, and closer :-)) Balance is hard ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd just like the nominators, et al to say "I did X and Y, but have a question about Z" rather than splitting it up. I don't really like status updates like FAC is Twitter or something, because what matters if they are done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have, when a reviewer's top-level comments span more than a paragraph, to include a hr-type line across the comments as a delimiter for such? This allows people to distinguish a general block of related comments, including if there is outdenting or other weird comment formatting that goes on. Obviously we don't want HRs all over the place so they should only be used when absolutely needed - basically when there are multiple issues identified by one reviewer and/or a long thread develops. (I do, however, believe that the hr line might be used to indicate something else, so this could step on toes. For example, in an FTC I had submitted, the maintainer had used the line to indicate a restart of the process, but I know that's not done here). --MASEM 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Could help in some cases, but what I notice is that sometimes, what regular FAC participants do in one case because it makes that particular FAC more readable, then takes over as the norm for newer FAC participants, and then gets out of control (like horizontal lines between every reviewer on a short FAC). It really is hard to strike the balance. Whatever works, but it seems to go in cycles, as newer participants imitate what they see others doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that a major issue is that there are a finite size limit, so images are baaaadd. Would level 4 headings work? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No, because section headings lead to bigger problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Drat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Road discrepancies

Can reviewers and nominators please explain the comprehensive criteria on road articles and the standards used to support/oppose them? There is a 5,000-word road article FAC near the bottom of the page, looking to be archived, while there are several 800 to 1,000-word road articles at the top of the page with significant support. I'd like to better understand how comprehensiveness is determined on these articles, what the expected structure is, and what factors are leading to some gaining support while others do not. Feedback on reviews so that I can close them based on a solid interpretation of WIAFA would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think (although I'm not a member of the road project) that the longer the route; the longer the article. The Utah State Route 128 article is quite short as it only covers 44 miles, but the New York State Route 22 article is very long as it covers 300+ miles. I'm guessing that it purely depends on how long the route is. D.M.N. (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, here's what's going on:

  • New York State Route 22 - A 337-mile highway. I personally don't think anyone is interested in reading a very long article that could go on and on. This is one of our prized articles, but I don't understand why people won't feedback on what's its now 2nd FAC.
  • New York State Route 373 - Dang well, one of our shortest nominations, and the shortest in length. Personally, I feel this can be a FA, and really need it to be. I took a risk with this one.
  • Utah State Route 128 - This may be 44 miles, but it is in a desert region - it really can't have much, but in this case it has some notable history. This article has been reviewed a lot, it is ready for FAC.
  • Maryland Route 36 - Not sure on this one.

What I feel is that NY 22 just is too much for someone to read, and that roads is an often boring topic to deal with. Personally, this is just a concept of uninteresting material - for commoners. And you're getting this from who nom's roads a lot.Mitch32(UP) 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For myself, I won't review road articles at FAC. The Roads Projects and i have a disconnect on what we view as comprehensive and rather than spend all my time fussing, I just don't review them. That way both myself and the roads project are happier! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, there's a difference on what you can say depending on where in the country the road is. Forty miles buys you a lot more route description in New York than it does in Utah. (Heck, even in Oklahoma, you can get much longer route descriptions from roads on the east side of the state than those in the west because there's fewer towns and interesting geographic features west of US 81.) Also, the history section's length varies from route to route; you can have a 400-mile route that was first signed in 1930 and had nothing done to it since then, or you can get something like Oklahoma State Highway 22 where it has its routing swapped with some other route every other year for no apparent reason. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Something worse than inactivity!

Clearly there is a problem much more unfair than inactivity (which can sometimes be resolved). Has anyone else noticed that FACs are commonly supported only if it is a popular subject? Of course, there are some random articles which are just up to the standards and do make the cut as they gain some support, but I maintain that some articles simply dont receive support due to the subject. No matter how well written it is, it will only gain large amount of support if it is a well known or popular topic. It's become more than obvious that some FAC are treated very differently top others. I myself have seen and even had FAC attempts which are opposed or heavily criticised because of some minor issues in the article, yet if you look at an already FA status article you will see that it has the exact same issues which still managed to bypass the reviews etc.

What I'm basically after is a consensus as to why this occurs and how it can be overcome? The Scotland national football team page has been a FA for a fair amount of times now even though it had to undergo a few content reviews which were applied because the article didn't meet the criteria anymore. It gained a fair bit of support in its promoted attempt, even in its not-promoted unsuccessful nominations. Yet the Croatia national football team is of very similar standards. It is well written and follows all the other criteria, it is even much more highly referenced that the Scottish page. Yet somehow the latter article has failed a few FA nominations and is looking to repeat such in short time as there have only been a few constructive comments on the article, but it seems that nobody feels like supporting due to the subject. I hate to say it, but in this case, it seems like it has become a form of racial differences, Scotland is one of the most popular nations due to their known history, yet their national team article gained numerous supports even though the team itself has a fairly disappointing history. I dont think its a coincidence that the Croatian team (who are much more succesful and highly rated) is gaining no support on its nomination page. I think it has to do with the country itself and its overall popularity. Domiy (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It would do you well to try doing WP:GA first to get a gauge on how your article is doing, as well as peer review. I definitely wouldn't recommend trying to build an article from C-class to FA with nothing in between. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
How about going from stub to FA directly? I love working on those. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for other reviewers, and I wasn't yet an editor when Scotland national football team became featured. All I can tell you is that I don't care who or what an article I review is about; I judge on quality alone. Croatia national football team is much improved from its previous visits to FAC, but I still think there is work to be done. I'll give you a couple general hints: 1): Get the references and photos sorted out. Seeing a large wall of unresolved comments on an issue can scare away reviewers. It certainly makes me less likely to support when I see unresolved issues like these. 2): Please try to assume good faith. I know that it's difficult to see your pet article languish, but we are all trying to make the encyclopedia better, and what we do here sets the standards for all articles. Calling reviewers racist will only alienate them, because nobody likes to have names thrown at them. The same applies for your response to Fasach Nua at the FAC. If you believe the oppose is inactionable, don't tell him that "your entering close grounds for a ban I think." or threaten to report him; this also discourages reviewers. Just ignore it, and Raul654/SandyGeorgia will decide how much weight it carries. I applaud your passion to make this featured; many editors would have given up a long time ago. Try to think of it this way: Even if your favorite article doesn't get there, it has gotten attention from many new editors and has improved significantly. I wish I was that lucky. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There may be a cause for the theory. A popular subject means that more people can review it as per their concerns, and other set criteria they have in mind. For example, its easier to review a football team than Literature in the Hoysala Empire where more erudite experts would be needed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That may be true. But I believe there are many editors like me who seek out and enjoy copy editing and reviewing articles on subjects I know little to nothing about. Many times I prefer that to spending time on a subject I know well. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to be the little guy who stands up towards this issue instead! Sorry, but WP has a specific objective and to achieve it fully this clear biased action needs to be stopped! I find it daunting that you actually admit to not even bothering with your articles because of how confident you are of the biased behavior it will receive. No user should have to feel like that, especially since they contributed a lot of time and effort to make an article up to acceptable FA standards. I'm one of the very victims. The Croatia national football team page was below stub standards before I started editing it! It contained no more than a few sentences explaining the team in the lead and another sentence which stated the teams first game. That was it. Credit goes to some of the few tables which were already there, but everything you see on the page now (including the references and images!) was solely found and contributed by me. When I look at other FA, I like to look back at the miletsones and see the reviews which got them promoted. Its absolutely ridiculous! Duncan Edwards gained 3 or 4 initial supports in a row without any comments being raised. That wouldnt be the case if he was a football player of equal or even better skill from lets say Croatia, Serbia or Denmark. Unless the FA page clearly states that some articles can never become FA due to biased reviewers, then I will not let this issue go freely! The criteria says nothing about this. What's more ridiculous is that some of the popular articles which clearly did gain promotion due to their popularity are well below the criteria. It's not even worth listing them for review because there are way too many! Domiy (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that the FA criteria and FAC community are systemically biased. As a Singaporean contributing to Singapore-related articles, I do not take articles I write to the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC, because they would never pass. I usually stop working on an article once it achieves GA status and move on to other articles. Perhaps you should do so as well. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Let me know if I did something wrong. I copyedited the first half of Literature in the Hoysala Empire by request, and User:Finetooth covered the second half. Now it's getting towards the end of its time at FAC, and it hasn't attracted much attention. I left a note on Finetooth's talk page: "...the FAC may fail unless one or two more reviewers can be found. If you're willing to say that the part you covered is up to par on the FAC page, I'm willing to support it. Let me quickly add: I don't have any connection to this article, and I don't really care if it passes or not. I just think it would be a shame for it to fail for lack of reviewers. Since you've already looked at it closely, I hope you won't consider this canvassing." I can see this both ways; this might be acceptable reviewer behavior or not. Please let me know. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Each person should review an article independently. Asking someone else to make a decision so that you can act is not what I would call ethical. Canvassing for supports or opposes is unethical but canvassing for additional *quality* FAC reviewers is highly recommended -- the more eyeballs, the better. I stress on the word quality. Lack of reviewers can be tackled in a different way. Posting a note that you seek additional reviewers to review the FAC on the Indian noticeboard, literature noticeboards, and history noticeboard might accomplish what you seek. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think, on reflection, that what I tried to do was experimental and didn't work. The writer asked for a copyeditor, Sandy recommended me and a few other people, I did as much as I had time for, I was asked to review, I did as much as I had time for. In some places on Wikipedia, it works to do a part of the work; it breaks inertia and makes it a lot more likely that others will finish up. It probably doesn't work that way at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay for the primary nominator to request for additional quality review and comments?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That depends on the situation. There are three kinds of reviewers on FAC. The first kind are the subject matter experts. They are well versed with the topic. The second kind are the grammar nazis, and the third are the reference and image checkers. I would say its fine to contact reviewers based on the expertise they provide before the FAC nom. If the nom is listed on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents, I personally wouldn't find it a conflict of interest in requesting those who reviewed similar FACs to review this one. If the person opposed in a similar FAC, all the better to contact that person, as the person has taken time to review the previous topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey! "Grammar fascist", please. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No grammar commies? bibliomaniac15 05:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Notability suggestion/proposal

I think it is becoming a problem that some articles get notable although they cover a very obscure topic. I think this tool should solve the problem. I know to is not 100% proof, but I think it is still a good indicator of notability. There should be some kind of limit (say 10.000 previews in the last month) that does not necessarily have to be strictly enforced, but it should still be used as a guidance as is the "check external links tool" now. In debatable cases, users are able to look at the past history of the article (assuming that it was created some while ago) and notice if there are any discrepancies that the nominator tires to hide. Anyways, please! No more obscure albums that nobody heard of! Please! Nergaal (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of times a Wikipedia article has been viewed has no direct correlation to real world notability, nor does it have any bearing on its suitability for featured status. Maralia (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not say it should be a criteria, but some articles are rather obscure and voters in FAC and especially in FLC don't really realize it. My point was to give them this shortcut (as is the case for check external links tool) and that way they can estimate if the article is notable at all BEFORE jumping into supporting the article because they've heard of it. Again, it is not a criteria, but just a tool to OBJECTIVELY estimate the notability. Nergaal (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
At FAC, a support or an oppose should never be based on the subject's notability or lack thereof. Were I to see someone !voting to oppose an article's candidacy at FAC based on lack of notability, I would mark the oppose as unactionable; the proper route for challenging notability is AfD. There is no gradient of notability; if an article is allowed to exist, then it is eligible for consideration as a featured article. Maralia (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:WIAFA makes no mention of notability because if something is notable enough to have an article there is no reason it should not be allowed to become Featured. As long as the criteria are met, that is. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Maralia. The notability of a topic should only be reflected in the sources used within the article. FAC reviewers should be screening for quality, not popularity. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, gone are the times when the GAN-criteria stated something like "articles that could never become featured"? Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I had a question about that too (whether it was still the case), but I guess WT:GAN or WT:GA is the place for that question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In an ideal world, we'd all work on the most significant topics first. But this is a hobby for people, so they will put the most care into what interests them, or what they love, most. Tiny corners of the universe may be beautifully etched, while mountains remain sketchy. Wikipedia is charmingly unpredictable in this way. One thing about obscure FAs is that because few people read them, they are far less likely to deteriorate. qp10qp (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Damn straight. My most obscure FA's prolly no one has read 'cept me and the reviewers, but they're still up to snuff :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that hits do not relate to notability; many undisputed featured and good articles get less than 100 views per day, while other featured articles get 20,000 views per day. I do have a concern about "short" articles, though. GA was originally intended for "short" articles, but that changed rather quickly as many long articles became GA, and some fairly short articles achieved FA. Should there be any concern about length for FA? Should a short article be held more strictly to the comprehensive criterion than a longer article, where certain aspects of the topic may be treated lightly and hardly anyone would complain? Should short articles appear on the main page? (I think relatively few articles less than 1000 words have made it to the main page unless they were "traditional" encyclopedic topics.) Should we distinguish topics where reputable authorities explicitly say "this is all we know" from topics where the beset we can say is "this is all Wikipedians have found"? I tend to think that if reliable sources don't cover a topic comprehensively, then a comprehensive article cannot yet exist. If reliable sources do cover all reasonable aspects of a topic, an article can become FA, but I still tend to think short articles are in many cases inappropriate for the main page. Gimmetrow 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DotA passed FAC at 1098 words and weighing about 6.5KB, but as I remember Sandy brought up the topic on this page about whether it was too short or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Which is now 1250 words. I've raised similar points about Pilot (House) (currently 1150 words, at FAR) and 9.0: Live (currently 700 words, at FAC). Shouldn't FAs be at least comparable in development to a five paragraph essay? Gimmetrow 00:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Comparable in what way? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Length, development. Gimmetrow 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
If an article is notable and has exhausted all reliable sources, I don't see how we can say it's not comprehensive. DotA got utterly gutted at FAC because of reliabe source concerns, and has only increased in length due to more sources in time since. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know quantity isn't quality, and vice-versa, but do short articles really meet: "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia" per WP:FA? Peanut4 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"Best" means different things for different topics. If an article has all the information allowed by our policies, I'd say it meets that criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Even where little is known about a subject, an FA on it can be useful, though we should not allow such an article to become an FA unless we are sure it is fully comprehensive. The star would tell readers that the article gives them the full information. Take an article like Mounseer Nongtongpaw. It seems puny, but as a matter of fact it is simply the best article on this subject anywhere, online or in print. If it came up for FA, I'd have to support, despite the slight subject matter and the limited scholarship on it. qp10qp (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Quality academic topics with many papers written about it, such as Quasi-Hopf algegra get less than 5 reads per day...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean there? Do you mean that we should refocus on more mainstream or "core" articles, or are you saying it is OK to write on obscure topics? Oh, and how can a red-link get even 5 reads per day? :-) Did you mean Quasi-Hopf algebra? Or did you mean Quasitriangular Hopf algebra or Quasi-triangular Quasi-Hopf algebra? Ooh. :-( All this quasiness is making me queasy... No wonder they get so few reads. Carcharoth (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
it is OK to write on obscure topics. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not arguing for this to be a criteria. My suggestion was to have this as a tool for reviewers. Of course nobody will have anything against academic articles becoming FAs, but there are some rather obscure articles from say pop culture (i.e. an obscure album of an obscure group) that reviewers should be able to check somehow weather they are notable enough to be featurable. Again, my proposal was to simply have the link as a tool for hasty reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much more clearly I can say this, but there just is no such thing as "notable enough to be featurable". Maralia (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A) It is not necessary, for the reasons Maralia stated, and B) the tool is significantly out of date. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any reason to base featured status on a topic's popularity on the internet. That is actually a poor indicator of a subject's notability. Some important topics are rarely searched for on the internet and some unimportant ones are often searched for (internet memes like Star Wars kid, anyone?) so this test is not particularly helpful, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Glitch in candidates list

Something's wrong on Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list. I do not know what it is. I thought this would be a suitable venue. Waltham, The Duke of 09:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:CBM handles this service. Gary King (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's related to an edit by User:Geometry guy to {{CF/Content_review/List}}. I've posted a query on his talk page as this may affect some other lists. Dr pda (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. Dr pda (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick opinion on lead sentence?

Could I get a quick opinion on which of these is best for the first sentence in Literature in the Hoysala Empire? Ignoring bolding and linking for the moment:

  1. The Hoysala Empire (1025–1343) in what is now southern India produced a large body of literature in the Kannada and Sanskrit languages. [or, leave out the exact dates and put "from the 11th through the mid-14th centuries" at the end].
  2. The Literature in the Hoysala Empire has produced some great Kannada and Sanskrit works like [blah blah].
  3. Literature in the Hoysala Empire refers to a body of literature composed in Kannada and Sanskrit languages during the ascendancy of the Hoysala Empire, which lasted from the 11th through the mid-14th century.
  4. Something else? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
DEFINITELY number 3. The second one is a clear POV I reckon, and the first one is still a consideration but not as well worded as number 3. Domiy (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Be careful of WP:REFERS :) Also, WP:LEAD says if...the title is simply descriptive...the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Dr pda (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. The main editor likes #3, but I have the same reaction to it that Dr pda does. I added an option to #1. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

2 is inaccurate (the literature didn't produce works), and 3 is redundant (refers) and overlong; neither answers the first question in my mind: 'when/where was the Hoysala Empire'? #1 is superior. Maralia (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • 1 is ungrammatical. The non-defining phrase in what is now southern India must be between commas. I don't object to the approach, but this is not well executed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In American English, I generally follow AP Stylebook unless there's a reason not to, and I'm surprised to see that by that standard, you're absolutely right, and thanks, I needed to read that. There's no wiggle-room in AP Stylebook; all "non-essential" phrases are to be set off with commas, which I guess means they like "The house is on Elm Street, two down, on the right, with red shutters, in front of the lake." (Assuming all the houses are on the right, each phrase is non-essential to what precedes it.) But this article is British English; anyone know if there's flexibility in British English? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
How "large" is a "large body of literature"? In reference to what other literature sizes? Seems like Tony wouldn't like that! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Heavens, I didn't mean that I find #1 perfect as is—only that, given the three options above, I feel it is the best approach. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Right, I see how it is. I write crap. Now you know why I copyedit. Regarding "large", lead sections without the supporting text are usually WEASELy vague to some extent; they make one or more general statements that get supported and defined in the text below. I believe anyone skimming the article would quickly be satisfied that we're talking about a large body of literature; "some literature" or "a body of literature" would get a "Whaaa?" reaction from a lot of readers. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmph. I didn't mention commas because I know you are a competent copyeditor. Damned if you do, damned if you don't :) Maralia (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Who says you come up empty when you fish for complements. Btw...this discussion just made me realize that lead sections really are often vague without their supporting text...meaning, the plan being discussed at WP:1 to put something on a DVD including only lead sections for many articles is a terrible idea. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I mean "vague" instead of "WP:WEASELy". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
And it encourages what is all too common anyway: POV editing of intros. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that logic is faulty. Whatever is in the lead ought to be cited in the body of the article, or if it isn't, be cited in the lead. I don't see how that can be described as "vague". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
But summaries tend, quite reasonably, to use language like "large body of". Being exact (especially if the exact size is disputable) will take more space than a well-balanced lead can spare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. What I don't agree with is that statements like "large body of" are necessarily vague. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to convince me; I like "large part of" in such circumstances. You have to convince Tony. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

←[tweaked for readability] This is basic, but it needs repeating: if the first sentence in a paragraph gives the point of the paragraph, it's called a "topic sentence". Don't add a topic sentence if it would give away the paragraph's "punchline" or surprise ending. Don't add a topic sentence if the first sentence, or maybe the first two sentences, already explain(s) well enough what holds the paragraph together. Otherwise, a paragraph in an article probably needs a topic sentence. If someone complains that your topic sentence has words that are vague or unsupported, give it some thought; however, many good topic sentences do have words that are vague or unsupported ... until you read the rest of the paragraph. Super-short example: "Cats are well-adapted to catching mice. They have sharp claws. They have pointy teeth. They are adept at stalking and pouncing. Mice, beware!" "Well-adapted" is vague by itself, but if you omit it, then the readers have to piece together the connection between the elements on their own, and when they get to the end and figure it out, they have to re-think what they just read. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan55, I think we have enough opinions to give us an idea. We can just keep it as is and move on. Thank you all for you suggestions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if it felt like I was picking on your sentence; after reading a lot of FACs, I thought we were overdue for a discussion of lead sentences. I think it was generally helpful. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts. No issue with me. Please feel free to copy edit it anytime. I have no objections.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Subscription required

One reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics) has made an issue of specifying that some links require subscriptions. Is this the right approach?

In the reviewed article, they are all JSTOR links; I believe all of them are to journal articles. What is being cited, in principle, is the printed journal article, available without fee (if you can find it). The JSTOR link will be available in some libraries; few readers will want to pay for it on their own.

But the JSTOR link is a convenience link; usually the only one available. It is reasonable to include it; better a convenience link only some readers can use than none at all. Is it reasonable to have to specify that it's subscription only? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer, and I'm not opposing the article based on the lack of the notice, I'm just pointing out that most FACs include it as a courtesy to the folks who can't readily access it. If the consensus at FAC is that they aren't needed, then that's fine. However, I'm hardly the only reviewer that prompts for this (I got hit for it in my current FAC nom up!) I'm fine with being guided by consensus on this, but the general consensus has been to require it at FAC before this. (You'll note that I struck the concern when the editors raised some issues about including it, so it's hardly a "live" concern at the moment.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not soliciting support for the article; I just think the point should be discussed in general here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Free (as in beer) references are preferable to subscription references. But with that said, if you are going to use a subscription references, by all means include links. Those with access to those sites (myself included) most certainly benefit, and there is no tangible harm to non-subscribers by including the link. Raul654 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If 5 ref's are JSTOR, do we mention "subscription only" on all 5, or just add to the first one, "JSTOR cites are available by subscription only"? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What about citing the DOI and forgetting the JSTOR link and associated disclaimers? I see that presently you've done this with "On the lattice of subgroups of finite groups", for example, which looks a lot cleaner than the "The evolution of group theory: a brief survey" reference. I think DOI links when available obviate the need for linking article titles (and including an ISSN, FWIW), all of which make the references cluttered/harder to read. I'm very surprised by Raul's first statement but that's a different matter! Whiskeydog (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to post the same thing. According to this page it looks like JSTOR articles since April have had a simple stable URL which is easily reachable via a doi. That is, the article http://www.jstor.org/stable/1353871 can be reached via doi:10.2307/1353871. So for the specific case of JSTOR one could use the doi parameter of the cite/citation template for the convenience link, which I think also makes it clearer that it is a journal which is being cited, i.e.
  • Baz, Bar (2008). "Foo". Journal of Metasyntactic Variables 314. doi:10.2307/1353871.  instead of
  • Baz, Bar (2008). "Foo" (subscription required). Journal of Metasyntactic Variables 314. 

Dr pda (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

    • How did you find the DOI? Looking at the JSTOR site, I've tried to and failed. Or is all of JSTOR 10.2307? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no direct link to the doi of an article on JSTOR, you have to construct it manually. From the page I quoted above it appears the doi is constructed from 10.2307/ followed by the number in the stable URL (so yes, all of JSTOR is 10.2307). If the URL of the JSTOR article you are looking at uses a sici identifier rather than the http://www.jstor.org/stable/xxxxx format, clicking on the article information button near the top of the page seems to convert it to the stable format, from which the number can be extracted. Dr pda (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest creating a doi template, but apparents it already exists Raul654 (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed

Not a single declaration at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AMX-30E, in spite of it being listed for many days on the Urgents template. SandyGeorgia (