User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4

Proposal for new FAC reviewing model

Background

Some perennial discussions about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (FACs) are:

1. Support is sometimes based on prose only while there are still sourcing concerns outstanding, resulting in faulty supports and increasing the time ill-prepared nominations stay on the page before they are archived.
2. Very lengthy FACs make it hard for FAC reviewers and coordinators to see which of the FA criteria have been reviewed while also causing the page to hit Wikipedia:Template limits.
3. There is inconsistency in whether nominations are evaluated for comprehensiveness, sourcing, copyvio, neutrality, MOS, lead, etc. while prose reviews consume most of FAC.
4. Reviews may focus on prose and MOS without a serious examination of other criteria.
5. Some FACs that have garnered prose supports then wait much longer for a source review, with the FAC archived belatedly when sourcing issues are uncovered at the 11th hour.
6. Considerable work on critical review elements (sourcing and image policy) is being shouldered by only a few reviewers.
7. The "Older nominations" division on the FAC page is no longer useful, as most FACs drop to that section and FACs are regularly running a month or longer. Longer nominations result in slower turnaround and less FA production (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#FACs and FARs by year).

Goals

1. Make the nomination page easier to see what has been reviewed and what hasn't, and where it stands overall.
2. Encourage more reviewers to learn how to review for high-quality reliable sources and compliance with image policy.
3. Move some of the lengthy commentary to the talk page of each FAC via different reviewing methods to regain focus on what parts of the criteria have been reviewed.
4. Speed up the overall process by allowing for earlier archival of nominations with policy-based issues, and less wait at the end of the process for source and image reviews.

History

Wikipedia:Featured article review (FAR) has functioned as an integrated but two-stage process for about 15 years; the first stage, Featured article review (FAR), is followed if needed by a second stage, Featured article removal candidate (FARC). FAC has historically not endorsed a two-stage process because we "didn't have enough reviewers" and "didn't want more bureaucracy", and it was felt that the work would fall to the few reviewers who do sourcing and image reviews, regardless if in a separate process.

A source reviewing process completely separate from and prior to FAC was proposed in 2018. Unlike the 2018 proposal, this two-stage process would function just as FAR does; it would be one integrated process to keep all FA reviewing on the FAC page, while prioritizing specialty reviews to precede prose and other reviews, yet allowing for other (non-sourcing) issues to be reviewed concurrently on the same FAC nomination talk page. An alternate view now is that FAC doesn't have enough reviewers to not do something about these concerns, or to continue misallocating the time of the few who do engage in specialty reviews of sourcing and images, while FAC overall is stalled. FACs that are never reviewed for the most critical aspects have often garnered support before sources can be examined.

Proposal

A proposal summary for discussion is below. The proposal is for a two-stage process, modeled on the way FAR has functioned for 15 years. Please do not start !voting on the idea (Support, Oppose); the proposal is for discussion, and should there be enough support to warrant moving forward with the idea, then an RFC would be crafted. We already have a working model at FAR to view how the process would function. Please add comments at the #Discussion of proposal section without !voting.

The "Older nominations" division on the FAC page would be removed, replaced by a different division for a two-stage process: 1) FAC (Featured article candidate) and 2) FAPC (Featured article promotion candidate). Just as a FAR does not progress to the "Removal candidate" (Keep or Delist) stage without having first undergone a review, a FAC would not progress to the "Promotion candidate" phase without having first undergone a specialty review for reliable sourcing and image policy compliance. Sourcing and images are reviewed in the first stage, before a nomination can progress to the second stage. Sourcing and image compliance would be prioritized, while allowing review of other criteria to evolve simultaneously on the FAC talk page, and also allowing Opposes in the first stage based on all criteria. What would be disallowed in the first stage is Supporting before sourcing and image compliance is established. Once a nomination has cleared FAC and passed to FAPC, the resolved source and image reviews can be moved to the talk page of the FAC, so length and template limits will be less of a problem. If there were aspects of the first stage reviews that were unclear, Coordinators would highlight those as the nomination passed to the second stage, asking that Supporting reviewers address any unresolved issues from the first stage. It will then be easier for Coords and reviewers to scan the FAC in the second stage to determine if anyone actually reviewed for the rest of the criteria (which isn't always happening now).

In the tables below, the existing WIAFA criteria are re-arranged to reflect what would be done in the first stage (FAC, sourcing and image review, a newly defined crit. 1) versus what would be done after a nomination moves to the second stage (FAPC).

In the first stage, "Support" declarations are not entered, although "Suggest withdrawal" would still be a possibility for ill-prepared nominations. Coordinators determine if there is consensus to move to the second stage, and nominations may be archived at the two-week mark if sourcing and image reviews do not pass. Those who are familiar already with FAR will have a head start on understanding how this works: even after a nomination passes to the second phase, all criteria 1–4 can still be reviewed. Nominations can be archived in either stage, but "Support" is not declared until/unless a nomination has cleared the first stage and moved to the second stage.

Any reviewer may review any part of crit. 1; this may be accomplished by multiple reviewers doing different parts, one reviewer doing all parts, or anything in between. When reviewers believe that crit. 1 (or parts of it) are met, they enter a declaration to that effect, stating which parts were reviewed (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d) and providing supportive examples. Coords retain discretion to close the FAC without moving to the second stage, or to move to the second stage noting that some items are not fully resolved. For example, when a source reviewer looking at reliability of sources says, "leaving this one out for reviewers to decide", that would be carried forward to the second stage according to Coord discretion, while all resolved issues can be moved to the FAC talk page to minimize FAC length.

But wait, you say, this will slow down my nomination!

Experienced nominators may be concerned this will slow down their nominations as they wait for sourcing and image reviews, and even citation formatting nitpickery, when they have already complied. But actually, this could speed up the overall process. Well-prepared nominations should quickly get through the first stage. Ill-prepared nominations would be moved off the page quicker, at the end of stage 1, freeing up reviewers to focus on well-prepared nominations. And, during the first stage, reviewers can still start a section on the talk page of the FAC or at the article talk page to begin reviewing for prose, MOS, comprehensiveness, neutrality; that is, all items can be reviewed concurrently, although a Support declaration cannot be entered until sourcing and images have passed. This will not only move some of the bulk (causing template limit problems) to the talk page of the FAC—it will allow reviewers (after the nomination moves to the second phase) to enter a simpler declaration, while providing a link to their review on the article talk page, or peer review, or FAC talk page. This will model for experienced reviewers a new way of reviewing, where sections that add to template limits and further POV are not created on the FAC page, rather on the talk page associated with the FAC, with conclusions summarized back to the FAC page for the Coords to more easily process. (See a sample review on talk, summarized back to the FAC, at this FAC.)

Proposal summary table and criteria re-arrangement for two stages

Current two-stage FAR process	Proposed two-stage FAC process
FAR (Featured article review): Improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist" for a period of several weeks. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Coordinators determine either that there is consensus to close during this stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the next stage.	FAC (Featured article candidate): Candidates are reviewed for criterion 1 for a period of one to two weeks. Declarations of "support" are not declared in this stage, which focuses on whether the article passes criterion 1 (sourcing and image specialty reviews). "Suggest withdrawal" may be declared in this stage based on any of the criteria (1 through 4), and reviewers can be addressing other issues on the talk page associated with the FAC as they wait for sourcing and image reviews to be completed. The ideal review finds high-quality reliable sourcing with consistently formatted citations; text free of copyvio, too close paraphrasing, or plagiarism; and images compliant with policy. Coordinators determine if there is consensus to move the nomination to the next stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to move forward and therefore the nomination is archived.
FARC (Featured article removal candidate): An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.	FAPC (Featured article promotion candidate): An article is never listed as a promotion candidate without first undergoing a review for criterion 1. In this stage, participants may declare "support" or "oppose" promotion based on all the criteria (1 through 4), supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided.

Current Featured article criteria

Proposed criteria (re-arrangement to reflect two stages)

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. Content is summarized from high-quality sources, and compliant with Wikipedia copyright and image use policy. The article: is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. has consistent citations: where required by criterion 1a, inline citations are consistently formatted using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. contains content that complies with Wikipedia's copyright policy, and is free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing. has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.