Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Beaver/archive1

Please withdraw

@FAC coordinators: Here are all the reasons this FAC should be withdrawn and archived:

1. The nominator brought the article to FAC barely three days after it passed GAN.
2. The GAN reviewer has indicated they expected further work to be done.
3. The article is currently listed at GOCE, badly in need of a copyedit. Issues identified by both Hog Farm and me. (Do we need to add a line to instructions that articles should not be listed at GOCE and FAC at the same time? Because that indicates the article was not FAC ready. This would be understandable from an inexperienced nominator, which this one is not.)
4. A full two days after the nominator responded that they had "fixed all" of the issues on my first pass, they had not "fixed all" at all. I should be able to move on quickly from my first pass at issues and get instead to reviewing more substantial items in worthy nominations.
5. There are at least a dozen well-prepared and worthy FACs on the page right now-- maybe even two dozen (I haven't even made it to the bottom of the list). Those are the FACs reviewers should be focusing on, rather than pulling substandard prose up to standard on one FAC, which should be at either PR or GOCE.

Nominations like this are disrespectful of the time reviewers spend, and even worse, disrespectful of fellow nominators who have brought prepared articles to FAC, which then languish because reviewers don't have enough time to get to them. With well over a dozen FACs on this page that I should be reading and reviewing in-depth so I can offer support, it is abusive to have to re-visit an ill-prepared nom repeatedly ... and even more, to be told my first pass issues were corrected and find that they weren't. It is commendable that Hog Farm has engaged to address the copyedit needs; it is concerning that Hog Farm's own nominations should languish because reviewer time is taken on ill-prepared noms. This is the kind of FAC that stalls the process, turns FAC into PR, and results in delays in reviewing and promoting the dozen or more well-prepared FACs on the page. It is the kind of FAC that should be promptly archived so reviewers can focus on those many FACs on the page that are the result of diligent and respectful nominators presenting articles that are ready for in-depth review.

My oppose stands and I suggest withdrawal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)