Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Gamma-ray burst/archive1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cryptic C62
- Comment - In an effort to save Sandy time, Cryptic; you already have an article at FAC. Jehochman should take over the FAC, or, Sandy is entitled to remove it until the other article is archived or promoted. Ceranllama chat post 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh. I wasn't aware that simultaneous FACs were prohibited, nor can I find anything at WP:FAC pertaining to this rule. Would you (or someone else who reads this) mind pointing me to the relevant guideline so I may read it for myself? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its not a guideline, but its generally prohibited. I'm sure if you ask any FAC regular, they'll say the same. Ceranllama chat post 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it would be in everyone's best interest to get this FAC started soon. I will lose access to some of the source material on April 24th, and it might be a while before I get it again + the GRB 970508 FAC should be done soon + WP:IAR + I think this is a silly rule + it's not written anywhere = Let's go for it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Its not a guideline, but its generally prohibited. I'm sure if you ask any FAC regular, they'll say the same. Ceranllama chat post 23:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the "rule": "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/GRB 970508 has two supports, one near-support, and one oppose. Has the opposer been pinged yet? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wronkiew poked here. Parrot of Doom poked here and here. Fasach Nua poked and re-poked here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Also, why is this mysterious unwritten rule even in place? The only reason I can think of would be to prevent content editors from getting bogged down by the workload of dealing with multiple FACs. This is silly. It's not that hard to check one's watchlist every once in a while. I'm crafty enough to kick a child in the face and get away with it – clearly I'm capable of handling two FACs at once, especially when one has been as slow as GRB 970508's has. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not unwritten—see the third paragraph of Template:FAC-instructions. Unfortunately, FAC suffers from a chronic shortage of reviewers, which is why we have to have a limit. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- You say that the rule exists to ease the load for reviewers. Ceranthor says I should let Jehochman "take over". If I were to do that, the supposed workload for the reviewers would be no lighter than if I were to carry on by myself. In addition, even if Jehochman were to "take over", there would be no difference in who responds to which issues: he will respond to those which pertain to the content that he wrote, and I will respond to those which pertain to the content that I wrote. The rule is moot. Let's begin. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger! Ultimately, it's up to the FA director/delegates. Quick comment: Looks interesting on a skim, but I found one thing: "GRB 080916C which occurred on September 16, 2008 in the constellation Carina and recorded by the Fermi telescope has been confirmed to have "the greatest total energy, the fastest motions, and the highest-energy initial emissions" ever seen." is missing commas after "080916C" and "telescope", needs a "was" added before "recorded". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's more like it. I've rewritten that paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger! Ultimately, it's up to the FA director/delegates. Quick comment: Looks interesting on a skim, but I found one thing: "GRB 080916C which occurred on September 16, 2008 in the constellation Carina and recorded by the Fermi telescope has been confirmed to have "the greatest total energy, the fastest motions, and the highest-energy initial emissions" ever seen." is missing commas after "080916C" and "telescope", needs a "was" added before "recorded". Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- You say that the rule exists to ease the load for reviewers. Ceranthor says I should let Jehochman "take over". If I were to do that, the supposed workload for the reviewers would be no lighter than if I were to carry on by myself. In addition, even if Jehochman were to "take over", there would be no difference in who responds to which issues: he will respond to those which pertain to the content that he wrote, and I will respond to those which pertain to the content that I wrote. The rule is moot. Let's begin. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not unwritten—see the third paragraph of Template:FAC-instructions. Unfortunately, FAC suffers from a chronic shortage of reviewers, which is why we have to have a limit. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ceran and DaBomb87 are correct; the instruction about multiple noms at FAC has been there for as long as I can remember. I'm letting this one run because 1) it has two nominators and 2) the other nomination has already gained some support. However, please be aware that the backlog at FAC, caused by a lack of reviewers, is severe, and refrain from putting up more than one nomination at a time. It would be nice if all nominators, recognizing that it takes about twelve reviewers to get an article promoted, would review that many articles themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Arf, here's a fun idea: For every FAC a person reviews (thoroughly), that person is given one token. In order to be the lead nominator in an FAC, you must spend one token. First time nominators get in for free for to has maximum familiarity with system. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)