Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Latter Days/archive1

Comments on criteria

1. I think the presence of the main contributor is not germane to the judgement of the article as a work of quality. Urge the submitter to strike that or to move it to some aside discussion of how he thinks the mechanics of the FAR will proceed. I honestly don't know if it's a positive or a negative that the article is sub-par with the author gone (on the bad side it means that no one is there to save it by work or by argument). On the other hand if he were here and the article still sucked would that mean hope was even more unlikely of it being possible to ever upgrade the article. Probably still irellevant.

2. An FA is a huge work of writing and research and reviewing. And then an FAR is at least a moderate amount of work. Think a more thorough discussion of the why it should be struck should be given by the initiator. Think it deserves a coupla paragraphs and some math and some benchmarking and analysis. Just think starting the process off of people dealing with it, deserves that amount of effort.

3. Have no idea if it is a good article or a bad one. Am not fighting for it. Just as stated.

TCO (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to point 1. I have removed the comment. I only mentioned it because I thought other editors were bound to look into the status of the editor and thought I'd save them the legwork. - Kollision (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Very cool. Peace. And great review.

Waxing meta, makes me really wonder about "stars" for such obscure topics. If this were High Noon, I would think the community should fight for it. (even if the key contributor were gone...iow in that case, I would want the system to actually BE about trying to rehabilitate the patient, the way the ethos reads.) But for something like this, maybe just cleaning up the stuff is more important and less of a hope for saving it. We have a system where all the kids (subjects) are equal despite (from a media consumption reader standpoint) some of them being arguably obscure. And where a lot of effort goes into articles that don't get many hits.

I did check the hit counts and the thing drags in 300 per day. Not great, but not awful. I do wonder how many of those hits are just in error from searchs for the Mormon church. Could be over-representing the readership.TCO (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO, the number of hits that an article gets per day or its obscureness or lack thereof has nothing to do with its eligibility for FA status. This talk page is not the place to discuss (or really even "[wax] meta" on) this topic - that would be better placed at WT:FAC. A comment on the initial writer's activity or lack thereof is completely relevant to the FAR, and does not need to be moved or struck. I would suggest you watch the activity at other FARs, and if you see a system-wide issue, then bring it up at WT:FAR for the community to discuss. An individual FAR is not the place to discuss it. Also, Kollision has provided a lengthier review than many FAR initiators. Unless you plan to work on the article, he really has no reason to react to your request for lengthier reviews. It appears that GermanJoe is working on some of the issues, so he can of course ask for clarification or expansion, but just a general request for more expansion by someone with no interest in working on the article is taking valuable reviewer time away from other articles that could use more thorough reviews. I'm assuming that by "Think a more thorough discussion of the why it should be struck should be given by the initiator." you want more expansion by Kollision - even more than the expansion he's already given you. FAR is not FAC, and unless an article is being actively worked on, the extensive reviews given at FAC are not needed, although a solid discussion of the article's issues (which Kollision has already given) is expected. I would suggest that your efforts would be better put into reviewing some of the other articles on this page, many of which are being actively worked on and severely need extensive reviews, rather than complaining about the reviews already given on this article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've resolved the issue with Kollison. My comments still have a pertinancy since the statement at the top of the FAR procedure about "purpose is to save articles" or even "Review" is not consistent with peremptory challenges. Plus there was actually a method to my madness in making the comment on talk rather than messing up the review itself. But that's fine. I won't talk about it any more. Now please stop coming around to scold me. Let's give each other wagon room. I really don't want to reply to you any more.TCO (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My intentions are not to "scold" you - they are to explain to you how FAR generally works. As FAR delegate, it is my job to try to make sure that discussion on the FAR page remains on topic, and to explain the intricacies of the process to new editors. That has been my intention here. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)