Wikipedia:FAC coordination/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Activity

I think it would be good to decide on particular times of the week when each of us tries to promote and archive. GimmeBot runs normally on Wednesday and Saturday at midnight UTC if I recall correctly. I'd prefer to continue going through FAC during the weekends, when I don't have class. What days would work best for the two of you? Ucucha (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Of course, I wouldn't want to make us all fit in a rigid schedule without room for flexibility, but it's good to have a target structure. We'll be able to use this place to discuss scheduling problems as they arise. Ucucha (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, as I discussed with Raul, I also work full time and, unfortunately, I expect to be most active at weekends. Perhaps, we could agree to take on nominations? Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys I work full time but have some flexibility with hours/location so can usually get on to WP every day, at least briefly. This means I'm generally in a position to do a number of short tasks spread fairly evenly through the week, rather than a small/infrequent number of large tasks (that's why you'll often see me making a number of quick passes when reviewing, rather than concentrating everything in one big effort). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've generally approached the job by taking a few hours to go through all of FAC, looking for articles that are ready for promotion and that need further guidance, but that's not necessarily the only way to do it; you might instead want to look over just a few FACs each time.
Graham, I'm happy to try leaving the weekend to you and going through FAC in mid-week instead. By your last sentence, do you mean that each of us would take individual responsibility for specific nominations? I'm not sure I'd agree with that—it might mean that an FAC will have to wait for an entire week instead of a few days when it is ready for promotion or archiving.
I meant the "recusals" area for listing individual articles that each of us is recused on, so that the others know about those. But it's good to have our respective approaches to recusal in general too, and I'll add mine. Ucucha (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I understood, but I thought it was a good idea at this time to give a general statement. With regard to scheduling, I would prefer the weekend shift – at least until I settle into my new real-life job, which I started last week. But I am happy to be flexible on this. I think you are right about not adopting articles; on reflection, it isn't a good idea for the reasons you have given. Graham Colm (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well if Ucacha concentrates on mid-week and Graham on weekends, and I can float around and fill in gaps the rest of the time, we should have things pretty well covered. I take it you're both northern hemisphere, while I'm southern, which also doesn't hurt... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm in Massachusetts. OK, let's do it like that. Ucucha (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
And I'm in England, which I think gives us a fair, representative, geographical distribution. Was this some sort of grand design? (joke) :-) Graham Colm (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, Ucucha, I saw you close/promote Birth control movement in the United States. I was holding off promoting that one until the spotcheck I asked for a few days ago (in the nom itself and on WT:FAC) had been performed -- did I miss it somewhere? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

TK88 looked at Noleander's FAC of a month ago (TK has been round the block with ItsLassieTime and socks, so I suspect she's thorough). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we don't necessarily need to have every FAC by the same author spotchecked (though it's always good to have a periodic check). Ucucha (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine, but next time if a fellow delegate has made a note on a FAC it'd be a good idea to respond to it one way or another before closing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right; I'm sorry for missing that on this occasion. Ucucha (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 401

Ian, do want me to leave this one for you? I saw your comment about a few checks of you own. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, tks mate. Yes I did comment during the week, and then a further discussion arose that was largely unrelated to the coordinates argument so I let that play itself out; subsequently two "leaning supports" were registered and one oppose was struck, leaving only the two objections re. coordinates. Also Ucucha was pinged at the same time I was and I wanted to give him a chance to respond if so inclined. However the review has been quiet for a while now so unless you and/or Ucucha have strong opinions on it my inclination is to promote, after a couple of citation formatting issues are sorted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It was mine too, but I wanted to check. Thanks Ian. Graham Colm (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think those citation issues were fixed, I said I'd promote after that. Anyway I'll leave a note for the nominator... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. It was a complex FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep, just one of many complex FACs we'll encounter as delegates I'm sure... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not doing anything there; I've been very busy during the last week. It'll get better after Wednesday. Ucucha (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note/question

Hi guys, AustralianRupert and I are ready to nominate Reg Saunders for FAC. Since it's a joint nom and, in any case, my currently active Colin Hannah FAC looks about ready to close, any concerns with us putting Saunders up ASAP? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I don't see any problems with this. Graham Colm (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither do I. Ucucha (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Cheers guys, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Short break

Guys, just a note that I'll be taking a break in the sunny climes of Byron Bay for about a week starting 28 July, and may not have regular internet connection (or the inclination to use it if available)... ;-) Heads-up that I'm also likely to be away in the US for about six weeks as of September. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a nice time you lucky man. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Muckaty Station

Hi Graham, don't know if you saw it but a little while ago I left a note on the FAC page that I think the nominator should have had a chance to respond to before one of us promoted. One or two citations to online refs that I checked had no page numbers when they could have been employed, and I'd have preferred to get the nominator's response to that before closing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ian, was this added after I checked the noms this morning? I'll add a note to the FAC asking for this to be addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Would have been after you closed a few today, but before you closed this particular one (very shortly before, I guess!). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please accept my humble apologies :( Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well you are putting the rest of us to shame a little with the admirable way you've whittled down the number of outstanding noms today, so I have to keep you on your toes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S III

Graham, I've removed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1 from WP:FAC per agreement from the nominator to withdraw. As the nom generated no worthwhile discussion of the article's merit, I've not archived it and have removed the FAC template from the article talk page so, if you concur, would you mind completing the process by deleting the nom page? As a non-admin (happily so, by the way!), I don't have that authority... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since actioned by a friendly page stalker... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Short break

Guys, I have to go away for 2-3 days starting now and may not have much internet access. I guess Graham is about due back so... Just to let you know where things are from my POV, suggestions only:

  • James Conant should be ready for promotion following EdChem's review; my own scan didn't throw up any issues.
  • Concerns I noted at Highway 61 have been addressed and I think it's about ready, though Wikipedian Penguin just added two comments.
  • Maus I've left open pending a potential support from Laserbrain.
  • The two oldest games entries I think have had long enough to gain consenus, so they'd be the next I'd archive.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress report

@Ealdgyth and Ian Rose: From the bottom. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Sonic the Hedgehog: This is waiting on Red Phoenix, who is working through the references. Are either of you looking after this one? If not, I would be happy to keep an eye on it.
  • John Early (educator): After seven weeks it still needs a source and an image review. I have added it to the requests list. Laser left a note after four weeks and I have added to it.
  • Bluey (2018 TV series): Only needs Heartfox to sign off or otherwise on their addressed comments. This has been the case for two weeks, so I have pinged them.
  • 1925 FA Cup Final: Laser left a note "It may need a revision pass to make it more engaging." Since then Harrias and TRM have both done thorough looking reviews. I have recused to do the image review, so perhaps one of you could look it over. If the prose still lacks engagement, I would be prepared to go through it myself.
  • Biblical criticism: I have given this a timing out warning and some advice. It needs a source review and spot check. Unless either of you two advise me not to I intend to ping two or three of the regular source reviewers and the editor who failed the spot checks last time to see if anyone will take it on.
  • HMS Pearl (1762): Got a good look over at ACR. Has attracted three supports, one from Mike C, whom I assume we can count as a non-MilHist reviewer. Jo-Jo has caveated their support on the sources, so I am inclined to give it a thorough read through and if I am happy, promote it. Your thoughts re this course of action?

I have promoted:

Phew! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes and queries

I have promoted:

@Ealdgyth and Ian Rose: I assume that there is a minimum time which we would want nominations to be open for, regardless of the level of support they attract? From my personal experience at FAC, this seems to be three weeks. Does that sound about right? I ask because Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Louisa Turner/archive1 looks good to go to me and it will hit three weeks since nomination tomorrow, Thursday 19th. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I try to leave things about 3 weeks as a minimum, I might have reduced to 2 very occasionally if it was a complete snow (like 10 supports) but been awhile since that's happened. Actually I said as much to PM when he queried if we had a rule that things needed to stay open a month... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say absolute minimum is a week. And I'd only do that if there had been a PR before and it had a good number of folks supporting who had participated in the PR. I don't think you can say that there really is a minimum time length past a week (which should give everyone time to weigh in on something) ... but it's been a good long time since we had anything that had enough solid supports at a week to promote. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I will probably promote E L Turner some time tomorrow then. Unless one of you beats me to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A heads up

@Ian Rose and Ealdgyth: At Suzanne Lenglen and Die Hard I have introduced cats to the pigeon coops as a reviewer. You may wish to skim in case there is kick back. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My lazy self will endeavor to find the time... sometime. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album)

@Ealdgyth: Please don't engage with this if you are still under the weather! I am about to archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 due to the unresolved and unaddressed concerns on sourcing. I wanted to check that you didn't have any last thoughts or had seen anything to change your view before I did. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1

@Ealdgyth: Another query for you, if you are well enough to engage; if not, please don't bother. Is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1/archive1 up to scratch from your PoV? I have read through a couple of times and concluded that it is easier to "cheat" and just ask you. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding new FAs manually in Going-on is not required

@FAC coordinators: My lazy self is happy to say that I was correct in my assumption that because we add new FAs to WP:GO manually, we do the work for FACBot which adds new FLs. I didn’t do it this time and the bot did it for me. FrB.TG (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Huzzah! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The joys of technology. Nice work FraB. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Ian, in case you missed this (I just saw you do this manually). :-) FrB.TG (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the automation has caused issues in the past in my experience, especially if you're working around midnight, which I sometimes do, as it can get the date of promotion wrong. So I still tend to do it myself out of habit... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Marie Sophie Hingst

I think this nom is probably ready for someone to have a look at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Very much so -- happy to take a look later tonight if no-one jumps in earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

Over 5 weeks old, this is looking shaky to me -- WDYT, Gog, is there hope...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I am about to go to bed and I haven't looked at the article recently. But DME was positive, ATA has supported and UC seems to be on the verge of supporting. It would be a shame to time it out if it could be avoided. Possibly a musically inclined coordinator could look it over? Or possibly one of the more rigorous regular reviewers has a little time to go through it? Harrias, what do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The article looks pretty good from a quick glance. Since I have written a few music-related FAs, I'll recuse to review this one. FrB.TG (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so I reviewed the article, copyedited it quite a bit and had to oppose on 1b and 1c similarly to Heartfox. Given the two opposes regarding serious comprehensiveness/sourcing issues, I think it is best closed now. FrB.TG (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree but I'm only on mobile right now and I don't like closing noms that way. Later today if no-one else gets it. BTW Farb, I think Micronations went to the wrong log... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Albona-class minelayer

I am inclined to have a look at this with a view to closing. Sturmvogel, a subject expert, has done a detailed review but declined to either support or oppose. I am persuaded by the nominator's position, but Ian Rose you may think differently? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks for the ping, Gog. I think we have consensus to promote there even without a declaration of support from Sturm (whose review is obviously helpful in any case). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

1873–74 Scottish Cup

I am recused on this, but someone may care to scan the FAC discussion to see if it has become a little too much of a PR. Or, possibly, not. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I was of similar mind when I looked after seeing this, and Schro's comment puts the tin hat on it I think -- will action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Missing page

Do any of you know what became of the detailed instructions for closing FACs or FARs, and other page maintenance like WP:FAS, that used to be in my userspace? I found my old coordination page at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat, and red links at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat/Archive 1. Could anyone see if any of those red links have the missing content? I believe we copied those from my user space to Ucucha (?) at some point, but I'm unsure if there's anything useful in pages that old, and I don't have the tools to see deleted revisions. The Coordination parts that have gone missing don't matter, but I'd really like to update the closing instructions. For example, if David Fuchs had in fact made a mistake on closing the John Wick FAC, I had a subpage once that provided a record for what would need to be undone if botification of a close needs to be undone. There was also some history there about how the "withdraw" vs "archive" was once considered. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless I missed something at the time, I don't remember being pointed to any instructions. I particularly recall that being the case because I missed updating WO:Goings-on on my first promotions, having never heard of the page, and had to be told of it afterwards. As far as re-opening archived noms goes, Gog and have each done it fairly recently so I guess we could add it to the basic FAC Tasks page, wdyt Gog...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, sticking the instructions for unarchiving at the bottom of FAC Tasks wouldn't do any harm. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Since my info dated to 2008, I doubt it's current enough to trace back through all the undo-steps; I'm pretty sure FACbot does new things these days (notify nominators and the like, that would also need to be undone). I could have figured it all out, as I offered at WT:FAC early on when I thought it was a mistake (before investigating), but I'm unsure the steps I list as of 2008 are any good today. We went through different phases as Gimmebot/Gimmetrow made improvements ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, I was more concerned about whether any of my old instructions could be found, as they were once complete, but were moved to someone else's user space; on the institutional memory factor, I'm not getting any younger, and I was left worried about how much explaining it took to get through the archiveN thing. (And somewhere this year we had an article change names mid-FAC, and that gut muddled, or better stated, it got turned in to unnecessary work.) At least now the archiveN matter is in FAC archives, instead of somewhere lost in my userspace or brain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I have a vague memory of having moved those instructions to Ucucha's or Laser's user space, but could be wrong. They may be lost to history now ... thanks, Ian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey Sandy, I can undelete User:SandyGeorgia/FA work if you want (it was G9'd per your request back in 2018.) A lot of it looks similar to User:Gog the Mild/FAC tasks but with more additional details about FAR and the like. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Thx, David Fuchs, but no need for the extra work unless it has one specific missing piece ... it was a large table explaining everything GimmeBot and the pr/ar person did ... if there's nothing there in table format, and all you've found is similar to Gog's page, then it's not the big missing piece I'm looking for... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Nope, no Gimmebot instructions table in that user page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, thx anyway! (I did enjoy reading through my kitchen travails with Laser and Karancas :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah ha! Found those pieces here (2008). (It does show how we treated "withdrawn" differently for a while-- but that phase eventually passed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

I am recused, but it may be ready for someone to look it over with closure in mind. Note Sandy's comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Was planning on looking over this tomorrow evening, unless anyone gets to it before then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Nyctibatrachus major

I had started to wrap up this nom, which I feel is probably about ready to be promoted. But working through a couple of minor drive-by issues has run me out of time. I leave for a break in 20 minutes and my internet access is likely to be patchy over the next five or six days. So if anyone fancies looking this over with a view to closing, go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hypericum sechmenii

Hey Frab, I think you made the last coord comment on this one, did you want to follow up or is it good to start closing now IYO? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ian. The nominator said they went through all the sources again after the spot-checks showed some problems. I think it now depends on how the source reviewer/spot-checker Jo-Jo Eumerus feels, whether they are ready to pass it or think they (or someone else) should take another look. FrB.TG (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I've commented, since I've checked some other claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

How many nominations?

26!? That is startling. I am not sure if I should go on holiday much more often or much less often if this is what happens. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the holiday is a major factor. I certainly don't think reviewers or nominators particularly want to drop in a nom at this stage. I'm certainly waiting for the new year myself! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Could be... Or maybe it's just that the average FAC contributor has a finite amount of spare time and when activity on the talk page goes up sharply, activity on the nom page goes down... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, that would explain the observed phenomenon. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Philosophy

Any chance of a second opinion: am I being over zealous in my drive-by comment on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Gog, did see this and then it slipped, I note SN has weighed in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
G'day all. As what I had assumed to be a trivial point has turned out not to be, I have recused, and logged a "leaning oppose". So it will be over to one of you to close as and when. Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

See the comments at the end of the review. Given that it has two supports plus the bits and pieces I am inclined to give it a little longer, but I may just be going soft. Any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps give it a few more days (until Friday or so) and see if there's any progress? FrB.TG (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Teloschistaceae

I am inclined to take Josh's final comment as an implicit "support" and run through the review and article with a view to closing. Before I do, are there any comments, in particular any less generous interpretations? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be good to try getting someone else along, ideally a fungi person -- Casliber isn't very active but we could give him a go... WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It has been on Urgents for a while, but that is a good thought. I have left a request on Cas's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Hernan (2020)

I have just reviewed this. It has many of the issues one might expect from a first FAC without benefit of GoCE, PR or a mentor. It is written in USvar English, to my eye over-informally. However, my grasp of the nuances of this dialect is not good enough to be certain. I am inclined to ask around to find an editor who can identify formal USvar to review it with this in mind. But before I do, does one of you who speaks US formal fancy skimming a section or two to see if I am barking up the wrong tree? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891

I am recused from this one, but wondered what @FAC coordinators: view of Guerillero's drive by "The sourcing seems fine to me" was. Does this constitute a pass re the source review? If not, what - if anything - might we [you] wish to do? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Gog. I've asked Guerillero. Let's see what they say. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd ideally want something a little more verbose, especially since the straight reliability of sources is only one part of the FAC criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

George Griffith

I am inclined to think that a consensus to promote George Griffith has been reached. But, as several of the reviews are very brief there is a weighting issue, and I would appreciate others' view on this. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Certain reviewers have had prior involvement with the article, such as Mike, who provided a detailed review during the article's PR, but SchroCat intends to review it anyway so we'll hopefully have a bit more commentary. FrB.TG (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Mike and Tompa are our resident sf experts so Mike's review helps things considerably, and if Schro's chipping in as well that should do us. I'd like to review myself as another sf aficionado but I wouldn't have the time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah was holding off as I see SC was going to comment. If it's suitable from him I think all the bases have been covered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, SC promising to chip in has made my question moot. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
[1] Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
What a fitting Joey reference. FrB.TG (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Education/archive1

Education has been running for more than seven weeks and has two opposes from experienced editors - both recently reaffirmed. Not "Opposes" but they have been clear, It seems to me to be an uncomplicated "consensus to approach has not been reached", but I thought I would give you a chance to demur before doing the business. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been following along and I agree. Was happy to leave it open longer for broader input considering this is a high-level article but it doesn't look like consensus has been reached. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Pachysentis

The nominator has responded to my warning - [2]. I am inclined to give them the week they request, but I am renown as being a bit soft. What do others think? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the nom is still a long way from consensus to promote, and also to alleviate pressure on a nominator who is under the weather, I think I'd close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Closed. Thanks Ian. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Operation Unokat

This has been dragging on for nine weeks and probably should be dispensed with; it's got three supports but I'm personally a bit unsatisfied with the source review that's been hampered by the nominators not having stuff on-hand (and they haven't actually bothered following up.) Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am always reluctant to archive nominations which are within sight of the finishing line, but I have also been watching this one and feeling frustrated. I dunno. (But I am too generous, so weighted that probably comes out as close.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to close this one now given that it has been three weeks since Jo-Jo started his review and still hasn't gotten all the files he has requested. And based on what the nominator says, he does not have the sources on him anyway, which indicates he hasn't read them himself. FrB.TG (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
No doubt Indy is taking the article info gleaned from those sources in good faith but I think one really needs to be able to personally vouch for all sources in an article -- so I tend to agree with closing given there doesn't seem to be a serious attempt at resolving this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. I've archived it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Seven (1995 film)

Given the impasse with Tompa and the general lack of enthusiasm to promote I am inclined to archive this. Any thoughts? Especially from the for film orientated among you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I was going to give it another week to see if it attracted any more feedback, but I don't necessarily disagree with an archive. Tompa is being thorough to perhaps the point of pedantry, but I also don't think his oppose is unjustified, especially given the issues (albeit identified and partially fixed) in how the candidate article originally approached the issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, even without Tompa's oppose, this does not seem to heading anywhere so an archive wouldn't be wrong. FrB.TG (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Lokrume helmet fragment

This seems to be moving grindingly slowly. Especially for such a short article. I am recused, but someone may care to look it over. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Letterpress (video game)

This doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, so I am inclined to archive it. Any objections, especially from David? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

None from me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

2020 Seattle Sounders FC season

Primarily to Gog, as he's been monitoring, but is there anything stopping us closing this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been monitoring it, but skimming it, it looks ready for closure to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oyster dress

IMO this one is ready for closure, but my passing comments might be taken as sufficient input that it would be best if it were not me to make this decision. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Edict of Expulsion

Hi all. I would be grateful if someone could skim my review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edict of Expulsion/archive1 and advise if 1. I am being too picky and 2. if I am being too harsh in considering the article not yet ready for FAC. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Haven't checked the article but the tone is collegial, as I'd expect, and I notice the nom seems to be taking it in the right spirit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The Day Before the Revolution

This looks ready for someone to look over with a view to closing to me. (I am recused.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dorothy Olsen

Seems ready or nearly ready for thoughts of closure to come to mind. (Again, I am recused.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes

This one is from a first-time nominator. It looks to be a tad light on formal supports to me. I feel it could do with some further input from someone who knows their way around film FACs. David has already given it a once over, so - FrB, do you fancy either closing or reviewing it? Or can anyone think off an editor who fits the bill to do another full general review? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m currently renovating an apartment I’ve recently moved to so I won’t be able to attend to it for a few days but I’ll be happy to look it over if it’s still open by then. FrB.TG (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:FAC_coordination/Archive_1&oldid=1217040882"