[WikiEN-l] assessing

[Surreptitiousness]

Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Surreptitiousness
> <surreptitious.wikipedian at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>   
>> Mind, it could be an idea to have as standard a message posted to
>> relevant WikiProjects when an article is up for FA.
>>     
>
> There is already an expectation that this is done, as far as I know.
> And when it is not done, someone usually does it and reminds people
> that this should have been done.
>
> Hmm. Actually, FAR (featured article review) says this. FAC doesn't
> say it (at least not prominently).
>   
<snip>
> It seems some FACs get more publicity than others. Which can be both
> good (more eyes) and bad (the input gets skewed if the notices are
> only of certain groups of editors).
>
>   
I know they do it for FARC because I remember that's how we got involved 
with Superman and rewrote it per the then standards. Wonder why there 
are using that as the example, maybe it was the first time it happened. 
But they don't do it for FAC, no. I suppose it could get skewed, but 
from memory the person who promotes, it used to be Raul but I don't know 
who it is now has pretty much a free hand in promoting, there's no % 
rubbish like they have at RFA, it tends to be based on actually reading 
the debate and reading the article and seeing if it meets the standards. 
But the hardest criteria to test at the FA process is that of 
*comprehensive.  *That's where the "conflict" between WikiProject 
assessing and FA assessing comes in, because a WikiProject is more 
likely to be able to assess comprehensiveness from an expert point of 
view, while someone with no knowledge of the subject is more likely to 
spot layman errors.  By which, if we return to the idea of a £5 note 
article, an expert will know that the major redesign of whenever hasn't 
been mentioned, while the casual reader will spot that the article 
doesn't tell you the Queen is on the back (or front?). If you get my 
drift. So we kind of need input from both, and a good adjudicator who 
will be able to prevent skewing affecting the final decision. We 
probably have the latter in Raul, I don't know if we have the former 
across the board. I think I'll mention this at the FA process and see 
what the gen is.