| Pages, tools and templates for |
| Featured articles |
|---|
 |
|
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 (April Fools 2005)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Archives by topic: |
Image/source check requests[edit]
FAC mentoring: first-time nominators[edit]
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC source reviews[edit]
For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.
GA reviewer of an article abstaining from support at FAC[edit]
I noticed that an experienced FAC reviewer has decided to abstain from supporting a nomination, because they were the GA reviewer. I don't think I've seen this happen before, and perhaps the reviewer had specific reasons for their abstention, but I thought I'd ask here: is this necessary in general? I wouldn't have thought so. I have certainly supported FACs where I was the GA reviewer and I don't see that there's a conflict of interest. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking personally I don't think they need to abstain, but it's a good thing to bring up since I would potentially weigh it differently than a reviewer coming in with fresh eyes, depending on how the candidacy goes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know my first FA nom got a support from the GA reviewer, and I'm sure I've seen similar in other FACs I've reviewed – I can't see why in general a GA reviewer would need to recus IME people who have reviewed an article previously at GA or PR generally note it in their FAC comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with DWF, especially re disclosure. That said, a close pre-FAC knowledge of an article is not a reason to decline to support or oppose. Of course, any and all opinions are most welcome and there is no reason why they have to linked to a support or an oppose, but it is helpful if they are. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've often reviewed at FAC -- and generally wound up supporting -- articles I've reviewed at GAN (or MilHist ACR) but then I think I've always mentioned the earlier reviews/passes/supports in my FAC commentary. Of course it's up to the individual but I see no reason one shouldn't support at FAC if they passed an article at GAN -- remembering of course that the FA criteria are that much higher. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with DWF, especially re disclosure. That said, a close pre-FAC knowledge of an article is not a reason to decline to support or oppose. Of course, any and all opinions are most welcome and there is no reason why they have to linked to a support or an oppose, but it is helpful if they are. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just tag me, Mike, as the reviewer. FAC Stats claims I have supported based on my review in only 10 of my 70 reviews. Zero of them since 2022. The abstention is my baseline due to my reviewing philosophy at FAC being close to Nikkimaria's: "I rarely support on the basis of a source or image review, although I may oppose on the basis of either." That being said, I like giving new reviewers a bite at the apple. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Tatannuaq[edit]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tatannuaq/archive1 has just sorta been sitting idle for a week with no outstanding issues. It's had an image review, source review, and a fair number of prose reviews, so I think it's ready for FA promotion? I don't wanna seem impatient, but the wikicup's ongoing and I wanted to see if there was anything else it needed prior to promotion. Generalissima (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Vami IV[edit]
Tragic news everyone: FAC-regular Vami IV has just died. See his talk page. ——Serial 17:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I hope that a few other people join me in watchlisting his FAs to make sure they stay up to FA standards for years to come -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- He had one FAC open, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boundary Fire (2017)/archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- He also had Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Felix M. Warburg House/archive1 but Epiggenius has already offered to steward it. If someone else thinks they can jump in on Boundary Fire, we can leave it open, otherwise I'm inclined given the progress on the nom thus far to archive. To Guerillo's point, his FAs should people be interested in watchlisting them are Doom (2016 video game), Tinder Fire, Goodwin Fire, Frye Fire, Sawmill Fire (2017), Saline Valley salt tram, Harry F. Sinclair House, Fort Concho and Ludwigsburg Palace. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Guerillero and I are willing to take on Boundary Fire to see that it gets promoted. @WP:FAC coordinators: , how would you prefer to see that done? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Premeditated Chaos, I'm fine with that. Although it's in early stages, it would be nice to see the nomination reach consensus for promotion. It would be a nice way to honor Vami. FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- If this is allowed and a proper date can be found, I want to try and get Doom (2016 video game) onto the front page this year in his honor, as it was the last successful FA he had before passing. I think the best date is going to be it's eighth anniversary of release, but that may be a trivial anniversary and not permitted. λ NegativeMP1 19:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1: I believe WP:TFA (or WP:TFA/REQ to be more specific) is the more appropriate venue to discuss that. FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the fort and will keep an eye on that one. Hog Farm Talk 19:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do the same for the palace. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll also watch the palace which is on my watchlist since 2018. I'm shocked, - a teribble loss for all of us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've been keeping an eye on the Sinclair House and will continue to do so. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Guerillero and I are willing to take on Boundary Fire to see that it gets promoted. @WP:FAC coordinators: , how would you prefer to see that done? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- He also had Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Felix M. Warburg House/archive1 but Epiggenius has already offered to steward it. If someone else thinks they can jump in on Boundary Fire, we can leave it open, otherwise I'm inclined given the progress on the nom thus far to archive. To Guerillo's point, his FAs should people be interested in watchlisting them are Doom (2016 video game), Tinder Fire, Goodwin Fire, Frye Fire, Sawmill Fire (2017), Saline Valley salt tram, Harry F. Sinclair House, Fort Concho and Ludwigsburg Palace. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- He had one FAC open, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boundary Fire (2017)/archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Newbie in dire need of help[edit]
Twenty days ago, I nominated Narwhal for FA. I've addressed all of the reviewer's concerns, but I still haven't received any support. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Can someone help me? I'm on the verge of giving up. 20 upper (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- You aren't doing anything wrong. FAC often takes a long time, in part because it depends on the willing attention of particularly dedicated volunteers. I don't just want to say "be patient", but that's at least part of my advice. Remsense诉 06:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- The problem seems to be that reviewers feel that the article simply is not there yet. Be aware that the expectations at FAC are really high, and if it is your first one, it is difficult. Note that the FAC introduction advises newbies to 1) list the article at peer review and 2) seek the involvement of a mentor before nominating. Should this nomination fail, don't be disappointed; try to improve the article further, list it at Peer Review, and after that, nominate again. If can review your FAC if you want me to, but I will certainly have a longer list of comments too. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jens Lallensack Yes, please do. Regardless of the length of the list, it will be completed promptly. And when I complete your list, please don't mind supporting the nomination. 20 upper (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @20 upper: Also to bear in mind is that a reviewer may draw up a list of things that they feel are representative of more fundamental flaws. Look for phrases such as "including but not limited to", "for example", and "among other things". This would indicate to you that merely resolving the points raised is insufficient and that there are (sometimes many) further similar things for you to find and resolve for yourself. If the nominator is unable to find these unspoken issues, then, per Rule, the candidate is liable to be archived:
the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support
.Best of luck with your nom! ——Serial 14:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @20 upper: Also to bear in mind is that a reviewer may draw up a list of things that they feel are representative of more fundamental flaws. Look for phrases such as "including but not limited to", "for example", and "among other things". This would indicate to you that merely resolving the points raised is insufficient and that there are (sometimes many) further similar things for you to find and resolve for yourself. If the nominator is unable to find these unspoken issues, then, per Rule, the candidate is liable to be archived:
- Jens Lallensack Yes, please do. Regardless of the length of the list, it will be completed promptly. And when I complete your list, please don't mind supporting the nomination. 20 upper (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- In my experience, one way to get extra input (which may not be always supports, though; see the comments by Jens and Serial) is to review other people's nominations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- ^Of course, absolutely fundamental. A timely reminder to all! ——Serial 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:FLC § List or article[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FLC § List or article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:SEASON[edit]
There currently is disagreement on how to apply MOS:SEASON to the Oyster dress article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oyster dress/archive1#Edge3. Additional opinions are welcome and encouraged. Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos Pinging for awareness. Edge3 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted SPSs, BDP & IAR in FA[edit]
The FA criteria strictly requires that an article's content must consist of high quality, reliable, and mainly secondary sources. However, I've seen instances of FAs that use self-published primary sources for uncontroversial information, especially for info about the subject itself. The article I'm discussing, Etika, consists primarily of 80 reliable HQ sources per WP:RSPSS & WP:VG/S, but also uses 4 clips of him as primary sources. They're mostly in the Early Life section for fairly uncontroversial yet non-trivial info, such as his education and occupations, in sparse proportion to HQ sources.
In most cases YouTube clips would be unacceptable for BLPs, let alone FAs. However, this is a unique case for two reasons. First, the subject qualifies as a BDP. Second and most importantly, a significant aspect of the subject's story is that several of his YouTube channels were terminated, rendering the only existing videos of his as archived reuploads. As a consequence, the 4 videos of his that would've been acceptable as SPSs and primary sources for his early life reaches gray territory. I do have backup sources in advance, but some of them are already included in the page, and there isn't much left beyond those that cover his background in further detail. In light of this, I would like to ask if small use of these reuploads would still be permissible without affecting FA status. How much leeway could be given for a situation like this, especially considering BDP and even IAR? If they're not permitted, would trimming the info hurt the comprehensive criteria? Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WIAFA requires
high-quality reliable sources
; self-published primary sources can sometimes meet that criterium. It depends on what they are used to source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)- Exactly. Are they being used for anything that could reasonably be challenged or be considered controversial? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Peacemaker67: Two of the videos were stories he told about his education where he claims he attended Shell Bank and Urban Assembly. Another source was about his father which is supported with a secondary source, and the same with his modeling career. I don't believe they should be controversial, and his education claims haven't been challenged before, but I just want to make sure it's acceptable for FA. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use anything in a video from the point where he appeared to go off the rails, but for the information you specify above, I would think they are ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think so too, but if there is a better source out there that covers this info, I'll replace it as soon as possible. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- A potentially questionable source to cover low level education? Is it important to know his high school? If it’s not in mainstream sources, you should start questioning whether it’s too trivial to cover in an encyclopaedia entry. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I considered omitting it earlier, but hesitated because of 1b. FA bios often cover their education before their career, and I assumed reviewers would question why that info's not included. I'm still searching, but if I can't find a better source on his education, I hope it can be trimmed without much hassle. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- If it's not in the reliable sources, 1b won't matter. I've written biogs that don't cover decades in people's lives because the information isn't there in a reliable place. I had a v quick look at the social media feeds of Urban Assembly for the period of his death and there is no mention of the death of an alumni. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, if there isn't any existing source for it then I won't feel too bad about its omission. Also, I appreciate you for checking for me; thank you so much! PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- If it's not in the reliable sources, 1b won't matter. I've written biogs that don't cover decades in people's lives because the information isn't there in a reliable place. I had a v quick look at the social media feeds of Urban Assembly for the period of his death and there is no mention of the death of an alumni. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I considered omitting it earlier, but hesitated because of 1b. FA bios often cover their education before their career, and I assumed reviewers would question why that info's not included. I'm still searching, but if I can't find a better source on his education, I hope it can be trimmed without much hassle. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use anything in a video from the point where he appeared to go off the rails, but for the information you specify above, I would think they are ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Peacemaker67: Two of the videos were stories he told about his education where he claims he attended Shell Bank and Urban Assembly. Another source was about his father which is supported with a secondary source, and the same with his modeling career. I don't believe they should be controversial, and his education claims haven't been challenged before, but I just want to make sure it's acceptable for FA. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. Are they being used for anything that could reasonably be challenged or be considered controversial? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Input needed: FGTC Reforms – Part 1[edit]
Hi all! Input would be appreciated at FGTC Reforms – Part 1. Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
Hello! There are three articles I'm hoping to take through FAC at some point soon; Nadezhda Stasova, Anna Filosofova, and Maria Trubnikova. All three were 19th-century Russian feminists. They were contemporaries and close friends, frequently working together, and were known as the "triumvirate." Sources often discuss them in tandem, or describe their actions collectively, and so the three articles naturally share much of their sourcing. I've summarized the sourcing in the table below, though they are even more connected than this makes them seem, since the bulk of cites in every article are to one of the first six, shared sources:
| Sources (top 6 are by far the most used) | Anna Filosofova | Nadezhda Stasova | Maria Trubnikova |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biographical Dictionary of Women's Movements and Feminisms | 
|
|
|
| Ruthchild 2009 (Human Tradition) |
|
|
|
| Ruthchild 2010 (Equality and Revolution) |
|
|
|
| Rappaport 2001 |
|
|
|
| Engel 2000 |
|
|
|
| Johanson 1987 |
|
|
|
| Stites 1977 |
|
|
|
| Pashova 2019 |
|
|
|
| Kaufman 2022 | 
|
|
|
| Johanson 1979 |
|
|
|
| Dudgeon 1982 |
|
|
|
| Uglow 2005 |
|
|
|
| Zelnik 1965 |
|
|
|
| Ruthchild 2008 (Oxford) |
|
|
|
| Hilton 2009 |
|
|
|
I know that the FAC rules limit nominators to one article at a time. Are there exceptions? It seems silly to me to ask reviewers to go through the three articles as though they are wholly independent, when understanding and checking the sources for one of them gets you 90% of the way there on the other two. I have also used similar or identical passages in several sections of all three articles, describing the work of the triumvirate collectively. I would appreciate advice from FAC veterans and the coordinators. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many of my war memorial articles had nearly identical sourcing and shared passages. There are FAs on ships that are almost identical and had only slightly different careers. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. As long as each of the articles is comprehensive and places the subject in context in its own right you should be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've run into the same issue at least once or twice; I recall for Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories I think I reused most of a paragraph verbatim, and I asked on talk here about it before nominating. I think the best approach in your case would be to nominate one, and mention that the two others will follow and that anyone interested in reviewing any one of them may want to review all three. I can see why you'd like to nominate two or three at a time, but I actually think that could cause you problems -- for example if there are debates about wording or interpretation of a source it would be best to get those resolved in one and then any fixes implemented in the others before nominating those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate the advice from both of you, that seems like a sensible course. Once the GA backlog drive is over I'll pick one and nominate it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've run into the same issue at least once or twice; I recall for Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories I think I reused most of a paragraph verbatim, and I asked on talk here about it before nominating. I think the best approach in your case would be to nominate one, and mention that the two others will follow and that anyone interested in reviewing any one of them may want to review all three. I can see why you'd like to nominate two or three at a time, but I actually think that could cause you problems -- for example if there are debates about wording or interpretation of a source it would be best to get those resolved in one and then any fixes implemented in the others before nominating those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Withdrawal of FAC and two week exemption request[edit]
I would like to withdraw my FAC for Tatannuaq and request leave for an exemption from the typical two week wait period from the coordinators as per the guidelines. Generalissima (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Generalissima, the coords can action the withdrawal request but exemptions to the two-week break are generally only given when the withdrawn/archived nom has had little commentary -- that isn't the case with Tatannuaq. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Capped to re-focus on withdrawal and the two-week hiatus guideline
|
|---|
|
Summarising some points raised regarding withdrawal and two-week break protocols:
- "the two-week break was to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first"
- That's the rationale, determined by RFC in 2010.
- "I don't know what the purpose of the two-week break is, but it is not "to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first". We know this, because it forbids a nominator from nominating any article for two weeks."
- Re. first sentence, see above. Re. second sentence, correct -- the RFC determined the guideline should apply to any article by the same nominator.
- "the hiatus means that, if one nominates an article, and then realises they can't support the candidature—maybe no longer having the sources to hand, or whatever—one might assume, logic permitting, one would be allowed to withdraw it, and effectively replace the nom, with no prejudice, with another, for which one does have access to sources."
- Coords can grant exemptions. The above could be grounds for such. More commonly, exemptions are granted when the archived/withdrawn nomination received very little commentary.
- I don't believe either of these two possibilities applies to the article that started this discussion. The nom has received a fair bit of commentary, and issues have been identified that probably should be addressed away from FAC, before this or another article is nominated. My fellow @WP:FAC coordinators: might have a different opinion.
If anyone wants to discuss this summary, or the two-week break protocol in general, pls feel free -- but let's AGF and keep personalities out of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- In brief I entirely agree with what Ian says above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- This seems reasonable. The coords have discretion precisely for the edge cases suggested above and if anyone feels they have a good reason for an exception to the two-week rule they can ask. If someone else feels the request is disingenuous they can point out the facts they see them (or assume that the cooords know what's going on well enough to decide for themselves) but there's no need to get into a lengthy interpersonal back and forth. That's energy that could be better spent writing or reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for February 2024[edit]
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewers for February 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supports and opposes for February 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Nominators for December 2023 to February 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Section headers allowed or not[edit]
Template:Featured article candidates/editintro says that the FACses should not be split by headers. However, plenty of FACses have headers, some of them added by coordinators, and Template:FAC-instructions doesn't mention such a rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE clarifies the point: "
a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition
". There's more details around when to use and not in that section, but it should not be an automatic starting point. Practice seems to have drifted from this text for some editors, while others stick to the old ways. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC) - I insert a level-4-header to avoid edit conflicts, and see no disadvantage for that practise. I have been tempted in lengthy reviews to also add level-5headers to ease dialogues but have not done so yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- JJE is quite correct, as is SC. Although I wouldn't say so much that 'practice seems to have drifted' rather than some editors have deliberately chosen to do it differently in spite of the instructions. ——Serial Number 54129 11:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Would anyone object if we removed that statement from the editintro and from FACSUPPORTOPPOSE? I don't know why it was added and can't think of a reason why anyone would object. SchroCat, you seem to think the rule is a good idea; what do you see as the benefit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- What's the rationale for removing the FACSUPPORTOPPOSE version? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- No more than that it's harmless to create sections for short statements of support or opposition. It's not that it would be required, just that there would no longer be an instruction regarding it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- It also says
Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
. ——Serial Number 54129 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- It also says
- No more than that it's harmless to create sections for short statements of support or opposition. It's not that it would be required, just that there would no longer be an instruction regarding it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- What's the rationale for removing the FACSUPPORTOPPOSE version? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - even if we think subsections for a sentence are harmless, there's more to this wording than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Mos discussion of note[edit]
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes that would affect numerous FAs. Input from all sides is welcomed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Core Contest Returns![edit]
Hi all—The core contest returns! Leaving this here:
The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Restoring older featured articles to standard: year-end 2023 summary[edit]
Introduction
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Statistics
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023:
- 83 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
- 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
- The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%
Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
._Berlin,_Pergamon_Museum._(5256233048).jpg)
_by_core_needle_biopsy.jpg)
Topics and Wikiprojects
There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
- Physics and astronomy
- Biology
- Mathematics
- Warfare
- Engineering and technology
- Video gaming
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
- Religion, mysticism and mythology
- Literature and theatre
- Royalty and nobility
- Geology and geophysics
Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2023 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
We need your help!
Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity at WP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following the featured article criteria.
Here's how any editor can help:
- Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
- Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
- Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the talk page.
- Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
- Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed, but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article who would otherwise not look at it.
Feedback and commentary
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
How to assess comprehensiveness of wide-scope articles[edit]
In my last nominations (Education and Knowledge), I was struggling with the comprehensiveness criterion (the article neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context). To prepare better for future nominations, I was hoping to learn how to best assess the comprehensiveness of articles on very wide topics for which it is not possible to consider every source mentioning the topic or include every single aspect, view, or example somehow related to it. This problem was also shared by several reviewers who did not vote because they did not feel confident about assessing comprehensiveness.
Based on high-quality reliable sources, how do you determine whether an article of this type is comprehensive? If an article does not cover a specific aspect, view, or example, how do you assess whether it requires a sentence, a paragraph, or a top-level section to cover that aspect, view, or example? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- For the broad articles I worked on like Armenian genocide, the article's coverage was weighted largely based on coverage in sources that provided an overview of the topic (like the books cited whose stated topic is "Armenian genocide"). All of the main topics were in their own subsection and often summary style for other Wikipedia articles. Details were filled in based on the criteria of how much it is covered in the sources and my intuition about "does the reader need to know this to understand the topic", which helped both ensure comprehensiveness and control length. Without any overview sources it would be a lot harder to determine the appropriate article structure and which information to include. However, I think any article that is at a reasonable length and has the topics correctly weighted can be considered comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say a lot depends on how many sources exist on a topic. My volcano articles often have only a few sources (even if "a few" numbers in the thousands) so including everything that isn't utterly trivial or unreliably sourced or contested is how I work. For your topics, naturally we can't include every passing source. Here one way to go about it would be to look for overview sources and see what they consider worth mentioning. Or as Buidhe said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)