This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2021. 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) 14:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

• Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
• Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
• Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA) by:
  • Listing older FAs that are ready for the main page
  • Helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before they run on TFA

This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.

Progress

Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)

In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.

If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How can you help?

• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
• Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix article concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
• Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing FA standards and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
• Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 2021. 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) 11:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks as always Mike for maintaining this. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Abberton Reservoir has three supports, image review done and a source review in progress, and looks on course at present. I'd like to bring Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots to FAC, probably on Monday, is that possible? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, it's still waiting on completion of the source review. If you spot this before we do, feel free to ping us again. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place here which if implemented will effect Today's featured article and which may be of interest to some editors. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like FACs aren't transcluded to talk pages the same way GANs are. Was that an intentional decision because FACs can get quite long, or is it something we might want to implement? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - I don't think it's particularly desirable to do so, for several reasons. It's done with GA because GA is an individual process (one reviewer), while FA is a community process. The FAC is linked in a big box in the top of the talk page. The FAC is also generally going to be too long to be feasible to put there. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/4th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)/archive1 is fairly short for FACs, and it's rather too long to stick on a talk page. Imagine something link Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Punic War/archive1 or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1 on there. It would also make loading the talk pages a lot slower, thanks to that transclusion-within-transclusion counting double thing. Hog Farm _Talk 03:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense; thanks for the thoughts. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone be my mentor for Tala tank?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello FA editors. I am soliciting assistance, specifically mentoring, so that I may bring the New Albion article to FA status. About a year ago, I brought the article to GA status with the outstanding review process provided by Kingsif. Nikkimaria has given some preliminary assistance which you may read HERE. I look forward to hearing you, Hu Nhu (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have time to do another mentorship but I'll try to give it a review on its talk page. I'm about to leave on a trip so I can't say when it will be.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I very much do appreciate that Wehwalt. You can get some context on recent thoughts when you read the assistance Nikkimaria has provided so far. I very much look forward to what you suggest.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Perennial question raised again at WP:WIAFA, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This FAC was closed by User:Gog the Mild after six days. Reason was: "Given the number of unstruck and reasoned opposes I am going to have to archive this."

In less than seven days, a further 50 citations were added in response to early opposes focusing on not enough citations. Today I was going to ask those two opposers if they still had concerns about the number of citations. I didn't get a chance to do this before the FAC was closed.

There were only two outstanding items I hadn't addressed namely User:ComplexRational:

• asked for one further citation, which was provided;
• subsequently said the page range for that source of 789-887 was too large, which could've been fixed in one easy edit; and
• added a minor suggestion which I could’ve fixed in one easy edit.

I didn't see the last two items before the FAC was closed.

User: Hog Farm asked the @WP:FAC coordinators: for input into the existence or nonexistence of a need for a full source review, as required by ComplexRational, as part of the FAC process/FA criteria. This request was not answered by the WP:FAC coordinators before the FAC was closed.

ComplexRational stated that:

"I'm not sure how much time I'll have to commit to the review process (whichever it may be), but I'll happily nitpick specific sections or help with copyediting in the next couple of weeks."

The oldest active FAC has been there for 66 days and runs to 100 kB. I'm sure that up to a further 60 days would've been long enough to resolve any oustanding issues with Nonmetal.

In this context, and since the nonmetal FAC runs to 28 kB, closure after 6 days seems undue.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest re-reading the FA criteria and looking at recent FAs on scientific issues to see the standard you need to develop the article to for it to be a FA. The article is clearly not of FA standard at present - any text without supporting references is an automatic fail for instance. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve read the FA criteria. There is no requirement in the FAC criteria for all text to have supporting criteria nor do the FAC criteria specify an auto-fail in such cases. Where do these myths come from? Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, better to keep going, then ideally do a peer review before a resubmission. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I had thought that the FAC process represented a form of peer review. Speaking from experience, when articles are submitted to journals there is no requirement or expectation for a pre-submission peer review. The peer review is conducted after submission; the author is given the opportunity to address the peer reviewers’ comments; and the editor then decides whether to accept the article.

The difference at wp is that, as I experienced, authors are not given the opportunity to address all FAC comments. Consider that this FAC was closed after six days versus the longest currently open FAC at 66 days! And when it closed there were only two minor outstanding items that I wasn’t given the opportunity to address.

If that is how journal articles are managed why then is the bar raised so much higher at wp? And why are FAC authors treated thusly? No wonder there are not enough FA’s for TFA’s.

I don’t question the worth of a peer review. I question the need for two rounds of peer reviews. [unsigned]

Good close, peer review might be more helpful than FAC at this point; I earlier noticed a lot of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the article, which is still present, sample, Radon does not appear to be available commercially. (Even if a source can be found for that, an as of date would be needed, btw.) WP:UNDUE also if there is no source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Please, if there is a lot of OR what OR is being referred to? There are no sources speaking to the lack of commercial sources for Rn. The best option seems to be to provide a list of commercial suppliers that were consulted without success plus, of course, an as of date. There is nothing WP:UNDUE in noting the apparent unavailability of commercial sources of radon, in a section discussing the costs of nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It was available from NIST some years ago. Admittedly even then they'd sell you radium and you'd get your radon as a daughter. Still, I do think this kind of situation needs a source, since it's clearly not that simple. Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh, what I said (wrote) was that I earlier noticed a lot of OR. Considering the number of issues raised by a number of very experienced FA writers, it would not likely be helpful for me to go back and check to see how much of it was later corrected-- I gave a sample of current OR, and Double sharp appears to concur on the need for a source.

My essay at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content is aimed more at medical articles, but I believe that it might be useful for you anyway. Please do try to take on board advice given to you here by many experienced FA writers, along with the advice in my essay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"I question the need for two rounds of peer reviews." The problem is that you're comparing WP to academic publishing. They are not the same and they do not work the same. On wikipedia, neither FAC nor PR are at all analogous to academic peer review. Here on WP, peer review is to solicit help to improve an article. It is a low key, long term process, and is designed to be low-stress. FAC is a process of validating that an article meets the criteria. It shouldn't be used as a way to bring an article that is not close to meeting the criteria up to the criteria. Most FAC reviewers will not oppose if they think the article is close, they will only oppose when they think it needs more work than is possible during the FAC process or if it will take an inordinate slice of the various reviewers time. The fact that this FAC had so many opposes is a sign that the article needs a lot of work in the reviewers view... and they registered that by opposing and recommending it go to the wikipedia peer review. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "the FAC process represented a form of peer review" is not how it is supposed to work, and "when it closed there were only two minor outstanding items" doesn't seem correct - that might be your opinion, but I doubt it was that of the reviewers. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hidden expectations etc
Thanks for all the comments.

The outstanding *specific* items have been fixed via two edits.

Re-reading the FAC process, this says,

• "All editors are welcome to review nominations", i.e. not to "validate" them; and,
• "…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."

The application of that policy, i.e. the "resolve" part, was not seemingly upheld in this case.

Being a published author, and having peer reviewed journal articles, there is no fundamental difference between the academic publishing process, and the FAC process as written. There is however a wide gap between the written FAC process, and how it works in real life: these are the unwritten expectations referred to previously.

Despite the opposes, the article did not take more work than was possible or would've been possible during the FAC process, nor would it have taken an inordinate amount of reviewers' time. Exception: the stated unreasonable expectation by one of the reviewers for a complete source review (ca 150 sources!), something which has no basis in the FAC criteria as written nor in hidden expectations nor in custom and practice.

The one specific example given of OR ("There do not appear to be any commercial suppliers of radon)" was trivial in its OR-ishness, remains true, and, thanks to Double sharp, has now been made more specific.

Noting mileage may vary, the essay at "User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content" struck this author as belaboured.

To the detriment of wp, there are academics who disdain wp and do not write for it in light of the above hidden, non-academic, expectations.

Is it too much to expect that the hidden non-wp-policy expectations are made explicit? Sandbh (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh, what changes would you propose to make to the nomination instructions or to the criteria? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The FAC urgents list has four articles on it - I have just reviewed and removed a fifth. If each could receive a further general review, that would be most helpful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm putting up a review of Ur-Quan from the list, which I see TRM is also looking at. Vaticidalprophet 17:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick aside, why isn't FAC urgents just a subpage of FAC? It doesn't make any sense to me to have it in userspace... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this Gog the Mild? Perhaps the "killer" element of the page is off-putting? Let's make it part of the project... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. I assume that it is just an historical anomaly, unless any of the old hands know better? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what it is, along with your FAC co-ord log too. I would suggest centralising it, there's no need at all to maintain these kinds of pages in someone's user space. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I remember a discussion on moving it to template space (rather than to a subpage of FAC) a few years ago. If I remember rightly, it failed because most participants felt it wasn’t broken and didn’t need fixing. I had a look in the archives and can’t find the discussion, but I don’t think I’m imagining it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it's not broken, but it's hardly a professional approach to have urgent reviews listed in a user (called "Deckiller"!) space. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant to reply to this last week but it slipped my mind. I suggested this change towards the end of last year and was told it was a bad idea, despite it being a very transparently good idea. The urgent list functionally doesn't exist without being on the page. They should be displayed somewhere on WP:FAC, prominently, perhaps even with a brief sentence describing what the article's particular need is. It could be updated either as another transcribed template or by hand by the coordinators or good samaritans; either works. I don't understand the "it ain't broke" resistance whatsoever. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am in broad agreement with both TRM and ITs. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well although the discussion has been limited, I'm not seeing a single good reason to not move it to the Wikipedia namespace. And perhaps we can make it more prominently "advertised" too? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: - Do you remember what the specific reasons last year for not doing this were? Because it seems like it would make sense to move this out of userspace, into either a template or into a project space (which can then be transcluded). Hog Farm _Talk 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Sorry for the delay, been really busy recently. The objection was that it wasn't necessary. I think there's a chance Mike saw the conversation in question? I think the reason he's struggling to find the discussion is because it was a candidate's review page, not WT:FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 08:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we're talking about the same conversation -- unless my memory is completely off it was a couple of years ago or more. I didn't oppose the change myself, if I recall correctly; I abstained on the grounds that it didn't make any difference. I still can't find the discussion I'm thinking of, but I did find this where I again say there was a prior discussion, so if this is a hallucination of mine it's a persistent one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it seems like the entire community are either saying "it should be moved" or "I don't object to it being moved". So I suggest these FAC subpage(s) (I noted that Tony1 has one about FARs in his user space too??) are moved to the Wikipedia namespace. And probably better highlighted from FAC/FAR main pages. I'll leave that to one of the @WP:FAC coordinators: delegates. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You first publicly floated the idea The Rambling Man, at least this time around, so it would seem appropriate for you to make the changes. Go for it. FWIIW I agree that there seems to be consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2021. 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) 00:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Carillon is Thrakkx's first FAC. It looks about ready for a coordinator to give a look over to, except that as a first FAC it needs a spot check for source to text fidelity. Does anyone fancy doing the honours? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Did a spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo, that looks like a nice, thorough job. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The featured article reviews are no longer transcluding to the bottom of the FAC page. Let's get some of these older noms reviewed and moved off before we start losing transclusions for FACs. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think we really need FAR on the FAC page anymore given the momentum the Unreviewed FAs pages have developed, I'm okay to continue with it if the community prefers it. In any case I've just been through the old noms list and expect to be closing several today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that there are several ready to close. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

FAR is not transcluding to the bottom of the page again. I encourage all editors, especially new reviewers, to help us clear the backlog by reviewing FACs. If you are unsure of how to help, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the open ones could possibly be closed, as well. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao/archive1 looks to be closeable at least to me (pardon me coords if I'm overstepping my bounds here, I don't want to step on any toes and I'm likely not aware of most of the inner workings of the process). Hog Farm _Talk 21:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that co-ords have sometimes added comments stating why an FAC was not closed (someone needs to finish up their review, a comment needs to be resolved, source review is missing, etc.) I think this is an improvement as it reviewers to know if an FAC is missing a review (so I should do the review) or if the FAC wrapping up and my time would be better spent reviewing another article or conducting a specific type of review. I hope this continues, and possibly increases with notes at the bottom of FACs that have been assessed by co-ords. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Dang, I was about two weeks late to this one. Panini!^🥪 12:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: I was going to get back to this one. Feel free to start up a new thread. I'll be interested to learn of your thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I also completely missed the discussion due to being away a lot during the past month. I probably wouldn't have said too much that wasn't already said above, re source reviews and the FAC process as a whole - I don't think it's perfect - there are certainly inconsistencies in what people demand of an FA - but I also think it works well enough given the resources we have. I did want to comment on the criticism of WP by academia though, because like Graham Beards I'm quite surprised if that's the case. I'm not an academic myself, but I have quite a few friends and relatives who are, and they generally make very positive noises about the FAs I've written. For example, a university history professor once told me that my Rwandan Civil War article was of a professional standard. Of course, mistakes do occasionally occur with inaccuracies slipping through, but I think most recent FAs are of a standard that would stand up to the scrutiny of an academic peer review process. @Sandbh: I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with the nonmetal FAC recently, but I'm glad to see that you haven't been disheartened by it and that the article is now being peer reviewed and is well on the way to the necessary standard. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thank you. The value-add of the nonmetal PR has exceeded my expectations. That's my current focus i.e. to get the article up to the necessary standard. I intend to revist the FA process and its expectations, here, later on. I'll ping you Panini! at that time. Sandbh (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Featured article candidates/editintro does say that one should not use section headers in FACses and I remember seeing discussion on this page on which header type to prefer, but I recall the @WP:FAC coordinators: changing bold headings into section headers. Did we get to an agreement whether to prefer one style or the other, or even none? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC) So it looks like the edit intro to FACses has not been updated for a whole nine years; I did update the bot name. It also only displays when creating a FAC, not when editing one.

Interesting. The instructions for "Commenting, supporting and opposing" at the top of the FAC page say

For ease of editing, 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—for these a simple *Support,*Oppose, or *Comment followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.

I had thought this the standard guidance. Possibly anything different elsewhere should be changed to match it? My personal preference is to not use bolding semicolons, I tend to change these to fourth-level headers. I also find '''...''' style boldings non-coordinator friendly and tend to change them. I would encourage reviewers and commentators to use fourth-level headers for all but the briefest of review page comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the use of semicolons should probably be discouraged - MOS:ACCESS suggests they cause accessibility issues. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Steelkamp has nominated their first FAC, 2019 West Coast Eagles season, on Australian rules football. A source review has been completed, but it needs the customary first-timer's spot check. Would anyone care to help out? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2021. 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.

It's worth mentioning that August was one of the most productive months FAC has had in years. There were 51 total FACS (promoted plus archived); the last time that happened was in April 2015, and the last time we exceeded that number was in May 2014. The number promoted in August is also unusually high: 37. There were 38 promoted in October 2015; before that you have to go back to August 2013, when 44 were promoted. Let's hope this is a trend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, very interesting. There were 31 promotions in July, and the last time there were more than 68 promotions in two consecutive months was in July and August 2013. Given the number of nominations currently in the system one may, optimistically, start to discern a trend. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: It looks like this is two copies of the same table? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

D'oh. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello FAC regulars,

Do you enjoy passing on your hard-won knowledge? And are you available in the next few weeks?

As you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/archive2#Coordinator_note I need an FAC mentor. Whether you know anything about the subject of the article beforehand does not matter at all. And whether you know any science or maths beforehand also does not matter - if I have used anything more than addition, subtraction, multiplication or division in the footnotes then I have made a mistake and need you to point it out.

I think that due to help from other editors the lead is probably OK by now but I am sure you will find stuff in the body of the article which needs improving. I am also able to make graphs - so if you are overwhelmed by the numbers please say so so that I can make them easier to understand in a graph. As most Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an introduction to a subject if you know nothing about the subject beforehand that is fine.

My first question is - please give me an overview of what needs improving and how far it is from featured standard. Do I have any chance of fixing it with your help before COP26 starts? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see the attraction of having this as TFA on 1 November. Assuming that it is an FA by then. I will ask the TFA coordinators if they would tentatively hold that date in case it is. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I presume they will have something Halloween related on 31st Oct and Divali is on 4th Nov, but as the climate change project apparently also has some other possible FA perhaps the first 3 days in November might be pencilled in for our project? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added it to Potential TFA Requests for 1 or 2 November. Now it needs promoting - and you are unlikely to get a better offer than the one below. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chidgk1 I'm happy to help where I can, it's certainly not an area I'm overly familiar with, but I'll give it a look if you think it'd help? I'm also okay with the basics, like MOS, so that might help too. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

TRM, I am on the verge of archiving this for it to be improved off-FAC, unless you think there are advantages to leaving it nominated and/or in your opinion it is not that far off being promotable. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no stress. I was responding to the request for a mentor rather than an urgent request for a current FAC about to fail. Happy to give advice etc offline, as it were. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Great - so TRM I guess the talk page of the article will be the best place to put your advice? Starting with the question above. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico/archive1 could use some attention from FA experienced editors from the politics (and economics) spheres. Hog Farm _Talk 00:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Getting a bit concerned about the tone of some of the recent contributions to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Koh Tao murders/archive1. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of ProcrastinatingReader's article writing, JusticeForDavidMiller/RoyalThaiPolice [they seem to be the same person] comments are exceedingly rude. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the entire last set of comments, something I've never felt the need to do in all my time here. SPAs, on their way to getting blocked entirely I should think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Such an odd case—there doesn't seem to be similar activity on the article itself, or its talk page, which would surely have felt like the first port of call for a new user. Would semi-protecting the review page to avoid new socks repeating this behaviour be a step too far? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 11:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The accounts have been blocked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly moved the hatted SPA commentary to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Koh Tao murders/archive1 as the primary purpose of that material was to disrupt, not contribute to the discussion in a reasonable manner. If anyone objects to that movement, feel free to revert me. Hog Farm _Talk 02:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have written a few hundred biographies and gotten some GAs under my belt, but I've never done an FA, and I'm considering my first FA nomination with the article Simonie Michael. The Inuit who live in the northernmost parts of the Americas were only granted the right to vote in Canadian elections in 1950, and the government didn't effectively provide ballot boxes for another decade after that. Just a few years later Simonie Michael became the first Inuk elected to a Canadian legislature (he served one term in the territorial legislature for the incredibly immense expanse that became the Northwest Territories and Nunavut). Michael was one of the only people in Iqaluit in the early 20th century who could speak both Inuktitut and English fluently, but his first act serving in a legislature full of English speakers was to speak in Inuktitut for 90 minutes. The other legislators responded by immediately banning Inuktitut from the legislative assembly. At that time most Inuit had only one name, so the government assigned every Inuk a numerical identifier for purposes like mail delivery; Michael saw this as dehumanizing, and was one of the leaders of a movement to ask every Inuk to provide a last name. He was a professional builder, and he led legislative initiatives to reduce massive overcrowding and guard against flooding in the region's housing, build up local health care, and reduce the availability of liquor. He also brought attention to the little-known but extremely prevalent de jure segregation in Canada's north at that time, including establishments that explicitly banned Inuit and would only serve white people. In my many years of writing pages about people who I was really surprised to learn did not have a page yet, from the first prime minister of Madagascar to a super-famous podcaster, this was one of the most eye-popping gaps I've encountered. Since creating the article a few years ago I've also brought it through DYK and GA. The article is short and to the point, I think the story is very interesting, and it should hopefully be an easy lift to review it and give me some pointers. Thanks very much for anyone who can help. :) - Astrophobe (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not able to mentor this article, but I did leave a suggestion on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not doing mentorships right now due to RL commitments but if you notify on my talk when it comes to FAC, I'll do a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Astrophobe: If you open a WP:PR, ping me and I will try my best to comment there. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm the nominator of the current FAC at Grey's Anatomy (season 17). It's at risk of being archived from lack of additional reviews/support comments. If anyone has any free time and is willing to give it a review I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Tatio/archive1 seems to be in the same boat, lack-of-review-wise. I'll see if I can review that Grey's Anatomy article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that you have already noticed that the list of requests for image and source reviewers (and first-timer's spot checks) at the head of this page has become impressively long. Can I suggest that now may be a good time for anyone who has never done a source review, especially if they have ever received a source review for one of their nominations, to dip their toe in the water. Source reviews are usually fairly straight forward, subject knowledge is not required and the helpful guidance here covers most of what you will need to know. If you do find yourself in difficulty, there are plenty of experienced reviewers, shout for one of them or leave a message here. Anything editors can do towards cutting the list down would be appreciated.

Obviously, source or image reviews, or spot checks, by more experienced reviewers would also be most welcome. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Currently sitting tethering to mobile data to check a few things and it's slow, but if you can ping me in this conversation so I see it in my notices I'll try to pick something up tomorrow when I'm stealing borrowing some company time at the office; I'm happier doing spotchecks than reviewing citation formatting though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Grapple X, spotchecks are good - there are requests for five in the list above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken care of most of the requests. However, take note that I generally don't check for subscription or not and that in many cases I don't have a clue on whether something is reliable or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I was just noticing that I'd been pipped to the post on the first few I opened to check; good work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Grapple X I just added a new request if you're still keen! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It contravenes my strict "Wenger out" policy but I'll have a duke. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1. The number of featured articles went past 6,000 for the first time yesterday.
2. There were 36 promotions last month. Bar August (37), one has to go back to 2013 to find a higher monthly total.
3. The aggregate number of promotions over the past three months was 104. Again one has to go back to 2013 to find a higher total.

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination supply exceeding (at times) demand from reviewers for stuff to read and critique does have benefits! Those are great stats, and thanks for sharing them. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

104 promotions takes a lot of reviewing. I think that it is a huge credit to all of the reviewers involved that such a volume of articles have been reviewed in the detail required for FAC promotions. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2021. 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) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)