Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)

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)Reply[reply]

FAC source reviews[edit]

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2022[edit]

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2022. 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) 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewers for December 2022
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
Mike Christie 7 13
Nikkimaria 1 4 14
ChrisTheDude 8
HJ Mitchell 6
Gog the Mild 6
Aoba47 3 2
Hog Farm 1 2 2
Hawkeye7 2 1 2
A455bcd9 4
FrB.TG 3 1
Wehwalt 3 1
Nick-D 3
JennyOz 3
Eddie891 3
Gerda Arendt 2
HAL333 2
SnowFire 1 1
AirshipJungleman29 2
Unlimitedlead 2
Trainsandotherthings 2
Your Power 2
Sammi Brie 1 1
Borsoka 2
Kusma 1 1
Dudley Miles 2
AhmadLX 1 1
Iazyges 2
Ceranthor 2
Rschen7754 1
Cplakidas 1
Fredddie 1
MaranoFan 1
Moabdave 1
Abebenjoe 1
SusunW 1
Ian Rose 1
Sturmvogel 66 1
SounderBruce 1
Balon Greyjoy 1
Dream out loud 1
Pendright 1
Dough4872 1
FunkMonk 1
Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1
Tim riley 1
Anarchyte 1
Pseud 14 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus 1
Ceoil 1
ViennaUK 1
Smerus 1
Thryduulf 1
Ovinus 1
Moisejp 1
Phlsph7 1
The C of E 1
Heartfox 1
Al Ameer son 1
Epicgenius 1
Vanamonde93 1
Aza24 1
Totals 107 24 24 1
Supports and opposes for December 2022
# declarations Declaration
Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
Mike Christie 6 1 13 20
Nikkimaria 19 19
ChrisTheDude 8 8
Gog the Mild 6 6
HJ Mitchell 6 6
Aoba47 3 2 5
Hawkeye7 2 3 5
Hog Farm 1 1 3 5
FrB.TG 3 1 4
Wehwalt 3 1 4
A455bcd9 1 3 4
JennyOz 3 3
Nick-D 1 1 1 3
Eddie891 2 1 3
Gerda Arendt 2 2
Iazyges 2 2
AhmadLX 1 1 2
Your Power 2 2
Dudley Miles 2 2
Trainsandotherthings 1 1 2
Kusma 1 1 2
Unlimitedlead 2 2
AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2
SnowFire 1 1 2
Borsoka 2 2
Sammi Brie 1 1 2
HAL333 1 1 2
Ceranthor 2 2
Dream out loud 1 1
Rschen7754 1 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1
Balon Greyjoy 1 1
SounderBruce 1 1
Aza24 1 1
Pseud 14 1 1
Sturmvogel 66 1 1
Vanamonde93 1 1
Epicgenius 1 1
Al Ameer son 1 1
Anarchyte 1 1
Heartfox 1 1
The C of E 1 1
Tim riley 1 1
Ian Rose 1 1
SusunW 1 1
Phlsph7 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1
Abebenjoe 1 1
Moabdave 1 1
Ovinus 1 1
FunkMonk 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
Thryduulf 1 1
Dough4872 1 1
Fredddie 1 1
Smerus 1 1
ViennaUK 1 1
Pendright 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
Ceoil 1 1
Totals 88 0 1 0 4 63 156

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) 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominators for October-December 2022 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos)
Amir Ghandi               3 0 0.0
Amitchell125               2 2 1.0
Aoba47                     7 71 10.1
AryKun                     6 18 3.0
Balon Greyjoy             1.5 7 4.7
BennyOnTheLoose           6 15 2.5
Ceoil                     2 17 8.5
ChrisTheDude               14 98 7.0
Cplakidas                 5 6 1.2
Czar                       2 13 6.5
Darkwarriorblake           5 6 1.2
Dudley Miles               5 32 6.4
Epicgenius                 7 9 1.3
ErnestKrause               1.66666 17 10.2
Floydian                   2 0 0.0
FunkMonk                   4 40 10.0
Georgejdorner             3 1 0.3
Gog the Mild               8.5 91 10.7
Hawkeye7                   6.5 30 4.6
HJ Mitchell               3 22 7.3
Hog Farm                   9.5 40 4.2
Iazyges                   1.5 12 8.0
Ippantekina               6 14 2.3
John M Wolfson             2 0 0.0
Jo-Jo Eumerus             6 29 4.8
Juxlos                     2 0 0.0
Kaiser matias             3 3 1.0
Kyle Peake                 2 2 1.0
Lazman321                 3 2 0.7
Lee Vilenski               7.5 31 4.1
LittleJerry               3 1 0.3
MaranoFan                 9.5 24 2.5
Mike Christie             10 174 17.4
Mujinga                   2 15 7.5
Nick-D                     3 15 5.0
Peacemaker67               5.0 5 1.0
Pickersgill-Cunliffe       2.0 3 1.5
PresN                     2.0 2 1.0
Sammi Brie                 2.0 7 3.5
TheJoebro64               2.5 7 2.8
Tkbrett                   2.0 1 0.5
Unlimitedlead             2.5 3 1.2
Volcanoguy                 2.0 2 1.0
Wehwalt                   10.3 52 5.0
Your Power                 4.0 15 3.8
Zmbro                     2.0 5 2.5

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)[edit]

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is a source needed for film casts?[edit]

I'm doing a source review for High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, which has no separate source for the cast list. I'm aware that a plot summary is regarded as implicitly sourced by the work that the article is about, but I have never heard that for casts. I checked some of the films in WP:FA and about half the ones I checked do not source the cast list, so apparently at least some reviewers think it's OK not to source it. Is there a guideline that says this somewhere? Or is this an oversight in those articles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles: year-end summary[edit]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

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.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But 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):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed
Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? 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 enter them at 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 that 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 that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure 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/2020/4Q2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination viewer wonky ??[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FARC header not showing on WP:FAR SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There appears to be a related issue on this page (the “older nominations” header doesn’t appear on the page, even though it’s in the contents). This only appears to be the case if you have the nominations viewer script installed. (I’ve commented at FARC too, but flagging here). - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See discussion at FAR for a solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this one was opened erroneously. I'm happy to delete the page, but I'm not sure if FACBot needs to be involved. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That should be a housekeeping delete (or at least, it was in my day), that doesn't belong in articlehistory. Since it hasn't been transferred to FAC archives, it should not engage FACbot. Best I can tell, it can be housekeeping deleted, FAC template removed from article talk, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this, too: Draft:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Donaldson (snooker player)/archive2. I'm not up on the various user rights, but it looks like something needs to be removed from that editor, who first created a FAC in Draft, then moved it, then indicated it was promoted by FACbot when it wasn't. Should that editor be able to move pages ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, my: [2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: the wp:page mover right is what allows the move with no redirect (among other things); lacking that right you always leave behind a redirect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; someone told me that once before, and it didn't stick :) OK, I removed the FAC template from the article talk page. Now we just need an admin to delete the two pages, and WikiCup to deal with things on that end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've deleted the page. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and removed it, although now I suppose that was probably a job for @Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth:. Apologies! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the editor could benefit from a mentor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And a {{whale}} while we're at it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
I'd say no whale. To a new user presumably unfamiliar with wikihumor I don't think that would seem helpful or funny. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, you say that, but they've successfully gamed obtaining ECP status, and now they've tried gaming the Wikicup. Anyway, a squish is always better than a bite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well ... they did significantly improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've issued a contentious topics alert (an uncited edit to Feminism), posted to WP:PRIMATES for help with OR, and made a first attempt to get their attention here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anyone else be willing to start following User talk:20 upper to help answer questions and provide guidance ? I see it may take more time than I can invest alone. Preferably a biology editor, but anyone could help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking mentoring for FAC with my work on the "David Bentley Hart" article[edit]

Would any mentors be willing to consider mentoring me with my recent work on the David Bentley Hart article as I hope to put it forward as a featured article candidate? Thank you for considering. Jjhake (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]