Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination, Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

To the coords[edit]

Patience barnstar.png The Patience Barnstar
To the FAR coordinators. For showing skill and patience during the sudden uptick in FAR processing - looking at the archives, FAR hasn't been this busy in years. I have to imagine it's a thankless job, but it keeps the process going, and y'all have been doing a good job at balancing allowing time for article improvements and not letting the page get unmanageable due to length. And looking at WP:FARGIVEN, the higher throughput may be coming for awhile yet. Thanks for being patient with a process that's probably a lot busier than anticipated. Hog Farm Talk 06:16, 25 February 2021 (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
Kept to
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
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) 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night / Bonfire Night (UK)[edit]

I reviewed an article earlier today and found what I considered to be a bizarre situation. The major celebration that we in the UK call Bonfire Night was being described as Guy Fawkes Night. The article was plainly describing the UK celebration and no other dedicated article for this topic exists - also bizarre, so I moved the page to what I consider its correct name Bonfire Night (UK). I'd expected the FAC discussion to be minimal but instead there had been a discussion but the dissenting editors had been canvassed and their comments discounted. Anyway as there are editors from the FAC discussion still around I thought I should leave a note. Desertarun (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nikkimaria has reverted this change because there was a failed move request in the archived talk page. The move request was rightly denied because it was requested that the page Bonfire Night be overwritten or merged. I'd moved the page to Bonfire Night (UK) so this wasn't going to be the problem. The move request was from 2015 and the suggestion was to rerun this. This will need sorting out for it to remain at FA. Desertarun (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:PCM has information about starting a full-length move discussion if you want to go down that route. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the article's FA status, though: titling isn't something that's part of the FA criteria, so these sorts of disputes aren't well suited for FAR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it is a contentious page move discussion, that would only the case if the page Bonfire Night was to be merged/overwritten. I don't see why we can't have separate pages for Bonfire Night (UK), Bonfire Night (Canada) etc. Desertarun (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a firm opinion on the move itself, but since Nikkimaria has reverted it, it's considered contentious and needs to be discussed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was hoping to get this reconsidered but that seems unlikely. Anyway, there's no rush. Desertarun (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could somebody drop this onto FAR? I'm going to work on it and would like the feedback of a FAR. Desertarun (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm most happy to hear you are saving a Yomangani article, but I'm at my FAR limit (and it looks like I will be for some time). I will watchlist to keep an eye on your work. You might want to bring in FunkMonk and LittleJerry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not a regular WP:peer review? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passing on this one. I've got other things on my table. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Article Save Award for lung cancer[edit]

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Lung cancer/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge proposal for Early life of Keith Miller[edit]

On April 30, I proposed a merge of Early life of Keith Miller into Keith Miller. Early life is a featured article, which is why I posting a message here. There has been no response, and normally I would initiate the merge after seven days but since it is a featured article I want to ensure that the process is done correctly. Should I nominate Early life to FAR to get more discussion about this? Should I complete the merge now, or wait until the FAR is concluded? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there is not yet consensus to merge, it would not be a procedural FAR with a quick close. I recommend, in the absence of consensus to merge, opening a regular FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Z1720 since this looks stalled, I'll initiate the procedural FAR (momentarily- iPad editing so slow going). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Early life of Keith Miller/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this. I think this might be a discussion that will require many perspectives before wiki-consensus is determined. I encourage anyone reading this to give their thoughts on this merge/FAR proposal. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA process discussion[edit]

Content copied from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward III of England/archive1

I'm unclear what Gog the Mild is getting at in these discussions, so am copying it to here for clarification of the meta issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied content[edit]

  • This is probably the worst FA I have ever looked at in detail. Among the numerous other issues, one which stands out for me is the high proportion of the small number of sources I checked which did not, even remotely, support the text. I ended up not trusting any of them and unsurprised that it never formally passed FAC. Among the many other things needed, if this were to be saved, every cite would need confirming, and given that most are to aging sources I am unsure why anyone would bother. It could be rewritten from scratch in less time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just to keep the record straight, I'm unsure what is meant by "never formally passed FAC", as it did (Giano's oppose was ignored most likely because of the infobox wars aspect). This article did pass FAC according to the standards of almost 17 years ago (back then, FAC pages were not formally archived/closed by a bot, and an article was an FA when listed at WP:FA by the FA director or a delegate). More rigorous sourcing checks were initiated in 2008, and the tendency towards ignoring Tony1's accurate prose concerns was not unique to 2006-- indeed, Tony1's prose concerns were discounted as recently as 2018. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To keep the record even straighter, while it was promoted to FA, it never formally passed FAC. Fell free to read the FAC to confirm this. Truly the past is another country. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gog, seriously, I have no idea what you mean; the article passed FAC according to the procedures and standards of the time (perhaps Dweller then was unaware of the process). We could discuss further on talk here to clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for this, Sandy. I've access to the most recent scholarship—we shouldn't need to go back much further than 30 or 40 years, I imagine—so can get involved here. I'd also recommend shortened footnotes for an article this size, which I agree, per the TP, certainly needs trimming. SN54129 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you are planning to rewrite, I would support a citation style change to sfns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I think a rewrite's probably in order; Gog's list of problems is too severe just to be resolved by tinkering. SN54129 16:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you planning to undertake a rewrite then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I could; as Gog says below, it would probably be quicker! Or does that cause problems for FAR? SN54129 16:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nope, works fine; just keep the page posted on your timing and progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, if the article were rewritten we would want the new version to go through FAC again. It may be neater to demote it here, rewrite it and then renominate; or was that what you had in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gog, that's not how the FA process works. Yes, your suggestion is one way to restore an article, but not the only way and not the required way. @WP:FAR coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a ship of Theseus situation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to get this meta-discussion off of this page, so as not to derail the FAR, and on to a process page. I will start moving the pieces, but I am on vacation and iPad editing, so not thrilled about the timing. Will link to discussion once I get everything moved to the appropriate place. If FAR cannot FAR, then neither can GAR GAR, by the way. There is some rather serious misunderstanding going on here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of FA process[edit]

Gog the Mild could we get some clarification? Why do you think the article did not pass FAC, and why do you seem to be saying that the FAR process is not used for determining FA status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly think that in cases where the entire article needs to be rewritten it's probably best to delist, rewrite, and renominate. But it's not wrong to do it all at FAR although usually the result is a FAR that lasts a long time, which is not ideal imo. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt the work at J. K. Rowling (or the many similar others) would have gotten done at all if the article had simply been delisted. And how long do you think it would have taken via the delist and relist process, if anyone had cared to do it (getting an article through FAC now routinely takes up to two months)? We already have editors' attention when an article is at FAR; the improvements are more likely to happen here, and may even be done more expeditiously.
At any rate, these aren't the questions asked of a FAC Coordinator, who weighed in at FAR specifically speaking as a FAC Coord, and who has not yet answered to explain what their understanding of the FA process is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion might highlight a perception about the FAC & FAR processes that an article is more likely to remain an FA through FAR than it is to be demoted and re-promoted through FAC. Should the FAC standards be higher than FAR? Are FAC standards higher because there are more reviewers at FAC? Or maybe it's because there are nominators at FAC ready to fix articles when concerns are raised, but less motivation to fix things at FAR? Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My impressions are just the opposite of those (FAC standards are not higher than FAR); the default these days at FAC is that three supports = promotion, QPQ is no longer discounted in supports, there is no longer any attempt to recognize and reward quality (complete and comprehensive) reviews, the page doesn't seem to be closely monitored or discussions intiatiated to encourage quality reviews and discourage incomplete ones, and more and more often we are seeing promotion based on sub-optimal prose reviews, zero review of leads, zero review of MOS, incomplete copyvio checks, and little concern for more than cursory checking of sources. There is no such default position at FAR, and reviews stay open until all issues are addressed. I'm unclear why you say there is "less motivation to fix things at FAR"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm still hoping Gog will explain why he said this article did not pass FAC, or that it must go back to FAC now, as unless there is a misunderstanding, that comes across as a dramatic misstatement of the FA process from someone who serves as a Coordinator in that process. This statement is another mystery; perhaps this 2021 debacle was overlooked? [2]. For a 2021 promotion to be that deficient is quite different from a 2006 FA needing some work to bring it to current standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gog's on vacation at the moment, not sure when he might be available to weigh in.
Philosophically speaking, both FAC and FAR aim for adherence to WIAFA for articles rated as FA-level, and both can support bringing articles to standard during the process. Practically speaking, FAR often gives more leeway when work is underway to allow time for improvements to happen, whereas at FAC nominators are often encouraged to work outside the process and bring it back when ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might add that there is some "hysteresis" is inherent in things like this. Which means that it takes a little extra to make a decision to change the state of something. And the current state of a FA candidate is "not FA", the current state of an FAR article is "FA". North8000 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standing offer: Inconsistent refs, change to {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}}[edit]

Hey. This is a standing offer: If there's a prob with inconsistent refs, I offer to change them to {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}}, to the extent possible ...  § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]