Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

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

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

Automatic lapsing of FA status?

See this proposal and surrounding discussions. Serial (speculates here) 14:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"only one nomination at a time"

The current WP:FAC header says "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time". This is not correct - two are allowed if the first is well on its way to promotion. I think it would be a good idea to change that to something similar to what WP:FLC says, for example "An editor should only add a second nomination with the approval of the coordinators after the first has gained significant support." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC) pinging @FAC coordinators: as they should probably make any change. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Bizarre to ping the co-ords on what is the main FA discussion page. Serial (speculates here) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, good spot. Go for it. Serial (speculates here) 14:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing abstracts

Is there any clear policy on citing a scientific paper when only the abstract is available? And of course by available I mean "on line for free". Given the deplorable state of the scientific publishing industry, a lot of scientific papers are behind paywalls. We get access to some materials via WP:TWL (in my opinion, the most valuable thing WMF has ever done to help editors), but there's still a lot that's locked away and not surprisingly, people cite what's freely available. It seems to be widely accepted that citing abstracts in sub-optimal.[2][3][4][5][6] but I can't find anything our own policies (WP:CITE, etc) which addresses this. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting Signpost article on that, although old. You're right that it should probably be codified as poor practice though, to save arguments on individual project/pages. Serial (speculates here) 17:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: by the way, tangential to this, but I can send you the "Echolocation signals of dusky dolphins" article if you'd like? Serial (speculates here) 18:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. Much appreciated. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Emailed you. Serial (speculates here) 20:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

We have WP:PAYWALL, which says that the fact an article is not available online for free is not a reason to reject it as a source. There's WP:HEADLINE, which says that headlines are not reliable sources. Obviously an abstract is not a headline and the issues which make a headline unreliable don't apply to quite the same extent, but I would say that it still applies at least partially in spirit: like a headline, an abstract may lack the detail/nuance of the main article and there's never any reason to cite it ahead of the article apart from accessibility. For most of our articles for uncontentious claims that's probably okay, but at FA level I would be asking why not cite the actual article. (While I cannot find any policy specifically discussing abstracts, it has been discussed before e.g. at WP:RSN: [7], [8]) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and further, I'd argue that WP:FA? #1C (the requirement that sources must be 'high quality') almost automatically precludes using what is by definition an abridgement of a source.

And we do have WP:RX (and me!) for those particularly hard-to-find morsels  :) Serial (speculates here) 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for January 2025

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for January 2025. 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 new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers for January 2025

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 24 13 Nikkimaria 1 15 SchroCat 9 6 Crisco 1492 9 1 4 Aoba47 11 2 Generalissima 9 2 Mike Christie 10 UndercoverClassicist 9 1 Z1720 9 Tim riley 8 ChrisTheDude 7 Hog Farm 6 1 Medxvo 5 2 History6042 6 MSincccc 6 Matarisvan 5 750h+ 4 Boneless Pizza! 4 Borsoka 4 Gog the Mild 3 1 MaranoFan 3 1 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 Serial Number 54129 3 1 Dudley Miles 3 Graham Beards 3 Heartfox 3 Hurricanehink 3 Ippantekina 3 LunaEclipse 1 2 NegativeMP1 3 AirshipJungleman29 2 Arcticocean 2 Brachy0008 2 CatchMe 2 Cplakidas 2 DoctorWhoFan91 1 1 Epicgenius 2 Iazyges 2 ImaginesTigers 2 Jens Lallensack 2 Paleface Jack 2 Phlsph7 2 TheAstorPastor 2 TompaDompa 2 Vacant0 2 1989 1 Alexeyevitch 1 AryKun 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 Casliber 1 Choliamb 1 David Fuchs 1 Departure– 1 Draken Bowser 1 Dylan620 1 Edwininlondon 1 EF5 1 Fathoms Below 1 FrB.TG 1 FunkMonk 1 Ganesha811 1 Gerda Arendt 1 Hawkeye7 1 Johnbod 1 Jon698 1 Kusma 1 Lazman321 1 Lee Vilenski 1 LEvalyn 1 LittleJerry 1 Marchjuly 1 Mujinga 1 Panini! 1 Patrick Welsh 1 Pokelego999 1 Popcornfud 1 Red Phoenix 1 RFNirmala 1 Rjjiii 1 RoySmith 1 Seefooddiet 1 Shapeyness 1 Sir MemeGod mobile 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Steelkamp 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 TheDoctorWho 1 Tintor2 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 Traumnovelle 1 XR228 1 ZKang123 1 Totals 223 43 41

Supports and opposes for January 2025

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 37 37 Nikkimaria 16 16 SchroCat 6 2 7 15 Crisco 1492 9 5 14 Aoba47 8 5 13 Generalissima 9 2 11 Mike Christie 7 1 1 1 10 UndercoverClassicist 5 5 10 Z1720 9 9 Tim riley 8 8 Hog Farm 4 1 2 7 ChrisTheDude 6 1 7 Medxvo 5 2 7 History6042 4 1 1 6 MSincccc 5 1 6 Matarisvan 5 5 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4 750h+ 4 4 MaranoFan 3 1 4 Boneless Pizza! 4 4 Serial Number 54129 2 1 1 4 Borsoka 3 1 4 Gog the Mild 3 1 4 Dudley Miles 3 3 Heartfox 2 1 3 NegativeMP1 2 1 3 Ippantekina 3 3 Hurricanehink 2 1 3 LunaEclipse 2 1 3 Graham Beards 1 2 3 Paleface Jack 2 2 ImaginesTigers 2 2 Phlsph7 2 2 Iazyges 2 2 DoctorWhoFan91 1 1 2 AirshipJungleman29 2 2 Epicgenius 1 1 2 Arcticocean 2 2 Vacant0 2 2 Cplakidas 2 2 CatchMe 2 2 TheAstorPastor 2 2 TompaDompa 1 1 2 Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 Brachy0008 1 1 2 Edwininlondon 1 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 1 LEvalyn 1 1 Panini! 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 Red Phoenix 1 1 Traumnovelle 1 1 Seefooddiet 1 1 Sir MemeGod mobile 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 1 Casliber 1 1 Jon698 1 1 Draken Bowser 1 1 Choliamb 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Lazman321 1 1 1989 1 1 Fathoms Below 1 1 Popcornfud 1 1 Alexeyevitch 1 1 Marchjuly 1 1 EF5 1 1 Pokelego999 1 1 AryKun 1 1 Lee Vilenski 1 1 Kusma 1 1 Patrick Welsh 1 1 TheDoctorWho 1 1 LittleJerry 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Rjjiii 1 1 Ganesha811 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 Dylan620 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 RFNirmala 1 1 RoySmith 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Departure– 1 1 Mujinga 1 1 XR228 1 1 Totals 173 1 2 14 117 307

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) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Nominators for November 2024 to January 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 8.0 60.0 7.5 AirshipJungleman29 8.0 41.0 5.1 Amir Ghandi 3.0 None 0.0 Aoba47 3.0 51.0 17.0 AssociateAffiliate 3.0 None 0.0 BernaBotto 2.0 None 0.0 Boneless Pizza! 3.0 13.0 4.3 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 10.0 69.0 6.9 Crisco 1492 3.0 39.0 13.0 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 Dugan Murphy 3.0 13.0 4.3 Dxneo 2.0 1.0 0.5 EF5 2.0 1.0 0.5 Eiga-Kevin2 2.0 None 0.0 Epicgenius 8.5 21.0 2.5 Eric Idle's Cat 2.0 1.0 0.5 Ganesha811 3.0 3.0 1.0 Generalissima 9.0 78.0 8.7 Gog the Mild 4.0 78.0 19.5 Hawkeye7 6.0 6.0 1.0 Heartfox 6.0 29.0 4.8 Hog Farm 8.0 56.0 7.0 Hurricanehink 2.5 21.0 8.4 Ippantekina 7.0 8.0 1.1 Jenhawk777 2.0 3.0 1.5 Jo-Jo Eumerus 5.0 241.0 48.2 Lee Vilenski 3.0 5.0 1.7 Lisha2037 2.0 None 0.0 Llewee 3.0 8.0 2.7 M4V3R1CK32 3.0 None 0.0 MaranoFan 6.0 15.0 2.5 Mike Christie 7.0 63.0 9.0 NegativeMP1 3.0 12.0 4.0 Noorullah21 4.0 None 0.0 PanagiotisZois 2.0 3.0 1.5 Peacemaker67 5.0 1.0 0.2 Phlsph7 5.0 19.0 3.8 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 42.0 4.5 PSA 3.0 4.0 1.3 Relayed 2.0 1.0 0.5 Royiswariii 3.0 None 0.0 SchroCat 16.5 170.0 10.3 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 The Green Star Collector 3.0 None 0.0 Thuiop 2.0 1.0 0.5 UndercoverClassicist 7.0 95.0 13.6 Vacant0 2.0 17.0 8.5 Volcanoguy 5.0 7.0 1.4 XR228 2.0 1.0 0.5 Z1720 2.0 19.0 9.5 ZKang123 4.0 12.0 3.0

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Time for another nom?

Dear coords: Is it okay to put another FAC up now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, I have responded on the FAC nomination page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Space aliens ate my support

The summary line for Margaret Sibella Brown says "4 supports", but I count 5. Is it counting wrong or am I? RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It should now show five, after I did this, but I'm not sure what the technical reason was behind either the problem or the fix... - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's because the summary highlighter searches for all bolded uses, which includes not just Support, but automatically bolded font such as in ====Support====. So if, conversely, you'd done the opposite—left the unbolded support in the comment and kept the L4-header support—the result would be the same. Cheers, Serial (speculates here) 17:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Except it didn't - that was the problem. It had an support in the header and an unbolded support in the body, but it wasn't being counted by the bot for some reason. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused—your diff shows you adding "Support" to the header. How could there be a support in the header before? Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it seems to align with exactly what Serial said. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

There were a bunch of trial edits in a row and I think Schro just cited the last one. this is the net change. RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I click on the link above it shows me removing the support from the header

Before: ==== Support from Noleander <s>{{space}} Comments from Noleander{{space}} </s>====

After: ====Noleander==== . It was this change that fixed whatever the problem was. - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

I accidentally created the "initiate the nomination" page before adding {{subst:FAC}} to the talk page. I cannot add {{subst:FAC}} to the talk page because it redirects to a new page that hasn't been created yet. I would like to know what should we do to proceed with this. Apologies for this fumble, I will definitely be more careful next time. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been bold and attempted to fix this by adding a redirect to the correct page (that is "archive1") from the page "archive2". If this should not (or cannot) be done, than please correct it. My apologies for the inconvenience. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you've cleaned up reasonably well; I altered the archive number on the article talk page to point directly to the active nom.

I wonder if a watching admin could just delete the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metrosideros bartlettii/archive2 redirect page to save me a CSD...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect. Hog Farm _Talk 00:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Tks HF! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Second nom?

@FAC coordinators: Any chance of adding a second nom? My current one has been open a couple of weeks and has six supports and has passed source and image reviews. I have no problem waiting if longer, if you'd prefer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

That’s great: many thanks FrB.TG! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ridge Route

I would appreciate input regarding sourcing at Talk:Ridge Route#Scott book. Hog Farm _Talk 01:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

How to interpret FACR 1e: stable?

Margaret Sanger is up for review. The page has a long history of edit warring and page protections. It has been under Pending Changes protection for seven years (@Ymblanter:). So how does this fit in with the requirement for stability? Is it good enough to have stability imposed on it by administrative means (i.e. page protection)?

A similar issue came up recently at Dan Caine where the validity of a GA review was questioned due to edit warring which was resolved by protecting the page (@Barkeep49 @ElijahPepe @EF5) so this is a bit of a general question. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, we can paper over any controversy by simply applying sufficiently restrictive page protections. On the other hand, we don't want to make it so no contentious topic can ever become a GA or FA. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to go discuss this later, but someone beat me to it. What constitutes "significant"? A few reverts followed by a protection can happen with any page, given it has relatively high visibility. If "stability" is a core criteria, that could easily rule out many pages with over ~100,000 pageviews, as they tend to have constant changes (Sambhaji, almost every high-up U.S. government official, some famous tornadoes and Caine immediately coming to mind). I personally dislike the whole idea of edit-warring/vandalism protection stability (not comprehensiveness, that I agree with) as a core criteria, but I'm aware that's a fringe viewpoint. — E_F⁵ 15:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I think the definition provided by the criteria is quite clear: [the article] is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Page protection is one way to ensure there are no ongoing edit wars and that the content does not change significantly from day to day. In the example you provide, the issue is not that the page was protected—it is that people were fighting over the content. A reviewer cannot assess something that is in constant flux. In response to EF5's edit above, I have never seen a high-traffic nomination fail because random IPs were editing it. Do you have any examples of this? I acknowledge I might be missing something here but I think this is a non-issue. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up comment – I'm imagining a scenario where the stability criterion is removed. An article is nominated with an ongoing multi-editor content dispute and edit warring. Suddenly, the co-ords have no enforceable rule with which to delist the nomination; if they do de-list, the nominator could say that they were acting unfairly or improperly. If they don't, it haunts the archives until the time runs out, potentially wasting reviewer time, and subtly communicating to our volunteer reviewers that they may be expected to review the article multiple times. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, at least one person challenged my subpar review, which means that there is possibly an interpretation issue from person-to-person. While not a GAN failure in itself, the Dan Caine article is a perfect example of high-visibility pages having stability issues, seeing as the of it was challenged. — E_F⁵ 16:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that the page is now protected, my read on Barkeep's concern is that they are more likely questioning whether the review was thorough with the other criteria. Otherwise, you would simply pass the article because it is page protected and not presently subject to warring. If this happened during FAC, someone would notice edit warring—the issue on Dan Caine that you didn't, not that the policy needs to be changed IMO. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. I had interpreted Barkeep's comments at Talk:Dan Caine as me failing to check GA criterion 3a (comprehensiveness) and 5 (stability). — E_F⁵ 16:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm being a bit of a pedant here, but "comprehensiveness" is an FA criterion. The GAC require that "the main aspects of the topic" are outlined in summary style. Barkeep is essentially saying that the "main aspects of the topic" possibly cannot be addressed because scholarship and reporting is still being released. At FAC, this would be a virtually insurmountable barrier to overcome. At GAN, it is surmountable: the crucial part is that you investigate it with reference to the criteria. The problem is just that it wasn't examined at all (which is fine, incidentally—mistakes are okay and I'm not ragging on you). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Again will confirm that's what I was saying. Best,Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Imagines is reading my concern correctly and I agree that by the nature of FA that's not going to happen in the same way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Sanger is an entirely different issue than Caine (at least at the moment). I think the sourcing available for Caine itself is unstable - as we see new reliable sources with important information being published regularly (and are likely to see more at least through confirmation hearings) where as the literature on Sanger is more stable. So I don't think a page being under protection inherently disqualifies something from being a reviewed article (I don't claim enough mastery of FA standards but can speak about GA standards). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, there's two sides of the stability criterion: one, is if there's edit-warring or disputes to the point that it has to be heavily locked down or is in relative flux. It's absolutely hard to write an FA on a major politician or public figure from that angle, but I don't think something like long-term semi protection is really a strike against an article (doubly so for pending changes, which I'd be interested in seeing applied much more widely in general—certainly a lot of our old FAs would benefit from it.) The second side dovetails with the comprehensiveness criteria and whether there's enough information, and whether that information is likely to drastically change. My personal thoughts is that in general something like trying to FA a BLP on some young person, or contested scientific theory, or recent historical event, should have extra scrutiny applied on that side of things, because the scope of coverage of the subject is likely to change heavily, and the sourcing itself is also likely to shift. Even if it's not changing "day to day" the overall content is almost certainly going to significantly shift in the longer term. (To me, this is a bigger inherent folly with having featured something like Barack Obama than the contentious edits—no FA nominated even on the very end of his presidency would be likely to remain FA quality within ten years as better long-form sourcing becomes available.) Whether or not to apply the criteria that strictly is up to the reviewers, as it is in every review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree with this. I've always interpreted stability, from a GA perspective, as roughly something like not having active RfCs, or other large content discussions, on the talkpage, perhaps not within the last month or two, and similarly being a topic that is unlikely to see new developments that would affects broadness within a few-month timescale. Perhaps FA comprehensiveness would suggest a longer rule of thumb timescale in that regard. CMD (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 to David Fuchs and CMD. If the sources are stable and the article covers them appropriately, that's a big plus. If the sources are unstable then it's a big negative, as far as I am concerned. Behavioural issues in an article (edit warring, constant increases or decreases, etc) can sink a nomination, but I would be unconcerned if there is page protection and/or historical edit warring. Being a BLP never helps, particularly for an active politician, although we've seen those go through recently, while being dead for over fifty years does mean that the sources have covered most angles of the individual's life (unless some revisionist work comes out at a later point). - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

My sense is that 1e is specifically about the content of the article changing frequently so that any review becomes outdated quickly as new content is added/old content removed or modified. These are "moving targets" where you can't know whether the article is still at FA level. Someone could have reviewed the sourcing three days ago, today there are 6 substantial new sources and tomorrow a further 2. Sometimes you have articles where there is a lot of discussion but the content changes only slowly, say because people rush to add stuff that belongs on a subarticle or there is a controversy that people keep going even if they don't succeed at getting the article changed. In these cases, I wouldn't say that 1e isn't met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for February 2025

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 2025. 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 new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers for February 2025

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 2 2 14 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 14 MSincccc 14 1 Crisco 1492 6 2 5 Gog the Mild 11 SchroCat 5 5 DoctorWhoFan91 4 2 2 Tim riley 8 Graham Beards 6 History6042 6 Matarisvan 6 RoySmith 5 1 UndercoverClassicist 6 Borsoka 5 Hog Farm 5 Mike Christie 5 Premeditated Chaos 4 1 AirshipJungleman29 4 Aoba47 2 2 Boneless Pizza! 4 Fortuna imperatrix mundi 2 1 1 Hurricanehink 4 Toadspike 3 1 UpTheOctave! 4 ChrisTheDude 3 Dudley Miles 3 Dunkleosteus77 2 1 Edwininlondon 2 1 Esculenta 3 Heartfox 3 Kusma 3 LEvalyn 3 Noleander 3 Dylan620 2 ErnestKrause 2 FrB.TG 2 Gerda Arendt 2 Guerillero 2 ImaginesTigers 2 LunaEclipse 2 Rollinginhisgrave 2 SnowFire 2 Surtsicna 2 TompaDompa 2 ZooBlazer 2 185.237.102.58 1 3family6 1 750h+ 1 Aa77zz 1 Arcticocean 1 AryKun 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 Brachy0008 1 Bruce leverett 1 Cmguy777 1 Epicgenius 1 Femke 1 Generalissima 1 Hawkeye7 1 Ian Rose 1 Iazyges 1 Ippantekina 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Jimfbleak 1 Kanguole 1 KN2731 1 Leafy46 1 Medxvo 1 NegativeMP1 1 Phlsph7 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 Plantdrew 1 Rodney Baggins 1 Royiswariii 1 Shapeyness 1 Shooterwalker 1 SilverTiger12 1 Steelkamp 1 TheAstorPastor 1 Tintor2 1 Unlimitedlead 1 Urve 1 Vacant0 1 Volcanoguy 1 Wildfireupdateman 1 蒙古天骄 1 Totals 204 36 28

Supports and opposes for February 2025

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 2 16 18 MSincccc 13 1 1 15 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 14 15 Crisco 1492 5 7 13 Gog the Mild 7 1 1 2 11 SchroCat 4 1 5 10 DoctorWhoFan91 3 5 8 Tim riley 8 8 RoySmith 2 4 6 Graham Beards 5 1 6 History6042 5 1 6 Matarisvan 6 6 UndercoverClassicist 3 1 2 6 Borsoka 5 5 Hog Farm 5 5 Mike Christie 5 5 Premeditated Chaos 4 1 5 Hurricanehink 3 1 4 AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2 4 Boneless Pizza! 2 2 4 UpTheOctave! 4 4 Fortuna imperatrix mundi 2 2 4 Aoba47 4 4 Toadspike 1 3 4 Kusma 3 3 Heartfox 1 2 3 Noleander 2 1 3 Dunkleosteus77 1 2 3 Edwininlondon 2 1 3 ChrisTheDude 3 3 Dudley Miles 2 1 3 Esculenta 1 1 1 3 LEvalyn 3 3 SnowFire 1 1 2 TompaDompa 1 1 2 Gerda Arendt 1 1 2 Rollinginhisgrave 1 1 2 ImaginesTigers 1 1 2 Guerillero 1 1 2 ZooBlazer 1 1 2 Dylan620 1 1 2 Surtsicna 2 2 FrB.TG 1 1 2 LunaEclipse 2 2 ErnestKrause 2 2 Tintor2 1 1 AryKun 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 SilverTiger12 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Arcticocean 1 1 Rodney Baggins 1 1 3family6 1 1 Generalissima 1 1 Brachy0008 1 1 750h+ 1 1 Wildfireupdateman 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Femke 1 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1 Kanguole 1 1 Vacant0 1 1 Leafy46 1 1 Plantdrew 1 1 Royiswariii 1 1 Phlsph7 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 TheAstorPastor 1 1 Unlimitedlead 1 1 KN2731 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Iazyges 1 1 Volcanoguy 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 Bruce leverett 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 Cmguy777 1 1 Jimfbleak 1 1 蒙古天骄 1 1 Urve 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 1 185.237.102.58 1 1 Medxvo 1 1 Totals 135 1 2 24 105 268

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) 14:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Nominators for December 2024 to February 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 8.0 61.0 7.6 AirshipJungleman29 7.0 43.0 6.1 Amir Ghandi 3.0 None 0.0 Aoba47 3.0 53.0 17.7 AssociateAffiliate 3.0 None 0.0 BernaBotto 2.0 None 0.0 Boneless Pizza! 4.0 17.0 4.2 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 10.0 66.0 6.6 Crisco 1492 4.0 52.0 13.0 David Fuchs 2.0 11.0 5.5 EF5 3.0 1.0 0.3 Eiga-Kevin2 2.0 None 0.0 Epicgenius 8.0 21.0 2.6 Ganesha811 3.0 3.0 1.0 Generalissima 11.0 79.0 7.2 Gog the Mild 6.0 82.0 13.7 Hawkeye7 6.0 7.0 1.2 Heartfox 7.0 30.0 4.3 Hog Farm 7.0 58.0 8.3 Hurricanehink 3.5 25.0 7.1 Ippantekina 6.0 9.0 1.5 Jenhawk777 2.0 3.0 1.5 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 237.0 39.5 Kiril Simeonovski 2.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 3.5 5.0 1.4 Lisha2037 2.0 None 0.0 LittleJerry 1.5 2.0 1.3 Llewee 3.0 8.0 2.7 LunaEclipse 2.0 15.0 7.5 M4V3R1CK32 3.0 None 0.0 MaranoFan 7.0 15.0 2.1 MFTP Dan 2.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 7.0 61.0 8.7 NegativeMP1 3.0 12.0 4.0 PanagiotisZois 2.0 3.0 1.5 Phlsph7 6.0 20.0 3.3 Premeditated Chaos 8.3 46.0 5.5 PSA 3.0 4.0 1.3 Royiswariii 3.0 1.0 0.3 RoySmith 3.0 43.0 14.3 SafariScribe 3.0 3.0 1.0 SchroCat 16.5 165.0 10.0 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 Sohom Datta 2.0 6.0 3.0 Thuiop 2.0 1.0 0.5 UndercoverClassicist 7.0 94.0 13.4 Vacant0 2.0 18.0 9.0 Vanderwaalforces 2.0 None 0.0 Volcanoguy 6.0 8.0 1.3 XR228 2.0 1.0 0.5 Z1720 3.0 19.0 6.3 ZKang123 4.0 11.0 2.8

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much it matters, but I see that my review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oriental Stories/archive1 was counted as a source review rather than a content review. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; now fixed in the list above and in the tool's database. I don't know if this is how you spotted it, but for the benefit of anyone who wants to see what was counted for which FACs, the data on which these reports are based is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)