Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive95
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. 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. |
another
@FAC coordinators: may I nominate another article? (also to minimize needing to bug yall in the future, should I just presume its okay to nom a second article when it gets up to the required amount of source and prose reviews?) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I will respond here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: But you don't know what the
required amount of source and prose reviews
are. No one can; it's dependent on every discrete nomination, every particular review, every individual coordinator. SerialNumber54129 22:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)- That's fair, there's certainly articles that need special attention, but doesn't 3 prose reviews/1 image review/1 source review generally hold as a minimum bar below which a nomination will get archived? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- 1. What has whether a nomination will fail to reach a consensus to be promoted got to do with whether the nominator can nominate a second article? 2. See my response on the nomination's discussion page. 3. As a very general "rule" a nom needs source and image passes and three explicit general "supports" (not reviews as this nomination has) before a coordinator will even move on to 4. the stuff SN correctly alludes to – the intangible and ineffable aspects of a review page that we get the big bucks and the kudos for weighing and accrediting – and consider our binary output. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Basically what Gog said. Personally, I prefer to assess each nomination individually before allowing a second one. Although the minimum requirement of three supports, along with completed image and source reviews, is essential, I still examine the depth and quality of the reviews and the overall state of the article. FrB.TG (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair, there's certainly articles that need special attention, but doesn't 3 prose reviews/1 image review/1 source review generally hold as a minimum bar below which a nomination will get archived? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Consensus apparently calls for the inclusion of material that fails the FA criteria
What do we do in situation like this where it's claimed a consensus of editors favors a version that in my opinion does not meet the FA criteria, specifically 1c, 1d, and 4? (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- And in the consensus of other editors (myself included), that version meets these criteria more than the previous one... I will also note that nowhere, including in the linked discussion, you have expressed any concern about the sources used - until now. If you have concerns about some sources used, please discuss them on the article's talk page. They seem quite reliable to me, and they don't concern any REDFLAG content. Seriously, you are making a fuss over clarification of imprecise claim from your version (which stated "magnitude lower" that I have made more precise by adding "two to three percent", and addition of a single sentence linking to a directly relevant article about the group mentioned, i.e. Polish POWs (yes, it was longer before, I shortened it per consensus on talk, which you did not seem to have noticed).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not sure how you even got all these editors to express interest in a discussion. Where was the notification?
- The editor who considers a source HQRS is obviously the one who should be expected to defend it. In my opinion, the Piotrowski source is not HQRS and I have no idea about the other one.
- For context, the editors on talk are trying to add content that is not about Soviet prisoners of war, and which no reliable source connects to the problem of Soviet prisoners of war, for "context". Naturally they add only one national group—the Poles—when as I mentioned, if this content is relevant several others are also—thus causing a POV issue where none existed before. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- While I see no problems with Piotrowski, I think we can remove this source as it is not necessary (particularly some details were removed). Other sources will suffice - feel free to remove him, I have no objection to this.
- As for context, prior ("your") version already mentioned Italians and Poles; I've just added a precise estimate (which was already present for Italians, but not for Poles), and a blue link to a related article.
- Since you mention 1c (well-researched), 1d (neutral) and 4 (length), IMHO (and I think in the opinions on others who commented there) it is your version who was not well-researched (missing the precise estimate and not mentioning clearly the existence of other similar groups). And adding one or two sentences is not an issue with length - let's be serious. Oh, and regarding your claim that sources do not discuss Polish and Soviet prisoners together - hogwash, as you should know from "your" version (ex. Gerlach 2016:165)
| “ | The treatment and death rates of Polish and Soviet POW differed in the extreme, although in ‘racial’ terms there was not much of a difference between them | ” |
- Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [1] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [2] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- By the looks of it your argument has merit, but I don't believe it would be a good idea for anyone seeing this to comment as the above message is not neutrally worded, and could be considered WP:CANVASSing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I commented at the article talk page before I saw this last comment about canvassing. I agree there's no doubt about what Buidhe's opinion is, so by that definition it constitutes canvassing. It's not as bad as "please come and support my position", though. When I started reading the discussion one thought I had was that the stability criterion might be at issue, in which case the right advice could be to withdraw until agreement had been reached. That's in line with the original question: "What should the nominator do when the consensus of others makes an article worse in a nominator's eyes?" The other issue with canvassing is that you're not supposed to request comments at a forum where you think everyone will agree with you -- e.g. calling Wikiproject members to vote stack at a discussion. I don't think it was possible to predict how the miscellaneous group of FAC regulars would react, so Buidhe could not know whether the additional readers of that discussion would come down on her side or not. Still, I agree that making it even more neutrally phrased would have been better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not in a bad location and it's not completely terribly phrased, but as you say it's obvious what buidhe's opinion is and let's be honest, most FAC regulars (certainly including myself) have probably taken her side of the argument before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I commented at the article talk page before I saw this last comment about canvassing. I agree there's no doubt about what Buidhe's opinion is, so by that definition it constitutes canvassing. It's not as bad as "please come and support my position", though. When I started reading the discussion one thought I had was that the stability criterion might be at issue, in which case the right advice could be to withdraw until agreement had been reached. That's in line with the original question: "What should the nominator do when the consensus of others makes an article worse in a nominator's eyes?" The other issue with canvassing is that you're not supposed to request comments at a forum where you think everyone will agree with you -- e.g. calling Wikiproject members to vote stack at a discussion. I don't think it was possible to predict how the miscellaneous group of FAC regulars would react, so Buidhe could not know whether the additional readers of that discussion would come down on her side or not. Still, I agree that making it even more neutrally phrased would have been better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Should WP articles aspire to meet the FA criteria?
I have argued at Talk:Pacific Repertory Theatre here that they should. Another editor argues: "A good number of us simply could not care less about GA/FA thing." Who is correct? Or is there a middle ground? Feel free to comment there either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- When we created an encyclopaedia that anyone could edit, we were confronted with the possibility that someone my take that literally. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. So we created WP:Verifiability. People must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. We also have other policies, such as neutral point of view and no original research. How do we make sure that articles conform with our policies? By a process of peer review whereby articles are checked. That is where GA and FA come in. It is the means by which we ensure the quality, reliability, neutrality and integrity of the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to look at the content discussion at Talk:Pacific Repertory Theatre and see if you wish to express an opinion there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm generally of the opinion that all articles should strive for GA and FA standards, but isn't this a little WP:CANVAS-y? It seems like anyone avidly watching this talk page would have a special appreciation for the process. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree too. I am not sure why this needs to be discussed here, or of all the articles here, choose one of the more contentious one under an active disagreement over other things. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Removing my comment for now. Will post later when I've had more time to think about them. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ssilvers aspire to, yes. But not every article can be featured or good. That doesn't mean we accept everything, nor that FA and GA aren't good to shoot for, but if every article should be able to be an FA or GA, just make those the minimum criteria for an article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
FA and GA absolutely could be a shelf-queen. You could have an absolute stunning luxury plane that is stunning in everyway, win awards and all on the ground even if it can't fly, because the ability to fly isn't part of the presentablility evaluation.
One of the fundamental requirements for a company article to even exist on Wikipedia is satisfying WP:NORG but Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria lists out criteria that must be met to be FA, but GNG or NCORP isn't part of that. An ultra hyper local subject that's of great local interest and has been thoroughly and reliably documented in ultra hyper local sources can be polished up to pass these requirements. They can pass stability test like a lot of spam articles, because articles that only a few people care about tend to get left alone and pass stability test even if it fails NCORP.
It's not bad to have aspiration, but the desire for FA/GA can also be a great distraction and a source of bickering over aesthetics and presentation of a plane that ends up not being able to pass the minimum requirements of being able to fly. Graywalls (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- What a misguided load of claptrap. It's covered in the second sentence of the criteria "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles...", and satisfying GNG or NCORP is obviously part of that. Any article that doesn't pass basic notability guidelines won't make it through FAC - and there are many articles on local subjects that are both notable and at FA standard (to some extent, most things are "ultra hyper local", to use your hyperbole).The bigger point you are missing in your tortured and woeful metaphor is that we (as a project) should aspire to get all legitimate articles developed up to as high a standard as is possible, using all the reliable sources we can, despite your misguided thoughts about the FA process. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Notability_missing_from_GA_criteria one and not only one such discussion. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- And...? This is FA, not GA and I've already indicated the second sentence that articles have to be in line with relevant policies. I'm not sure why we're going off on this rather pointless tangent: the thread is about improving articles, which this side topic certainly isn't about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Notability_missing_from_GA_criteria one and not only one such discussion. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to see how the conclusion makes sense here. The argument is that since some articles don't pass the notability guidelines, it's not worth improving any articles because...? Or is it that Pacific Repertory Theatre in particular isn't notable, and so it's not worth holding it to higher standards...in which case why isn't it at AfD? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- About a half dozen other Carmel, California-related articles were recently nominated for AfD, after editors had removed many of the refs, and much of the material in them. I detected this and restored key information and refs, and the AfDs failed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Feedback would be meaningless without knowing what "aspire" in the OP means for the purposes of this discussion. It sounds like "nice idea" but could be reinterpreted as "be required to" or "any editor can apply GA or FA criteria to anything in an article which is neither. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the recent discussions at Pacific Repertory Theatre, it should be clear what the disagreement is about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd adopt quite the same framing as taken here: that is, I think the answer is more-or-less "yes", but that making the discussion about the FA criteria in themselves might miss the point. All Wikipedia articles should aspire to be good (in the full knowledge that most will never get there, and that "good enough" today usually beats "perfect" tomorrow), and the FA criteria are generally good sense as to what makes a quality article. In general, arguing for a change that would make an article more in line with the FA criteria is arguing for its improvement, and arguing for a change that would move it further away is arguing for the opposite.
I think I'm right in saying that practically all of the FA criteria are covered somewhere in the other PAGs (for example, the requirement to be comprehensive is an extension of WP:DUEWEIGHT, the requirement for professional-quality prose is a summary of the WP:MOS, and so on), so it should in theory be possible to make a policy-based argument for working towards the FA standards without needing to assert that those standards in themselves are themselves relevant to a given article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right, but the issue that I was asking about is deletion of referenced, relevant and, IMO, encyclopedic information from a particular article (and a group of related articles), and whether people think that these deletions do, in this case, follow these basic "aspirations" for WP articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The point I was trying to make is that, in theory, you shouldn't need to convince anyone that all articles should aspire to FA standard to demonstrate that doing that is wrong -- you only need point at WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is policy, and that it says
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources
. If it can be shown that a viewpoint is prominent in published reliable sources, it breaks WP:DUEWEIGHT (and so WP:NPOV) to remove it, assuming that all other criteria for its inclusion like copyvio, verifiability, BLP and so on are met. That's a lot harder to wiggle out of than the FA standards, especially in an article that's nowhere near FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- I agree, but, for example, an editor there is arguing this. And see what Graywalls is arguing here (scroll up). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neither that comment nor what Graywalls is arguing above seem related to the FA criteria applying or not. That comment seems to be about WP:ONUS (WP:V), while Graywalls is arguing about notability. CMD (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The editor said to me: "your idea of 'improving an article' is adding more and more and more content that you feel is 'important information to anyone who wants to understand the operations of the company'." This was in response to my general arguments that we should, indeed, restore content and citations (and then do more research and improve content further, and so forth, in an ongoing effort to improve the article towards higher and higher classes, aspiring eventually towards FA (though obviously most articles never actually reach that level). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with CMD: it's clearly a frustrating and difficult content dispute, and I'm not convinced that Wikipedia really has the tools to deal well with those unless everyone involved is well-informed and collegial, but the applicability of the FA standards is not the issue here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The editor said to me: "your idea of 'improving an article' is adding more and more and more content that you feel is 'important information to anyone who wants to understand the operations of the company'." This was in response to my general arguments that we should, indeed, restore content and citations (and then do more research and improve content further, and so forth, in an ongoing effort to improve the article towards higher and higher classes, aspiring eventually towards FA (though obviously most articles never actually reach that level). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neither that comment nor what Graywalls is arguing above seem related to the FA criteria applying or not. That comment seems to be about WP:ONUS (WP:V), while Graywalls is arguing about notability. CMD (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but, for example, an editor there is arguing this. And see what Graywalls is arguing here (scroll up). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The point I was trying to make is that, in theory, you shouldn't need to convince anyone that all articles should aspire to FA standard to demonstrate that doing that is wrong -- you only need point at WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is policy, and that it says
Second nom?
@FAC coordinators: , Would I be allowed a second nom, please? My current nom has been around a few weeks, has four supports and has completed the source and images reviews. No probs if you'd rather I wait longer, obviously. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you would. FrB.TG (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks FrB.TG, that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewers for October 2024
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supports and opposes for October 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Science articles are underrepresented
For a long time there has hardly been any science articles at FAC. Perhaps someone could remind me of the last successful candidate? But we have one at FAC now which is not garnering much attention, which is a shame. I'm not canvassing for support, despite having given mine, but is there any chance of a few reviews? Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll try to take a look within the next couple days, although I've got quite a bit going on IRL. Hog Farm Talk 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto. I'll have time to review this weekend. I can take on the source review as well if no one beats me to it (please feel free to beat me to it). Ajpolino (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if it was the most recent, but off the top of my head there was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lise Meitner/archive1 not that long ago (if biography articles on scientists count). TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right now we have Otto Hahn being reviewed. Plus of course Virgo interferometer, at which additional thoughts would be most welcome. I assume that science is being used in a way which excludes biology and geology? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis/archive1 counts as a science article, no? It has seven participants but only one review and is at risk of being archived. Adding onto that, it is a former featured article, which should be getting more views, especially because of its notable impacts in the Greater Antilles and the United States. ZZZ'S 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).
- Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
- Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (25 Aug)
- Dracunculiasis (22 May)
- Prostate cancer (22 Apr)
- Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) (7 Jan)
My apologies for any I missed. We need more. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- You missed Hurricane Cindy (2005). Its nomination was successfull on 27 September. I'm still surprised that a less notable, damaging, and deadly storm was promoted, but Hurricane Dennis, the opposite, is at a significant risk of being archived. ZZZ'S 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Socompa/archive1. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and my queue has just become too long. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's the case with many articles, not just science ones. If FAs are maintained, this should not be a problem. Also, many science articles are remarkably static. See Maxwell's equations, which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. Graham Beards (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, I know about Wōdejebato and relatives which also don't get much new research. I guess I just used up my space of "how many articles can I maintain" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, I know about Wōdejebato and relatives which also don't get much new research. I guess I just used up my space of "how many articles can I maintain" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's the case with many articles, not just science ones. If FAs are maintained, this should not be a problem. Also, many science articles are remarkably static. See Maxwell's equations, which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. Graham Beards (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tiger was promoted July 25. LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- They do. ZZZ'S 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think Bonn–Oberkassel dog (Aug 8) counts as a science article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I would not call a typical hurricane article a science article. For sure, meteorology is a science, and there's plenty you can write about hurricanes in general which is about the science. But most of these are just cookie-cutter recitations of the specific facts about events that happen dozens of times a year. What was the track, where it made landfall, pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall, damage caused. That's not science, that's just a data dump wrapped up in prose form with carefully formatted references. RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, was thinking the same. Just because a hurricane comes about due to scientific phenomena does not make discussion of individual hurricanes scientific per se. We might as well argue Taylor Swift is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏 — Amakuru (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just addressing the elephant (hurricane writer) in the room, I kind of agree, that hurricane articles aren't really "science". In fact, as a hurricane writer, I make attempts to make it hurricane articles not appear too scientific, so it is accessible to the average reader. This isn't about a proton or a black hole where you talk about years of research and tons of research papers. No, instead we rely on "pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall", all different tools to describe what actually happened, and why a single storm affected so many different people. Sometimes storms can even cause wars and disrupt national economies, but they're such short-lived events, that it's not like they're an ongoing thing worthy of significant research, not when a lot of storms are honestly pretty similar. They all do very similar things, with some slight variations. That's why I find them fascinating, and why I write about them, and I'm not going to stop writing about them since I think the vast majority of tropical cyclone articles are useful and interesting. But they aren't exactly "science", like some kind of hypothesis or idea, and admittedly there should probably be more articles on the study of meteorology. I'm gonna have to do something about that... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Removing my comments for now. Will post again when I've had more time to think about the content. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Seattle Kraken nom
Hello there. A couple months back, I nominated the article Seattle Kraken for FA, but after five weeks, it didn't get the needed amount of reviews, and the nomination was subsequently closed. I nominated it again 11 days ago and it still hasn't received any reviews. Any reasons why? Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think in this particular case it might be the topic. Popular culture doesn't fare brilliantly for FAC reviewers, and sports are even more niche (in that just liking 'sport' isn't enough, rather the sport itself). The article itself isn't in bad nick as it goes; no major MOS violations jump out, everything's cited, sources all seem OK, if news heavy (but that's probably inevitable for a relatively young team like this). SerialNumber54129 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, i forgot to mention that you're allowed—encouraged—to page reviewers who took part in the early FAC... SerialNumber54129 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Another reason might be that you haven't reviewed any articles at FAC, according to the FAC statistics tool. Reviewing articles helps editors learn the FA criteria, shows that you understand the criteria, and builds goodwill among editors. If looking for reviews, I always recommend reviewing articles yourself. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Echoing this, particularly the "goodwill among editors" bit. Reviewing takes time, and I'm more willing to take that time to help someone who has invested in the FAC process. Note that when Graham Beards asked for volunteers a couple sections above, folks jumped in to review. If you're wondering why, feast your eyes on Graham's reviewing stats and imagine the kind of goodwill the guy has stockpiled. Ajpolino (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- One caveat here is that we don't want "I'll support/oppose your article if you support/oppose mine"-type situations. Each article needs to be reviewed dispassionately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC at WT:BLP
Drawing the attention of project editors to an RfC concerning a proposed change to WP:SUSPECT, which could affect relevant FACs. Interested parties should join this discussion. SerialNumber54129 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Strikethrough error
There appears to be some sort of error in one of the FACs as several of the listings in the "Older nominations" section have all their comments displayed with a strike-through. I was wondering if there was any way to have that fixed? I am guessing that it is an issue with one of the FAC that is bleeding out into the other FACs on the list. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Images in BLPs
There is a thread at Talk:Len Deighton#Lack of an image about adding images of BLPs, and possibly not passing FAC if no non-free one can be found. All comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
RfC at Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
There is an RfC at Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, an FA. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Status of Virgo interferometer
@FAC coordinators: What is the status of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virgo interferometer/archive2? Gog the Mild promoted it, FrB.TG asked for a spotcheck. None was done in the short timespan between the edits, and I am not sure if what Hurricanehink mentioned is a spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Second nom?
@FAC coordinators: Would I be okay to pop in a second nom? My current one has been going for a couple of weeks and has five supports and has cleared image and source reviews, so most of the heavy lifting appears to be done on that. No problems if you'd rather I wait a little longer, obviously. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, you would. FrB.TG (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much FrB.TG - that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
disputing archiving
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gusuku period/archive1 was archived with 5 supports, 1 oppose (which had been mainly resolved), and 3 reviews currently in progress. I think this is very premature — the closer said that the most recent review by AirshipJungleman29 showed that it was not ready for promotion, but this mainly consistented of minor text tweaks and recommendations that would be resolved in a matter of minutes. I feel that this should be reopened, though obviously I'm going to be biased in that respect; I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- fwiw, although Ian didn't know this when closing, the rest of my review would not have been resolved in a matter of minutes; I was intending, among other things, to deeply question the reliance on one book so recently published I can find zero scholarly reviews of it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, given that Airship's review so far was only on the lead and already included a couple of non-trivial comments, plus given the nom had been open for weeks already and had another outstanding oppose, I think a closure was reasonably justifiable, though of course disappointing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that's fair enough I suppose. To PR! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Japanese and Farsi/Persian speakers needed
There are two FAC reviews where the source spotcheck hinges on Japanese and Farsi/Persian sources. Specifically, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 for Farsi/Persian and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pulgasari/archive1 for Japanese. Anyone who knows how to read them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Google Lens' translate function is quite good these days for translating pictures of documents. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not all of the problem sources are in image form; some are behind paywalls and stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewers for November 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supports and opposes for November 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Nominators for September 2024 to November 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) >>>
On source reviews for foreign language sources
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 came down to three sources that were offline and in Farsi. I know that there are ways to get at offline sources, but I wonder if anyone's sitting on a way to handle spotchecks or sourcechecks when the source to be checked is in a foreign language. Folks vouched for DeepL on Hungarian sources and I think Polish sources too, but is Google Translate reliable for translating Farsi? I don't feel comfortable with skipping certain sources just because it's too hard to verify them, so these need to be checked as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- This 2021 paper found that GT was 67.5% reliable for translating medical phrases into Farsi. If the sources are linguistically complicated, I would expect the reliability to be around the same; if they are linguistically simple, the reliability will go up. GT has also improved since 2021. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would assume good faith if other sources' spot-check did not indicate unverified statements or close paraphrasing. In this case, the nominator could also be requested to provide a translation. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article
I would appreciate input at Talk:Landis's Missouri Battery#Revamping. This is one of my earliest FACs, and I would appreciate some additional thoughts to make sure I'm not being too harsh on myself; this one isn't really up to my current standard. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Archive problem
There seems to have been a problem with the bot archiving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1. The bot has not added Template:Fa top or Template:Fa bottom to the page or updated Talk:Corleck Head. Steelkamp (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tks, I think I've located the issue so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI Hawkeye7. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. It has run now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Tools to scan article for a quality check?
I seem to recall there were some tools an editor could run on an article that would scan it and identify some errors, particularly with citations. The tools that I'm thinking of were more-or-less part of the FA process, I seem to recall. I'm looking for these tools (in Help:Citation tools) but cannot find them. Am I dreaming, or are there such tools? Noleander (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Noleander: This tool by Phlsph7 highlights unreferenced statements in articles. It's not perfect, but it helps a lot. Usually, FAC candidates do not have this concern. This script by Headbomb highlights sources of concern, including unreliable, potentially unreliable, or blacklisted sources. This script from Trappist the monk will highlight sources listed as a reference, but not used as an inline citation. Entries have to be double-checked because citations that are formatted differently might produce false positives. Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nice info, thanks! Noleander (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2024; thanks to Hog Farm for doing the analysis on these. 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) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewers for December 2024
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supports and opposes for December 2024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Nominators for October 2024 to December 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
One interesting statistical note: the annual overall oppose percentage (number of opposes divided by the sum of opposes and supports) is 13% for 2024; that's higher than for any year in the last eleven years. It's only once been over 9% since 2014. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the exhortations to oppose more are beginning to work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Automatic lapsing of FA status?
See this proposal and surrounding discussions. Serial (speculates here) 14:05, 4 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.[3][4][5][6][7] 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: [8], [9]) 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)
- Yes, please. Much appreciated. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:43, 7 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 headerBefore: ==== 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It's because the summary highlighter searches for all bolded uses, which includes not just Support, but automatically bolded font such as in
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)
- Tks HF! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've deleted the redirect. Hog Farm Talk 00:01, 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)
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. — EF5 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. — EF5 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). — EF5 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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). — EF5 16:37, 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)
- 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)
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)
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supports and opposes for January 2025
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Citing pages
Is there a policy on citing specific page numbers for journal articles similar to books? Is citing a one with more than ten pages a problem? LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well, WP:REFPAGE says "When citing sources in Wikipedia articles, the citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article, per the verifiability policy. It helps to give a page number or page range—or a section, chapter, or other division of the source—because then the reader does not have to carefully review the whole cited source to find the relevant supporting evidence, which promotes efficient source checking." If a fact in an article is supported by source information on just one page (or two, or three) I would expect the cite to point me to just that page (or those two, or three) As a reviewer I would not feel that citations which did not do so were up to FA standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- NOT "citing a one with more than ten pages" is certainly a problem. Personally I can live without page #s in citing articles up to 3-4 pages. Note that in medical and some scientific areas the convention is different - it is usual just to cite the whole article where the information is contained in the abstract. Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing, but adding -- it is usual just to cite the whole article where the information is contained in the abstract.: this is true-off Wiki, but we have had a recent discussion (I forget exactly where: this one isn't recent but gets to the same point) that abstracts in themselves aren't considered reliable sources. As such, on-Wiki, we need the supporting page as well in order to verify, in which case, we need the page number anyway. Agreed that I wouldn't get overly excited if the article were a single page long, but otherwise I would consider omitting the page numbers an error, even if not necessarily an unforgiveable one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Afaik, that is still not how at least medical articles are treated on-wiki; I doubt the "recent discussion" will cut much ice there. The usual "theology" of this is that in a typical research paper there won't be a page where the overall result is stated. You should either take the abstract's word for it, or read the whole thing. Of course often there is a conclusions section of some sort, but that typically won't cover the sample size and origin, protocols used etc, which are very often crucial to the assessment of the results. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Point well taken regarding abstracts expressing points more explicitly than they are stated in the article itself. A side point: in the absence of such an abstract, I'd argue that, if we're in the case where there won't be a page where the overall result is stated. You should ... read the whole thing (which might otherwise be an argument for not using page numbers), that doesn't meet the WP:V requirement for the information to be presented
explicitly
in the source. I've yet to see a conclusions section that doesn't include some variation on "we find that this treatment works" or its opposite, even if couched in cautious and hedged language, but then I don't read very many medical articles. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Point well taken regarding abstracts expressing points more explicitly than they are stated in the article itself. A side point: in the absence of such an abstract, I'd argue that, if we're in the case where there won't be a page where the overall result is stated. You should ... read the whole thing (which might otherwise be an argument for not using page numbers), that doesn't meet the WP:V requirement for the information to be presented
- Afaik, that is still not how at least medical articles are treated on-wiki; I doubt the "recent discussion" will cut much ice there. The usual "theology" of this is that in a typical research paper there won't be a page where the overall result is stated. You should either take the abstract's word for it, or read the whole thing. Of course often there is a conclusions section of some sort, but that typically won't cover the sample size and origin, protocols used etc, which are very often crucial to the assessment of the results. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not disagreeing, but adding -- it is usual just to cite the whole article where the information is contained in the abstract.: this is true-off Wiki, but we have had a recent discussion (I forget exactly where: this one isn't recent but gets to the same point) that abstracts in themselves aren't considered reliable sources. As such, on-Wiki, we need the supporting page as well in order to verify, in which case, we need the page number anyway. Agreed that I wouldn't get overly excited if the article were a single page long, but otherwise I would consider omitting the page numbers an error, even if not necessarily an unforgiveable one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Second nom?
@FAC coordinators: is there a chance I could add a second nom? My current nom has been going a couple of weeks and is ticking along nicely. No probs if you want me to hold off for a while too, obvs. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SchroCat Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- You're a star - thanks very much! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 20 March 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)
- This seems like a good idea -- the current blurb certainly doesn't reflect the rules as implemented. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've been bold and added it. It now reads "
An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor should only add a second sole nomination with the specific approval of the coordinators after the first has gained significant support.
" I've left in the 'sole nominator' wording as that is the default that editors can follow without needing permission. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)- I think that's now contradictory. Could I propose
""An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support.
" It's tricky to find a form of words that is both accurate and vaguely comprehensible! UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)- Much better. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think that's now contradictory. Could I propose
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
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supports and opposes for February 2025
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- 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)
A discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Forever & Always, BLP in lyrics could use some more input. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Source reviews of translated content
If I translate a featured article in another language, do I have to possess the physical sources in question to be able to pass a source review in English? I seek to make Alice in Chains (album) a feature in time for making the front page on its 30th anniversary; by and large, it is complete and I am ready to send it to candidacy following a speedy copyedit. Some very impressive work has been done on all the albums by this band on the Russian Wikipedia; they're all relatively recent FAs. The sources in question are (mostly, if not all) English-language heavy metal magazines which, all things considered, would be at the top of the chain in musical journalism. My work in quoting any material has been very sparing, so that should not be an issue. I was hoping we could AGF that the sources were used correctly if we compare to the native promoted version, at worst case scenario.
Some of these sources do have scans available that I can access, but they're not kosher to link directly to on Wikipedia (I don't think). Yes, I know I should have thought of all this and asked way earlier in the process, but I had the ball rolling already. If this is feasible, I'll nominate immediately. I did also post in the community's Discord chat about this. mftp dan oops 01:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity I clicked through to the Russian version of that article and clicked on the first English-language source to catch my eye - this one, meant to be supporting a claim comparing the sound of the album to Cream, Crosby, Stills and Nash, and The Allman Brothers. That source mentions none of those groups. So, small sample - but not inspiring confidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, thank you for pointing this out. This is a placement error on the parts of both languages. There is sourcing for this information, but the specific bands come from Rolling Stone, not the LAT. Not as big a deal as I initially thought, I've fixed it. mftp dan oops 22:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say it's questionable to submit an article to FAC when you don't have physical access to all the sources employed there. Physical access - translation issues are a problem too but less so than not being able to check the source at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- You don't have to link to the sources on Wikipedia, but you do need to be able to produce them (for example via e-mail or by giving some excerpts) if challenged. People misread sources all the time, even in enwiki FAs. A translation can further alter the meaning, and translating what Russians say about an American rock band easily involves two instances of translation, which is just not safe. If you do not have access to the original sources, then WP:SAYWHERE says you should cite your actual source, which in this case would probably be the Russian Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- (Incidentally, the sources issue is why I have stopped translating articles from other Wikipedias. I find it more fun to just take as many as possible of the sources of some foreign article and to write a new article from scratch based on those sources). —Kusma (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- You guys were right, there are inherently problems which can arise by simply taking the words as gold, as Nikkimaria pointed out above. But I got lucky this time. As it turns out, there are scans available for every magazine used in the Russian FA. I have a place of reference to check now, and I think this is doable. mftp dan oops 22:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Talk page
@FAC coordinators: In regards to dusky dolphin FAC page; Roy Smith has stated on his talk page that "I will say that what you've got now is substantially better than what it was when I first looked at it,". Does this negate his initial concerns on the FAC page? LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- In general, reviewers will explicitly comment when they support an article's promotion. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not really what I mean. I mean will this initial concerns not be taken into account in the final decision. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- I generally trust the FAC coordinators to suss out whether there's consensus to promote an article. If they're not sure whether someone supports promotion, they can always ask. Remsense ‥ 论 01:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not really what I mean. I mean will this initial concerns not be taken into account in the final decision. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Adjusting FAC header to match actual norms (2 points)
Like the thread above WT:FAC#"only one nomination at a time", it seems due time to make sure the FAC header actually reflects the norms of the process. There seem like two major gaps which should be mentioned (the exact wording is certainly improvable):
- A nomination needs a successful source and image review to be passed: During the process, nominations are required to pass both a source and image review.
- First-time noms require a spotcheck: Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators, although they are suggested for all candidates.
Although these two things may seem obvious to regulars, they are not actually mentioned at all in the header. It seems worthwhile to create less surprises for new nominators, and be explicit about current expectations. Aza24 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Point two ("suggested for all candidates") isn't right. It's not a guideline I have heard about or common practice for anyone. Spotchecks can be carried out on any FAC, this is true, but I've never heard it said that it is "suggested for all candidates". - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SchroCat I may have just worded that poorly, maybe "welcomed for all candidates." I was trying to clarify that although they're required for new nominators, that doesn't mean they're not allowed for long-time nominators. Aza24 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then why not just "Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators." It removes any ambiguity or overstretch. I think we're nudging up against instruction creep with this. The instruction section is already long (and probably mostly unread by people), so I wonder if we really need this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Maybe the second suggestion nudges, but the first seems like a major oversight given that source/image reviews are a long-time staple of the process. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Would support
Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators.
(and, against the risk of arguing about the bikeshed, suggest that the first suggested change is likely to be uncontroversial). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Would support
- Schro is right about instruction creep. Certainly the first point about image and source reviews is unnecessary given the FAC criteria spell out the requirements for properly licensed images and reliable sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree: the FAC criteria mandate a lot of things that don't have specific, must-do reviews for them. For example, we don't generally have specifically-titled MoS reviews, accessibility reviews, comprehensiveness reviews, and so on. Being clear that an article needs "Source review: pass" and "Image review: pass" is, I think, useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- The Good Article instructions say a GA review
must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source.
(emphasis original).Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- The Good Article instructions say a GA review
- I'm not sure I agree: the FAC criteria mandate a lot of things that don't have specific, must-do reviews for them. For example, we don't generally have specifically-titled MoS reviews, accessibility reviews, comprehensiveness reviews, and so on. Being clear that an article needs "Source review: pass" and "Image review: pass" is, I think, useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Maybe the second suggestion nudges, but the first seems like a major oversight given that source/image reviews are a long-time staple of the process. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then why not just "Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators." It removes any ambiguity or overstretch. I think we're nudging up against instruction creep with this. The instruction section is already long (and probably mostly unread by people), so I wonder if we really need this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SchroCat I may have just worded that poorly, maybe "welcomed for all candidates." I was trying to clarify that although they're required for new nominators, that doesn't mean they're not allowed for long-time nominators. Aza24 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
FA passing with one oppose
Can an FAC pass even with one oppose if it has more supports and passed an image and source review? LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- FACs can pass with opposes. The most recent was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al-Altan/archive1, a couple of months ago, with one oppose; the most recent to pass with two opposes was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brighton hotel bombing/archive1, less than a year ago, which had an oppose and a source review oppose. There are (old) FACs with more than half a dozen opposes which passed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just to note that Brighton hotel bombing had two passing source reviews which negated the first (out-of-process) source oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
RfC of potential interest
There is an RfC concerning forcing wikilinks of newspapers into references at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_work_field_and_reflinks. Given this will make the formatting of a large number of citations on FAs or nominations inconsistent, it may be of interest. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- An additional RfC about reference formatting is ongoing: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles. It would mandate (in the MOS) that all references in a given article must have their titles in one of either title or sentence case, and explicitly forbid using the formatting of the source titles as a style. --PresN 00:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
The essense of FAC in 71 seconds
https://youtube.com/shorts/ky0YOo7_Y0o?si=moiQyrwKq0OINzhI RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's not that crazy guy in the bunker complaining about Steiner's source reviews again? Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, I found that rather amusing. TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
new nomination
@FAC coordinators: can i start a new nomination? current one has been open for nearly 3 weeks and has 3 supports (and a weak support, if that affects anything), though source and image reviews have been finished. 750h+ 11:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead FrB.TG (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)