Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Hemmema Review it now
Madman's Drum Review it now
Amphetamine Review it now
Stroma, Scotland Review it now
...And Justice for All (album) Review it now
Indian Head cent Review it now
Didier Drogba Review it now
Shortcut:
Urgent FAR/FARCs
view edit
S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897 Review it now
Manila Metro Rail Transit System Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist
2013

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

2010

Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review
Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3
Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2
Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1
Mar 15: GA Sweeps end
Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards

2009

Nov 2: Inner German border
Oct 12: Sounds
May 11: WP Birds
May 4: Featured lists
Apr 20: Valued pictures
Apr 13: Plagiarism
Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations
Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates
Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds
Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT
Feb 23: 100 FS approaches
Feb 16: How busy was 2008?
Feb 8: April Fools 2009
Jan 31: In the News
Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates
Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders
Jan 10: December themed page
Jan 3: Featured list writers

2008

Nov 24: Featured article writers
Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page
Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest
Oct 13: Latest on featured articles
Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview
Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images
Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch
Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August
Sep 1: Featured topics
Aug 25: Interview with Mav
Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Aug 11: Reviewing free images
Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July
Jul 28: Find reliable sources online
Jul 21: History of the FA process
Jul 14: Rick Block interview
Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June
Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine
Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources
Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale
Jun 9: Main page day
Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May
May 26: Featured sounds
May 19: Good article milestone
May 12: Changes at Featured lists
May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities
May 2 (late): Did You Know
Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes
Apr 14: FA milestone
Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence
Mar 31: Featured content overview
Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter
Mar 17: Changes at peer review
Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration
Mar 3: April Fools mainpage
Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories
Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity
Feb 11: Great saves at FAR
Feb 4: New methods to find FACs
Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer.
For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests[edit]

Art books for FA writers[edit]

Hi, Wikimedia UK has been talking to the Public Catalogue Foundation here in the UK. They have offered us 12 of their books on Oil Paintings in public ownership in the UK to give to FA writers who would find these useful reference material. If you would like one of these books, details of the 85 titles available are here. You do not need to be a member of Wikimedia UK or even resident in the UK to get one of these books, just choose a book and email me. Preference will be given to FA writers. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note the information in the books is essentially that available on the PCF/BBC "Your Paintings" website, sorted by large owner or area into books. But they are very handsome objects. Scotland is not covered.Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have applied for the "Northern Ireland" book; this is a very generous offer. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil, delighted to include you. Four now booked but eight books still available. PS to John, as far as I'm aware Scotland is very much in the frame with 8 out of 85 books. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) aka WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, so it is - something left for DevoMax then! Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Update four books now despatched, eight more available if there are another eight people interested. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with highlightText[edit]

I've reported this at bug 67784http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67784, WP:VPT, WP:Lua requests ... no luck so far. I need this for my copyediting software. Per Wnt: "I see ... some version (I don't know if it's the most recent for sure) of the highlightText at [1] with the infamous split-on-space at line 12." That's exactly it ... I'm hoping that all I need is a function (residing in or outside of Mediawiki) identical to highlightText, with (I'm guessing) the space in pat.split(" ") in line 12 replaced by a tab character. (Or, getting rid of the parsing entirely so I can pass an array of strings would be fine.) Any help? - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Life without bots[edit]

Am I correct that we don't have bots updating article history anymore? Going on that assumption, I tried to teach myself how to do it by following Maralia's instructions at User:Maralia/FA bot but I got lost with {{ArticleHistory}} because I don't know what's supposed to go in those fields - so I reverted what I tried to start. But I'm thinking if we don't have a bot, this is something we should all learn to do so we don't have talk pages with the "please leave comments" still displayed. And if we are now manually updating, maybe we should remove the "don't manually update" message. And … (sorry, being a bother) … if the bots got lost when the everything was moved to the WMF Labs, shouldn't we ask somewhere (Villagepump technical maybe?) to have them make a new bot? The updates are a lot of work, and personally I think featured articles are sufficiently significant for the project that it's something that should be supported somewhere. But if not, as it seems not to be, then we shouldn't expect the delegates to do the work, and we'll have to learn ourselves to close the FAC. Sorry, long post here - short question is what is supposed to go in the articlehistory fields? Please ignore if this makes no sense. Victoria (tk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, we are still pursuing a couple of possibilities, either repairing the old GimmeBot or creating something similar from scratch. In the meantime, kind souls have been doing the manual closures per Maralia's instructions. I have to admit I thought there was more detail there about article history for the uninitiated, so I might add a footnote shortly on just what to do and them perhaps you could have another go and let me know the result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If clear criteria for the bot can be spelled out I may be able to produce a bot. Chillum 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that offer, Chillum -- let me just see where we're at with the possibilities already in train first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What else is in the works? As chillum notes this is a pretty narrow and potentially well-specified task. Shouldn't be too much trouble to make a new bot. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
the old instructions for MilHist ACRs are quite detailed. They could easily be adapted for FAC if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Heh, great minds, Harry -- I'm just in the process of adapting the article history part of those instructions for the footnote I promised Victoria... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that footnote about article history is now at User:Maralia/FA bot if Victoria (or anyone else) would like to take a look -- happy for improvements if anything can be better expressed, but in the meantime it's way past my bedtime down here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, that's very helpful. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, I came looking to see if there was a problem with the bot... and am I correct in thinking there is? I'm not entirely clear what's happening, is this a widespread issue or something just effecting Gimme? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new bot to handle FAC, which I will be testing this weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Many tks again for that Hawkeye. For everyone's info, Hawkeye implemented a bot to close MilHist Project A-Class Reviews not too long ago, so it occurred to me that his talents could lend themselves to a FAC bot as well (possibly sparked by HJ's comment above). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

New Bot[edit]

I have a new Bot. I will now have to go through the procedures to register it. In the meantime I will run it manually as a script each day, checking what happens. I would like the delegates to simply mark articles as passed with {{FACClosed|promoted}}. The bot will move the nomination from the candidate page to the log page. This saves messing around with the end-of-month processing. The Bot will create the new month for you. Some questions:

  1. Who are the delegates? My preference would be to create a special category for them, like we did for the MilHist coordinators.
  2. The Bot adds articles to Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page by adding the appropriate {{Article history}} but how do I find out what topic the article is under to update Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks mate, we owe you one. Would have to double-check point 2, but re. point 1, a while ago I created {{@FAC}} to ping all FAC coords in one hit -- does that do the trick or would you prefer something else? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, if the bot could also handle {{FACClosed|archived}}, which requires the FAC nom page to be closed and the transclusion to be removed from WP:FAC and added to the archived nominations page, our joy would be complete... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} as well, right? —Designate (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
We have to be careful because these are the same template where any choice of words can go where I have put the asterisks. {{FACClosed|****}} Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't going to confuse the issue for the moment with the "withdrawn" parameter but we do occasionally use it FTR when a nominator, for whatever reason, asks for the plug to be pulled on the FAC. The actions for the closer (or the bot!) to take in the case of {{FACClosed|withdrawn}} are exactly the same as for {{FACClosed|archived}}. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, to answer your second question - WP:FANMP is generated by taking WP:FA and stripping out all of the articles wrapped with {{FA/BeenOnMainPage| }}, just leaving those that have yet to run (or adding "none" where appropriate). But when I say "is", I really mean "was" because the bot that used to do this is offline... Is there any chance that you could add this task to your list? That would be very useful. (The advantage of having WP:FANMP as a clone of WP:FA is that then only one page has to be specifically updated for promotions/demotions/renames, rather than two.) BencherliteTalk 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Well that is easy to do. I have updated WP:FANMP page. Now we are back to the original problem of how to correctly update WP:FA ie how to put the articles on the correct categories. For example, when the bot looks at William Barley, it sees that it is a book, a biography and a classical music article. What did you file it under? Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Great! Many thanks, Hawkeye7. (Two minor issues on the FANMP page - could we have "none" where the sub-category is empty, and could we avoid the initial dot at the start of each list? Compare e.g. this). As for your other point, my understanding was that the coordinators add articles to WP:FA, not the bot. @WP:FAC coordinators: is this still the plan? BencherliteTalk 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. As to the second point, my preference would be for the Bot to handle it, so there would be only one manual step. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
A quick thought, but if the coordinators want the bot to handle adding the page to the list(s), a simple modification so that they could use {{FACClosed|promoted|section}} to instruct the bot which section to which the newly promoted article should be added. So for example, when U.S. Route 141 was promoted a month and a half ago, Ian Rose could have added {{FACClosed|promoted|Transport}} to the bottom of the nomination with his signature, and the bot could have taken care of the rest. I'm sure the bot could set so that attempts from others to initiate promotion would be ignored, or possibly deleted. Just some food for thought. Imzadi 1979  19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes! That would be ideal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception sections in music articles[edit]

I just reviewed City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song); I don't review many music articles so I took a look at several articles on singles or albums that are FAs. I was surprised to find that the critical reception sections in every one I looked at are essentially listings: "Critic A said this. Critic B said that. Critic C said the other." See Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)#Critical reception, Talk That Talk (Rihanna song)#Critical reception, and Kala (album)#Critical reception for some examples. I looked at about ten of these and found very little variation. Occasionally there's a little structure: perhaps the first paragraph is positive reviews, and the second is negative; or the sentences are written to embed quotes in statements about the good or bad qualities of the music, rather than simply listing critics, but this isn't the case for most of these.

I criticized City of Angels for having just this structure for the critical reception section, but now I'm wondering if other reviewers agree with me, given the apparent precedents. Does this sort of section really meet criterion 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"?

I looked at some of the classical music articles to see if I could find alternative models, but it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. See L'Orfeo#Reception and performance history, for example; there's a narrative there, with quotes placed in service of the narrative, but one suspects there are not twenty newspaper quotes available for the article writer to use if they wanted.

I've marked my review of City of Angels "leaning oppose", though not only for this reason; do others think this is a valid reason to oppose? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue Mike. I also find this writing scheme to be trite, and surely not that interesting to the readers. I don't know who/when set this standard, but it definitely fails to get my attention to read the entire article. Nominators usually defend themselves by saying there are other FAs with similar (or identical) stricture, but the point is to please the reader, not bore him.--Retrohead (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) For me, what makes a good Reception section is following through on the opinions. It is easy for a critic to say the song was "compelling" (and for WP to report this) but surprisingly few explain why (it is compelling). The critic-by-critic flow of this particular article could be improved with better transition (e.g. 'similarly', 'alternatively') to help guide the reader in comparing/contrasting critic POVs. (2) Quotes need to have a purpose, so "...spins the tale of his decision to move to Los Angeles and his earliest days there" is an unnecessary as a quotation in a Reception section. Also, paragraphs should not be used as arbitrary breaks. (3) Reception sections are inherently going to be opinion-heavy and therefore should be heavy with quotes and be directly attributable. Wikipedia should not be re-writing or interpreting critic opinions (e.g. if they said the song was "corny ballad" then they meant corny ballad; not dumb-hokey-cute-unprofessional-mediocre-whatever) - and it was that one critic's opinion. maclean (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    All good points, but I'm not convinced that this is enough. The critical reception section should summarize for the reader how the song (or album, or whatever it is) was received. The ideal source is an article about the artist that says e.g. "Blowing in the Wind is regarded very well by critics, with many calling it Dylan's finest song". That's a secondary source giving a summary of the overall set of reviews; the article writer can easily produce a summary statement about the song from sources like that. Simple lists of review statements is the same error as listing individual research results in an scientific article instead of stating the current scientific consensus on a topic: it can sometimes be justified, but it should be the exception.
    When there are no summary opinions in secondary sources (which is nearly always the case for a typical song) then I think the best option is to pick some of the more respected sources available (national papers, Rolling Stone, etc.) and use those as examples to illustrate the positive and negative reviews. Even simple statements such as "most reviews were positive" are risky: did the writer check every review of the song in every music paper? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FA was not passed, but why?[edit]

After many edits and corrections, this FA process eventually ended with everything being addressed. Then nothing happened, which is why I posted my (unanswered) question above. Today I noticed that the process had closed with a not-nom, although there is no reason for this given, and I was not informed of this closure. Can someone let me know what's going on here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for the coordinators, but after two months with no supports I would expect this to be closed and archived. I also can't speak for the reviewers, but I can tell you if I review an article, and everything I list is dealt with, and then I don't support, it's often because I have reservations about the article. The FAC for hartebeest last year is an example. I will try to articulate them if I have time, but occasionally that doesn't happen. To put it another way: supporting on a FAC requires the supporter to believe it passes the criteria. Sometimes this is not quite the same as having all one's comments addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
And sometimes it isn't even that; I've had it happen before that the reviewer just kinda forgot about it, so I pinged them and it worked. In my experience, simply not supporting if you don't oppose doesn't hurt an FA nom; the problem is when you don't get at least three supports, period. Tezero (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So, wait, I had to go back and garner support votes in order to close successfully? And no one mentioned this before closing it? Now what do I do, go through the whole process again?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. The description could probably be more explicit about this being necessary, but frustrated nominators might resort to less-than-reputable methods to get their articles the three necessary supports. (Do you want to get socks? This is how we get socks.) I think a solution could be for the coordinators to look over old nominations with fewer than 3 supports but no opposes and, if they support the passing, go ahead and pass it anyway. Tezero (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we might be on a slippery slope by allowing fewer explicit supports, remembering of course that it's not just a numbers game anyway -- support has to be backed up by comprehensive reviewing and awareness of the FA criteria, as well as resolution of outstanding comments. Maury, I might suggest that as the reviewers, like the coords, are all volunteers, it would be useful to the entire process if you reviewed some other FACs when you nominate one. It's not a requirement of course, and we don't encourage QPQ reviewing per se, but it helps you become better known in the community, which can lead to people keeping an eye out for your noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)