Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Of Human Feelings Review it now
Blackrock (film) Review it now
Mark Oliphant Review it now
Shortcut:
Featured article removal candidates
view edit
New Jersey Devils Review it now
Marian Rejewski 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]

Saying vs. stating[edit]

I usually do some copyediting when I review an article, and one thing I find myself changing frequently is the use of "stated", as in "Director John Doe stated that the film was expected to go over budget. Producer Fred Bloggs stated that this was very unlikely." I see it particularly (but not only) in critical commentary sections in film or music or video game articles. One of the first writing rules I learned was to be careful of saidisms, but the usual problem one sees is the use of unnecessary variation: he complained/commented/noted/asserted/mentioned, and so on, whereas in FACs what I see is just the repeated use of "stated". The use of "stated" seems to be almost becoming a standard in certain parts of certain kinds of articles. I plan to keep chipping away at it whenever I see it, but I thought I'd post here to see if others have noticed the same thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. I see it as a bit of journalese, and of course journalists have more excuse, as people often do "state" things to them. I think of it also mainly as an American thing. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree strongly. These critical commentary sections are a nightmare. Another one I dislike is the prevalence of albums and films being "critically acclaimed" and "commercially successful"; almost any work of art will receive some critical acclaim and achieve some commercial success. These terms should be reserved for the highly acclaimed and highly successful works and should come with examples and references, or they should be removed on sight. It is not uncommon to see these phrases repeated liberally throughout an article. It jars. --John (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind backing up, why is unnecessary variation a problem? I don't mean this as a loaded question, but would you idealize using some variation in synonyms, but sticking mostly to one or two? (I lean strongly toward the variation side, as I can't stand repetitive text.) Tezero (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:SAY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Avoid elegant variation. --John (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect elegant variation to be a problem with verbs, particularly not ones as common in writing as some of the alternatives to "say". Although I didn't know the term until now, I've only seen this practice discouraged in the case of creating materials for ESL students, and only because it can be confusing when one is trying to parse a sentence slowly, not because it's somehow pretentious. Tezero (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Both the above are good links. I'd add that repetitive text is a problem too; it's just that the solutions often used introduce other problems. Sometimes the variation needed lies deeper: sentence structure; even organization of a section can be at fault for repetition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not always a case of "elegant" variation: I find "state" often fits the context better than "said", especially when a statement is used suddenly—"said" sometimes gives the statement the flavour of being part of some running narrative. When X said "XXX" and Y said "YYY", it sounds like Y was continuing from or even replying to X. Usually these sections are a collection of opinionsrather than a running narrative—often arranged thematically rather than chronologically. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@John: Can you point to a popular music or video game article that handles the reception section well enough that it could be used as an example for how it should be done? I'd find a good model very useful to support comments I might want to make in FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie:, I can't think of one, but what I try to do is let facts speak for themselves, so rather than "x was critically acclaimed", just segue into what the film/game reviewers actually found and leave it at that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"stated" connotes "said" to some and "made a statement" to others (i.e., formally or with the intention of being quoted), so ambiguity is sometimes an issue. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a film (not video or popular music), but Steve was a competent film editor: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)#Reception SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. That article still has one "stated" I'd like to get rid of, but it'll stand for now. :-) If anyone's interested, a very long time ago I wrote a copy-editing guide for film articles (adapted from a similar guide over at WP:MILHIST) which can be found here (it kind of falls apart towards the end, but still appears mostly valid). It does briefly rail against the elegant variation of "stated, noted, claimed, uttered, expressed, verbalized, gave tongue to", though I can't recall now if I stole that from something Tony1 wrote. :-) Steve T • C 21:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend not try to avoid "say" and use "state" for statements made in writing, and for official statements made in speech. "Said" for me implies a conversational and casual context.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I came back to make a similar comment—not that "said" is casual, but in most contexts implies a spoken statement, and I don't think it's always appropriate to use it for written statements. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • This must be an Engvar thing, or personal view. I absolutely wouldn't agree with this, nor do I think the best prose uses the words this way. "State" is odd because only some parts of the verb can really be used without sounding even odder. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Some parts of the verb? I dont know what that is. To me good proseit is awful prose to use "said" when representing something that someone wrote, and I tend to change this usage when I find it - for example "the article's authors said that...". To me this could only be used if referring to something they said in an interview about the article, but not in reference to the article text itself - here I would always use state (or possibly wrote/write, but that feels clunky to me). But it probably not something that it makes sense to make rules or guidelines about - it is likely a matter of personal taste, style and usage. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If you run though Uses of English verb forms trying say and state in turn, you will find that many work fine with say, but sound odd with state, and hardly any are the other way round. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
That is hardly relevant since we are not claiming that any of the words are restricted in terms of their cooccurence with other verbs. It is about the context of meaning in which the two verbs work. Said is colloquial, which is why it makes sense to say "John said "WTF?!"" but not "John stated WTF!?"" and also why it makes sense to say that "The President stated his arguments clearly" but get an entirely different meaning if we write "The President said his arguments clearly".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. In my experience using "say" to include written statements is colloquial (or at least less formal). I would not hestitate to use it on a talk page when casually referring to the recommendation in a book (e.g. "Garner says it's OK to start a sentence with and"), but in formal English I would normally restrict it to oral statements, especially when the oral nature of the utterance is important. Used in a colloquial context for matters of little importance, of course, use of "state" would normally be pretentious, as in "he stated he'd be a little late" (example from Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage). --Boson (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The article I was reviewing when this came up is Blackrock (film). (Freikorp, I hope you don't mind me using it as an example.) This version had 14 uses of "stated" and 11 of "stating". I think that was too much. I did some copyediting and Freikorp has done some more, and now there are 4 and 5 respectively. I think this is a big improvement.

I'm interested by the fact that there are some divergent opinions above. Would there be any interest in collaborating on an essay related to this? Either something specific such as "How to report speech in articles", or a little more general, such as "Critical commentary and reception sections", which would include this? Are there existing essays that cover this ground? I'm suggesting collaboration because although I suspect that some of the apparent divergence of opinion might disappear when faced with real examples, it would be interesting to come up with cases where good prose writers disagree on what works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good subject for an essay that expresses the reasons for avoiding such writing, similar to Tony1's essays about avoiding certain turns of phrase. His essays are easy to digest because they explain the reasons behind the concept, and show clear examples of how to do it better. I've read way too many music, film, and video game articles that contain things like "Judy Brown stated that the album 'is a good example of acid rock'". It's a way to lazily construct a Reception section, and I expect it's propagated via WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Projection verbs need to be varied, I think, to avoid excessive close repetition in a text. Problem is that projection verbs tend to be needed not just once, but in clusters. Yes, "said" has an oral (vs. written) tinge (in Signpost stories we use it a little loosely—since those storiesare written a journlistic register). In more traditional registers, such as WP articles, other words to project written statements are probably better, "said" could be pressed into service if you're running out of alternatives. Aside from "stated" and "said", a number of others are at hand: "wrote", "suggested", "commented", "contended", "declared", "asserted", "announced", "insisted" (last four marked), "affirmed" (in the right context), "maintained" (slightly defensive), "remarked" (rather formal). "Noted" I dislike, but it could be dragged out if you're desperate. "Opined" is execrable; "posited" is stilted, in my opinion. One principle is that a projection verb be hardly noticed by readers (unless it needs to be marked). Tony (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
"Noted" is better in the passive sense, e.g. "as noted by x". I hate "notes" as in "Smith notes that..." followed by a summary of Smith's opinion. I could tolerate one "opined" and/or one "posited" per article, if the opiner or positor was of sufficient weight to justify the pomposity, e.g. "T.S Eliot posited that...", otherwise both should be avoided. Repetitive "saids" read tediously, but choices of appropriate alternatives are, as Tony says, a question of context. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible FA for next Martin Luther King Day[edit]

I know it's a long way in advance, but I thought I'd note that I've nominated The Negro Motorist Green Book for consideration as a Featured Article candidate with the aim of Main Paging it on the next Martin Luther King Day. If you would like to comment, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Negro Motorist Green Book/archive2. Prioryman (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review needed for M-theory[edit]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for someone to complete an image review of the M-theory article. A review was started by Maky, but he ended up working on many of the issues himself and now doesn't feel comfortable completing the review.

Thanks for your help. Polytope24 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we're good now. Polytope24 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot for TFA-entries on WP:FA ?[edit]

@WP:TFA coordinators: , @WP:FAC coordinators: I vaguely remember, that automatic insertion of TFA-tags at the WP:FA page was discussed in the past and was wondering, if maybe User:AnomieBOT II could be expanded to cover that function. With its task "TFATitleSubpageCreator" this bot already has a related task running and should "know" about current TFAs. But anyway, has somebody more background information about technical possibilities and problems of such a feature? GermanJoe (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • For some reason, FAC bot is still handling Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Is there any reason it can't/isn't doing WP:FA? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • User:UcuchaBot used to handle this and other useful tasks. In Ucucha's absence I wonder if Hawkeye7 (in his busy 'botting' schedule!) could replicate those functions elsewhere... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I can have a go at it on the weekend. The FAC Bot would have to:
        1. Update WP:FA to add the FA tag
        2. Update the article talk page to indicate that it was TFA
      • Anything else? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
        Note that I am prohibited from access to the AnomieBOT II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
What it would be good for the bot to do breaks down into two parts:
(1) When the TFA is selected a couple of weeks in advance, add |maindate= to the {{article history}}. This is something the old bot used to do, and the TFA protector bot adds move protection to TFAs from when they are selected, so this task should be possible. It would save the TFA coordinators a job, in particular. NB if you take this task on, ping the TFA chaps using {{TFA}} to this discussion so they know to stop adding "maindate".
(2) Each new day, add at WP:FA around the name of that day's TFA. If it helps, you can use {{TFA title}} and its daily bot-created subpages e.g. {{TFA title/March 19, 2014}} etc to find the title of the TFA. The former bot's code for this (and its other tasks) is here if that helps. I note that the bot runs at 00:05UTC to update WP:FANMP and logically it makes sense to update WP:FA with "BeenOnMainPage" immediately before updating FANMP.
Hope this makes sense. Let me know if I can explain further. BencherliteTalk 20:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. |maindate= is already being added to the {{article history}} of TFA each day
  2. The FANMP run was supposed to update WP:FA as well, but an error was preventing this. This has been corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update @Hawkeye7: Could you check the latest update please: [1]? The bot had a problem to place the ending brackets for the TFA tags and placed them at the page's end. An "old" TFA (from yesterday) wasn't updated as well, but that's probably not possible with the current process? (not a big problem, when the FA page is updated daily anyway) GermanJoe (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It only updates the day's. I've applied a correction; it should work better tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Images in an FAC discussion?[edit]

A well meaning supporter placed an image in the discussion for the Camas pocket gopher. Is that frowned upon, for reasons of gumming up page loads or archives? If so, I will remove it or put the ":" in front of the image to link to it without showing it. thanks --Gaff (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The image is from Wikimedia Commons, so as far as I understand, it should be OK to include it in a talk page. If it were a non-free image, it would absolutely and unconditionally need to be removed from the talk page — even if the image qualified for "fair use" in the article, "fair use" doesn't apply to talk pages (see WP:IQUEUE). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, maybe I wasn;t clear. I understand free image vs fair use. My concern was if an image on specifically Featured article candidates page is allowed. Certain things like some template, Yes check.svg Done and what-not, are problematic. "The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as Yes check.svg Done, X mark.svg Not done and Example text: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives." That pretty much clears it up, so I'll take down the image. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Images are not a problem-- the problem is templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)