Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Mirror symmetry (string theory) Review it now
Pokémon Channel Review it now
Ontario Highway 402 Review it now
Shortcut:
Urgent FAR/FARCs
view edit
Baltimore City College Review it now
Electrical engineering Review it now
Manila Metro Rail Transit System Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist
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

Image/source check requests[edit]

VoxelBot[edit]

...continues to be a bloody pain in the arse. It hasn't run for over a week (possibly longer). We need a reliable script to keep the FAC process running smoothly. It seems that Voxelbot is not fit for the task, when it does run, it often attributes closure to the wrong coordinator and, even more often, does not update the articles' history. Manual closing takes an age and I do not have the time to do it. Suggestions please. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Groveling to GimmeTrow to bring back GimmeBot would be the best solution. That bot not only properly handled closing FACs/FARs plus FLCs/FLRs, it also consolidated DYKs, PRs, GANs, etc into the Article history template on a regular basis. Sadly, he was run away by people and the bot was shut down when he left.
VoxelBot only handled a small portion of GimmeBot's tasks, and if someone could just fix the bot to run reliably, we wouldn't have these issues. Imzadi 1979  23:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's get grovelling; you don't know what you've got til it's gone. Graham Colm (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
In the interim, maybe FAC needs a clerk or two to manually update a closed nomination until a bot is reliably handling the function. Since we don't have a FA director anymore, I would assume that the coordinators as a committee (and this probably goes for all of them: FAC, FAR. and TFA) would have to discuss appointing any clerks. Imzadi 1979  00:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
How about WP:BOTREQ?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As I've said elsewhere, this bot is less reliable than a meth addict holding a jackhammer. FLC's already taken to manually closing nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 36 has now been filed, for FAC only so far. --Rschen7754 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As I think I've asked before, is there any reason why we can't do this until the new bot goes through? VoxelBot seems to have completely given up. If no-one has any objections, (and prompted by entirely selfish reasons as one of my FACs has just gone through!) I'll see if I can do the closures for at least the April ones. If anyone does object, feel free to shout at me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
No objections, but be sure to follow the instructions at User:Maralia/FA bot. --Rschen7754 19:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm using; I'd be grateful if someone could check my working! Also, I'm going on the idea that the article becomes an FA when it is added to the FAC log page, and this is the time I'm using on the FAC page. I think VoxelBot used something else. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless I've messed anything up, April should now be up-to-date. My eyes have started to bleed, so I'll try to do March tomorrow. It's tedious rather than difficult, so it's not too much of a problem while we are bot-less. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Tks for your efforts, Sarastro -- proof positive of the virtue of selfishness... ;-) I checked most of 'em and they look okay to me (although how the peer review for Bobby Peel ended up in Imogen Holst's article history is anyone's guess -- I sorted it). Re. 'closing time', personally I've always considered an article as promoted when the delegate/coordinator adds the closing template to the FAC page but both Gimmebot and Voxelbot seemed to use the time the FAC page was added to the month's Featured Log, so what you did follows that rule. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Historically, it was adding the article to WP:FA that caused it to be a featured article; we don't have to abide by that if we don't want to, but that's the old rule. The logs and so on were regarded as book-keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to keep people updated, I've now done all the promoted articles from March and April, which should make us up-to-date. There are still several archived nominations from March to do, which I'll tackle tomorrow (unless anyone else desperately wants to do them before that!). As I'm far from fallible, I'd again be grateful if someone could check I've not done anything embarrassing like add the wrong links through careless copying and pasting. Mike Christie: If I remember correctly, the articles became FAs officially when added to the WP:FA, but the link on the closed FAC page always went to the promoted/archived log; the only thing I'm not sure about is the date that the bot gave on the closed FAC. I've gone for the same date as it was added to the log, but perhaps it should be the date it went onto WP:FA. But VoxelBot did something quite random, so I don't suppose it matters (and I've no intention of going back and changing anything now!). Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, the article history is quite a pain to sort out, and as I think a few people have mentioned before, it would be useful if a few regulars could make sure the article histories are OK when they get to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

We are now up to date. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A million thanks for doing all that tedious work. It is much appreciated. Graham Colm (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested shake-up of the nominations system at WP:TFAR[edit]

There is a discussion underway at WT:TFAR with several suggestions upon which the views of FA writers and others are welcome, including:

  • Doing away with points for "diversity" (that is, bonus points awarded for articles in FA topic categories with <50 FAs such as mathematics, food and drink, education) since this applies to very few articles at present (just 2), and very few articles come through FAC in these topics
  • Trying to make the process of nomination less complicated by doing away with points altogether (for an experimental period), leaving factors such as recent similar FAs / date relevance to be mentioned in discussion and taken into account on scheduling
  • Moving to a system of nomination subpages using templates such as at DYK, allowing simplification of the instruction process and easy reference to old discussions in archives.

Do come and join in the discussion, and perhaps try out the beta templates to see how they and their instructions could be improved, in case we go down that route. BencherliteTalk 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense page[edit]

Someone has created Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured article candidates, a pretty awful thing on the same topic as Pather Panchali (novel). I'd have tried CSD A10, but I'm not sure if that works as it's not in article space, and it has links to a couple of useless (but much older) subpages linked to it that might be worth kicking off as well. Would an admin care to take a look? --Stfg (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

FA criteria question: which comes first, comprehensiveness or COI?[edit]

Hi, I've got a little dilemma. In RL I am preparing a journal article on the films of Saeroen, in which I argue (among other things) that he wrote Sorga Ka Toedjoe (our article is currently an FA). If this article were to be published, which would have to come first, the FA criteria for comprehensiveness (that is a fairly important piece of information, which is currently not in any sources I've found) or the Wikipedia COI guidelines (i.e. WP:SELFCITE)? There'd be other stuff too, as my emphasis would be on the representations of cities vs. villages in these films (which would also affect the FAs Terang Boelan and Asmara Moerni), but WP:UNDUE could possibly come into play there, particularly as I am unaware of anyone else crazy enough to do a thematic analysis of a film based on a novelisation / advertising material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As I see this, if the article is published by a reputable journal, and it is cited in a manner consistent with how all of the other sources are treated, then I don't see any issue with citing a source. At worst, post the changes you'd make to the article(s) on its/their talk page(s) for comments before making them. Imzadi 1979  04:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be doable; so essentially similar to how COI editors work on articles like Monster Cable Company? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you expect many replies? Simply make the edits. This shouldn't even be an issue, you're well qualified and trusted. --Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed - comprehensiveness trumps COI - FAC is a rigorous process - the material will be taken on its merits and deemed necessary to be included or otherwise. Maybe notify reviewers at the time and allow them to make consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, WP:SELFCITE allows reasonable self-citing, but you should disclose it. So long as the emphasis is not undue, and there are no alternative/contradicting sources that are ignored (usually the problem with this), it should be within the guideline. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've done what Crisco is proposing, at Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar, and will most likely be publishing a second article, both in The Numismatist, which is certainly reputable, this November, on the same subject. Both are research from archival documents. As it was post-FAC, I saw no point in a notice to people. I did plan to speak to Bencherlite before I nommed it for TFA, but given the second article (I have to cut it some), I'll probably hold it for the 90th anniversary in 2016.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • All sounds sensible to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of us appear to be in agreement here. As I was hoping would be apparent from my previous comments, I consider a talk page discussion really a worst-case scenario, but honestly you can probably make the edits directly without issue. Imzadi 1979  22:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks everyone. If it gets published, I'll be sure to cite and add a note on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New system for suggesting "Today's featured article"[edit]

Further to my earlier message, WP:Today's featured article/requests is using a new system on an experimental basis. Firstly, the old requirement to calculate how many "points" the suggested article had has gone. Secondly, we are using a nomination template based on that used at DYK in the hope that this will make the process easier to complete. If you would like to nominate a featured article that has yet to appear on the main page – whether written by you or by others – please come along to WP:TFAR and give the new system a go. All feedback welcome. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 13:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Wadewitz, very sad news[edit]

I'm very sorry to say that Adrianne Wadewitz, who was extremely active and productive on FAC for several years as both a reviewer and nominator, has died in a climbing accident. Condolences can be added at User talk:Wadewitz. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing FACs[edit]

Would it be appropriate to ask here whether an FAC is ready to be promoted, closed, etc. after a certain point? Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Resources[edit]

As some of you may know, I have recently gotten some online resources from my local university, at least for the next year. I am willing to do online research in the databases available to me as a George Mason affiliate. Obviously response time will depend on my own schedule and so forth, when I travel, my access to internet is often limited. We'll see how it goes anyway. Email is the best way of doing this I think as it allows me to send documents directly to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, gratz on your appointment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne[edit]

Can we have some comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Original Stories from Real Life? One of Adrianne Wadewitz's articles is going to run on the main page as "Today's featured article" on either the 14th or 26th, but we have 23 hours to find a consensus date. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I'm not normally this pushy, but I was wondering if someone would have time to do spot checks at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1? The nom. has been up quite a while now, and a source review has been completed. Hoping this isn't too bold, but the nomination is one of the older ones. Thanks. – Shudde talk 10:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Diversity of Featured Articles[edit]

A discussion on WT:TFA highlighted the fact that the policy of "diversifying" the Featured Article of the day (ie attempting to maximise the gap between articles on similar topics) has exhausted the supply of articles on certain subjects. Obviously, TFA will have to relax its policy; but is there something that should be done to increase the diversity of FACs? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Access to sources? I'd love to do an article on Lemon meringue pie, but I have no idea where to find appropriate sources (yes, I've looked—don't look so surprised!). I do know where to find sources for my area of "expertise", so, as that's the path of least resistance, I continue to do articles within a narrow field. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Reach out to WikiProjects on underrepresented topics? What are underrepresented topics? J Milburn (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Africa, aside from Madagascar. South-East Asia, aside from Indonesia... Well, depending how tightly we define this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • According to User:Bencherlite, the underrepresented areas are (with the number of articles that have not yet been TFA given after the category):
  • Awards, decorations and vexillology - none
  • Chemistry and mineralogy - none
  • Computing - none
  • Education - C. R. M. F. Cruttwell and History of Texas A&M University
  • Engineering and technology - none
  • Food and drink - none
  • Geology and geophysics - none
  • Language and linguistics - none
  • Mathematics - none
  • Philosophy and psychology - none
  • Everyone can of course think of the subjects that have much greater representation at TFA - biology, warfare, contemporary media/video games, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Are the projects under the above categories maybe less aware of the FAC process? Is there some way to raise awareness and encourage those projects to push for FAC? Maybe encourage these projects to go through PR or GOCE? Experienced FAers from outside those areas of expertise maybe could offer their services to help bring some of those articles up to snuff? Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The list is here. It has always been this way and frankly I don't see much changing, unless manic editing individuals in those areas come along. It takes vast amounts of work to build up the "bank" that some projects have done. In fact it has been worse in the past - Art & architecture non-run FAs were often counted on the fingers of one hand, but are currently 17. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Although, sometimes, all you need is one devoted editor. Our Indonesia FAs have gone from 18 or so to 40 in the past two years, and our numismatics FAs are essentially all by one editor. It can happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • To be fair, RHM22 did some very high quality work on the dollar series. He has about five FAs on his own plus a couple with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying - it's all, or mostly, down to a small number of individuals. Milhist people dropping by to "help bring up to snuff" the odd maths article won't make much impact, not that I'm discouraging it. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe best to encourage some good GAs to be taken All the Way as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There's an idea. An awful lot of them just need some polishing, and some editors avoid FAC out of fear or lack of self-confidence, rather than lack of skill. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Johnbod: It could encourage those editors to get more involved in the FAC process. I used to edit randomly until in a PR Nikkimaria mentioned one of my articles might possibly make it through FAC. I had never even considered it until then—didn't know anything about the process, assumed my articles were too obscure anyways, and didn't have nearly the self-confidence. Having gone through the process once gave me self-confidence and totally canged my editing patterns. I'd like to think there's the odd mathematician, philosopher, or vexillographer (?) who just needs the right handholding to set the ball rolling. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that I'm volunteering myself (still working on my copyediting software, almost ready to show it off!), but encouragement at the GAN and PR level to consider FAC is the way I would go. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Definition of diversity[edit]

I think we should also consider how we define diversity. Besides for the obvious idea of varying the topics of the articles chosen to be featured on the main page, should we also consider trying to get some of our more important articles to be TFA? Clearly the idea of "importance" is subjective, but how about any article that's a level 1, 2, 3 or 4 vital article? Or how about any article with a million or more annual page views?
I understand that such articles are much harder to bring to FA status than articles on more obscure topics, but for that very reason shouldn't we try to encourage people to do so? Such articles are difficult to improve to FA status because of the staggering amount of time needed to find, read, and incorporate a large number of high-quality sources, improve the prose of a 8,000+ or 10,000+ word article, and resolve any possible disputes that come up in the process. I should know, having spent 30-40 hours bringing Treblinka extermination camp up to nearly FA status with another editor, who has put in a similar amount of time, I believe.
Anyway, I think our current initiatives to encourage the improvement of "important" articles are as follows:
1. Wikipedia:Million Award: rewards editors for improving articles with 250,000; 500,000; or 1,000,000 annual page views
2. Wikipedia:The Core Contest: yearly monthlong contest improving vital or core articles

Those are the only two that come to mind off the top of my head. Am I missing any? AmericanLemming (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In the WikiCup (contrary to what some people like to believe) we award very large numbers of points for important articles, and, following an idea first proposed by Casliber, we judge importance based on the number of interwiki links. This generally seems to be a reliable indicator, certainly better than those vital lists and without the inherent problems of page views, and is difficult to game (not that people don't try). Many of last year's finalists were there on the back of highly important articles brought to FA status: sea, Phoenix (constellation), Battle of Hastings, Starfish, Norman conquest of England, Koala and Middle Ages were all from last year's competition (courtesy of Casliber, Ealdgyth, Sasata, Cwmhirarth and others). J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The bonus points given by WikiCup were highly successful in getting people to work on high profile articles at the FA level. They also encouraged collaboration, as this allowed the competitors to have two articles at FAC at the same time instead of just one, thereby increasing points and decreasing risk. Relaxing the one-at-a-time rule here might have a similar effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • My professional academic focus (rather than my Wikipedia academic focus, which branches considerably more) is Indonesian literature, a field which would fail the criteria put forward by AL and by J. Milburn (how many people do you know, aside from Indonesianists and Indonesians, who can honestly say they've read a book by an Indonesian author?). Even branching out into history, my most "core" FA thusfar (Sudirman, the first leader of the Indonesian military) has 11 interwikis and less than 100 views a day... not quite what would be "core" in these definitions. We simply have to face the fact that some areas of specialty (Indonesia, in this case) are inherently obscure, at least to the general populace... unless we want to jump on the popular bandwagon and expand something like The Raid 2: Berandal (136976 views in the last 30 days; five interwikis), though I shudder to think that a 2014 action flick is more "core" than a general who inspired generations of soldiers or a poet whose works are still read widely almost 70 years after his death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I revived the Core Contest and proposed ideas for the wikicup as the rigour of the FA process has made broader articles need much more work to get through - it has had some success at encouraging folks to work on broader articles. I have tried reviving wikiproject collaborations but these have resulted in very little activity in the past few years sadly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There's always a question on whether it is best to work on your field of expertise (where you may be the only editor with expertise in the subject) or to work on an article with broader appeal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of the Core Contest; sorry I missed it this year. Broad articles are so difficult because they are really survey articles that need to summarize information on so many different sub-topics. Even if you think you get them all, one review cycle and people will question every editorial decision and every source. I tried working on music several years ago and every practically every edit was disputed. Exhausting. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Renominating an article before the 2 weeks is up.[edit]

The page says not renominate for at least 2 weeks but also says with permission and very little feedback you are allowed to do so before 2 weeks. Would my nomination(Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Napoleon Dynamite (TV series)/archive1) qualify? I received very little feedback and addressed all issues that were brought up. Me5000 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)