Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
George Pickingill Review it now
Xx (album) 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]

Writing conflicts at WP:TFA[edit]

This is going to be long, but I've made it as concise as I can. I've been able to get copyediting done without getting too bogged down in details all these years in part because the load of making final calls and handling disagreements has been shared among hundreds of people ... writers, reviewers, copyeditors, MOS guys, various coords, and others. Now, I've got a job where it's on me if I make the wrong call, according to any reader in the world ... and worse, unlike in article-space, there's a deadline. (My fellow coords Crisco and Brian are great, but our agreement is that it's on me to get this part of the job right.)

Part of what has always made FAC work is that we don't have rigid adherence to one standard for everyone all the time. There's lip-service to the goal of conforming with our MOS pages, but most questions about writing that come up aren't covered there ... and many FAs don't comply with all our MOS pages. Gasp, I know. But not a lot of FAC writers hang out at WT:MOS and similar pages, and not a lot of MOS guys hang out as FAC reviewers and writers, so it's inevitable that the two cultures have diverged to some extent, not only in the output but even in the goals and methods. I have nothing but praise for the corpus (as a whole) of our style-related pages, or for the corpus (as a whole) of FAs ... both strike me as incredible, impossible, but we got the job done anyway. The problem is that I don't have the luxury anymore of ignoring the discrepancies, or of getting sucked into someone else's fight every time there's a discrepancy. I'm going to keep on doing what I'm doing, which is: when a call on language (MOS, style, grammar, readability, orthography, whatever) seems like a clear call to me, I'll just make the call without raising a fuss, and deal with the consequences. I'm slowly working through broad categories of FAs, educating myself on subjects I don't know much about, and that's helping. Occasionally, I ruffle some feathers. But when I know that there are people arrayed on different sides of an issue, I can no longer afford to be a proxy in other people's fights (which is probably the main role I've played as a copyeditor for 7+ years, but that's another story). So: I've created a page, WT:TFAC, where anyone can discuss TFA copyediting issues. The page will also preserve a record of links to any discussions that arise when I don't know an answer and need help before an article's Main Page day. Whenever I have a question, this page (WT:FAC) will be one of the places where I post the question (or sometimes, a link to the question). In the past, the few times that people have asked language questions here, there has been little feedback and occasional unpleasantness ... and I get that, most writers don't like to bother themselves with other people's language questions, it feels like more than enough handling the questions people have about their own articles. Besides, being too language-conscious can interfere with a writer's process. (Publishers know this, and generally don't lean on writers too hard to copyedit their own stuff.) All I can say is ... in those relatively rare cases (rare compared with the number of calls that have to be made) where I post a language question here, I'll probably be asking at WT:MOS too, at least. If I didn't know an answer in the first place, then the answers I get are the ones I'll have to go with, and if I rarely get answers on this page ... which wouldn't shock me ... WP:TFAC may over time tend to reflect the opinions of people who rarely write or review for FAC. Does this plan seem fair? - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me Dan. I've never seen FAC as 'above' MOS, and as someone who does refer to MOS occasionally both as an editor and as a coord I can think of plenty of examples where we try to ensure FAs follow the manual, but there may well be areas they don't that simply haven't come to the coords' attention. Perhaps some apparent divergence is from much of MOS being guidelines, with room for exceptions, rather than hard-and-fast rules. Anyway, if this could help FAC and MOS feed off each other a bit more then that should be to the good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, I hope so. Credit where credit is due ... I think everyone did a great job with the #Saying vs. stating thread at the top of the page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Update ... my first attempt, which wound up at Talk:List of James Bond novels and short stories, didn't go well. I need to be more careful with my questions. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That discussion is continuing at WT:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Italics_for_series_titles. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

I have nominated Ancestry of the Godwins, which discusses the theory that Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, was of royal descent. The article says that the theory is rejected by almost all historians, and Curly Turkey thinks that one statement is OR

Curly: "Williams in her ODNB article on Godwin, and Robin Fleming in her ODNB article on Harold, do not mention the theory when discussing Godwin's ancestry.": this could be Original Research if the lack of mentioning the theory is not mentioned in a RS.

Dudley: I do not see this. Saying a theory is mentioned would not be OR, so saying it is not mentioned should not be either.

Curly: Well, this is the thing—you're reporting a fact that's not reported by any of the sources, and you're citing sources for what they haven't said rather than what they have.

Any views from other editors? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that it's a little on the OR-side. It's an original thing that you've observed. Popcornduff (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering the whole paragraph (listing critical opinions following a critical topic sentence), the observation "Some authors did not comment" could imply "Some authors did not comment" because they don't take the theory seriously. Of course that's a logical, natural conclusion - but it would still be OR. Stating a negative is not always OR in itself, but in a certain context it can be. GermanJoe (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Many but not all of [group] have said [thing]" wouldn't be OR. "X hasn't said [thing]" is generally OR. But there may be more to this ... what leads you to believe that the fact that Williams and Fleming don't mention it is significant? There may be something they're saying that's clueing you that they're dubious, and maybe that's what we need to see. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Mike Christie and Hchc cover this below. I discuss the views of writers who do mention the theory, and the fact that it is not mentioned in encyclopedic ODNB articles when discussing the ancestry of the Godwins does seem to me a point I should mention. I am not clear how I can clue the reader in further without POV. BTW it is not strictly relevant to POV, but one of the historians mentioned (Williams) has reviewed the article and is very happy with it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I think acknowledgment from someone of her stature is always relevant. Congratulations. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
For a theory, I think it is OR. For a fact, let us say something that one biographer mentions but another does not, I think it is OK to point out that the second does not mention it, with the source being the pages that cover that time period in the subject's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it OR; if anything, it's WP:SYNTH. That said, if the theory is not mentioned in most of your sources, I would think you can say just that. However, if they haven't explicitly dismissed it, your current sentence is too strong. (essentially, I agree with Wehwalt above) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this can be OK, and in fact it may be necessary to avoid giving the reader the wrong impression about the prevalence of a theory. The ODNB article is often the among the most authoritative sources for a biography. If a reliable source suggests X, and the ODNB article neither mentions nor refutes it, I think it's reasonable to say so -- essentially you're telling the reader "a reliable scholar says X, but not everybody has taken this up", which is something a reader is entitled to know. You don't have to do it this way, of course. If you mention the source of idea X inline -- "historian Y suggests X" -- then the reader should understand that this is a particular suggestion and the article isn't implying others agree. But if X is mentioned by multiple sources, but not all, I think naming some of each is a reasonable approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well said. As long as you're careful to not put words in a source's mouth, it should be good. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Mike. The policy on maintaining a neutral point of view requires that we ensure that we indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Where a theory isn't mentioned at all by an historian charged with writing an encyclopaedic style article like an ODNB piece, it seems fair to mention that in order to communicate the balance of views to the readership here. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It sheds light on a theory's popularity to note which historians fail even to acknowledge it. As long as some credible historian mentions it in the first place, I think it's fine to say that others don't. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I think it would be misleading to say that a respected historian (Frank Barlow) supported the theory without also mentioning that other equally respected historians did not think it worth discussing. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem I see is that how can you be sure? Someone says historian X doesn't mention such-and-such a theory, but can't cite this. So how can anyone verify that the theory isn't mentioned? A historian may have published a dozen books and forty articles, some in obscure places, and you would have to read the lot to indeed know that the historian hasn't mentioned the theory. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is why you specifically mention the work it isn't mentioned in. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ed. I should have made myself clearer. As Mike Christie and hchc say, the point is that it is not mentioned in ODNB, which is an encylopedic summary by a leading historian. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have found that where there is an ODNB article and an ADB one, and they are in conflict, the ADB article is more likely to be correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Hawkeye7's comment, and would go further to say that when the ODNB is in conflict with any generally reliable source, the ODNB one can safely be assumed to be incorrect. The ODNB contains glaring errors (as any work of such size with so many different authors will), and is sloppily edited and not quick when it comes to correcting mistakes; as with Wikipedia, it's so widely read that its errors tend to then be repeated elsewhere and become "fact". (Their claims that William Huskisson was "the first fatality of the railway age" and "buried at St James's Church in Liverpool" turn up pretty much everywhere the man is mentioned, despite the fact that Huskisson wasn't even the first railway fatality in Eccles, and Huskisson's tomb is a prominent landmark in the middle of a public park with no church nearby.) – iridescent 15:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran source review[edit]

The Enthiran FAC needs a source review, most of them are from newspapers, magazines and websites (The Hindu, The Times of India The Indian Express, The New Indian Express, India Today, NDTV, Rediff.com, Sify, Behindwoods). I'd really appreciate it if someone could take a look. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Currency question[edit]

I ran into a MOS:CURRENCY question on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Sri Lanka cyclone/archive2 that I'd like other opinions on. If you're interested, please search the FAC for "LKR" and the subsequent discussion. Does the format of the currency usages in the article look right? I'm not convinced but I haven't got an example to point to of the right way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FAR to FAC[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/SSX 3/archive1 was incorrectly submitted to WP:FAR by BlookerG. Perhaps someone can deal with moving the page, fixing the talk page entry, and maybe do the rest of the bookkeeping ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

100th birthday suggestion for WP:TFA[edit]

Someone should attempt to take Frank Sinatra to WP:FA for his 100th birthday on December 15.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)