Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Murder of Leigh Leigh Review it now
American paddlefish Review it now
Oxford College of Emory University Review it now
Ontario Highway 403 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]

  • Source review done by Nikkimaria and spot-check done by me. --Laser brain (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why so few support/opposes?[edit]

My first attempt at FA failed and I learned it was due to too few support/oppose votes - namely zero of either. So I re-listed and the same is happening. I was started to feel depressed until I took a look at the list as a whole.

I started at the bottom, as those would likely have the most fully developed reviews. Scrolling upward, I found that most of the listings are lacking any sort of "vote" one way or the other. Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories has three supports yet these took well over a month to gather, Luo Yigu has a single weak oppose, Hemmema has a single support. These reviews take up eight pages on my very large monitor and span a period of months, yet there's a total of five votes, which of course means that most of these articles will fail FA.

Now, of course, the articles that have passed are likely removed from this page relatively quickly, so it's a biased sample. Generally, how many FA's are failing for lack of votes?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The coordinators are best placed to answer that question, but the cause is simple, and is a perennial problem: there is a shortage of reviews. It might speed things up if reviewers gave preference to older nominations with less than three supports. I try to do that myself when I review. I'm not saying there's any obligation on reviewers -- they should review whatever they want. And of course getting more reviews would be much more helpful than simply changing the priority of what to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
While we do have a shortage of reviewers, I might ask if you've been reviewing other people's articles? Often editors will be willing to review an article by somebody who reviewed one of theirs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As a radical idea, what if we were to form a list (or category) for users willing to be arsed in the event of a dangerous review famine? I'd join it, because inactivity-failing is incredibly petty to me. Tezero (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier just to review some articles? Eric Corbett 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If we knew about their urgency, sure. It's not realistic to expect everyone who'd be open to helping out an editor in need to keep a constant eye on the FAC list - some may be rather myopic in their wiki-activities by nature but willing to help if needed. Please, before you call an idea "radically stupid" take a moment to think about the people who might benefit from it. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Why is it not realistic? I've not infrequently reviewed articles that are about to drop off the end of the list, and I flatter myself sometimes saved them from being archived. How many FAs have you reviewed this week for instance? Eric Corbett 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Two. Again, it's not unrealistic not because these people wouldn't be willing to do them, but because they wouldn't necessarily know about them. Think about it this way: you'd be willing to buy your friend dinner if he didn't have any cash on him, right? Does that mean you'd call him up every evening to ask if he had his wallet? Tezero (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there are any stupid ideas being floated here but there may be some potential reinventing the wheel. Aside from checking out the bottom of the FAC list, there's also the 'FAC urgents' list at the top of this page that I usually update every week or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently most nominations aren't communicated in interested projects (checked a few project talkpages). While some projects use article-alerts, such alerts are easily overlooked, so some people won't even know, when reviews are being needed for a topic of their interest. We (nominators, reviewers, coordinators) really need to do more to "advertise" our activities and bring more people on-board. Suggestion: make talkpage notifications for all interested projects (see article talkpage) a mandatory step of the nomination. It's a bit more work for nominators - but getting no feedback must be even more frustrating. GermanJoe (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Many people who might be interested are often not aware, so alerting isa good option - I find folks are often interested and take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely; WP:VG keeps a very regularly updated list of FACs, GANs, PRs, etc. where we might not naturally keep up with this stuff otherwise. We don't have a whole lot of inactivity failures as a result, and we boast quite a speedy GAN process compared to most content areas: it's rare for a VG article to be awaiting a review for more than a month or so. Tezero (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I comment at featured pictures fairly often. I have never commented here because the standards for a featured article are more complex so I have never attempted it. Chillum 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A good way to start is when reading, to think, "how could this be improved?" and go from there - what's it missing and what's hard to read, then going to look at and then check sources etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I just took a look to see if there was a sensible way that I could comment on the article and help move the review, but it is so far outside my areas of interest and expertise that I really don't think I can. Generally the majority of articles that get featured do so because there is a community of editors with similar interests that work conjointly on the articles whether they be hurricanes, battleships or 19th century English literature. I think it would make sense if you went to the wikiprojects that have to do with engineering, physics and naval technology to see if you could recruit reviewers. Some people think this would be "canvassing" but that is only because they already have a network of people they can count on for congenial reviews.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many comments above, so if you don't mind I'd like to comment on the comments:

  • There are a number of comments about a lack of reviews, and/or a lack of reviewers. I do not find this to be the case; in the examples I am looking at there are extensive reviews, but few or no votes. Sturmvogel 66, your review of my FA went on for page after page and we fine-tooth-combed it to a T. But you didn't vote.
  • Tezero mentions a mechanism for ensuring freshness, which seems like a very good idea. But again, we need votes, not more reviews - personally I think the review process is fine. But this gets me thinking...

Again, I'm going purely on personal experience here, but in my case Sturmvogel 66 performed a superhuman review of the article in question, and I implemented perhaps 95% of his comments. At no time was there any sort of red flag issue, or even general comment to the effect of "this sucks" - it was largely clarity edits, GR and REFs and similar cleanup, the content of the article remained the same throughout. A second review of that depth seems unnecessary, but here I am in a second review, with no votes. This is not always the case, there are numerous examples of FAs where there are concerns being expressed by the reviewers. But certainly the list maintainers can tell the difference. So what about a "end of days" process that calls for votes on articles that have been extensively reviewed and appear to have no problems? Instead of simply archiving them, we have a short list of items that are ready to be voted on without further major review. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience (which is admittedly sporadic), there are two big reasons why reviewers might be hesitant to firmly support or object. If you support, you are basically vouching for the article and declaring that you vetted it according to all the criteria. It's much easier to just declare your comments addressed and walk away, because it doesn't leave you responsible for criteria you might not feel qualified to judge. If you object, you are also more likely to attract an undesirable reaction from the nominator than if you just leave "comments". I objected to a recent nomination; the nominator called my judgement and ability into question, then proceeded to go combing through my contributions to see what nominations I had supported so he could point out that I'm a hypocrite for supporting articles he perceived to be inferior to his own. Shortage of reviewers indeed; who really wants to subject themselves to that behaviour? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe you're at the heart of the matter here Spike. And if this is the case, we need to address it head on. Perhaps the call for votes would address this... bear with me here. What if the FA process had two parts, one being a call for comments, and a second being a call for votes. The first would be essentially identical to what we see today, people leaving comments on how to improve the article. There would be no votes during this period. The second would start when the first concluded, essentially the archive point as it is today. In that second part it would be straight-up votes, no more comments (unless obvious and simple? or even that?). Does that make sense? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Just quickly before I hit the sack, the 'call for comments' alone, rather than declarations of support or opposition, is really what Peer Review is for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree with this suggestion. The established FAC process has served us well for many years and I see no reason to change it because a nominator feels that their article is not attracting enough reviews. FAC is not about votes; it is about reaching a consensus, which is not the same thing. I disregard unqualified "support"s and "oppose"s, especially if they are from inexperienced reviewers as they are not helpful in judging whether a consensus has been achieved. What we need is more reviewers who are willing to take the time to read the FA criteria, read FAs to see the standards required, and contribute good reviews. FACs do not fail "for lack of votes"; they are archived because the coordinators cannot determine if a consensus has been reached or there is well-argued opposition to promotion. Of course, we need to see explicit declarations of support – but please do not regard these as votes. Graham Colm (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
So Graham, are you saying that you don't count support/oppose? Because that's the opposite of what you told me before, and precisely why I started this thread. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to endorse what Graham has just said – and pay tribute to him and Ian for their continued fair-minded and painstaking management of the FAC process. I don't think a "call for votes" would work—those disinclined to declare would simply ignore the call. Like Eric, above, I sometimes watch the latter end of the FAC list, to pick up on nominations that aren't getting much reviewer attention. Looking at the current list, I see most of the noms that have been here for four weeks or more have had lots and lots of attention – some of the reviews are stupendously long. This probably reflects the fact that peer review is not working well – perhaps 40% of peer reviews get no comments at all. Ah, for the days of Ruhrfisch and Finetooth! The only oldish FAC noms with rather sparse attention are Murder of Leigh Leigh and Didier Drogba; I will review one of these – maybe Eric might do the other? (You can have first pick, Eric). Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't fancy either of those Brian, particularly not Drogba, as I have an aversion to BLPs. Besides, I'm still working on the FA review for Bonshō, which I'm not ready to support yet. Eric Corbett 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I like numbers. Here are the numbers for every article on the list today:
Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories - 4 pages of review, 2 votes
Luo Yigu - 4.5 pages, 1 vote
Hemmema - 3 pages, 3 votes
Rodent - 16 pages, 2 votes
Amphetamine - 7 pages, 1 vote
Briarcliff Manor, New York - 7 pages, 3 votes
1850 Atlantic hurricane season - 2 pages, 2 votes
Stroma, Scotland - 7 pages, 1 vote
...And Justice for All (album) - 3 pages, 1 vote, 2 conditionals
Caesar Hull - 4 pages, 3 votes
Fez (video game) - 7.5 pages, 1 vote
Murder of Leigh Leigh - 2 pages, 2 votes
Didier Drogba - less than one page, no votes
Xx (album) - 18.5 pages, 3 votes
Ashley Tisdale - nothing
Not My Life - 7 pages, 1 vote
Interstate 69 in Michigan - 9 pages, 3 votes
Chandralekha (1948 film) - 5 pages, 3 votes
Bonshō - 4 pages, no votes
Temperatures Rising - 2 pages, 2 votes?
Turquoise parrot - 3 pages, 1 vote
No. 1 Squadron RAAF - 2 page, 2 votes
American paddlefish - 1 page, no votes
Oxford College of Emory University - 1 page, no votes
Æthelstan A - 1 page, 3 votes
Barn owl - 4 pages, 2 votes
Ontario Highway 403 - nothing really
Master System - 4.5 pages, 1 vote
The Seinfeld Chronicles - less than one page, 2 votes
Acacia pycnantha - less than one page, 1 vote
Carl Hans Lody - 1.5 pages, 1 vote
The Boat Race 1993 - less than one page, 1 vote
Battle of Warsaw (1831) - 3 pages, no votes (1 stricken)
AI Mk. IV radar - 1 page, no votes
The Fifth Element - 3.5 pages, 1 vote
Margaret Bondfield - 3 pages, about 5 votes
Tony Hawk's Underground - 2 pages, no votes
William H. Seward - 2 pages, 1 vote
HMS Formidable (67) - 2 pages, no votes
2003 Sri Lanka cyclone - nothing yet As one can see, there is no lack of reviews, but there is a lack of votes. If this list is judged according to the criterion on the main page, the vast majority would go to archive. How many? Well there are 40 items on the list, 10 are in for re-review due to lack of consensus on their previous run. That's 25% of the entries. That of course ignores the ones that never bother to come back, which I suspect is the majority of these examples.
Looking over those noms, it appears that they all failed for the same reason: lack of votes. The Fifth Element is one example, in spite of two votes. In fact, only Didier Drogba appears to have been actually opposed, which implies that the other nine died for no good reason.
So it appears that this is a fail-bad process, and it is being called a surprising number of times. If this doesn't indicate breakage, I don't know what does. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Maury but I think there’s a touch of IDidn’tHearThat here. Pls re-read for instance Graham’s last post above. The list you’ve made really doesn’t mean anything in terms of judging consensus to promote, or otherwise. As has already been explained, FAC isn’t about ‘votes’. If that was the case then we could get a bot to promote and archive nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not review much anymore (or do much on WP, alas). That said, I still occasionally review here. If it is not an article I reviewed before FAC, I am more likely to just comment initially 9neither oppose nor support, though I will try to indicate which way I am leaning). With fewer reviews I am more hesitant to oppose right away if there seems to be some chance of the outstanding issues being resolved. My fear is that I do not want a nom closed just because I opposed based on issues that might have been fixable. Thanks to Brian for the heads up. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, which is why the coords look at commentary, rather than just supports or opposes. I've left noms open with one or two opposes that looked fixable in a fairly short timeframe, it's when we see fundamental issues that clearly need a lot of time to address that we're more likely to archive. So my message is, don't be afraid to declare an oppose, you can always change to a support, or at least strike the oppose, if and when the issues are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I rarely oppose, which is mostly because I've read the article, or most of it, before starting my review and if is going to be not ready or a ton of work, well, I have only so much time. I won't spend time at FAC with articles not close to the criteria. I'll often PR them or give them a heavy copyedit, but I don't feel that can be done adequately under the time pressure of a FAC. Just my view. I generally PR if asked if I think I can be of help.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian, the only thing of interest is the outcome. The outcome is that 25% of the articles on the nom list are previous entries that were archived, many of them after extensive reviews. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake, how many times does this have to be explained. Promotion to FA is based on reaching a consensus, the lengths of the reviews are not directly relevent. Graham Colm (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
So you say it's not the support/oppose votes, and it's not the length/quality of the reviews... perhaps you could just say what it is? I've looked, and the closest description I've seen to how consensus is reached in this process is the lengthy section on how to support or oppose found on the FAC page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to continue this discussion with you. Graham Colm (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Maury - the reason that I never voted was that the nom was closed before I had a chance to get back to it and review your changes in light of my last comments. I intended to give a support and need to review whatever changes have been made since the last time that I looked at the article. I doubt that anything that you've done since then will need to be fixed, but the possibility is always there. I will review your nomination when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Maury, I'm late to this discussion, but this complaint about FAC misunderstands FAC. There are people who review because they're interested in that particular article or type of article; others are reviewing because they're active nominators at FAC, and they feel obligated, or are trying to get other people to review articles they're interested in; others (not many) do a lot of reviewing and feel a connection to FAC as a whole. (And of course, there's overlap in these groups.) If you want to talk about changing the way things are done, I recommend being clear about which group you're addressing. For the last group ... personally, I wouldn't presume to tell the most active reviewers what they're doing wrong and how they need to change without doing some research first ... there are probably reasons for the way they do things. For people who review only when they put a nomination up themselves, new rules might run them off. Your best chances of success are in asking for help at the wikiproject level ... the article you're talking about is a Milhist article, and Milhist has a good track record of being responsive to requests for help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Subsections of FACs[edit]

It's been a while since I reviewed regularly, but I've done a few recently and I see that it's now acceptable per the instructions to use fourth level headings for commentary inside FACs. This seems sufficiently convenient that I'm tempted to do it on every review, but first I'd like to remember why it was unacceptable at one time. Is there any negative side effect of these subsections? Why were they not allowed in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Fourth level headings are fine; any higher make a mess of the log pages. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike, setting aside older technical issues which have now been resolved, the reason they were disallowed in the past was that some reviewers used headings "creatively", shall we say, in ways that created bias. I believe recent thinking is that as long as the heading is strictly neutral (such as "Review by MikeChristie"), the sub-headings no longer mess up the archives and it can be done.

But, the last time I wandered through here, no one was making sure that non-neutral headings were removed, so ... nice to "see you", and bye again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if that's an actual issue; it's happened exactly once that someone changed the meaning of my heading (from "support on prose" to "support"), and I fixed it and explained the difference. But if this is some kind of ongoing problem, I'd like to hear about it. Since my comments tend to be sparse, I tend not to use subheadings myself unless there are already subheadings for other people's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Current referencing practice[edit]

I was asked about referencing in recent FAs, so I prepared this table from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2014.

Featured article reference styles, September 2014
Article Notes Refs in notes Refs Citations
Madman's Drum efn sfn cs1 harv
Sonic X cs1
Russian battleship Pobeda #tag:ref group Note short text cs1
Indian Head cent efn harvnb sfn cs1 sfnRef
"Death on the Rock" #tag:ref group note short text short text cs1
James Chadwick sfn cs1 harv
George Formby Snr efn sfn sfn, cs1 listdefined cs1 harv
2002 Pacific typhoon season #tag:ref group nb cs1 cs1 cs1 harv
Fanny Bullock Workman sfn cs1 harv
Flight Unlimited III cs1
Tintin in Tibet efn sfn sfn, sfnm cs1 harv
"all things" #tag:ref group nb cs1 cs1, #Name cs1 #Name
Oriental Film efn harv sfn cs1 sfnRef
Chris Gragg efn cs1 cs1
Franklin Pierce #tag:ref group note cs1 short text, cs1, #Name cs1, cs1 #Name
Epacris impressa ref group nb cs1
SMS Scharnhorst efn listdefined harvnb sfn cs1 sfnRef
Ontario Highway 61 cs1 (one sfn) (one cs1 harv)
Henry Burrell (admiral) cs1, short text cs1
Isopoda cs1
Æthelwold ætheling efn sfn sfn cs1 harv
Beaune Altarpiece efn-ua short text text
Pictor efn sfn sfn cs1 harv

Key:

  • Notes
    • efn – uses {{efn}} for notes
    • efn-ua – uses {{efn-ua}} for notes
    • listdefined – uses list-defined notes
    • ref group groupname – uses <ref group="groupname"> containers for notes
    • #tag:ref group groupname – uses <#tag:ref> containers for notes
  • Refs in notes
    • cs1 – uses Citation Style 1 citations in callouts
    • harv – uses {{harv}} as inline text
    • harvnb – uses {{harvnb}} as inline text
    • sfn – uses {{sfn}} callouts
    • short text – uses explicitly formatted short form callouts
    • #Name – uses explicit links to local anchors in callouts
  • Refs
    • cs1 – uses Citation Style 1 templates for callouts
    • listdefined – uses list-defined references
    • sfn – uses {{sfn}} callouts
    • sfnm – uses {{sfnm}} callouts
    • short text – uses explicitly formatted short form callouts
    • #Name – uses explicit links to local anchors in callouts
  • Citations
    • cs1 – uses the Citation Style 1 templates
    • cs1 harv – uses CS1 templates with the |ref=harv parameter
    • cs1 sfnRef – uses CS1 templates with the |ref={{sfnRef}} parameter
    • cs1 #Name – uses CS1 templates with the |ref=Name parameter to generate local anchors
    • text – explicitly formatted citations

--Mirokado (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting, but what's the context? What's the question being answered? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    I was asked for examples of recent FAs with a particular approach to referencing. The table was a byproduct of looking carefully through the FAs. We can see various patterns which have been used recently (no doubt there are others, this is only a small sample). --Mirokado (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    What I'm getting out of this: essentially nobody uses the same referencing style. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    It goes by more than author, too. On video game articles, which make up the vast majority of my work here (Sonic X, a cartoon, was my FA up here, but it's tied to a game series) I stick with the cite web/journal/etc. format for everything, but with others like Czech language and Afternoon (neither of which is an FA, admittedly), I use "harvnb" more because that's optimized for citing multiple pages of a book. In this case, which style I use depends on what kinds of sources are necessary. Tezero (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

FA promotion note on user talk pages[edit]

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates we put templates on the talk pages of users who have successfully nominated a picture or had a picture that they created be successfully nominated. For an article to pass FAC review is a big deal, so I would like to propose that FAC also put templates on user talk pages to congratulate people on FA promotions. You can see an example of the FP template here. --Pine 22:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your intention is good, but most editors with live FACs watch the page closely, visit regularly, and are well aware when their nominations are promoted or archived. They don't need templates to advise them. Nor, I think, do we need an additional "procedure". Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be a nice extra if it were bot-omated, but it's not good to create extra work for people when nominators are expected to watch their FACs. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's the point of thanking nominators? Think WP:LOVE. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
But how LOVE-y is it if it's a required procedure? There are plenty of editors who stop by to give congrats on a passed FAC—I know I've done it here and there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I already block the numerous automated notices that appear on my talk page from the GAN process (review started, review on hold, review passed), and I would likely block such an automated notice from FAC if it appeared on my talk page. I keep the reviews on my watchlist, so I know when they close; an extra notice in such an intrusive fashion is unnecessary. (Now if the promotions appeared in my notifications list, that could be handy.) Imzadi 1979  05:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing[edit]

Just a heads up, I'm withdrawing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Sri Lanka cyclone/archive1 for personal reasons. Thanks everyone for the help and good work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tks for letting us know -- dealt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How long should an FAC nomination stay open?[edit]

I nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1 on 15 September, aiming to have it ready for a Main Page appearance on 9 November - the centenary of the subject. As of today, 20 October, it has had six reviews and supports, with no opposing votes. Could someone please advise how much longer the FAC nomination should stay open, given that there appears to be a substantive consensus in its favour? I'm keen to resolve the nomination in good time, bearing in mind that I still need to get the article into a WP:TFAR slot for 9 November, and that I have another time-sensitive article that I need to nominate for a January deadline. Prioryman (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I generally make a mid-week pass through the list of open FACs so should catch it, and other likely closures, within a couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks Ian. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam at TFAR[edit]

Readers of this page may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, BencherliteTalk 08:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination[edit]

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)