Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
Amphetamine Review it now
Subway Sadie Review it now
Night of January 16th Review it now
2013 Rosario gas explosion Review it now
Aphthous stomatitis Review it now
SMS Scharnhorst Review it now
1987 Giro d'Italia Review it now
Briarcliff Manor, New York Review it now
Urgent FAR/FARCs
view edit
Electrical engineering Review it now
Manila Metro Rail Transit System Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?


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


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


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]

Undermining reviewer[edit]

My attempt to resolve this at a delegate's talk page ([1]) and the relevant FAC page ([2]) went unaddressed. Could someone please tell Froglich that a reviewer shouldn't impose his/her personal criteria, arrogantly dismiss others' responses to his/her personal criteria, or canvass retired editors in an attempt to get them out of retirement and oppose an article they know they've opposed in a previous FAC? Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You got me, pal: I didn't like your article (or, later, your petty vicious entitlement attitude, i.e., "How dare this horrible person make things difficult for my vanity project after I solicited him to critique it; I mean, he should have known I only wanted kiss-ass reviews and that the very last thing I was interested in hearing was his impertinent advice on how to make my stuff actually worthy of Featured status!"), and there's no way out for me now except to jut my chin forward and brave the tempest as I'm sure it'll be a regular Beaufort-force 12 gale of hypocrisy from this point on (e.g., chiding me for canvasing other editors in a post made to enlist your own troops, etc).
I have no reason to expect you take any hints after not listening to any given previously, but a suggestion: just let this one blow over by not dropping my user name into anything else you do, then wait a couple months before bugging the FAC list to consider your article a third time. I'm not "watching" you or your articles (or even the FAC list for that matter); I simply respond to those little red notification boxes like a hungry dog snapping at a bacon treat stop making them for me to click on and I'll go away.--Froglich (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Dan, you're really not doing yourself any favours by letting this get to you, or by suggesting that your concerns are being ignored. I'd already responded to you at the FAC page once. As to a previous opposer being canvassed, that was an experienced reviewer and Graham or I might well have invited him to comment on the FAC this time around as well. I suggest you have some faith in the delegates to ignore unactionable objections, rise above the noise, and get on with dealing with any actionable objections as they come up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Ian Rose, I'm not naïve enough to assume good faith when the reviewer messages someone he admits to knowing in their message had opposed the previous FAC (CANVASS) and makes the dubious intent of their message--to garner/strengthen the oppose--obvious: "In an attempt to temporarily coax you out of retirement.... I've no doubt you will find this interesting given your previous assessment of it." ([3]) Dan56 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, as a former longtime FAC reviewer, I'm not a fan of this review. This might just be my opinion, but I simply can't ignore faulty reasoning that may put others off of coming to FAC. The logic that is being applied is flawed. We don't require references in the lead (barring a direct quote), and the claims that the article shouldn't be promoted because of a lack of importance don't hold water. If an article has sufficient notability to generate the level of sourcing required to pass FA criteria 1b and 1c, that is what counts, not whether other works by the same artist are more well-known. These criteria are certainly subjective, but based on a brief look there's enough content that I wouldn't automatically fail the article the way the reviewer seemingly wants to. This article has been criticized strongly in the past for close paraphrasing, and I think it would be more productive for reviewers to check whether that issue has been resolved than to complain that "more important" articles aren't here instead. Also, can we calm down before calling an editor's work a "vanity project" leading to "entitlement"? The editors nominating FACs are doing the best work they can on topics that are of interest to them. I don't think we should assume that vanity is the primary reason for this work; some of us just want to contribute high-quality articles to this great website that is used by millions of people around the world. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I completely concur with Giants2008. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur qith Giants2008 as well. At the very least if we were to assume that people write wikipedia article for vanity, then the same would apply to those who seem to use the context of a review and the small amount of power that gives them boost their own egos at someone elses expense. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The grammar remains junior-level. (That's what touched this off in the first place.) As for the rest, we can talk about minimal requirements as opposed to likelihoods until we're all blue in the face. At that end of the day, there are a small number of Featured slots to dole out for a large number of entrants; and the simple fact of that matter is that the status isn't often (in fact I can't think of any at present) granted to these kinds of subjects unless they represent the pinnacle of an artist's accomplishments. I'm sure there are corner-cases out there suggesting otherwise, but in the main it is so. (This is why I recommended Dan pour his efforts into Coleman's Library of Congress-inducted The Shape of Jazz to Come.)--Froglich (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
..."At that end of the day, there are a small number of Featured slots to dole out"... what? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@Froglich: I haven't read the review you wrote that caused this disagreement, but I would like to comment on what you say above. When you say "slots" I imagine you're referring to the slots available for "Today's Featured Article"; I don't think this is a primary motivator for most of us who work on featured content, and I don't see how the likelihood of selection for one of those slots should have any bearing on our evaluation of the quality of an article. Surely, if the article is notable (i.e. it would not be deleted in an AfD) then if it meets the FA criteria, it can be a featured article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we've built an unwritten consensus over the years that the only notability threshold for an article to become an FA is the existence of sources which show general notability and allow a reasonably comprehensive overview of a subject. "I've never heard of it", or "it's not as important as [other thing]" should never be a valid rationale (I'd leave Wikipedia before accepting such opposes as valid). Our TFA yesterday was even more obscure than this album, especially in the context of the Anglosphere, and yet there was never any question of whether or not it was notable enough to be featured. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles become Featured -- unless that's been changed since I last looked at it, then there are always going to be more desirous, notable, well-written entrees seeking the status than are actually awarded the status. To judge whether or not an otherwise qualified (as noted above, I had reservations over this article's shaky grammar) article is likely to become Featured, it helps to looks at past successful submissions. Past successful submissions tend to be highly notable, not just well-written.--Froglich (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No indeed, by the looks of it. Froglich, only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles pass the featured article process, not because of an inherent notability, but because only a small minority of articles have editors who are both interested enough in the subject to write a high quality article and capable of writing high quality prose which is free of close paraphrasing and copyright violations, as well as sources sufficient for a comprehensive article and an interest on the side of reviewers (who stay with an article for 3 hours or however long it takes to review). Some of these are ultra-obscure, some of these are highly recognizable. There is no second bar of notability which must be passed before an article can be FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, @Crisco 1492:, this kind of stubbornness also characterized the non-responsive comment he made after I had cited a grammar guide/book source in response to the grammar he preferred for the article--one of the three reasons for his oppose, the other two being the "notability" argument and the citation-less lead smh. Dan56 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Dan, just remember that opposes aren't binding. If the reasons for the oppose are addressed (either by fiing them or legitimately refuting them), the coordinators can be counted on to pass over them (as they would for hollow supports). Which I think is clear to happen with Froglich's, so Let It Go. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic personal attack[edit]

  • Okay, I've stricken the above comment because I see now that Dan56 reported the socking. Sorry, Dan. My bad. Harmelodix (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I dont see how requesting many different people to review ones article can be considered a problem. More eyes on an review gives a better article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't deny that this benefits Dan56, but spamming does not benefit those editors he spammed, and it can be seen as disruptive. Harmelodix (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Harmelodix, why does any of this "resonate" with you? What led you to this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as the request for a review is neutrally worded (i.e. not "Please drop by and support my article"), I don't see any problem with asking reviewers to take a look - indeed I have done so myself when a FAC has stagnated. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It resonates with me because I have been on the receiving end of Dan56's "solicited comments". I think its canvassing that violates Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting because: Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. - How many of these editors are active in the topic area? 55 posts is excessive, IMO, especially when we consider Froglich's complaint that Dan56 jumped on him for not supporting, but Froglich was canvassed by Dan56, so he created the situation then complained when Froglich "canvassed" in the wrong direction. Harmelodix (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What "receiving end"? And what do edit summaries have to do with messages to other editors' talk pages? Have you heard or considered anything the other editors who've commented here have said, like Simon Burchell's last comment to you? I solicited comments from editors I've seen on my watchlist editing music-related articles and do not expect even a third of them to respond because a certain level of competency is required, one that Froglich has not showed with his poor attempt at reviewing the FAC (complete misunderstanding of notability in FAs, grammar preferences, and citations in the lead, all of which he unreasonably held against the article even being a GA) and unwillingness to admit or respond civilly to the personal criteria he was imposing. Harmelodix, I didn't "jump on him for not supporting". He was not being responsive, so I forced the issue here, and he hasn't responded since being refuted by everyone who has commented (on the actual issue). Furthermore, I don't see the point of you striking a bit of your opening comment or questioning "how many of these editors are active in the topic area" when the only reason you've commented here or knew about this discussion is by looking through my contributions to see how I've been active, right? What other reason have you for being here other than to continue criticizing and hounding me? Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's take a look at that grammar, shall we? -- That's my sole edit to "your" article, which you immediately reverted (not bothering to retain the link to harmolodics I'd created). -- Even aside from the in-thread unpopularity of my other quibbles over the article's bona-fides to Featured status (remember that Wikipedia is a consensus project whose guidelines change over time for better or worse), the caliber of writing at Of Human Feelings remains at a mediocre level.--Froglich (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
How about "Despite its commercial potential, Of Human Feelings had no success on the American pop charts.[26]" 1) "Despite its commercial potential" - is this sourced, because it reeks of WP:OR. 2) "Of Human Feelings had no success on the American pop charts" is terrible grammar; this would read much better as, "Of Human Feelings was unsuccessful in American pop charts." The article is loaded with clunkers and unecyclopedic writing, e.g. "astonish the senses with music made tender by abstract rhythmic interplay and artless pieces of melody". Tender? But nobody can challenge you without being accused of impropriety, and I think you use that to manipulate FAC. Harmelodix (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Dan, you recruited an editor to join a content dispute, who then sided with me, so I guess I haven't been on the receiving end. I had this page on my watchlist, and that's how I knew that you were here casting aspersions on yet another editor. Do you realize that you label anyone who disagrees with you as either a sock, a hound, an edit-warrior or genre warrior? I guess its a competency issue with the latest victim of your mud-slinging. Is it at all possible that a Wikipedia user might disagree with you, or dislike your writing "style" without them breaking policy or being incompetent? If I was going to review this article I would oppose also, because the writing is atrocious, IMO, but then I can't do that without fear of repercussions and accusations from you, which I think undermines the FAC community. Harmelodix (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
But really, I'm curious – why are the only edits that you do not include an edit summary for those which "solicit" FAC reviews? At any rate, messaging 55 users to review your FAC is spamming, is it not? Harmelodix (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reculver FAC[edit]

I've come begging for more input to the Reculver FAC, which I nominated as my first FAC on 17 May. I'd also appreciate some guidance on where things stand, especially from the FAC coordinators. I'm afraid of this FAC becoming stale as, despite having support from four reviewers (Cas Liber, Dudley Miles, hamiltonstone and Tim riley), and no explicit opposes, it's been held up since 14 June by questions about its sourcing, after Ian Rose asked for a source review and spot check. These questions were first raised by hamiltonstone, who has since stated satisfaction with the sourcing based on my efforts to explain why I believe it is appropriate. On the other hand reservations were expressed by Ritchie333 and Hchc2009, the last of whom has (I think) firmly rejected some of the sources as primary and unreliable, and has expressed the view that I have applied analysis in using them, i.e. OR. But I've stated that I'm baffled by Hchc2009's view, and frankly, though I'm very sorry to say so, I reject it: maybe I would, being the nominator, but I'm quite convinced. Hchc2009 has suggested that reservations may be allayed by some subtle rewording, and I've offered some changes I'd be prepared to make on the basis of consensus, but therein lies my problem: on this specific question of sourcing, hamiltonstone supports, Hchc2009 remains unconvinced, and Ritchie333 has since expressed satisfaction with one aspect, and has spot-checked one source, but has very little time IRL to contribute; so there's no clear consensus.

When I made this, my first FAC nomination, I thought it'd be me doing most of the hard work – I've been involved in four GANs (some more so than others) and this has been my experience. I had no idea that in fact, because it's my first FAC nomination, the burden really falls on those editors who are kind enough to contribute. I'm extremely grateful for all contributions made so far but, as I say, there's been very little real movement since 14 June. Am I worrying unnecessarily? Is there an end in sight? I might add that, for purely personal reasons, I'm finding the waiting very hard; and I think I've name-checked here everyone who's found time for this FAC so far, not forgetting Nikkimaria's image review, huge thanks to all of you. Any helpful views or further input to the FAC would be very much appreciated! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hchc knows a lot about medieval and early modern sources; you're in good hands. The FAC coordinators will often leave FACs open for a while to see if anyone else wants to give feedback, particularly if there are open issues. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I think that might be part of the problem – I too know a lot about medieval and early modern sources! I've no doubt about Hchc2009's ability and sincerity, I just disagree on this issue. Your tip re the coordinators' approach is much appreciated too. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad you're here, hope you stick around. I've been really impressed with our Middle Ages FACs, you've got some good people to work with. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
NB: I think that Nortonius and I would agree about the way to handle these sources outside Wikipedia... I think the point of disagreement is how to deal with primary sources of this sort on the wiki. :) Which ever way the way the consensus goes, though, its a fine article. Hchc2009 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I'm sure that's true! :o) And I'm very appreciative of you liking the article. But whether or not most of the sources in question are primary or secondary is precisely what's at issue, no? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedians classify some sources as primary that other scholars generally regard as secondary. Divergence in the terminology was inevitable, I suppose, but it's also regrettable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So it seems! But it's been totally out of the blue for me, I thought I had a good handle on how to use sources in Wikipedia until this, I hadn't been expecting it at all and I don't understand it. I'm totally confident that no-one's being obtuse, and I mean no disrespect by it, but it seems obtuse to me. I don't suppose I might tempt you to review the discussion on sources at the FAC (if you haven't already – it starts at "Notes -- Hi Nortonius, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC?", about halfway down the page) and comment on it directly there? Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

leave to open a new nomination[edit]

I do not understand why Ian Rose did not close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1 today. Its reviews are done and it has three supports with no opposes. I opened it on May 24 and all the nominations that were closed today are newer. Can I open a new nomination today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been chomping at the bit to nominate Freedom from Want (painting) since I got my third support on July 6, but waited patiently for the next set of promotions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to the FAC page on this article, but I'll state here that I don't think it's ready. For starters, there appears to my eye too much unsubstantiated original research in the lede. (I've added a cite tag to the sentence "Until then, Freedom from Want was not a commonly understood and accepted universal freedom"; and am squinting narrowly at "Although the image was popular at the time (1946) in the United States and remains so, it caused resentment in Europe where the masses were enduring hardship at the time" -- who resented it? (In fact, the Reaction section leads me to be suspicious of the academic merits of Borgwardt's A New Deal For The World as a source if presumably myriad previous editors have culled it for text-bytes without any of them tripping over the what I'd hoped would be the glaringly obvious historical fact that Europe was in complete shambles due to World War II during the 1940s.) The article could also use a long-overdue honest appraisal of the amount of political propaganda generated out of this piece of art by overturning the concept of political "freedom" to, instead, imply that freedom could embody the idea of mandated wealth-redistribution a la Roosevelt's "Great Society" programs and other economic policies responsible for causing and prolonging the Great Depression of the 1930s in the first place.)--Froglich (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally, the WP:LEAD should not have citations. Also, you attempt to merge two long sentences was counterproductive. I have basically reverted your changes. This page is not where we have discussions about nominations. I am hoping to open such a discussion soon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as the first point goes, Tony, I generally get to about half a dozen closures during any given pass of the FAC list and then call it a night. Several of the noms that were promoted may have been newer than yours but activity around them had been stable for longer, so they got the nod first. Re. starting another one, I'd prefer you just stick with this one at least till I walk through the list again in a day or two, particularly given how many are still open. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by involved editors[edit]

Hi. Just to ask here, is it legit if an editor (who is significant contributor to an article) gives the FAC a review on the sources? It's about Megadeth's FAC, where I asked L1A1 FAL to check the references for their reliability. I personally believe that his input is very constructive, but want to get this confirmed here.--Retrohead (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say not - if you've done a lot of work on the article, you shouldn't be reviewing any part of it yourself. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Involved editors are absolutely allowed to give constructive feedback on the article; they just can't "Support". Their involvement should be made clear so the closing admin can take it into account. —Designate (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this is one of those things we need to look at on a case-by-case basis. In this instance the comments appear to be thorough and dispassionate, and the editor has identified his involvement up front. I'm inclined to accept their validity unless anyone has specific objections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue men of the Minch[edit]

Something weird is going on with this FA, promoted in the last week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is? Doesn't look like anything's weird with the article at a quick glance. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
[4]Juliancolton | Talk 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Who looks at what....[edit]

I did some looking at pageviews - see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Who_looks_at_what...Leo_Minor Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)