Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

Suggestion: Date of feature[edit]

I can't understand why featured articles aren't given a 'date-stamp' next to the bronze star. It's an obvious enhancement to an article for readers to be able to know how recently or how long ago it was presented on Wikipedia's front page. There must have been some thought given to this already, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul White (talkcontribs) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the article's talk page. The promotion date is there. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Question (out of curiosity)[edit]

Given that featured articles are held to higher standards than good articles, is it safe to say that a "featured article" is a good article, automatically? Would an FA promoted from, say, A-or-B class without a GA review (though this would be unlikely), then delisted, revert to GA status? I was just wondering this out of curiosity based on a quick perusal of FARs and GARs. dci | TALK 02:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, when an FA is delisted, it does not automatically acquire GA status, even if it was previously a GA. Delisted FAs frequently have deteriorated in quality to such an extent that they no longer fulfill even the GA criteria. Ucucha (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Might that be a reason or a factor in why we should have featured articles more often permanently semi-protected? Or maybe we should have some inbetween permanent full protection and permanent semi-protection, where only those who have demonstrated competency in being able to maintain FA standards can handle edit requests. Biosthmors (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

List of most viewed featured articles[edit]

I would love to see a list of the most viewed featured articles. Does one exist? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One that ignores main page appearance (days or months?) would be optimal, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

See also: User talk:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple page changes[edit]

I have reverted several page changes here:

  1. See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 8; "Mysticism" was arrived at after long and difficult discussion led to consensus. Please discuss changes.
  2. I see no divide by zero error; please explain.
  3. Churches are in many different categories because some articles about churches are about buildings that no longer have a congregation (art or architecture), while others may be about active congregations.

Please discuss proposed changes here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Mauna Loa[edit]

I'm busy shining this oldie from 2006, and I was wondering if there is any prior precedent on rewriting old FAs before putting them through FAR? Leaving a comment here because the FAR talk page seems inactive (as it logically would be). ResMar 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

D'oh, guess this page is no better huh. ResMar 01:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bedtime For Bonzo???[edit]

Altho Reagan was the star of Bedtime For Bonzo, surely it was not a 'notable' film, as stated in the intro. It certainly doesn't begin to compare to Knute Rockne or Kings Row, both distinguished features. In fact, it was such a weak film that supporters of the 1984 Democratic candidate, Walter Mondale, would hold up signs stating, "It's bedtime for Ronzo." This reference should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mental health[edit]

Several mental health topics have been listed under "Health and Medicine". I think these topics should be moved to the "Psychology" section. These include Asperger syndrome Austism Major depressive disorder Schizophrenia Tourette syndrome

In addition, "Philosophy and psychology" should be divided into two sections, because Philosophy relies upon rational argument and Psychology relies upon empirical data. To avoid making sections that are too narrow, "psychology" could be combined with other social sciences, such as "anthropology" and "sociology." Kim Barchard (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Integrated GA reviews[edit]

Before I outline the proposal, here's some background: People always whine about the lack of FA and GA reviewers. Many editors feel humiliated by their FAs failing or being delisted. Some of these even leave Wikipedia in despair.

So to improve these two situations, which are what is currently grinding the FA and GA processes down, FAR reviewers should get the option to delist an article to GA (instead of stripping it completely of every rank, as they do now), provided the article still meets GA, but not FA, requirements. Furthermore, in the regular FAC process, a reviewer who opposes the FA status of an article could instead say promote as GA. This would create a steady steam of GAs, save reviewer energy (since new GARs wouldn't have to be opened if a former GA was delisted from FA), and be less humiliating for nominators (Wikipedia would become a friendlier place, with less rivalries).

It's practically a win win, unless you're the sort of person who wants the two processes being arbitrarily separated at any cost, including the demise of both. It will also become much less "evil" to be an FA reviewer, as one can still hand out the GA status if the FA requirements are not met, and I'm sure it would become much more enjoyable to be a reviewer when nominators don't hate you afterwards. For the discussion that created the idea, see here:[1] And just to make it clear, no, I'm not suggesting the GA process should be replaced, I'm simply saying FA reviewers should also be given the option to promote to GA, if an article does not meet FA criteria. Yes, that is sidestepping the regular GA process, but seriously, who cares? What matters is that the criteria are met, not how the article reaches its status. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In what sense is removing an article's FA status a promotion to GA? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not about promoting or demoting it is about assessing the article's overall quality and assigning the corresponding class label FA, GA, B, C or start class.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing things. In a regular FAC review, one could oppose promotion to FA status, but support promotion to GA status instead. This is a new proposal, seperate from the FAR delisting issue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest giving notice of this proposal / these proposals to WT:FAC, which will be on more watchlists than this page. BencherliteTalk 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
So you're expecting the diminishing pool of reviewers to assess an article simultaneously against two different criteria? I pity the poor nominator who has to go through that Hell. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting it is "hell" to remember the very simple GA criteria, which are basically just laxer versions of the FA criteria? And yet again, it would be optional, not required. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever taken an article to FAC? I have, Little Moreton Hall, and I found myself almost overwhelmed by demands for floor plans, and explanations of architectural terms such as "arch-braced truss". So much so that I had to spend a great deal of time adding content and illustrations to the timber roof truss article, which true to form is already degrading into the usual Wikipedia grey goo. To have to deal with comments from both FA and GA reviewers simultaneously would have been a nightmare. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In little over six months I've taken five FAs and nine GAs through reviews, and reviewed several of either, so yes, I know what I'm talking about, and that it is possible. And there is no difference between a "GA reviewer" and an "FA reviewer" during a FAC, all FA reviews are GA reviews by default. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a particularly good idea, as this will move the backlogs to FAC, which is not designed for that much strain; it will encourage people to skip GA, also not something that we want. --Rschen7754 22:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This does not follow, how do you propose that someone would skip GA and gfo straight to a FAR? To be at FAR the article needs to first go through FAC which is a much much harder process than GA. How do you imagin that anyone would first go to FAC in order to be nominated for FAR and then given GA status? Read the proposal, it is not proposing to replace or skip GA only to allow reviewers demoting current FA articles to assess the article for the GA criteria within the FAR process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, the GA process is not replaced. I've already made this clear. Nominators obviously cannot sidestep the GAR, since they know that the FA criteria are stricter. Someone who has reviewed an article for FAC would already be able to tell whether it could be a GA instead, since there are no GA requirements that are not already inherent in the FA requirements. There is no "strain" involved, unless one has the mind of a four-year-old, which I doubt most reviewers have. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it would encourage people to send their ill-prepared articles to FAC and they would have no reason not to since they would get a GA as a consolation prize. With the backlogs at FAC that is not something we want to do. --Rschen7754 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Then you don't have much faith in your fellow editors. In any case, your concern is entirely hypothetical (not to say dubious), and could only be demonstrated to be true in practice. And remember, these are two separate proposals, please consider either separately instead of just making blanket statements that do not apply to both. One is about FAC, the other about FAR. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you address the substance of my concern rather than dismissing it because it is "dubious"? --Rschen7754 23:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If the articles they want to nominate do not reach the FA requirements, they already know it will not pass if they have half a brain. So why should they take it to FAC, instead of GA, knowing how long this usually takes? They won't gain anything, they will waste their own time as well. However, those who think their articles do reach the FAC requirements are also those who are most likely to nominate an article that actually does so. And those are the people who we could benefit from optional GA passing during FACs. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The sad thing is that there are plenty of ill-prepared FACs that hit the page every single day. And now the delegates can't quickly close the nominations but have to sit there and let them go to GA? This idea keeps getting worse and worse. --Rschen7754 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, because an article that does not meet FA criteria does meet GA criteria more often than not (GA reviews are inherent in FA reviews). So the failed FA can quickly be promoted to GA instead, and then kicked out of the backlog. Problem solved, everyone is happy. If the article doesn't meet GA criteria either? Well, then you do as you always do, fail it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support GA consideration within FAR, but Oppose GA consideration embedded within FAC. I think it is relatively easy for FAR folks to determine that an article should be delisted from FA but that it retains its old GA status, or that it now meets GA requirements. On the other hand, I do not think we should embed GA considerations within the FAC process, or the GAN process will be abandoned. I prefer having a fairly standardized two-step assessment procedure, from whatever to GA, then from GA to FA. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
    I think the GA process would almost certainly be abandoned if any proposal such as this came to pass. But who cares about that? Isn't this all about prizes? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Every FA I've ever written is a former GA. Have I abandoned the GA process? No, I use the the GA process as a springboard for the FA process. It is one continuous process for me and many others. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It should also be pointed out that a GA review is already inherent in an FA review, since all GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria. This means that the FAR reviewer wouldn't have to do an "extra" review (though some people here seem to believe so). So to spell it out: if you've FA reviewed an article, you've already GA reviewed it. This means that you do have the judgement to promote it to GA, without further work. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It should really be pointed out that a GA review is in no sense a subset of an FA review, but it appears that very few are listening. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a subset of it, it is embedded within it. All GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria. An FA review is already a GA review by default. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really certain which planet you're broadcasting from, and your use of the word "inherent" is rather confusing. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so tell me this: is there even a single GA criterion which is not also an FA criterion? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask you this. You used the word "inherent". Do you understand what that means? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes: "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element".[2] Do you? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In other words you don't have a clue. I'm done here. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And you are very incivil I hope you don't act like this when you review articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And now you add an unwarranted charge of "incivility"? This is intolerable. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Asking someone about whether they understand the meaning of everyday English vocabulary and then calling them clueless is the very definition of incivility. Let me say it squarely: You have being extremely rude and condescending throughout this discussion. That is intolerable, and for a reviewer it is inexcusable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You need to check your facts Maunus, as I've never reviewed any GA. And maybe you could explain what "extremely rude" means on your planet, because it doesn't compute on mine. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
So if you admit to never even having reviewed a GAN, why exactly are you contributing to this discussion? How does it affect you? And isn't it a bit ironic since you questioned my credentials earlier? Only nominating but not reviewing GAs is considered bad etiquette, not to say selfish, you know. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Calling other people clueless is extremely rude on my planet. If it is not on yours then I will make sure to stay away from there in the future.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
But on your planet calling someone "narrow minded" is OK? That's one crazy mixed-up planet. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair cop. That was rude of me to make that characterization and I apologize. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I repeat: is there even a single GA criterion which is not also an FA criterion? Please address the question instead of all this useless emotion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
This selfish attempt to press FAC and GAN together would perhaps have been more kindly received had it been more honestly presented. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
And you would perhaps be taken more seriously if you could defend your arguments instead of just complaining. Answer the question, if it is so obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The question has been answered many times. That you are unable to read it, understand it, or rationally discuss it, is not my problem. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Then please help out this poor dimwit and point out exactly where. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a move towards an integrated review process beginning with GA consideration within FAR. This is clearly the best for both reviewers and for content writers. The aim should be to use benchmarks to improve articles in collaboration between reviwers and nominators, not to have a culture of antagonism between reviewers and nominators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this belongs at VPP, with notices to GA and FA/FAC/FAR, rather than hashing it out in threads here, here , and here. Maralia (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems there is quite some support for the FAR proposal, but not the FAC proposal, and this page is a mess, so yes, I will try to post the former proposal there. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The FAC proposal isn't practical. With long waits at GAN, people will come to FAC with articles that can't pass, hoping for a faster route to GA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I will repost my previous rebuttals to that argument here: If the articles they want to nominate do not reach the FA requirements, they already know it will not pass if they have half a brain. So why should they take it to FAC, instead of straight to GA, knowing how long the former usually takes (longer than GANs, in my experience)? They won't gain anything, they will waste their own time as well. However, those who think their articles do reach the FAC requirements are also those who are most likely to nominate an article that actually does so. And those are the people who we could benefit from optional GA passing during FACs. An article that does not meet FA criteria does meet GA criteria more often than not (GA reviews are inherent in FA reviews). So the failed FA can quickly be promoted to GA instead, and then kicked out of the backlog. Problem solved, everyone is happy. No more work is needed, so why let the FA reviews go to waste if they demonstrate the article is already ready for GA? If the article doesn't meet GA criteria either? Well, then you do as you always do, fail it. Your concern is entirely hypothetical (not to say dubious), and could only be demonstrated to be true in practice. It also shows you don't have much faith in your fellow editors FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose both proposals – I'd say that most FARs that get demoted don't meet the GA criteria anymore, usually because of sourcing deficiencies. I'd hate to see reviewers give those articles a free pass to still have GA status that isn't deserved, which is a possibility. I'd also hate to see people recommend delisting in favor of GA status because an article doesn't "have the look" of an FA; this has nothing to do with FA criteria, but reviewers might say that anyway, and I want to avoid this type of implied threat. As for FAC, please don't assume that all reviewers consider both sets of criteria; I don't, and if I was an expert in the GA criteria I would review there as well. If an article is made GA but not FA under this proposal, and the nominator wants the star, then it wouldn't really make them happy, would it? If an FA nom fails, I don't see how getting a GA out of the deal makes it less "embarrassing". Also, I don't think most people who have failed nominations know that their articles fail to meet FA standards; I see issues raised at FAC all the time that people with strong knowledge of the standards would have caught beforehand. You'd be amazed at some of the things that GAN fails to detect. Honestly, if this proposal comes because one of your FAs needs more specific page ranges, I'd recommend just adding/modifying the ranges to that article and cutting off the issue at the pass. Then you won't have to worry about an FAR. Overall, I don't think that this would be in the best interests of the FA process, and I agree with Dank over what would happen at FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Two things: GA criteria are inherent in FA criteria, so there a no "both" to consider. No more work is needed, so why let the FA reviews go to waste if they demonstrate the article is already ready for GA? Secondly, there will be no "free passes", a failed FA does not automatically become a GA, only if it is judged to reach the requirements during the FAR. That is part of the very proposal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes+++[edit]

Was wondering what would be the normal recommendation for FA articles in regards to the amount of templates at the bottom of an article? Moxy (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaking wikitext[edit]

There is wikitext leaking into the content at the top of this page. I was confused as to how to fix it. Can someone take a look and please take care of this? • Jesse V.(talk) 20:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit vandalized a template used, and I've reverted it, restoring this page to its normal appearance. Imzadi 1979  20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Better edit summaries when updating please[edit]

Sometimes editors must go thru the edit summaries to look for something in particular. What makes it a daunting task is having to click on each and every edit when the summary says merely "add 1" or "add 2" - to what?. Just asking for a little more specifics to go by, if only to add which category a new FA is being added. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Take your point but frequently we add more than one at a time in which case it'd be unwieldy or impossible to include all the FAC titles/links; the suggestion of simply noting the category (or categories) might be feasible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Art, architecture and archaeology[edit]

Art, architecture and archaeology doesn't be together - must be separately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.9.210 (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Yay and thanks for the tip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.168.84 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre-FAN review[edit]

I'm making this post as I've just thought there appears to be an issue with the Peer Review system. I've noticed that many people reviewing don't often make comment on PRs requesting an opinion if an article is ready for FA meaning the PR often becomes stale and expires leaving people without any guide on how to improve it to reach FA standards. I was wondering if there could be a part of the Peer review system specializing in peer reviews for FA purposes somewhere around the FA project. I'm only asking as I had this happen to me when I asked about 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots getting a check before I took it to FA as I don't want it closed quickly and not be able to try again for 2 weeks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusion on star colours[edit]

Sorry if I've spent several years before noticing that featured articles on wp:en have a grey star on top right of their page instead of having the golden/yellow one. Moreover this uncorrect grey star also appears inside their Talk page. Both these errors are very confusing for a French reader/contributor which is used to read different/separate colours for these stars, to avoid mixing up the type of label.

I dunno when and how this practice has been decided/voted on wp:en and I also dunno how other language wp do regarding this matter (I can only speak Englsih), but a minimum of harmonization (matching) would be highly welcome, in order not to disturb both foreign readers and contributors. --Bibliorock (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The star at the the upper right corner of the page on Featured Articles is generated by {{featured article}}, which uses File:Cscr-featured.svg, which is a golden or bronze color.
The star on the talk page generated by {{Article history}} is File:Featured article star.svg, which is the same color. Imzadi 1979  15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, but on wp:fr, we have a very distinct/separate yellow or gold for featured articles (AdQ) vs. a grey for good articles (BA). No confusion is allowed and I cannot but say your colours are not at all as clear as ours are. --Bibliorock (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Our good articles use a green plus sign, and only featured articles/lists/etc. use the star. Imzadi 1979  01:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better if English Wikipedia Featured Articles used a gold star (either Cscr-featured1.png or Utmarkt Guld.svg) rather than the bronze star (Cscr-featured.svg). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!![edit]

[3] 768,586 hits
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed
WP:TOP25
YEE HAW PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Random article[edit]

I was wondering whether the Random article option on the left hand side could be linked to random featured articles only. The number of small and specific articles in wikipedia is so great it is basically a useless function. However if we could introduce a random featured article option then a random article worth reading would be presented. What are your thoughts? 124.254.75.48 (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ads[edit]

While waiting for the bot to promote Drowning Girl, I saw that it just got tagged with {{wikipedia ads}}. What is that all about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a banner used for displaying ads for WikiProjects. The user seemingly did not know that it is supposed to go only on select talk and user pages. --Laser brain (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles in FA?[edit]

GA slot concept.png

I have proposed that a limited number of newly-promoted Good Articles should appear below or within the Featured Article slot, i.e. to get a hook fact on the Main Page for a day. Comments would be welcome in the RfC. Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a point - the proposal actually is to get a link and definition (see the mockup).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual vs. gay in FA[edit]

I'm not sure if there is a style preference, but could someone comment on the merits of this edit to a FA, which changed the style. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a "find all/change all" change that introduced an error: one of the early names for AIDS was GRID (gay-related immune deficiency/disease). As for the style change, I've reverted this. The issue was discussed on the article's talk page in 2010, and the article appears to have consistently used both words since it was promoted as a FA. Removing the one term completely appears to be pushing a POV (some anti-gay activists refuse to "gay" and will only use "homosexual") and comes across as vandalism. Imzadi 1979  07:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems the revert was best. Thanks for making the edit. I'd only venture to quibble with the way the revert was done (no meaningful edit summary and it was marked as minor when I don't think it should be considered WP:Vandalism). It could have been good-faith attempt, I suppose. But we don't have unlimited time to be perfect around here. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing categories[edit]

Most academic fields are covered in your listing but of the five major disciplines in the Social Sciences (Anthropology, Economics, History, Political Science and Sociology), you don't have areas for Anthropology and Sociology. I looked under "Culture and Society" but I don't see many articles there that are related to these two important fields.

They are both underdeveloped areas on Wikipedia (Sociology, especially) but it doesn't help that they are not acknowledged in how you organize knowledge. At the very least, they should be mentioned as being in association with another category or, ideally, a separate category created. Right now, I see no place for FA in these academic disciplines. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Featured Articles are a very small subset of all Wikipedia articles, we keep them in broader categories to make browsing easier. If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Assessment for example, you can see that there is only one Featured Article within the scope of WikiProject Sociology (W. E. B. Du Bois}. Since that is also a biography, it's categorized as such on this page. I'd be interested in hearing arguments for using narrower Featured Article categories. --Laser brain (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

4000th FA[edit]

I pinged Ian Rose‎ (talk · contribs) to announce this, but he seems to have opted not to. Before it is no longer timely, I wanted to relay that with this edit, Ian Rose promoted the 4000th FA when Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar, Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel), Battle of Hastings, Quagga, Diamonds (Rihanna song), A Song Flung Up to Heaven, Confusion (album), and Jesus were all promoted. It seems that based on the order in which the FAC discussions were closed by Ian Rose, Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel) has the strongest claim at being the actual 4000th when this edit occured. However, Confusion (album) also has a strong claim based on the order in which VoxelBot promoted the articles ([4] and [5]).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Fuck me, I was hoping it wouldn't be BRDTj. I don't want any articles I've written receiving any pseudo-recognition from an editor who reverts edits he disagrees with (note the edit summary, which directly contradicts Tony's own definition of the topic) then leaves patronising talk page messages claiming I "have not become acquainted with the FAQs of the project" when Tony himself gives contrasting definitions. This "milestone" should die a quiet death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you might be a tad confused, Crisco. Tony is referring to Wikipedia reaching it's 4000th FA, which is a notable milestone, not his Four Award concept. Resolute 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not confused, and I recognise that 4k could be considered a sizeable milestone. I'm well aware that an article must be the 4000th FA on Wikipedia, and have been worrying it would be BRDTj since I saw Tony's post on Ian's talk page. He knows better than to give me a FOUR "Award" for that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think anyone who watchlists this page would probably have noticed we've ticked over to 4000. I daresay Ed (and of course Crisco) at the Signpost are aware of it too if they want to publicise. Given I promoted a bunch at the same time, which one was the 4000th is pretty arbitrary and probably not worth worrying about. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yup but all of the space in this issue is devoted to Wikimania. We may give it in-depth coverage next week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
      • So long as there's no guesses which one was 4k, I'm all for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I believe when we hit 3000 - all the articles promoted at that point were considered as part of the 3000th promotion - we didn't get down any finer than that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I'd be fine with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award[edit]

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Featured Articles getting sloppy[edit]

This month I have been noticing things are getting sloppy at WP:FA. Suddenly, articles are getting promoted without their WP:PRs being incorporated into their T:AHs. I have seen about 2000 FAs as part of my FOUR duties, and I believe I just saw my first article where the article got promoted without having the GA and DYk in a T:AH (Wordless novel).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The time volunteers have to give to this naturally wax and wanes. Tony if I didnt know you better this might seem like an attempt towards a power grab. But I do, so whatever. Still though....FOUR duties? Please. Ceoil (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
How would it be a power grab for me to point out that I am seeing my first FA without the GA and DYK in the T:AH. This nomination is so screwed up look at how the FAC closed. I have probably edited the talk pages of 1200-1500 of the current FAs. Do you think there are any diffs of me editing one without either the GA or the DYK incorporated in its T:AH in the last year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Guys, relax a little. A lot of that stuff was automated. GimmeBot used to convert all of the templates for wiki-wide stuff into entries in T:AH. However, GimmeBot isn't active anymore, so GAs, PRs, DYKs, etc aren't being merged into a T:AH on a regular basis. VoxelBot only seems to have taken over some of GimmeBot's old work load, not all of it. Imzadi 1979  08:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Exacly. Tony, no offense meant towards you; I'm just defensive towards Gimme, who I see as a great unsung. Apologies for seeing conspitracy...you didnt deserve that charactisation. I see FA is now in good hands, with other bots taking up the work. Still miss Gimme, thats life. Ceoil (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell VoxelBot (talk · contribs · count) has been closing FAC since February and updating article histories since February. Now in July all of a sudden no one is closing GAN/GAR/DYK/PR etc templates into T:AH. What is different about the procedures since July from the February to July procedures. Either VoxelBot was closing GAN/GAR/DYK/PR etc templates into T:AH from Feb to July or the FAC delegates were. Whoever was from February to July has stopped doing it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • VoxelBot was never involved in that process. Merging GAN/GAR/PR/DYK information into T:AH isn't part of the FAC process, and frankly your tone here comes off as accusing people of failing to do a job, that isn't theirs, whether or not that is your intent. Imzadi 1979  04:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Several July FAs never closed[edit]

I am just starting to investigate the Voxelbot era via Wikipedia:Goings-on. It seems that some older FAC were never closed. Here is what I have uncovered so far:

  1. SMS Nassau
  2. When God Writes Your Love Story
  3. Banksia speciosa
  4. William Hely
Will report more as I uncover it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Although it has become common not to incorporate WP:PRs into the T:AH of late, there don't appear to be cases where FACs were not closed too much prior to the abovementioned. However, I also saw another where the the {{GA}} and {{DYK talk}} were not incorporated into the T:AH at Gertie the Dinosaur (joining Wordless novel and Aleeta curvicosta). These cases have been frequent for the last month all of a sudden. I am not sure this is Voxelbot's fault. Don't the FA admins (delegates, directors and such) handle this part by hand. I doubt Voxelbot suddenly got lazy or lost functionality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
We never have in the past, Tony. FYI, I left messages at the bot and bot admins' talk pages on these articles, and more, some time before you posted your first comment further above. Those guys are volunteers like everyone else here, in the past they've rectified issues reported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Tony, as I explained above, all of those tasks were handled by GimmeBot, and they were never the FAC delegates' "job". GimmeBot used to merge all closed GAN/GAR/DYK/PR etc templates into T:AH, but GimmeBot is no longer active. Imzadi 1979  02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So is any human or any bot going to close the FAs that never closed in July?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll nominate you to take on that task for now, unless or until some bot is set up and approved to relieve you. Imzadi 1979  04:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two different issues here:
  1. T:AH is not getting updated for GAN/GAR/DYK/PR. From what I can tell, GimmeBot's last FAC close was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elephant/archive1 on January 30. However, it use to also convert {{GA}} to T:AH. The last one was Zong_massacre on January 31. Thus, when GAs got to FA, they already had T:AH incorporated in many instances. In the spring, a User:Maralia seemed to be volunteering to pick up the slack be adding T:AH when they were needed for post January 31 promotions, based on a random sample of FAs from the Wikipedia:Goings-on/May 5, 2013. Now, it seems that a lot of FAs have several post January 31 GAN/GAR/DYK/PR templates not being merged into T:AH and Maralia seems to have better things to do.
  2. There are the four abovementioned July FAs that were never closed. What I am asking is whether anyone is going to close the FAs. How do you tell the bots to close FAs? It seems that VoxelBot does these. Why hasn't VoxelBot closed those four.
I do not intend to take up either of these tasks. However, the FA people should tell the bot to close the FA nominations for the four July FAs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Tony, you've already been informed above that messages were left with the bot admins about this and, while we're at it, you ask volunteers to do things for you, you don't tell them to. In any case Maralia has manually closed those the bot missed, as she's kindly done on similar occasions in the past. Perhaps you'd like to thank her. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC[edit]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

VoxelBot seems to be random now[edit]

As I look at the last dozen articles at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2013, there is no logic as to which ones it is doing and which it isn't.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted three messages to the bot's talk page, and a fourth on the bot operator's page. We're all quite aware that there's a problem. Maralia (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you did a lot of the ones that the bot should have done by now. Thank you very much for your hard work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Major Breakdown at FA: When God Writes Your Love Story[edit]

C'mon folks, how the hell did this get through the FA process as is? To my eyes, this is soufflé puff piece that basically offers the summary of an inconsequential book (and that's ok), but makes no effort at all to frame it within the larger Zeitgeist of American evangelism that actually explains why such a book is written and finds an audience - which is surely a critical part of an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. What is happening here? Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the nomination page, it seems no one raised the issues. This problem is hardly new. The article editors look for sources, find them, write an article. Reviewers come through and comment on whatever their skill-set allows them to comment on. We have more or less tackled the issue of plagiarism and copyright by requiring source and image reviews. We haven't tackled the issue of subject matter expertise in reviewing FA candidates. If neither the editors nor the reviewers are aware of table stakes for sourcing articles about literature (as seems the case here), the FAC is going to go through unless someone shows up and objects. No one showed up here to say, "Hey, you need scholarly criticism, discussions on themes, and other things when you write about literature." The editors and reviewers might very well go through the whole process in good faith without ever knowing. That's what's happening here. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This is getting out-of-hand. Not only are you guys ignoring the major failure of FA, you are preventing discussion happening to fix the problem. Right now you are insisting that a terrible article be listed as a "featured article". Something needs to change. I'll be asking for more input in other venues. jps (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If you put down the pitchfork, then perhaps other people may be more willing to listen to your concerns with the article. --Rschen7754 03:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on trying to get people work on the article for some time now. The only time I seem to get you guys to pay attention is when I talk about how your system is problematic and getting in the way. jps (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Subject matter experts, as a requirement for FA have been proposed in the past. The difficulty is recruiting them to work as we do, for free. I do ask experts whenever possible, on an informal and one-time basis, to look over my articles, I had Ezra Meeker checked by Dennis Larsen, who has his third book on Meeker coming out soon, and he helped me through a fair number of issues and supplied some good references. As is often said of FA, that is the sort of thing that cannot be scaled up.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of starting a RfC[edit]

Hi all,

I'm thinking of starting a RfC about the obvious failures of the vetting process at FAs and the subsequent inability for this group to address issues that are brought up with articles that are listed that should be delisted. It is clear that a cumbersome and needless WP:BUREAUCRACY has developed with a clique of users who seem to revel in following arbitrary processes rather than actually addressing the concerns. I believe that the way FA, FAC, FAR, etc. are handled are bringing disrepute to the project. I think that something needs to change, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps you guys need some outside consultants to come in and clean house.

jps (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any obstructionism, which is what you seem to be claiming between this posting and the one immediately above. Rather, I saw a good-faith acknowledgment of one of the weak links of the current system: if no one comments that something is missing in an article, and there are no objections to promotion, and the consensus of the reviewers that do comment is to promote, the article gets promoted. It seems that there is a healthy level of discussion toward improving the article on its talk page. FAR is a drastic step, and the goal is to retain the star on articles, not summarily remove it. In my opinion, if an article shouldn't have been promoted recently over deficiencies, the solution is to resolve them, improve the article, and leave it listed in a much better state going forward. Imzadi 1979  03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is FAR a drastic step? Can you explain how this is considered to be such a big deal? I mean, it's not like we can't put the star back on if somehow the undeserving article gets to a quality article. jps (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"You guys need..." -- unfortunately that doesn't seem a very helpful mindset. FAC is not a process belonging to some "clique", but rather to everyone on WP who takes the time to be involved in the nomination and review process. Instead of waiting for an article to appear on the front page before you decide it's not up to your standards, why not join the hard-working reviewers who help determine whether said article should be promoted or not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
From what I've read, that seems to be jps' general attitude, and its not one likely to gain a lot of friends. As it is, the editors who have to put up with them have offered considerable more patience and good faith than they are receiving. Resolute 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thing is, I'm always more than happy to have a good faith discussion about ways to improve article quality and enhance the FAC process. Personally I'd endorse a requirement for all articles have at least two formal reviews, i.e. GAN and either PR or A-Class (as applicable), before they ever get to FAC, just to help iron out basic prose and content issues. I'd be happy to see articles get outside expert review, but at PR or ACR, not in FAC, where the process is slow enough as it is. It's been suggested to me that the delegates (or coordinators or whatever we are now) post notices of noms that are on the verge of promotion to encourage any last-minute reviews. In the meantime, I think the vast majority of FAs have the star because they deserve it, and with the length of time we tend to leave reviews open I don't see a lot of excuses for people missing out on commenting. While noms are scrutinised by experienced editors, and get through their required checks, and garner clear support for promotion without outstanding actionable objections, they will continue to be promoted. If some do fall through the cracks -- and no system is perfect -- the most obvious thing people can do to help is lend their scrutiny at the review stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
But when people find problems after the star has been applied, you guys are basically saying, "Too bad. Wait six months and if the problems are still there we'll have a discussion about whether to have a discussion about removing the star." I assume these hoops are put into place to prevent people from removing articles, but it has the effect of preserving bad articles in place. I appreciate your ideas about improving FA. In particular, it's pretty bad that there is no criteria that the article have the character one would expect from a serious reference work. jps (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No, they are saying to discuss changes on the talk page, come to a consensus and improve the article. And then go to FAR if the article remains deficient. Looking at the talk page, I am seeing editors willing to discuss and improve. You, on the other hand, seem to expect your demands to be followed to the letter without question or debate. And now you are pouting because you aren't getting exactly what you want, exactly how you want it. Take a look in the mirror dude. The biggest problem here is your own attitude. Resolute 13:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If an article is bad, why should it remain featured? There seems to be this attitude that we shouldn't even discuss this problem. We should only try to "improve" the article, but it's painfully clear that such improvements are not moving in a direction that will result in a high-quality article any time soon. I'm not the only person who thinks that. So, I go to FAR only to be told that it's "too soon" because of some silly rule that's being slavishly followed. Like I'm in some sort of Yakov Smirnoff comedy routine. The article should not be featured, and, ironically, even some of the people arguing for the process acknowledge this. I may be difficult to get along with, but at the end of the day you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot if you don't come to terms with the fact that you've developed a system whereby bad articles are protected once they get a badge. jps (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • " In my opinion, if an article shouldn't have been promoted recently over deficiencies, the solution is to resolve them, improve the article, and leave it listed in a much better state going forward." (wouldn't the act of making massive changes to an article indicate that it was actually not a stable article?) If an article was promoted despite very large deficiencies it calls into question the quality of the actual review and so another more thorough review should be done. What if changes to improve the article are rejected? What if an article can not be improved due to an absence of sources? It is not possible for every topic to reach featured status ... and sometimes process fails. Arbitrarily requiring a six month waiting period to bring up valid concerns is purely a bureaucratic pointless measure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with jps & IRWolfie - if good arguments can be made to establish why an article is below the threshold of FA, then maintaining its status as such is suboptimal and we should not . But I do think it reasonable to allow editors time to address/redress such concerns once they have been identified and we don't need to rush an article into FAR in order to remedy the problems if they can be resolved through expanding/improving the content.That said, the article that we are referring to is very unlikely in my view to make it up to standard and I suspect it will be back at FAR in a few months. But I, for one, am happy to give editors plenty of time to prove me wrong and indeed will be happy when they do so. Eusebeus (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is usually more time-effective just to fix the problem. After all, that is what you are supposed to do when a FAR is filed. No one is in a mood for an RFC on the FA process as we just had one on the leadership that didn't make anyone happy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Press[edit]

FYI, per my rationale at Talk:Jesus, User:Biosthmors/Jesus is a draft I've shared with some WMF staff about getting a blog post/press release on featured stuff. Feel free to make edits or discuss at the user talk page for it. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference nerds needed[edit]

Greetings FA people. Please excuse a somewhat off-topic post, but I know featured content editors are sticklers for high-quality referencing. There is an important workshop to improve the reference editing abilities of the new VisualEditor software. I know there is some disagreement over what is the optimal style of refs for WP articles, and I know FA editors have some valuable opinions on the matter. Feedback on use-cases, basic requirements, and what templates it should support would be welcome. Workshop is here. Thanks, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd be a little more willing if the last time I had tried the answer wasn't "SFN shouldn't even be possible" (i.e. no way we'll support that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Who told you that, Crisco? As far as I know, it's possible to support any of the existing cite templates. Sfn is a bit more complicated, as it requires a second template in another location to be fully functional, but, AFAIK, nothing's off the table. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't recall who. It was at Wikimania in Hong Kong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delayed delisting[edit]

I noticed today that Girl Scouts of the USA had a FAR that closed as delist about a month ago, but the article and talk page haven't yet been updated. Is it related to the bot issues mentioned a few sections above, or something else? Chris857 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nikki and I (and maybe Dana?) have been closing FARs manually since Gimme left (the new bot doesn't do everything that Gimmebot did). We seem to have both missed the four FARs that closed in September; I'll take care of them. Thanks for pointing this out. Maralia (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Random Featured Article[edit]

I noticed the random featured article link is going out to another site which appears to be nonfunctional, at least with the latest version of safari for the iPhone. I am also surprised its a feature which is not part of the Wikipedia site, but some tool that a single person is solely responsible for. Maybe we should remove that link until it can be maintained on wikipedia's servers 75.158.88.133 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That link is to a tool hosted on the toolserver, which is wikipedia-run, but is being phased out in favor of the new Wikimedia Labs. In the meantime, I have changed the link to point to an equivalent script on a wikimedia server (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/random/enwiki-featured.php). Thanks for pointing this out. Maralia (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Should Ucucha step down?[edit]

Hello all. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed that roughly half of FAC promotions/archives are done by Ian Rose and the other half are done by Graham Colm. Ucucha has not edited in a month and has not promoted or archived a FAC since late August. Thus, I have posted the following on Ucucha's talk page:

Hello Ucucha. I'm AmericanLemming, and I've noticed that you haven't edited in a month and haven't promoted or archived any FAC since late August. I understand that you might be busy or that something has come up in your life that limits your on-wiki time, but still, you're a FAC coordinator. If you find that you are no longer able or willing to serve in that capacity, it might be for the best that you step down.

I in no way mean to disrespect the tremendous effort you have put in at Wikipedia, both in writing articles and in serving as a FAC coordinator, but I do think you owe it to the community to either return to active involvement in promoting and archiving FAC candidates or step aside and let someone else do the job. I would greatly appreciate a reply. Thank you.

I will also raise my concerns at the FAC talk page. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I am perfectly willing to allow Ucucha to address my concerns himself, and the process of removing or adding any FAC coordinators should not be done in a hasty manner. I am not sure how the community should replace Ucucha, if the community decides that that is the best course of action, but we should think this through.

In summary, I think Ucucha's inaction should be addressed at some point, but I think to be fair to him we should give him some time to defend himself. And any process of replacement should take place after we have given due consideration to the process and potential candidates for such a position. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in while I have a minute this morning, Sydney time... Obviously I'm interested in Ucucha's (and Graham's) take on this but I don't see a particular need for Ucucha to step down. I think the FAC process of promotions and archiving can comfortably be kept up by a couple delegates/coordinators operating at any one time. Ucucha has certainly taken a back seat in the past year or so but he's always been available when Graham or I have been away (the August involvement was when Graham was travelling). Ucucha has also always been there to take care of any issues with his various bots/scripts. So he has my confidence and support to remain as a FAC coordinator, even 'in reserve'. I think that if we have a resourcing issue in FAC it's lack of reviewers rather than lack of coordinators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that it takes a lot more reviewers than delegates to keep the process running. Anyway, seeing as he is still somewhat active at Wikipedia, it really would't make sense for him to step down, I suppose. However, I guess my concern is with the visibility of his position; new editors post on the talk pages of the FAC delegates asking questions and may be confused when they don't get one from Ucucha. And I think even experienced editors may wonder where he is if he never promotes or archives FACs. Thus, perhaps his title should change to "reserve FAC coordinator"? That way he can contribute when he has time or when he is needed by you or Graham to fill in for a few weeks, but editors will know not to expect to see him regularly or get replies to their questions. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough I was considering the question of messaging the delegates as a group a little while ago, and there may be a simple solution that I just need to test out. In the meantime, posting here or at WT:FAC is generally a good way to get the attention of active coordinators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Following up on this, see coming announcement below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinging FAC coords[edit]

Hi all, as an alternative to pinging or leaving messages for the FAC coords individually, we now have the {{@FAC}} template notification that pings them as a group. The FAC instructions have been updated accordingly. Let me know if any questions/problems. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This may very well address my concern's regarding Ucucha's habitual unavailability. Anyway, I'll wait to see what he thinks of my proposal to recast him as a reserve FAC coordinator next time he's on Wikipedia. I'm in no hurry; I just thought his inaction should be addressed at some point, and starting the conversation now will get it addressed sooner rather than later. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect & misleading title.[edit]

The title is Featured articles. The content is 99% a list/ grouping of the current? English? Featured articles (as of when?, is it comprehensive (automatically maintained) or regularly updated?). I am looking for information about the various quality levels of Wikipedia articles, and naturally EXPECT an article "Featured articles" to put the term in context. This does not. No references, nothing. I suggest this article's title be changed to "Featured articles - list by subject area". It would be nice for it actually to reference a substantitive article about featured articles, but perhaps that is asking too much.Abitslow (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not an article, it's a project page, which is updated frequently. Graham Colm (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

New program evaluation of contests released - featured articles[edit]

Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:

It reports that on-wiki writing contests are successful at meeting their goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including featured articles. We hope you'll participate and comment on the talk page, too! SarahStierch (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back[edit]

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we have an FA on a documentary?[edit]

I'm writing an article that I hope to bring here on a television documentary and it would be nice to have something to compare it to. Does anybody know of nay examples offhand of FAs on documentaries? I've had a look at the list and all the TV stuff seems to be fiction (not that there's anything wrong with fiction, it's just not much help for my situation!). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab with catscan. I see, as possibilities, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film), Fuck (film), The Sinking of the Lusitania (rather more a piece of fiction), U2 3D (maybe). I may be missing something in the intersection, since a lot of the "documentaries" seem to be films/fiction/TV shows, or in the "filmed deaths" category. Chris857 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead length[edit]

Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Standard lead paragraph length. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is now a WP:RfC; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014[edit]

Stormy388 (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 11:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nomination[edit]

Just to let people on this project know, Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, a featured article, has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. StAnselm (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The result was keep.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Shortest featured article?[edit]

Is there anyway to tell which featured article(s) is/are the shortest (in bytes)? Or maybe there's a bot that can generate a list? I'm curious to see the shortest FA length since a GA I worked on has failed an FA nom three times for being too short, despite being extensively covered in every detail. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See User:The_ed17/Featured_articles_by_prose_size and User:The_ed17/Good_articles_by_wiki_text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Featured article needs attention?[edit]

Is it just me (and my computer) or is Template:Featured article, also known as the star that appears in the top right of every featured article, too low? I assume it's a result of the recent typography update. I can post a screenshot if necessary. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well. Template:Good article and all the protection templates have the same problem; they're too low now. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FA review[edit]

I am considering bringing 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots to FA but I suspect that PR wont give me the feedback I might need so I would like to ask the more experienced FA participants if they feel this is ready or if they can point out areas where it needs improvement. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Markazeshifa[edit]

Markaz-e-Shifa-Roohani-o-Qur'ani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markazeshifa (talkcontribs) 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)