Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination, Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

To the coords

		The Patience Barnstar
		To the FAR coordinators. For showing skill and patience during the sudden uptick in FAR processing - looking at the archives, FAR hasn't been this busy in years. I have to imagine it's a thankless job, but it keeps the process going, and y'all have been doing a good job at balancing allowing time for article improvements and not letting the page get unmanageable due to length. And looking at WP:FARGIVEN, the higher throughput may be coming for awhile yet. Thanks for being patient with a process that's probably a lot busier than anticipated. Hog Farm Talk 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes—second this 100%! (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• They are all awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone FAs

I am bringing this here since WeatherWriter has brought this up in at least two articles while the issue is much larger than that. Tropical cyclone meteorological histories are inherently based upon government sources from the various World Meteorological Organization appointed Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres as well as the Joint Typhoon Warning Center outside the Eastern/Central Pacific and Atlantic. WeatherWriter has claimed that these sources are WP:PRIMARY and that large portions of these articles rely on such sources, which in their opinion makes them fail the featured article criteria. In most cases, there is not a substitute, detailed reliable secondary source out there and those that do exist, at least in the western hemisphere, are oftentimes written by the same people who wrote the tropical cyclone discussions and reports and would be redundant to include. The question here is is this acceptable or does there need to be a mass-FAR? Noah^Talk 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I wanted to provide two examples of featured articles for this discussion, which, from what Hurricane Noah says, is common: Hurricane Walaka and Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean. For Hurricane Walaka, the meteorological history section is roughly 17.6k bytes and the whole article is 29k bytes. The section only contains information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Discussions in the past (not related to tropical cyclones, but tornadoes and damage totals) have said NOAA is a primary source for meteorological information. I don’t think anyone can disagree with that, since NOAA is the one who (1) writes the forecasts, (2) writes the tropical cyclones category ratings and (3) writes the official summary/review in the form of a Tropical Cyclones Report. With that said, Hurricane Walaka’s section is fully sources by NOAA and is just over 60% of the article’s content in terms of byte size.

For Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, it is even worse. The article is 30k bytes with a total of 51 sources. 49 of those sources are NOAA. Just interpreting Wikipedia’s policy on not basing large amounts of the article on primary sources (point five on WP:PRIMARY), the featured article should actually have Template:Primary sources on it, given that it only has 2 reliable secondary sources. Hurricane Noah’s question is, is this acceptable for featured article or not? If it is, then the fifth point on WP:PRIMARY, needs to be either reworded or re-assessed, since it seems to directly contradict these FA tropical cyclone articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a large amount of encyclopedic information (especially the arcane and technical types) which really isn't covered in secondary sources and so needs to come from primary sources. IMO any rule that conflicts with the should be changed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with North8000, and I'll add that I don't think any such rule exists. The most relevant criterion is 1c:

well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

If the primary sources are otherwise high-quality, their primary nature is not a disqualifier. I think it's slightly but meaningfully incorrect to say that PRIMARY advises "not basing large amounts of the article on primary sources". It says not to base "entire articles" on such sources and to "be cautious about basing large passages on them". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) inserted text 17:25, 26 July 2023

@Firefangledfeathers: Just a head’s up, WP:PRIMARY is policy and point five says “Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.” Just making sure you know that, since there is a rule about it. I’m guessing the rule needs to be reworded in some fashion though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I added the underlined text to my comment just a minute or so before your reply. I think we have a differing interpretation of the policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Why must all information published by a certain organisation fall into one, and only one, of primary and secondary? Citations such as this NOAA source for Walaka identify, to my understanding, primary sources that have been drawn upon to produce analysis, evaluation, and assessment. Simply because this information comes from the same organisation that also collects primary sources, does not mean that everything from that organisation needs to be uncritically bundled into one basket? It makes as much sense to dismiss the above source as "primary" as it does to dismiss this random article, found in today's FA, as "primary". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I am less concerned about if sources are primary, and I am more concerned about if better sources can be found. Government sources are usually fine unless there is a better source that can be used in the inline citation instead (such as an academic paper from a university). "Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean" is missing a bunch of sources as HurricaneNoah outlined on the article's talk page. I left a note at Hurricane Walaka asking about additional sources. I would do a hunt myself but anything to do with science is outside my specialty. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus might have ideas. Another idea is that this could be run through a merge proposal; that is, if you think the articles shouldn't exist based on primary, see how that flies with a merger proposal. I don't think it will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY going on here. Primary sources are things like pressure readings, satellite images, computer model outputs, reports from weather stations or from stormchasers. The government reports are analyses and summarizations based on such information, they are "thought and reflection" and "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" per WP:SECONDARY. People often confuse secondary with secondhand and primary with firsthand, not helped by the policy assuming that the historiographic definition can be uncritically applied to other fields. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 to that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is the heart of the problem -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will note, I’m not concerned with notability for any of the articles. It is more of, to me at least, how articles can be FA, but be mostly sources by one or two government organizations. In early May, there was an RFC which came to a determination that Wikipedia users cannot use NOAA information (which goes through the National Weather Service and National Centers for Environmental Information) to say tornadoes are Xth costliest. In that discussion, JoelleJay said, “Why would it not be ok to just use the NOAA data, rather than wait for a source to use it? Because primary data must be contextualized by a secondary source for us to extrapolate meaning from it, because content must be not only verifiable but also comply with NOT, and because we cannot imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source.” (Italics where JoelleJay had done the turquoise template.) Earlier, AirshipJungleman29 sort of asked what I think is probably the most important question which solves this mystery. What exactly from NOAA is primary vs secondary sources? Entering this, I had the belief that everything from NOAA is a primary source for meteorological information, given that NOAA is the first to mention everything meteorologically speaking for the US. But, AirshipJungleman29 is saying that because a NOAA meteorologist is looking at the raw data themselves, and then publishing the officially forecast based on that raw data analysis, it isn’t a primary source, but a secondary source. So, I think that is the more appropriate question: What is a primary source from NOAA vs secondary source from NOAA? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, one problem I see right away is that a meteorologist probably isn't a good source for the financial damage of a storm. NOAA is a good source for many things, but newspapers, insurance companies or government reports by recovery agencies probably are better for this info. Another thing that often gets confused is primary/secondary with reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The best sources for a given topic depend on ... the topic. We shouldn't prevent cyclones from being featured just because the best sources aren't medical journals, as we would expect for a medical topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say primary sources from NOAA are the public domain satellite imagery. It’s not true that NOAA is the first one to mention everything meteorologically speaking for the US, as WeatherWriter (talk · contribs) said. Weather agencies use a wide variety of data to issue their forecasts, warnings, whatnot. A storm can be a hurricane whether someone calls it one or not, but we can’t use the satellite imagery to say a storm off New England in September 1992 was a hurricane. This isn’t merely a hypothetical - satellite imagery suggests there was at least a tropical storm in September 1992 that was not classified. Using the satellite as a primary source would be the same as using a thermometer to establish climatology. It wouldn’t be appropriate for Wikipedia purposes of establishing reliability. The vast majority of weather sources don’t fall into that category, and I believe hurricane, tornado, and other severe weather writers have done a good job balancing out the sources. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally strongly oppose the idea that NOAA is always to be treated as a primary source of information like @WeatherWriter: seems to want, for example, I look at IBTRACS which takes its information from agencies inside and outside of NOAA and reproduces it in various formats on behalf of the WMO and the international community. As a result, I do not believe that there needs to be a mass FAR, but I hope that members of WP:Weather and WP:Tropical Cyclones can combine to help to the current URFA process.Jason Rees (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with Jason Rees here. Some NOAA products aren’t primary sources (examples: IBTRACS, NCEI Storm Event Database, NHC Tropical Cyclones Reports, NWS Webpages, ect…) since they involve information not always gathered by NOAA or detailed analysis similar to a small academic paper. That said, things like this NOAA product for Hurricane Walaka, which was mentioned earlier in this discussion, I believe are primary sources, since the official update/updated forecast (which is what that is), comes from NOAA as part of their day-to-day style jobs. No super detailed analysis takes place, like you would see in a post-storm survey/analysis. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that it doesn’t matter how detailed the analysis is. The satellite imagery or recon data is the primary source and the NHC products are secondary since those are interpretations of the primary data. Note the primary ones I listed are not exhaustive and include any kind of raw data. Noah^Talk 00:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically in regards to forecasts, they are based upon models and other data. They are secondary sources as well. Noah^Talk 00:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I will have to respectfully disagree with you. I do believe NHC forecast discussions and advisories are primary sources, along with models and other data. SJSU said that a primary source is, “(1) documents the results of original research, (2) is written by those who have conducted the research, (3) includes firsthand information about their methodologies, data, results, or conclusions, which, to me, describes NHC forecasts and advisories. I think tropical cyclone reports and NWS webpages are secondary sources, but I do disagree with you on what type of source NHC forecasts/advisories are. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Just on the subject of "can these be FAs", my thinking is no. I appreciate the hairsplitting people are doing above distinguishing between the raw data and analysis/synthesis, but if this stuff isn't being covered in secondary sources such as books, newspapers, etc. that indicates a niche topic that cannot be exhaustively covered by Wikipedia and meet featured article criteria. (I'd also say Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean is an improper split from Hurricane Dean, where the information could easily be covered in summary style in a single article.) At a fundamental level, the use of these sources creates the same issue primary sources do in a ton of areas on Wikipedia: it's a bunch of dense, excessively detailed trivia that makes for bad articles to anyone who isn't an extreme fan of the topic, whether weather, trains, or video games. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

”Easily” be covered? I’m not so sure. Category 5 hurricanes that impact land have a lot to cover. Even the very act of the eyewall of a hurricane interacting with land can be a significant talking point. Dean made several landfalls and passages close to land. Now if it did that without causing much damage, then a separate meteorological history article would be unnecessary. For example, there is an article for Hurricane Kyle (2002), which for a time had a separate article for the storm history. That was eventually merged. Now, if you believe any of the tropical cyclone articles should be merged, that could be a point of discussion on a given talk page. TC FA’s have been merged before and the project continued to function. But as someone who straddles the line between an amateur and a fan (I have no meteorological background other than my writing), I can say that there is enormous interest and need in having detailed information for some of the most significant, long lasting weather events. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no rule that mandates or blesses it but editing can take into account whether something is enclyclopedic / suitable for an article vs. trivia. And in some areas, slam-dunk-secondary sources do not cover many types of encyclopedic info that should be in the article. Since there is no wiki-rule that says "be a good editor" I can appreciate that, per your post, the primary/secondary distinction can help keep out trivia and cruft but can also keep out needed enclyclopedic information. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There does need to be some degree of care that available non-NHC sources are incorporated, even if NHC is judged to be secondary. For instance, compare what Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina looks like now vs the state of the article when it was delisted as FAR. The issue is less using NHC, and more using the easily accessible NHC as a crutch to the avoidance of all other sources. Hog Farm _Talk 13:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Aye, sources in academic papers seem to be underused in this topic area at times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about Pedro II of Brazil's article

I've moved this section to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil, please centralize discussion there. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I would request additional assistance, as I have indicated in my original post examples of the many problematic sentences in the article, and the discussion in that forum clearly did not yield any results.

I can't help but feel a strange bias in the Brazilian history being taught here in Wikipedia, given that pages actually call current members of the former royal family Princes (see page Prince Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza), adding them as "[disputed] master" of military orders in the quick facts sidebar (see Order of Christ (Brazil). I can't see how that is not equivalent to adding Donald Trump as the "disputed" president of the United States. But at least in that situation the "disputed" is clearly marked. Indeed, I have no problem whatsoever with the relevance of the claims that are made in the Pedro II of Brazil page—they are relevant claims made by people and should be in Wikipedia—they simply should not be offered naively and uncritically as facts. This is a critical part of Wikipedia policy. However, this fact has led to the editors simply responding any bias accusation with "but it is sourced". Again, bias in sources is not a problem per se. The claims should simply be clearly attributed and not presented as facts.

But the page editors, instead of also taking this view and accepting the addition of the absolutely non-fringe negative opinions about Pedro II, started processing that information editorially and attempting to gatekeep what should and shouldn't be in the page. "Well, I know historian x said y, but Pedro couldn't possibly be responsible for that".

I apologize for reissuing this request assistance, but I simply do not have the time to do this by myself and I feel at least part of the article has sentences (such as those I quote in the moved post) that should not be in any Wikipedia page.

Best regards, ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Victorvscn, that discussion did not yield any results because you have not WP:ENGAGEd collaboratively. The last message in that section requests you to provide the reliable sources which support the "absolutely non-fringe negative opinions" you feel are absent from the article. I echo that here—you have invoked WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; please provide evidence of the competing viewpoints. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Victorvscn, you might consult with Rjensen, who is a historian (see Richard J. Jensen) about the list he supplied of missing issues; he has excellent access to sources, and might be able to supply them if you post an inquiry to his talk page. He's quite busy, so it will probably be up to you to follow up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

94 potential candidates for featured article review

The following is a list of FAs that could have sourcing problems. I compiled it using this script by going through all 6322 featured articles (state: 25.08.23). For each article on the list, the script detected 6 or more paragraphs without references. The script ignores some paragraphs that do not require references, such as lead paragraphs and paragraphs in some plot sections (see MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:PLOTSOURCE). However, it has various shortcomings since it does not detect all plot sections and since it is not able to detect all references in the deprecated parenthetical style. This means that some of the paragraphs are falsly flagged as unreferenced. Because of this, it is necessary to confirm the problem manually in each case. I wrote the script in response to a change to the GA criteria which increased the requirements to have inline citations.

I'm not sure how to best make use of this list. Editors active in the FAR process could use it to find new FAR candidates. It could be combined with WP:URFA/2020 to make it easier to find problematic articles. For a similar effort in relation to GAs, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_29#998_potential_candidates_for_Good_article_reassessment and Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sweeps_2023. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

featured articles with unreferenced paragraphs

Article Possibly unreferenced paragraphs Maintenance tags 0.999... 28 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + ⋯ 11 1896 Summer Olympics 11 A Voyage Round the World 21 Acetic acid 15 1x citation needed Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition 11 1x citation needed Archimedes 13 Aston Villa F.C. 16 2x citation needed Bath, Somerset 8 1x vague, 1x citation needed, 1x needs update Battleship 12 1x Unreferenced section, 13x citation needed, 2x vague, 7x page needed Beagle 6 1x further explanation needed, 1x better source needed Binary search algorithm 17 Borobudur 8 Borscht 7 1x citation needed Bristol 6 1x citation needed, 1x when?, 1x needs update Brunette Coleman 9 Bryce Canyon National Park 7 Byzantine Empire 7 1x Very long, 2x More citations needed, 1x citation needed Caesar cipher 6 Calgary Flames 9 1x dead link, 1x permanent dead link Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 12 1x dead link, 1x permanent dead link Cannon 6 1x page needed, 13x permanent dead link Carolina Panthers 6 Cold Feet 9 3x dead link Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve 6 1x page needed Decipherment of rongorongo 13 5x page needed, 1x who?, 1x how?, 1x vague, 31x citation needed, 1x full citation needed, 1x citation not found DNA 6 Dwarf planet 9 1x Notice Earth 6 1x better source needed Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line 6 Ediacaran biota 7 1x full citation needed, 8x citation needed Emmy Noether 37 1x More citations needed section Enzyme kinetics 30 Euclidean algorithm 54 3x clarification needed Falaise pocket 6 1x image reference needed Felice Beato 7 Final Fantasy XI 6 1x citation needed Flight feather 10 Flower Drum Song 10 Galaxy 11 1x Expand section, 1x image reference needed, 1x dead link General relativity 9 1x citation needed, 1x permanent dead link Georg Cantor 6 Group (mathematics) 42 Hamlet 6 1x citation needed, 1x clarification needed Helium 7 1x Globalize, 1x More citations needed section HMS New Zealand (1911) 6 Huldrych Zwingli 10 1x image reference needed, 5x citation needed Hydrogen 16 2x image reference needed, 1x full citation needed Introduction to general relativity 16 Isaac Brock 9 Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo 6 Johannes Kepler 6 Kevin O'Halloran 7 Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector 59 Logarithm 38 Luton Town F.C. 6 Malagasy cuisine 6 Manchester 6 Manchester City F.C. 16 Moon 19 1x example needed Nahuatl 6 Oxidative phosphorylation 7 1x image reference needed Oxygen toxicity 6 1x clarification needed Palace of Queluz 10 2x Unreferenced section, 2x One source, 3x citation needed Parallel computing 29 1x citation needed, 1x dead link Pi 30 1x needs update PNC Park 7 Pre-dreadnought battleship 9 Premier League 10 1x permanent dead link Problem of Apollonius 36 Redshift 18 7x citation needed, 1x page needed Russell family (Passions) 6 Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough 10 1x More citations needed, 1x Story Scotland national football team 6 Shale oil extraction 6 Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009 7 Stanley Cup 7 Star 7 1x citation needed Surrender of Japan 9 Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) 7 1x permanent dead link The Relapse 13 The Smashing Pumpkins 6 Thomas Blamey 8 1x citation needed Toa Payoh ritual murders 8 2x page needed, 16x dead link Trafford 6 Venus 12 Washington, D.C. 14 1x Notice, 28x citation needed, 1x unreliable source?, 1x obsolete source Welding 9 1x Expand section, 1x failed verification White dwarf 11 2x citation needed Wood Badge 10 1x citation needed

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of 94 candidates

Phlsph7 thanks for this! Most FAR regulars use WP:URFA/2020 for pre-review in terms of what articles might need FAR, and as a place to keep track of notes versus noticed for FAR. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report

If you are interested in taking this to the next level, this is the entry you would add on each of the old and very old FAs to the URFA page. I didn't do the first two math ones, as math articles often have uncited paras, and there are many already noticed or at FAR, which don't need the note added (see the last on your list, Wood Badge, for example). Lists on talk pages tend to be ignored over time as they get swept into archive, whereas adding a note at the URFA page leaves a record until the article comes to FAR.

Hopefully there are no newer-than-2015 FAs on your list, but if there are, they should be pulled out and noticed here separately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, as an example, your list indicates that Washington, D.C. should probably be upgraded to noticed rather than notes, so it would warrant a separate talk page post giving notice based on this info, and a Noticed line at URFA, so someone will bring it to FAR if sufficient time passes without improvement. Just another example of how this list can be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

According to a rough comparison, the following articles from the unreferenced list are also found in the 2004–2009 articles:

Before I mass-tag all them, is this roughly what you had in mind? Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That looks about right, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. I added notes both to the very old and the old list. I didn't add notes for the following ones:

• Very old FAs
  • Kept at FAR
    • Caesar cipher
    • Group (mathematics)
    • Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector
  • Satisfactory
    • Nahuatl
    • Star
    • Johannes Kepler
• Old FAs
  • Satisfactory
    • Flower Drum Song
    • Thomas Blamey
• Not found on either list
  • A Voyage Round the World
  • Binary search algorithm
  • Borscht
  • Earth
  • Russell family (Passions)
  • Venus

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The uncited stuff at Blamey is a recent addition. It probably wouldn't hurt for Hawkeye7 to take a look over the additions when they get a chance. Hog Farm _Talk 21:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed some and sourced other additions. The article is back to fully referenced again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hydrocholoric acid was just delisted a day or two ago. From my experience with the similar GA list, the math ones are likely to continue a somewhat inflated unreferenced count, due to some quirks with how the math templates creating line breaks. Same with other articles with templates that create line breaks, like Greece runestones above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the Hydrochloric acid and Greece runestones. I'm not sure what to do about the math articles. It's true that they get a higher count than others because of how the script counts paragraphs. But it's also true that, inspite of the inflated count, many of them have sourcing problems. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed Gillingham too. I assume that the unsourced sections were the tables, but these are covered by a reference in the section title (can the bot scan titles too, or not?). SN54129 16:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

They are from the match details. The texts from "Key" to "Result" are apparently displayed as HTML paragraphs, which is why the script picked them up.

The script excludes certain sections. For example, all sections called "Plot" are ignored. The script can also be used on a single article to highlight which paragraphs have and which ones haven't reference in case you are wondering how it arrives at those numbers (see the last image at User:Phlsph7/ListUnreferencedParagraphs#Installation_and_Usage). Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Phlsph7! SN54129 17:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

So for the URFA/FAR regulars - it probably wouldn't hurt for us to try to go over these a bit as the related to the URFA lists. Some of these have already been noticed, so the link to this section as a note on the URFA page is just clutter and can be removed. Others of these likely have more significant underlying issues, so getting those flagged and identified, and then either (hopefully) the articles get worked on, or they get added to the long slow list at FARGIVEN is of more immediate help than the notes listing on the URFA page. Hog Farm _Talk 21:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised the list was only 94; I hope to be back in the saddle by next week, after helping my son with his move/transfer, and assuming nothing else comes up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the total number of FAs, 94 is not bad. By the way, the full sourcing list all 6322 FAs (including the ones with 5 or less unreferenced paragraphs) can be found at User:Phlsph7/FA_list_of_unreferenced_paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

FAR reviewers needed

Hello editors that watch this page: the activity level at FAR has decreased in recent weeks, and there are lots of articles that need reviewers. Some are ready for additional comments so that they can be declared "keep". Others are for articles with few or no recent edits, and need reviewers to determine if the articles should be delisted. Either way, reviewers will prevent these FARs from stalling (and maybe inspire you to fix up an FA?) Feel free to post any of your questions below. Thanks for all of your help. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing per full FA criteria is not my dance. But if there is a place for someone to help regarding general article quality (acknowledging that that is only a portion of FA criteria) I could help there. Let me know if that is of interest. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: Reviews of general article quality are always welcome. In thier comments, editors can choose to note what they did/did not review, and small reviews are still helpful. At FARC (the second half of the page) a coordinator notes what the review's concerns were and editors can choose to focus their comments on determining if those concerns are still present. Z1720 (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Then I think I could help. It looks like its a matter of just picking one and starting to make review comments? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Some FAR statuses:

Minneapolis is actively being worked on

Wilberforce, Concerto delle donne, Tubman, Sex Pistols, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Jackson, Redwoods, and Doolittle have all seen significant work but it is not clear if the articles are ready for FAR closure

Arbuthnot, Proteasome, Baden-Powell House, and (to a lesser extent) Arena (countermeasure) are all trending towards delisting

Chrono Cross may be ready to close, needs further reviewers

Status is unclear for Kreutz sungrazer, Marjora's Mask, Geography of Ireland, Hurricane Dean, and Olm

I'm not sure about Attalus or Edward III, and Ethan Hawke was just opened.

At least that's my take on where everything currently stands. Hog Farm _Talk 15:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, HF; I am road-tripping for eclipse viewing, but will try to get back in the saddle this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

When Minneapolis is done, I would be happy do an occasional review for other articles, maybe along the lines of North8000 although I don't have much experience with GAs and FAs. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. Long before this thread started I wondered if what I learn in Minneapolis could be applied to more articles. Once upon a time Minneapolis was a model for WP:USCITIES. Wikipedia needs more geography articles at featured status, otherwise editors who try are twisting in the wind without examples to follow. I have two FAs and four GAs under my belt. If that's not enough, kindly let me know. (Wikipedia has plentiful places in need of help.) -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This puts you into the upper echelon of experienced users. People with a quarter of your experience would still be appreciated as reviewers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to re-emphaize, my limitation is that my review scope is narrower than the full FA criteria. I've gotten 2 FA rescue awards and took one article to FA (and article of the day) SS Edmund Fitzgerald but in all cases got help from others on some of the more detailed FA criteria (like reference formatting). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Firefangledfeathers. North8000, here's hoping we reach another Keep soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

HF, thank you for the helpful status update. I think Tubman is ripe for final reviews and !votes. I'm still working on Redwood and would appreciate more time, though I've already taken so much! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

eBooks

What eBook supplier do you recommend? I tried Kindle (and its cloud reader) and Rakuten Kobo. One has its own made up "locations" but no page numbers, and one gives its own made up page numbers by chapter (like "page 2 of 33" for a 200 page book). Google eBooks is more expensive but gives different numbers than were in the article (perhaps from a hard copy, I don't know). I use Mac OS and suspect all the help pages for these companies were written by Windows users. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

SusanLesch I don't have an answer, but when citing ebooks, you can avoid the page number problem by using the loc= parameter in an sfn to indicate a section or chapter name, eg, see Dementia with Lewy bodies#References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For history research, archive.org combined with WP:TWL and some other stuff gives me probably the best range/accuracy combination. Don't know about other areas. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK thank you. So nobody has an eBook supplier that is a reliable source? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a couple workarounds:

1. Search a text snippet on Google Books, which will usually find the exact page number
2. Cite a short chapter or section using the |loc= field instead of a page number (no more than 5-10 pages)
3. If all else fails put |loc=search "a short string" that uniquely identifies where the information occurs in the file

(t · c) buidhe 18:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. If the Internet Archive and Google Books can preserve a book's integrity with correct page numbers for free, I dare not call these other guys publishers. They must be jokers. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

RBP history

See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Pre-2003 Brilliant Prose donated to the coordinators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

I don't know where to start with this; it looks like most of the article is plot. Is that how character articles are written wrt modern standards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but it's how they were written to 2007 standards  :) Is there a way to tell who fired up the bot that closed the discussion? Serial 17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you know full well who it was, SN :) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The things we do in the name of consensus <sigh>; that one's not so bad (I know where the bodies are buried). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Honestly, It never occurred to me to check the logs. Bots automatically confuse me, I admit. Remember what The Turk says: "You think too much of me, kid. I'm not that clever." (Apologies for: "kid"!). Sorry Sandy! *facepalm* Serial 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No need; there's often a backstory. And the standards were what they were back then. Anyway, as far as how to tell, Gimmetrow/Gimmebot added the feature of identifying who promoted/archived somewhere around the middle of 2008. Prior to 2008, almost all promotions were Raul (I did a very very few at the end of 2007, right after I was named delegate, and then took a month off for an unpleasant encounter with Arbcom and a now-banned user, with consequences that still reverberate in my life today). After that, and until the bot started identifying the closers, most of 2008 were mine (wait 'til URFA moves beyond 2006 and 2007 and more of my favorite bad ones surface :). But the definitive way to tell who promoted is to check who actually added the article to WP:FA, and compare to the archives, as sometimes I was cleaning up promotions where Raul forgot to add them. SN, I like the facepalm; it means I can get more sources out of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Jefferson Davis

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Three requisite stages

Hi all! I learned from last weekend wikiconference about the existence of FAR process with the focus on FAs promoted in the 2000s. So I went here to look at the process and I just have one comment (and my apologies in advance if this had probably been discussed before): The three requisite stages do not involve informing the original FA nominator of the potential de-list from FA status, do we have a reason why that is, and can we improve the requisite steps?

With the current process, we only notify on the article talk page, not user talk page, and othe riginal nominator(s) would not see that unless they regularly log in and monitor their watchlist. Editors active before 2010 (who brought articles to FA status then) may not be active now, but who knows, there might be a chance that they'd be interested in going back and saving articles, were they to be informed about the existence of FAR.

I would suggest, if it were not too much trouble, that we add a step to inform the FA nominator on their talk page, and preferably by email (for those who enable emails). I understand this will take time and while I cannot provide a technical solution, I imagine a bot can run through the original FA nomination, pick up the signature of the nominator, quickly identify who that is and then shoot an email.

I am nowhere near active now as I was before 2010 but if one day my FA deteriorates to the point that it comes up on FAR, I would appreciate the email notification. I don't have my FA article on my watchlist in the first place so I just went ahead and added it to my watchlist, but even that would not work with the unfortunately long intervals between my logins these days. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Nominators are typically informed on their talk page at the beginning of the second stage, as per the instructions under "Nominating an article for FAR". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know! Would it make sense to do this in the requisite stage as well? --PeaceNT (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

PeaceNT -- Not really; if the original nominator no longer has an FA watchlisted, it's probably because they're gone or no longer care; the first WP:URFA/2020 notices often sit there for months or years. Many URFA/2020 reviewers are conscientious about noticing an FA, and do ping the original nominators when entering an URFA review, and several of us keep an eye on that at the time a FARGIVEN notice is added, but the reality is that most FAs that deteriorate do so precisely because the original nominator is gone or no longer has the interest. And there is already such a high burden on FAR nominations, that it could discourage review-- it takes a long time to get through all the steps already! By the way, thanks for the interest! In terms of more background info, it might want to study up on this Signpost article to see how you can dig in, and be aware of WP:FARGIVEN as well. It would also be nice to know what else you heard about the FA and FAR process at this conference. Was there awareness of WP:URFA/2020? Should we expect a sudden uptick here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I cannot speak for others just me and I personally took my nominated FA off my watchlist after the promotion, to avoid a heavy watchlist (at that time) and move on to another page. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate to be notified or a chance to help out if my FA were under risk. Still, you must be right, with your long experience here contacting old nominators from the 2000s... Agreed that it may not be worth the extra efforts. FWIW I looked through the FA I came back here to check and fortunately it is now still in good shape. As for the conference, there were two interesting talks on FA and on FAR process, among other lectures. I cannot say anything about future upticks because there are various topics in the conference and as always people listen to what they like and work on areas that interest them. I am aware it's not easy work around here and I appreciate yours and other regulars' efforts. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I see: Buidhe and Z1720, do tell all. I've been so busy dealing with bad edit-a-thon edits hitting my watchlist, and I finally figured out this conference was the problem ... so I'm glad to know at least we were well represented! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@PeaceNT: Thanks for attending my talk at the conference! It is true that at the "Noticed" phase (Step 1) FAC nominators and other significant contributors are not pinged. Even so, I have sometimes pinged these editors if I know the editor is active and usually responsive to the notices. Some editors have liked the ping, others have responded negatively, and I don't ping if the editor has declared that they are retired (or if they are deceased). It's really a case-by-case basis. I don't think I like the email idea as some editors might interpret that as spam or bugging them to "fix up an article" when they haven't edited Wikipedia for 10+ years.

Something that also needs to be taken into consideration is that an article can be demoted and re-nominated at FAC. Maybe we need to include a notice to editors after the demotion that explains this so that they might be encouraged to fix up the article when they return.

@SandyGeorgia: and others: If you want to see the slides of my talk, a link is here. It discussed URFA/2020 and FAR. I welcome anyone who wants to join in and help out, and I am happy to answer any questions! Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Very nice, Z ... exactly the sort of FA process leadership I've been banging the drum about. Is there any feedback from Buidhe or you that we should know about ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

My talk was not about changing FAC at all, it was about helping interested editors learn more about the process and be prepared to succeed at FAC if they tried it. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Sounds cool. 5,000 miles away, and I reckon I could have done with the pointers!  ;) ——Serial 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Understand the point about perceived spamming. I've given it further thoughts and no long wish to suggest another step in the workload. Thanks for the efforts --PeaceNT (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@PeaceNT: back to your original point. If someone's gone to the trouble of re/writing an article to FA status, it is generally assumed, I think, that they are the most personally invested in it—in a positive way—and will thus be watching it. And if one does watch one's FAs, one sees the various notices they generate over the years. Of course, if one decides to take that article off their watch list, for whatever reason—which, of course, one has every right to do—one then abrogates themself of the right to get notices. One cannot expect other editors to manually check a) who nominated the article originally and b) whether they are still active at every point during FAR. I'd suggest that if one is sufficiently concerned to prevent an article from reaching this stage, one should keep a shepherd's eye on it. But if one chooses not to, then surely one cannot expect it to be done for them. HTH, and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 20:01, November 15, 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Fair enough. I initially thought a bot could do it but as this is manual work done, I understand it not worth the time. Thanks --PeaceNT (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

New pre-load

I've just launched my first FAR (at Wikipedia:Featured article review/FC Barcelona/archive1) since FrB.TG kindly added the new line to the pre-load, to help eliminate confusion over why an active discussion is occurring at a page with archive in the page title; it works, thank you FrB.TG.

It was installed here initially, and then adjusted here based on subsequent feedback at WT:FAC. The best wording may be different for FAC vs. FAR, and I think what we ended up with isn't optimal for FAR. I suggest going back to:

• As of (date) this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.

"An FAR coordinator" is awkward, FAR is a two-phase process, and I think the wording "be responsible for closing the nomination" chosen at FAC sub-optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed wording for FAR. I think "consensus is reached" works in this case since reviewers assess if an article's FA status should be kept or removed unlike FAC (where it generally means promotion). FrB.TG (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep ... we also have the whole thing about when to move forward to the next stage, so it's a bit different ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Harriet Tubman

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR-nominating tool

There is a script, FAR-helper (source), which is a one-click way to nominate an article for FAR. Super convenient. FrB.TG (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC-nominating tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Permission for six or seven again

With both

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 (30 October), and
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 (20 May)

... stalled, I've been unable to make new nominations, and would appreciate an extension of the five limit for as long as these two continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I've no problem with you nominating a sixth. DrKay (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just closed one of yours anyway. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to some members of this project. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Brettingham

SandyGeorgia - Apologies in advance for the ping. Just wanted to say that I've not forgotten Matthew Brettingham's FAR. I know User:Nikkimaria parked it somewhere but I can't remember where. The books are going to take a few more weeks to arrive at my new home. When they do, I'll get on with taking a look at the sourcing. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's currently on hold and can stay that way for a couple more weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@KJP1 and Nikkimaria:, have not had a chance to look, but you can find FARs on hold listed on the relevant URFA page, see the entry for Brettingham at Wikipedia:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/2004–2009#2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Stalled FARs

I'm getting a bit concerned by the degree to which we've been having FARs stall out lately. Part of it is SandyGeorgia not editing since January (which is worrying) and most of the other regulars getting "busy" but we still need to figure out how to clear some of the backlog. I just moved and won't be able to do much consistent editing until I can get reliable internet at home, and I don't know when that'll be.

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Emmy Noether/archive1 discussion on how much background material should be included and in what form; this appears to have died out. Will likely require subject matter familiar editors
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Borobudur/archive1 - construction in progress (CIP)
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shapinsay/archive1 - seems fairly close, needs further reviews
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Red Cliffs/archive2 - more CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1 - needs systematic source-text integrity checks
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 - more CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1 - seems fairly close to me
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1 - more reviews needed; primary article worker won't be available until March
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Wilberforce/archive1 - I can't tell where this one stands
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 - CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1 - needs detailed reviews
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/archive3 - seems close, needs more reviews
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geography of Ireland/archive2 - CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 - seems fairly close, perhaps some concerns about article stability
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward III of England/archive1 - I can't tell where this stands
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2 - needs more opinions. Primary issues seems to be is it okay for the article to copy public-domain DANFS as extensively as it does
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doolittle (album)/archive1 - waiting on Ceoil and then should be good to close as kept
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Redwood National and State Parks/archive1 - seems very close

Again, I know we're down several regulars but if we could make a concerted effort to get some of these moving again that would be good. Hog Farm _Talk 14:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the status update, HF. I have a couple things to clear off my plate, but I can get into a couple reviews in the next couple weeks. I've got my eye on some subset of Doolittle, Jackson, Concerto, Minneapolis, and Zelda, in case that helps others target their efforts. If anyone has suggestions about which to take on first, I'm open. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hog, I have only a para or two to added on individual songs for the Doolittle article, after than will vote keep...the prose and sourcing work is complete. Apologies for delay...will try and prioritise over next few days and then ping on the FAR page. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Firefangled, I might ping you re Doolitte if thats ok :) Ceoil (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still planning to work on Concerto delle donne – yes I'm totally I aware that I've dragged it along for quite a while, but will certainly finish it. I'm also happy to help with Battle of Red Cliffs, although I'm not exactly sure what is needed. As for Byzantine Empire, I'm planning to rewrite the arts section when I have more time (mid-March). Aza24 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalling is a perennial problem. Might try and spread the reviewer net wider. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Sex Pistols

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Restoring older featured articles to standard: year-end 2023 summary

Introduction

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Statistics

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023:

• 83 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
• 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
• The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%

Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Topics and Wikiprojects

There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Physics and astronomy
• Biology
• Mathematics
• Warfare
• Engineering and technology
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Literature and theatre
• Royalty and nobility
• Geology and geophysics

Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2023 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2023 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.56) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 14 8 22 0.36 15 Biology 16 45 61 2.81 62 Business, economics and finance 11 1 12 0.09 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 6 1 7 0.17 6 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 15 1 16 0.07 7 Education 25 1 26 0.04 2 Engineering and technology 5 6 11 1.20 3 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 47 6 53 0.13 17 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 9 4 13 0.44 4 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 30 16 46 0.53 36 Language and linguistics 4 0 4 0.00 3 Law 15 1 16 0.07 1 Literature and theatre 17 16 33 0.94 20 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 22 11 33 0.50 36 Meteorology 20 6 26 0.30 27 Music 30 9 39 0.30 52 Philosophy and psychology 3 1 4 0.33 0 Physics and astronomy 3 10 13 3.33 22 Politics and government 24 4 28 0.17 7 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 9 19 0.90 44 Sport and recreation 40 12 52 0.30 38 Transport 9 3 12 0.33 9 Video gaming 5 6 11 1.20 21 Warfare 31 51 82 1.65 27 Total 446 Note A 248 Note B 694 0.56 482 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

We need your help!

Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity at WP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following the featured article criteria.

Here's how any editor can help:

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed, but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article who would otherwise not look at it.

Feedback and commentary

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)