Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 89: Line 89:
:::::A4, I don't believe the article had maintenance tags on its past OTD outings, but I could be wrong. My impression has been that the editor who schedules the OTDs checks for maintenance tags, which it now has. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::A4, I don't believe the article had maintenance tags on its past OTD outings, but I could be wrong. My impression has been that the editor who schedules the OTDs checks for maintenance tags, which it now has. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::In that case it's not eligible indeed. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::In that case it's not eligible indeed. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

'''Follow-up''', {{ping|Gog the Mild|A455bcd9}} I wanted to bring this to your attention, as I just noticed and got the full picture. After seeing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengali_language_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1135000492 this edit today], I went back through the article history and realized that Antoine had reviewed the article on 19 November, but throughout December, the article was damaged by a long series of IP edits (indicating, problematic, that no one is watching this FA closely). A big chunk of the damage occurred between the time Gog inquired at [[WT:URFA/2020]] on 20 December, and I finally took a more serious look more than three weeks later. So the 19 November "Satisfactory" mark was a valid one, someone is at work repairing the article now, and I should have checked the article history to inquire whether a revert was in order. I suppose we're still better off not running it TFA, as it may not yet be stable, but I just wanted you to be reassured, Antoine, that your 19 November review was healthy and helpful, and your good work is most appreciated! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks @[[User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]] for taking the time to go through the article history. I should have done it but I thought this satisfactory mark was maybe a moment of weakness from myself... I'm reassured :) [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 06:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:57, 22 January 2023

Scheduling template

Only TFA schedulers should make changes to the table immediately below. But please feel free to note any concerns, queries or thoughts below it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date Article FAC nominator Promoted FTopic? Rerun? Request? Date? Blurb
1 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster Balon Greyjoy 2022 Y 1 Green tickY
2 Resolution Guyot Jo-Jo Eumerus 2019 Y - Green tickY
3 HMS Argus (I49) Sturmvogel 66 2012 Green tickY
4 Made in the Dark Seraphim Whipp 2008 Y 4 Green tickY
5 Colin Robert Chase Usernameunique 2021 Y 5 Green tickY
6 Artemy Vedel Amitchell125 2022 Jim Green tickY
7 Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22 Gerda Arendt 2015 2015 Y 7 Green tickY
8 Northolt siege HJ Mitchell 2022 Green tickY
9 Forest raven Casliber 2015 Jim Green tickY
10 George Andrew Davis Jr. Ed! 2012 Y 10 Green tickY
11 Fatima Whitbread BennyOnTheLoose 2022 Jim Green tickY
12 Battle of Powick Bridge Harrias 2020 Green tickY
13 Pavle Đurišić Peacemaker67 2012 2014 Y 13 Green tickY
14 I Need You (Paris Hilton song) Aoba47 2022 Y 14 Green tickY
15 UEFA Euro 2020 Final Amakuru & The Rambling Man 2021 Green tickY
16 Goldfinger (novel) SchroCat 2019 Yes Green tickY
17 Theodora Kroeber SusunW & Vanamonde93 2022 Green tickY
18 Back to the Future Darkwarriorblake 2022 Green tickY
19 Corp Naomh Ceoil 2022 Green tickY
20 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial half dollar Wehwalt 2022 Green tickY
21 Bengali language movement Rama's Arrow 2007 Green tickY
22 Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts TheJoebro64 2022 Green tickY
23 American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign Hawkeye7 2022 Green tickY
24 Rhea Seddon Hawkeye7 2022 Green tickY
25 Lake Street Transfer station John M Wolfson 2022 Green tickY
26 Japanese fire-bellied newt An anonymous username, not my real name - Green tickY
27 Ibn al-Ash'ath Cplakidas 2022 Green tickY
28 USS Indiana (BB-1) Yoenit 2010 Y 28 Green tickY

Comments

@Gog the Mild: Should we save Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus for Christmas 2023? This might be a better fit for that time period. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! Humbug! Ok. Swapped. Wehwalt please note; you may also want to look at the 21st. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it and concur about Virginia Claus.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Czar, I had missed that. Pulled. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali language movement

Gog the Mild I don't think Bengali language movement is fit for the main page. There is overquoting, grammatical issues, listiness in popular culture, a criticism section, citation overkill, a general mess from the Criticism section onwards (including See also that needs pruning), it has an expansion tag, and unvetted content was merged in from other articles. This article is FAR worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. A455bcd9, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SandyGeorgia's points seem all valid. I don't know whether that's enough to make the article unfit for TFA or the for the main page in general though (could be moved in "Did you know ..." or "On this day" otherwise). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it's eligible for DYK, and the OTD folks usually check for maintenance issues. This one is bad enough that I'll be submitting it to FAR as soon as I have an opening (unless Gog decides to go ahead and run it, in which case I have to wait for three days after TFA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was featured on OTD on February 21 in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2022. So that's why I thought it could be eligible for OTD this year as well. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A455bcd9 and thanks for the response. I'm going to swap it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Gog; I'm keeping an eye on this as an example, as I have long been unsure whether FACbot will pick up the update at WP:URFA/2020A. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the damage to this article is sad to see. It is a clear example of a previously fine FA that has been damaged as a result of not being watched, and I suspect it was the merges from other articles that caused most of the damage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A4, I don't believe the article had maintenance tags on its past OTD outings, but I could be wrong. My impression has been that the editor who schedules the OTDs checks for maintenance tags, which it now has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's not eligible indeed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, @Gog the Mild and A455bcd9: I wanted to bring this to your attention, as I just noticed and got the full picture. After seeing this edit today, I went back through the article history and realized that Antoine had reviewed the article on 19 November, but throughout December, the article was damaged by a long series of IP edits (indicating, problematic, that no one is watching this FA closely). A big chunk of the damage occurred between the time Gog inquired at WT:URFA/2020 on 20 December, and I finally took a more serious look more than three weeks later. So the 19 November "Satisfactory" mark was a valid one, someone is at work repairing the article now, and I should have checked the article history to inquire whether a revert was in order. I suppose we're still better off not running it TFA, as it may not yet be stable, but I just wanted you to be reassured, Antoine, that your 19 November review was healthy and helpful, and your good work is most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SandyGeorgia for taking the time to go through the article history. I should have done it but I thought this satisfactory mark was maybe a moment of weakness from myself... I'm reassured :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]