Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) m →Bengali language movement: typo |
→Bengali language movement: Reply |
||
(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)
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)
- 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)
- I'd prefer to run Growing Up Absurd on its (minor) October anniversary, if amenable czar 18:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Gog the Mild and Jimfbleak:, just making sure someone saw this. I received a notification that it's running in February. Thank you for your work at TFA! czar 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Czar, I had missed that. Pulled. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Yoenit is the FAC nominator for USS Indiana (BB-1). Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
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)
- Thanks Sandy. A455bcd9, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Hi A455bcd9 and thanks for the response. I'm going to swap it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In that case it's not eligible indeed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi A455bcd9 and thanks for the response. I'm going to swap it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)