Template:FAR-instructions: Difference between revisions
per talk, I think |
Reword recently-added text for brevity and to make it a better summary of talkpage consensus. See WT:FAR#Problems with reinstated changes. |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<span style="font-size:16pt">Reviewing featured articles</span> {{shortcut|WP:FAR|WP:FARC}} |
<span style="font-size:16pt">Reviewing featured articles</span> {{shortcut|WP:FAR|WP:FARC}} |
||
This page is for the review and improvement of [[Wikipedia:featured articles|featured articles]] that may no longer meet the [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]]. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. |
This page is for the review and improvement of [[Wikipedia:featured articles|featured articles]] that may no longer meet the [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]]. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Although successful reviews address the issues raised and close with no change in status, many FAs need so much improvement that they are delisted, mainly due to lack of interest. |
||
There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. |
There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. |
||
'''Featured article review''' (FAR) |
'''Featured article review''' (FAR) |
||
*In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". |
*In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies, but are not obligated to re-write the article. |
||
*Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. |
*Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. |
||
*The featured article director, [[User:Raul654|Raul654]], or his delegates [[User:Marskell|Marskell]], [[User:Joelr31|Joelr31]] and [[user:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]], determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage. |
*The featured article director, [[User:Raul654|Raul654]], or his delegates [[User:Marskell|Marskell]], [[User:Joelr31|Joelr31]] and [[user:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]], determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage. |
Revision as of 21:56, 2 August 2009
Reviewing featured articles This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. Although successful reviews address the issues raised and close with no change in status, many FAs need so much improvement that they are delisted, mainly due to lack of interest. There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. Featured article review (FAR)
Featured article removal candidate (FARC)
Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAR}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{articlehistory}}. – |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
Toolbox |
Nominating an article for FAR Nominators should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.
|