Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

FACs needing feedback view •
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now
1973 FA Charity Shield	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition	Review now
Helium	Review now
Martin Keamy	Review now
Pauline Fowler	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Recently featured again

FACBot did January 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. But it missed January 4. Art LaPella (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Note that that date has no footer, and I believe this was an experiment on Mike's part to see what would happen. Now we know. Btw, it looks like FACBot got the italics, etc. right. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Recently Featured of January 19 and 20, should Sesame Street international co-productions ideally be partly italicized as Sesame Street international co-productions? Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, done, and I'll get the 21st too when it's up. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I italicized January 25 and January 26 to match January 24, so a bug report may be appropriate. Art LaPella (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll submit a bug report. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Still happening Art LaPella (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

[1] Art LaPella (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Hawkeye7. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer(s) needed to help bring TFA files up to date

When Brianboulton was active at TFA, one of the things he did was to keep WP:FADC and WP:FANDC up to date; these are pages that list featured articles that haven't run on the main page, and have (or don't have) a connection to a particular date. Since he retired the pages have not been kept up to date, which is a pity because they're very useful for scheduling TFAs. Would anybody be interested in helping out by updating them? The job consists of going through the featured logs for each month, and listing each featured article on one or other of the two pages. The TFA coordinators remove them from those pages when they're scheduled. Brian stopped updating the pages some time in September, so this is really two requests: bring the files back up to date, and keep them up to date on a monthly basis. The TFA coordinators can do it themselves if there are no volunteers, but I thought it was worth seeing if someone else would like to get involved. Thanks for any assistance with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Helpful hint: when I kept those pages updated as part of my TFA stewardship (building, in the case of FADC, on a very helpful list originally developed by GeeJo), I found it useful to double-check them occasionally against the articles listed at WP:FANMP (using AWB's list-comparing abilities) - that way, it could quickly be seen which articles had been TFA but not removed, or promoted but not added. I would also suggest that doing it on a monthly basis is too long to wait, as then the work just builds up. "Little and often" is an easier way of keeping on top of it. Bencherlite^Talk 23:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't a bot do this? Seems like a lot of work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A bot can't decide whether an article has an important date connection or not. Yes, it is a bit of work (although Raul and Dabomb87 managed without any such list) but I found it worthwhile. I think it's a coordinator's job, really, not least because it's an excellent way of ensuring that you check which articles have been newly promoted (and, of course, which have been demoted at FAR) and thus staying on top of the potential pool of TFAs where there is no nomination at TFAR. Bencherlite^Talk 09:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've brought the lists back up to date. They weren't too far gone, actually... it seems Crisco 1492 did a pretty good job staying on top of them until just over a month ago. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I had a look, and This edit is fantastic work, I'm sure the others are the same quality. Thanks so much. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Glad to help. I'd be happy to keep them updated from now on, unless the coordinators would prefer to do it themselves for reasons Bencherlite outlined. It's up to you guys. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

      That would be terrific; thank you, Julian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

      +1. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

      me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Time to think about re-running TFAs

The rate of production of featured articles has been less than one a day for quite some time; the featured log gives the details. At some point we are going to run out of featured articles that have not been on the main page. The problem is worse than it may appear because some older FAs are no longer in good enough shape to be able to run as TFA without some repair work. We can wait till we are completely out, and decide what to do then, hoping that the rate of FA production picks up, or start running a few repeats each month to slow down the rate of usage. Doing that has another benefit: it will delay the day we have to run mostly repeats.

There are a lot of other changes this would require; the articlehistory template would have to be made aware of the possibility of two maindates, and WP:FA would need to be able to show a "BeenOnMainPageTwice" template, with underlining or some other method. I don't think any of those changes would be difficult enough to make them reasons not to do it. The question is whether we want to have limited reruns now, or more frequent reruns in the future.

I'd suggest that we run 5 repeat TFAs a month. That will about double the time until FAs run out, and we can modify the number of repeats up or down if the FA production level changes. Comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What about, as an alternative, running a TFL in that slot once a week? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I like the TFL option. TFLs get shortchanged in visibility on the main page, and this would be a good way to even out the balance a bit. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I much much much prefer the idea of another TFL on the mainpage, rather than a set number of repeats. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

By TFL, do you mean lists? But they're already featured daily on the mainpage, that would mean two lists a day? FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not quite the case -- FLs seem to be run every three or four days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Would the proposal then mean the main featured slot changing between FAs and FLs, with the lower FL slot being discontinued? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I had rather hoped that by time this was an issue, we'd have abandoned the main page as it is and wouldn't have to worry, but alas... I'd prefer to re-run TFAs over additional TFLs. --Laser brain (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. How close is Armaggedon? Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I would not mind using other Featured things in lieu of rerunning a TFA, I don't think a Featured article merits first claim on the TFA spot over lists and pictures solely because it's an article. Unless there is something special about that TFA that merits a double run. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm easy either way. FLC and TFL are different processes, with different goals and results. I haven't worked with either process much before, and I don't have time to start now, I'm slammed with a different project. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather see an FL in the TFA position than re-run an FA, but I don't think the choice needs to be made immediately. This page lists three years' worth of articles. While the reservoir has been diminishing, it's not full-on drought just yet. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How about running TFAs over two days instead of one when there isn't an anniversary one due? Richerman (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, it's worse than that looks. As mentioned before, a number of articles are not fit to run in their current form, but, importantly, the spread of topics is very uneven. Unless you want a repeating pattern something like Bird-US road-Plant-Video game-Medieval history, it can't be delayed. In my first month of scheduling I was already struggling to find 28 (Feb!) topics with different themes and nominators. I think we need to start re-runs very soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See here for a relevant post about older FAs that may not be ready to run. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

TFLs are run on Mondays and Fridays and I rarely remember to page down to look at them. I would support reducing to one day a week and running a TFL instead of a TFA once a week. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What if TFA was reduced to five days a week, and and the Friday article was allowed to run all weekend? Would that be enough to reduce the pressure on this issue? ApLundell (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not make articles eligible to run again after, say, five years? I've also felt that former FA, if salvaged back to FA level, should be eligible.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We could maintain two FLs per week in lieu of two FAs and have the split be 5 FAs / 2 FLs each week. There are over 2,500 FLs that have yet to appear on the main page. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

My preference would be to re-run FAs, and to keep TFA and TFL separate (and by all means run TFL more regularly) as I tend to think there may be more variety, by their very nature, in FAs than FLs. Like Wehwalt, perhaps an arbitrary number such as 5 years would prevent recent TFAs running again. Running over more than one day seems like a reasonable idea, but could lead to arguments over which articles run for more than one day; a potential can of worms? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In 2012 there was a Transit of Venus due and so I asked Raul to run the article as a TFA for a second time on the due day. I then got others who had the article on their watchlists to help tidy it up and we had it in good shape for the day of the transit. Why not let people nominate an article that has run some years before at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests on the understanding that they will get it in shape by an agreed date ready to run? Then, if the article is up to scratch by the agreed date, it is scheduled to run again.Richerman (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I also would prefer to use repeat FAs than featured lists. Because featured articles symbolize the aspirational quality goals for the this encyclopedia, I think they should always appear front-and-center on the main page. If we need to start repeating FAs, then so be it, but it is the articles that provide substance to this encyclopedia and they should continue to be the primary focus of the main page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As RL0919 discussed, the distinction between articles and lists is sometimes very hazy. For instance, my most recent featured list, List of Bermuda hurricanes, has over 7,000 words of readable prose and required more effort and research than several of my FAs combined. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we put too much stock in our self-imposed restrictions and distinctions. Do most main page readers care about the distinction between an "article" and a "list"? I don't think so. Do they care if featured items occasionally repeat? If it was obvious (frequent, or on a pattern such as the same article every year on the same date), then perhaps, but I don't think most will even notice if an item repeats after five years. So alternating between TFA/TFL and allowing repeats after several years both seem like perfectly reasonable suggestions. The ideal solution would be to get more content improved and promoted, so we don't even have the problem, but I suppose that's not something we will solve with a discussion here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've long wondered when this was going to be an issue. Perhaps main paging good articles could be on the table? Otherwise, rerunning FAs is a must, it's already been done with Pluto and Barack Obama. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

GAs are main paged frequently in the DYK slot, often as the lead hook with an image. Any article attaining GA is eligible to be nominated at DYK within seven days of reaching GA. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but there's enough new and 5-times expansions to fill the DYK nom page already, which I think is why it's so long and articles go unreviewed for weeks. I'm raising the possibility of cutting that policy and switching to filling to FA space with GAs. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What about treating FAs that have passed a FAR as "new" for the purposes of TFA, even if they have already appeared on the MP? Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There's also these. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Richard Feynman is missing from the list. Possibly a quantum fluctuation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Compare it as it was when it ran on the front page in December 2004 [2] with what it looks like now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I just read the TFL archive pages for January and February, and all the blurbs look very good to me; there's nothing that strikes me as a quality concern. To Giants2008 and all the featured list writers: well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I knew I'd wake up to some healthy discussion... ;-) I may be biased but I think FAs should still take pride of place on the main page, so I'd be in favour of repeating older articles every so often, and the 5-year limit that Wehwalt suggested was also the first thing that came to my mind (doing this means that even though FLs would appear further down the page, we'd see more of them as they wouldn't compete with FAs for the top spot). Of course if we could have a drive to get the worse-off FAs back into condition that'd be better all round. It was also good to see that last month we almost achieved one promotion per day at FAC, the best rate since October 2015, but it remains to be seen if this trend continues. Anyway, I'm heartened that no-one has suggested we loosen FAC standards to enlarge the pool of potential TFAs -- better to repeat our best work than compromise on quality. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Before we decide whether or not migrating TFL to the TFA space (twice a week, or once a week), we should probably get feedback from the FL coordinators. Tagging Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm personally fine with it; moving the TFL up to the top would be great, and we have tons of FLs that can be used. Giants is the one who actually schedules TFLs, but he doesn't seem to find it too difficult to work out, nothing like the difficulties TFA is currently having with their 7/week schedule. --PresN 12:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

To throw an extra idea into the mix, how about also occasionally running A-class articles from projects with those processes? A complication is that many of these articles later go on to become FAs, but not all do. Successful A-class nominators could be invited to propose articles which they don't intend to take to FA. One or two A-class articles a month would help ease the pressure a bit, albeit with the downside of causing a bit of confusion over what's being displayed on the main page. More generally, I've got no problem at all with re-running FAs that are still in good condition: this would provide an extra incentive to keep FAs up to scratch. As FAs on contemporary topics need a lot of work to remain FA class (2004 FA and 2008 TFA Barack Obama being the ultimate example of this), there's a particularly strong case for re-running them as they should be significantly different to their previous TFA appearance. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – For me, it would be incredible to see FLs placed there, as it would be a great reward for editors whose efforts at FLC can sometimes be overlooked. I do have two concerns, though. First, I wonder how the general community will feel about moving FLs up to the top space on the Main Page. I would take it as a badge of honor for the process, but there will no doubt be some confusion from readers. Second, please be aware that most of the lists that are available and in good shape are in the sports and entertainment categories; we at the FL process have our own biases and areas that attract more editors than others, which is one of the reasons I haven't pushed to have FLs featured more than twice per week. Personally, I don't know why the TFA community has seemed so reluctant to rerun articles in the past. Given the nature of Wikipedia and the ever-higher FA standards, I believe an article that remains at FA standard 5+ years after being TFA has earned the right to at least be part of the pool of articles TFAs are chosen from. Perhaps if 40+ articles were still being promoted monthly, I could understand the mindset, but that's not the situation and hasn't been for a while. Allowing FAs to run multiple times would have the added benefit of providing an incentive to keep FAs in good condition, which doesn't really exist at the moment other than from an individual's personal pride. Frankly, I'd be inclined to support both options, although I would like some reassurance that we won't suddenly find ourselves reduced to one spot per week again, or none at all, if FA promotion rates improve (last month's 30 promotions being an example). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Options for an RfC

For something as visible as the main page, I think we need a formal RfC. Looking through the comments above, I see two main options:

1. Rerun TFAs (some number per month, possibly after a minimum time such as five years)
2. Run TFLs in place of some TFAs (some number of times per month)

Other options seem to me unrealistic or to have less support:

• We can't just wait and see. The heavily skewed mix of FAs means we'll be unable to provide much variety fairly quickly; and a great many older FAs are not fit to run.
• Running GAs instead of FAs was suggested but it was pointed out that any new GA can already reach the main page via DYK.
• Re-running FFAs that are repromoted isn't a bad idea, but there are so few of these that it doesn't resolve the problem.

I suggest we run an RfC with the two options above, and ask editors to give a preference between the two, and fill in the blanks for the numbers -- N per month, after X years. Editors could indicate they they support both, or oppose one or the other, as well as giving a preference. Does this sound the right way to go about it? If so I'll draft some wording and post it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think these are the right two items to present. Regarding the details: For re-runs, five years is ample time to keep it from being repetitive. I don't see a need to limit the number per month. Variety is already one of the factors looked at for a TFA nomination; re-run vs. new could be another element of that. For TFLs, my suggestion is 2 per week, similar to the current TFL posting rate -- basically just run TFL in the TFA space rather than down the page. --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 2/week of TFL as proposal too. I think we should set this rather than give options. Regarding re-runs. I think 5 years is a good starting point (for a proposal), though am more amenable to flinging this number out for discussion. Maybe cap at 2/week as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

essentially what we are doing by 2/week is reducing the need for new FAs to approx. 22 new FAs/month to keep up with demand, which I think is a good starting point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I think Mike was just looking for comment on the proposals to run, rather than a restatement of editors' preferences... ;-) There's no consensus in the preceding set of comments for putting TFLs in the TFA slot, that's an option that looks like it might have traction, as does the idea of using repeat TFAs. So, Mike, I think you're on the right track with your suggestion of the RFC, and the two options to present in that RFC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there consensus on the restored FFAs? 11 May 2018 would be Feynman's 100th birthday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think keeping the choice to the two options 5-year-reruns/FLs is the way to go. Too many options just muddies the waters. Dank and I, at least, feel that FFAs should have had significant new input if they are to be selected, not just dragged up to a minimum FA scrape-through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's my position, but I'm not disagreeing with Hawkeye either. This is what Feynman looked like when it was promoted in 2004, and this is what it looks like now, after re-promotion. I'm on board with having an RfC and letting Wikipedians decide, but it might not be a bad idea for the TFA coords to clarify in the RfC what we want to do with cases like this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion of nuts and bolts is getting ahead of things but if the option for re-running TFAs gets up then I assume they'll be subject to the same selection process as all potential TFAs (with the restrictions of any time limit or number of old TFAs per week that are agreed upon), namely that the TFA coords will choose some arbitrarily, or editors can nominate old TFAs at TFAR just as they do with new ones (or is the latter not what you guys had in mind?). In any case, given it's only February now and we're getting ready for an RFC, I guess Feynman would have a decent chance of being chosen for a date in May if we do decide on re-runs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

We're talking about it. I'm sympathetic to concerns about opening floodgates, so a discussion of the nuts and bolts is within bounds, I think. I don't want to say more until all the TFA coords are agreed ... we seem to be getting there. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My views:

• 1) don't put TFL in for TFA
• 2) RE "Re-running FFAs that are repromoted isn't a bad idea, but there are so few of these that it doesn't resolve the problem." True, BUT no reason to exclude them.
• 3) This is symptom of wiki's biggest problem, which is all the reasons new editors are not attracted like they used to be and ever declining editor retention due to all the reasons people are driven away, which has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. HalfGig talk 01:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on changes to the "Today's featured article" slot on the main page

Background

The "Today's featured article" (TFA) slot on the main page showcases a different featured article (FA) every day. FAs are not being produced as fast as the TFA slot uses them. The number of available featured articles is also reduced by the fact that many older FAs have degraded to the point where they are no longer suitable for TFA. See this listing of FAs marked for cleanup, and the featured article log to see the rate of production of FAs.

A separate issue is the need for variety of subjects in the TFA slot. Because some productive FA writers have written a large number of FAs in narrow subject areas, it is getting harder to avoid some repetition in the type of articles showcased on the main page.

Just realized I never signed this, so: Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Options

There are two options presented in this RfC.

1. Rerun TFAs. The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for rerunnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
2. Run TFLs. One or two featured lists will run each week on the main page in place of TFAs. The TFA coordinators will decide whether one or two are needed, and the TFL coordinators will be in charge of selecting these and writing the blurbs.

Survey

Please support option 1 or support option 2 in this section.

• Support Option 1 -- I tend to be in favour of minimalist change when it comes to the main page, so I think we should keep it as the TFA slot, and simply re-run older TFAs to take up the slack that Mike highlights. The long-standing rule about not re-running TFAs except in exceptional circumstances made perfect sense a decade ago (about the time I started working on FAs) but now, even if we didn't have a shrinking pool of new FAs, I don't see why we shouldn't give well-maintained TFAs five or more years old another chance for their place in the spotlight. I'd agree with those who suggest that this would provide some added incentive for improving older TFAs that are no longer maintained, and restoring Former Featured Articles that have appeared on the main page. TFL already has a slot to itself further down the page, and I have no problem with TFLs running more frequently there than they do now. That makes more sense to me than putting TFLs in two slots or, if we removed TFLs from down the page, restricting TFLs to two per week in the TFA slot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• I am open to both - I think there is a lot on the mainpage and would be happy to see TFA and TFL share a spot rather than the extra spot down-screen for TFL currently. Am also okay with cautious re-running of FAs over five years old, though prefer to keep this to a minimum. I have thought about this quite a bit and can't honestly say which I favour, but I do agree that we need to do something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, but would support 2 particularly if we can have reruns be focused on under-represented areas or topic areas that are more traditional for an encyclopedia. (Eg, while I write about video games, I know we have a disproportionate number relative to other topic areas, so I would have no problem with excluding VGs from this rerun allowance). --MASEM (t) 15:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  Masem, just checking that you have this the right way round -- option 2 is TFLs, so I don't quite see why you'd support 2 on the basis of a condition that would apply to option 1. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)'/

  Yes, my support is preferably 1 if we can limited, but would still also support 2 should 1 not gain consensus/not be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support both, with Option 2 as my top choice (if it had to be a choice). In terms of their presentation and function on the main page, TFA and TFL are effectively identical; distinguishing them there is of interest only to Wiki insiders. Mixing TFL into the TFA slot just a couple of times per week will significantly extend the non-repeat lifetime of TFA (assuming no change in promotion rates). Repeats could extend TFA indefinitely, but I think those should be used more sparingly. Still, with a several-year delay between repeats, it shouldn't be very noticeable to readers and provides incentive to maintain/restore FAs that have already been run at TFA. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer option 1. Either is a reasonable solution. Neither is preferable to "just write more FAs, people!" but that's not fully within our control. I think mixing in a list is the best choice. Re-running old FAs is OK, but I'd restrict it to ones that hadn't run in five years, or ones that had been defeatured and then refeatured. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 -- I see the value in Featured Lists, but I think Featured Articles are significantly more valuable. They are really what the whole project is all about, and I think showcasing them, even if they have been featured on the front page before, is more valuable than option 2. -- Shudde ^talk 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2 - While 1 sounds like a good idea, I think the reality of the logistics are not feasible to do the checking for its FA quality. The minute an article achieves FA, "anybody" can edit it. And they do. As long as it isn't vandalism or disruptive editing, most of the edits stay. "At least five years ago"? I can give you some really personal insight - Texas Revolution is less than 2 years as an FA, and the revolution itself was nothing compared to drive-by editors, registered or not, who are sure they know more than the last editor. Same as any FA, I assume? — Maile (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  It might be worth clarifying here that we already do run FAs more than five years old; Dover Athletic, which ran in January of this year, became an FA over eight years ago. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 -- High-quality articles are the life blood of this encyclopedia. In a utopian future, we would work to take all of our articles to FA status. We should continue, to the extent possible, to incentivize the creation and maintenance of featured articles, and I think option 1 is the best way to achieve that objective. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - then we will never run out. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer 1 I would support both, but would prefer re-running old TFAs before tapping into TFLs. I like the occasional extra TFL we do from time to time as a different section, and would like to keep that going as well. --Jayron32 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer 1, for the same reason as Jayron32. I also think Notecardforfree raises a very good point that we need to not just create FAs, but also maintain them, and rerunning them would encourage that. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support option 1. oppose option 2—FLs should remain in their own area of the Main Page to avoid conflating the separate processes. Option 1 will do nicely for now as a solution to this issue. Imzadi 1979 → 05:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 - But would prefer if the emphasis were on articles that have not run for a long time and/or have been FFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option1 --- Five years is more than enough to allow normal mortals to forget that an article was ever showcased, so for me they can be showcased again. MuDavid (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 I have no problem running five-year-old+ TFAs again, provided that they're up to contemporary standards. I know that when my 4.5-year-old article, Courageous-class aircraft carrier, ran a week ago, it needed a surprising amount of updating and there were plenty of worthwhile changes that various editors made that I should have caught when reviewing it, even aside from the ones caused by annoying changes in the MOS like date-range format. And I need to blow up HMS Royal Oak (08) from '07 and rework it extensively before it's ready for TFA. So I think that we need some mechanism through which the delegates can ping for interested editors for assistance. That said, I would like to see TFLs occurring a little more often as the backlog there is huge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is reasonable when there is a topical reason to run the article again such as an anniversary. Option 2 is unwise because it would tend to encourage work on such listicles which have a reputation for being lazy journalism and so would tend to hurt our reputation. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If somebody chooses to work on "listicles", I don't see why we should discourage that. Plenty of editors, myself included, have improved articles to FA status having first gained experience at FLC. I don't consider the efforts of the FL community to be lazy, as it takes quite a bit of effort to polish a list's formatting into shape (I speak from experience). Also, I don't see how having TFLs on the Main Page has done anything to harm our reputation, as TFL tends to receive the fewest complaints at WP:ERRORS. DYK has had many more issues in the past than TFL, if I'm not mistaken; our lists are very different from the type that often appears in the media, which seems to be the focus of the listicle article mentioned. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 - the only reason not to rerun TFAs is to allow more pages to get that status; if there aren't enough FAs being approved to fill all the TFAs, this reason no longer applies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer 1 – For many of the reasons given above. FL suffers from the same issues as FA, in that there are lots of similar lists on similar topics, so while introducing them might help for a while, we'd get into a cycle of limited scope with them too. The best option is allowing FAs that haven't run in a long time to re-run. Though the caveat may be that they would have to undertake some sort of review process before that happens? Harrias ^talk 13:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Relunctantly, support Option 1, as I really don't want to deal with the main page dates again, but can't see a better solution. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, with preference for 2. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Prefer 2 but allow reruns for particularly popular TFAs. Nergaal (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 provided sufficient quality checks occur for these older articles. Sam Walton (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer option 1 for the many good reasons specified above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, prefer option 1 because it may help encourage maintenance of older TFAs, as mentioned above. Moisejp (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1: Something like a five-year cut-off for re-running, or a FFA passing for a second time would be the best way to organise this. I've nothing against FL, and would not oppose Option 2, but consider FA to be a better showcase for this particular slot on the page, and to offer more variety by definition. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 and 2 I prefer Option 1. I can't imagine one in a million casual visitors would notice. I agree that it would provide an incentive to spring clean some older FAs, and I think it's important to keep a variety of topics on the front page. That said, as much as I'd prefer 1 I'd be fine with Option 2 as well. I think recognising the FL work is a good idea too Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2, but ideally as a temporary measure that, should FA production increase, would be scaled back. Per others, a 5 year+ wait as well as being a topic of enduring significance are good criteria; the best example, running stuff from Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System every 5 years on heavy rotation would be totally fine. Also... while this might be too large a can of worms for here.... consider (gasp!) loosening standards at WP:FAC. Okay, okay, no, I don't mean weakening accuracy / neutrality expectations. But I do mean loosening stylistic / prose concerns, if the underlying content is featured-quality, as often times these felicitous turns of phrase will fade with edits over time anyway. This is tricky, though, since obviously it would be a discouragement to the fine work that copyeditors put in to help FAs. But... throwing it out there anyway, returning to ~2008 levels of FA production would be a good thing IMO, and I think there's some amount of standards creep where the perfect may have become the enemy of the good in some parts. SnowFire (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Robvanvee 16:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1. While there may be issues with some or many Featured articles, I am still confident that Featured articles at a high standard are readily available for re-Featuring on the Main Page. Featured lists seem to undergo less scrutiny, and also I am not convinced they would be a good choice to go in the upper left slot on the Main Page. MPS1992 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 for two reasons: first, it would give people an incentive to keep FAs up to code, perhaps even to rescue them at FAR; and second, often the subjects of those FAs have undergone considerable changes in the intervening years (consider Bob Dylan, our oldest continuously featured article ... now he's a Nobel laureate. If there is a significant anniversary coming up that we didn't commemorate the first time it ran on the Main Page, well, this would be the time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 as long as it includes articles that were former featured articles too. FAs have much more value than FLs and FLs have their own slot on the main page. HalfGig talk 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 and tentatively support Option 2: Given Wikipedia's age, to me it would make sense to revisit old FAs. If one appeared in, say, 2008, it is quite possible that the article has changed quite a lot over the last nine years and would likely offer any prospective readers a good read, and no-one is going to remember that it was up there in the first place anyway. And as Daniel Case notes a few lines above me, it gives an incentive for editors to revisit old FAs to ensure that they are at a high standard. As for Option 2, I think that if the FL has a good enough wordy bit for an appropriately-sized blurb then it should go up, but if it is 95% table then no, not in the FA slot. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose option one; oppose option two. After watching these discussions and giving this a great deal of thought, this where I have to land. If I absolutely had to choose, I'm with Cas. That said, I think both options function as a bandaid for a much greater problem that should be addressed. That's probably best left for another discussion. One thing though, I've spent a great deal of time this week taking a look at the FAC queue (it's been a long time since I've done that) and trying to work through some of the articles at the bottom (I'd do source reviews, but poor vision makes is difficult for pages with lots of sources). What I'm seeing is a very long (and off-putting) queue, and for some reason nominators who don't seem engaged. Perhaps we should consider archiving more readily in an attempt to conserve reviewer resources and hope to push things along. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose option 2, mild support for option 1. Lists and articles are different animals, lists already have their own slot, and there are similar problems with diversity of featured lists (they tend to skew towards sport and entertainment, rather than battles and ships). I would prefer that re-running be kept to a minimum but it could work well for date connections, especially major anniversaries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 (rerun) - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, preferably option 1 - I never understood why we even have "featured" lists in the first place if we're not even going to feature them at all in one form of another. As for option 1, I'm open to it, but for an article to be run again as an FA, it needs to be checked again to see if the article still meets the FA criteria. Just a question though: how would it be determined if a day's TFA would be an article that has already been featured before? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  We do run FLs in a block above the Featured Picture section on occasion. I think about once a week we run one of that section. --Jayron32 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. That section could be used more often though (like daily instead of once a week), and be made more prominent. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 Featured lists already have their own place on the Main Page; let's keep featured articles to featured articles, even if that means rerunning some of the older ones. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 I think it makes more sense to slow down the turnover on the Main Page generally, but given these options, number 1 makes more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1 only FL have a place elsewhere and that's enough. Support option 1, with details (number of years, status of FFA, etc.) to be discussed at a later time. I suggested five years not entirely arbitrarily, but so an article that ran in a presidential year couldn't run in the next one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support both with a slight preference for option #1 if I had to choose between the two. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both - If you want more featured articles, just promote more. The featured article criteria don't have to be so stringent that only formulaic articles about hurricanes get promoted. Just make it easier to get featured. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 1 best not to rerun TFAs when there are far too many FLs that have not appeared on the main page simply because TFL is only twice weekly. FLs are being produced faster than TFL is displaying them on the main page. It is also unfair for a FA to get two main page appearances when many FAs have not even gotten one yet. feminist 09:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 For the average Main Page reader, who may or may not be a regular Wikipedian, it makes more sense to have quality content that there is a small chance they have seen before than a list, which is usually a convenient and useful collection of information rather than being interesting. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Is it possible to run other featured things (such as featured images) in lieu of a TFL or repeating a TFA? My sense is that when a FA is not available, any other featured whatever thing should be eligible, with repeat TFAs being a last resort or when a special situation justifying a repeat use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Varying what we swap in too often might make it hard for the bots (there are 4 that support the TFA process, with multiple tasks). I'm hoping someone will discuss bot issues so we know what's possible. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Jo-Jo Eumerus's suggestion. FP already has a daily slot, three sets of FA/FL/FP coordinators seems a recipe for confusion, and surely an encyclopaedia's best work should be represented by words? We are not aiming to be a picture book. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• There does seem to be an issue. For example, Kedok Ketawa seemed too weak to merit the FA slot. My feeling is that there should be a drive to encourage FA nominations as I reckon that there's plenty of stuff which might qualify. For example, I reviewed the article flea for DYK recently and though that it was better than a lot of the very narrow topics which seem to get through FA because there isn't much to say about them. We should give more encouragement to such vital work. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you reviewed at DYK, but you linked a dab. Not enough skilled FAC reviewers to handle an increase. FAC is really intense on the reviews, the most detailed-oriented process on Wikipedia. Articles hang there for months before passing. Reviewers who do it right often take days to read through a single article. It takes multiple reviewers for one nomination, and there are only so many qualified-willing reviewers available. It takes multiple "Support"s for an article to pass. I'm involved a lot at DYK, and it's pre-school, with FAC being a doctorate-level exam. I encourage you to take one of your articles through FAC for the experience. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The article is up at DYK right now – it's flea. It compares well with the current FA – Marvel Science Stories. That's just 12K because there's not a lot to say as the magazine only published 15 issues. The flea article is 38K and is rated as good. Most readers would not be surprised if their positions on the main page were reversed. Also, as it was the monthly Wikimeet here, I talked to Johnbod yesterday about his work. I see him doing good work at DYK – articles like carved lacquer and so, thinking of this thread, asked him about his FA work. He indicated that he has given up on FAs because they are too much hassle. Perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't see that personal opinions of worthiness are ever going to be a substitute for the rigour of FAC. I can understand why people can find the process hard work, but that's why, on the whole, it works. "I think this article should be TFA" falls some way short of quality control. We don't run GAs because one-person reviews are too uneven Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The FA process is just based on "personal opinions of worthiness", isn't it? And it seems quite uneven too. For example, consider today's FA - Marvel Science Stories. I browse sources for this topic for a couple of minutes and soon find that its history is covered in detail in The Secret History of Marvel Comics. I wonder what the connection is and find the following remarkable fact, "Confirming that all things comic book had their genesis in Goodman's non-comics publications, the science fiction pulp Marvel Science Stories (v1 #1, August 1938) was the first Goodman publication to feature the word Marvel in its title." So, this was effectively the start of the Marvel brand which now dominates Hollywood. The FA seems to say nothing at all about this; it's just presented as a bit of SF memorabilia without this significant context. Amazing! Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The process is based on these criteria, but comprehensiveness is hard to verify, particularly for reviewers who are not expert in the relevant topic area. I wrote most of the article, and I wondered whether it was the first use of "Marvel" in a Goodman title, but I was unable to find a source for that. I can't see any relevant pages on the source you link, but feel free to either add the information yourself, or leave enough information on the article talk page for someone else to add it and cite it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I could read many pages of that source via Google books and so made an update just now. Please check it out. Andrew D. (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I moved it up above the discussion of the first issue; I think it fits better there. Thanks for adding that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks to you for getting the topic so far, as I enjoy reading about the history of SF. Now let's mention this at WP:ERROR to see if we can get this detail onto the main page, while there's time. Andrew D. (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the people who comment on problems with the Main Page have a fascination for waiting until the last minute ... or in this case, 16 hours after the last minute ... to do their work. This fascination is not shared by the FAC/TFA/FAR community, and I don't want to do anything to encourage it, at ERRORS or otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative idea How about, instead of a featured article, we occasionally (say twice a week) have a pick from WP:VITAL? First from Level 1 articles, then Level 2, etc...? We'd have to make it clear these are not "some of our best work" yet, but are instead asking for volunteers to get involved and improve an important topic so that it becomes "some of our best work"? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Meah. I would rather use this as the criteria for reruns. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative idea Since the main page gets slightly fewer views on weekends (on average), the Saturday+Sunday slots could be combined to show a single FA for two days. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

GAs?

In risk of being run out of town by the locals and their pitchforks, what about including some GA articles in the mix too? (Burn him)! Remember that we are here for the reader and the average person who looks at articles doesn't know (or to be honest, care) about the differences between FA and GA status. For example, take a look at today's FA versus this GA. If you were an "average" user (IE not savy with what goes on behind the scenes), which article would you think is the "featured" one (without looking at the icons in the top right)? It's very difficult. I'm not saying open the floodgates for any old rubbish, but to include some of our better GAs, in lieu of new FAs coming through. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of the FAs were GAs, so in a sense, GAs already appear at TFA ... all it takes is extra work, and some GAs are very good, and only take a little extra work. If we had a separate process to vet GAs for the TFA slot on the Main Page, it would amount to the same thing ... a little extra vetting and work. So I don't see the advantage of creating a separate GA-vetting process ... unless there's something about the FA criteria or process that is offputting to some of our productive GA-writers. Is there? - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess the FA checkers need to pull their fingers out then. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We should be pushing good GAs to FAC. I don't think this would help with this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Dank, yes, there's something about the FA process that's offputting. I have a few GAs that I could probably get up to FA with a small amount of work, and in some ways I'd like to do it, but the thought of going through that extremely lengthy process is incredibly offputting. We currently have two noms on the page from November, six from December and six from the first week of January. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the FA process can be a bit frustrating and I'm sure there are GA authors who don't want to go through it. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, the length of review is dependent on the number of reviewers, and the more in-depth the review, the longer it is likely to be. It's always good to see more nominations; it's even better to see more reviewers. I know you chip in quite often, but anyone else who finds the step from GA to FA off putting maybe could hang around at FAC a bit and see what is involved. It's not THAT bad! I would encourage anyone with a "good GA" to push it to FAC like Cas says. And the more nominations we have, perhaps the less need for too many changes to TFA. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, newbies are welcome to make use of the recently introduced FAC mentoring process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 and Ian, thanks for the replies. Reviews seem to be taking longer. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ninety-five Theses/archive1 has been open since 7 January. By 19 January it had five supports, but it is waiting for a source review, even though Jfhutson is an experienced editor and it's sometimes unclear what a source review means at FAC. I think the longer FACs remain open, the more daunting they appear to potential reviewers too, not only potential nominators. I would suggest introducing a maximum length (say, four weeks, with exceptions only where really needed), and asking nominators to make greater use of peer review. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the problem of long review times, but I do know that what we're seeing may be a side effect of our success at attracting new, or newish, nominators. I'm seeing more of those lately, and it's not accidental ... more people are encouraging people to give FAC a try, and Brian's mentorship program is great. But the influx has hurt the ratio of nominators to available reviewers, because it takes a while for new nominators to build the confidence (and the desire) to review. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Some GAs on the main page within the last 24 hours have said that ships of the Pakistan Navy were "were detected 70 nmi (130 km; 81 mi) to the northwest and northeast of Karachi" ... try this at https://maps.google.com/ please. According to the article as released on the Main Page, "Operation Trident was notable for introducing the first ship-launched missiles in combat in South Asia since the end of World War II". I would like someone to explain which ship-launched missiles were used during World War II. Are these "Good Articles" actually up to scratch? MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea of ships northeast of Karachi is amusing, but it's worth pointing out that errors have been found in articles that got through FA and TFA. There isn't an article status called "Guaranteed Perfect". Still, I don't support the idea of putting GAs in the TFA slot. We aren't that hard up for feature-level material. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We are literally one step from having ships 70 miles northeast of Karachi! Literally! I want people to think about this before they support it. "We have done even more stupid things in the past" is not an excuse! MPS1992 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not excusing the mistake, nor am I supporting the idea of running GAs in the TFA slot. But pointing out a couple of specific mistakes isn't a good argument when the alternative isn't mistake-free either. I'm encouraging you to find better arguments, not endorsing a lax attitude towards obvious errors. --RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Are obvious errors dealt with promptly, when they appear on the Main Page and are pointed out? MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

They ought to be if pointed out on WP:ERRORS on or before their Main Page appearance. Afterwards, take it to the article Talk page as usual. --RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? Is that it? That's awful. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It's awful that you should point out problems with an article the Talk page for that article? What were you hoping for? --RL0919 (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My hope is that if we are going to devote the upper left quadrant of the Main Page to an article of "Featured" quality, including an image where appropriate, then it should not be an article absolutely full of schoolboy errors. Based on experience, I regard many articles recently passed as "Good article"s as fitting the latter category, whereas I hope that featured articles are of higher quality. MPS1992 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Feel free to tell me otherwise based on your own experience and quality checks of recent GA-passed articles! MPS1992 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comments about me not supporting the idea of putting GAs in the TFA slot, and with that I'm done with this particular discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's wise, I think. MPS1992 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support The entire GA process quality is defined by the nominator/reviewer engagement. Some are FA quality, some are also terrible but there're terrible FA articles too; with a good triage there's plenty of good content out there. Bertdrunk (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Lower the FA criteria

If you need more featured articles, just make it easier for an article to be featured. Simple solution. Kaldari (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• The hardest thing about FAC is waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting for someone to perform a review. Lowering the standards won't fix that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with CT. It's not a matter of the criteria. It's a matter of actually getting reviewers.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, in my experience, many articles stall because reviewers are unfamiliar with a given (often technical) subject, and refrain from reviewing them. Regardless of their quality, they may simply not be reviewed in time before being archived. The criteria don't really play a part in this problem, and different reviewers emphasize different criteria over others anyway. As far as I can see, most failed articles are archived because they didn't get more than two reviews, not because they got many opposes. I've had to ping potentially interested reviewers more than a few time for my nominations to "survive". This is of course a result of the reviewer-pool being small. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. If we look on the FAC talk page, we can see comments like "I'm afraid I can't check for comprehensiveness, as I have no knowledge of the subject". That is a problem, especially for editors who focus on obscure or technical subjects (like me).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And of course, as always, the best way to get reviews is to review yourself. Even outside a specialist area it's easy enough to comment on prose and sourcing. Or just do image or source reviews. I notice that at least one article sliding down FAC at present is one where a previous nomination FAC had several reviews, but the editor never reviewed anything himself. Of course you don't have to review, but if you don't there is little point complaining Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: "...more than two reviews..." Well there's the problem. Why do we require more than 2 reviews? Just drop the requirement to 2 reviews (or 1!) and the problem will be solved. I would much rather see new, interesting articles featured (with some grammar errors) than having to read the same hurricane articles over and over for the rest of my life. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it had to happen at some point... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)