Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

FACs needing feedback view •
Ethics	Review it now
Susanna Hoffs	Review it now
2023 Union Square riot	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Australian Cattle Dog	Review now
Jason Voorhees	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Aston Villa F.C.	Review now
Bernard Quatermass	Review now
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

See also: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles

FA statistics question

Hi all, I'm writing an article that includes discussion about the difference between an FA vs a B vs Stub articles (medical focus). Are there any statistics on:

• Average length
• The average number of references
• Number of reviewers

I'd be interested in either raw info, or comparison between quality ranks, or comparison within an article at different years. I thought I'd ask here just in case someone already knew before I start analysing a random sample from scratch! Thanks in advance. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing global, but there are some recent discussions that include numbers you might be able to use. This lists all nominators and reviewers for a six month period ending in January 2017, and shows the outcome (archived or promoted). There's also this, which looked at the first half of 2016, more or less, and included the length of the nomination text as a data point, though not the number of reviewers. The main conclusion in the associated discussion was that prior experience in nominating a successful FAC is by far the strongest predictor of whether a nomination will succeed. You might also be interested in this discussion of the gradual decrease in FAC productivity over time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks! Very useful data. Those promoted in 2016 had 6.6 ± 1.7 reviewers (mean±sd). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Record number of articles promoted at once?

This isn't particularly important, but I have this page on my watchlist, and I noticed that Sarastro just promoted 8 articles with a single edit. Is that a record? AmericanLemming (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That's nothing out of the ordinary—the delegates regularly promote in batches of eight or so (a couple of recent examples [1], [2]). Here is the simultaneous promotion of 10 articles back in 2011. ‑ Iridescent 15:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This was quite common once upon a time. For some reason, there are a few more reviewers around at the moment. The rate of promotion has been up for a few months. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

50.195.166.123 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Featured articles by length

Came upon this page listing FAs by length, but it's nearly three years out of date. The lengths of many of the pages have changed since then, more than 700 new articles have achieved FA status since then (5,002 vs. 4,297). Anyone know if there's either a) a more current list somewhere, or b) a relatively straightforward way of generating one? Thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this not something a robot could be doing weekly? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be, if anyone wanted it. Isn't there an SQL query to retrieve the information? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz and Hawkeye7: Speaking for myself, a weekly update would be pretty cool---both because the numbers would stay fresh, and because new FAs would also be listed. Not sure how to create a robot or run an SQL query, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ask for a new report at Wikipedia talk:Database reports Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Move from GA?

I posted ZETA (fusion reactor) to GA over two months ago. In that time I have received only minor comments about a few copyedit issues and a question about page numbers. As the purpose of moving to GA was to eventually bring the article here, is there any reason not to do so now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maury, speaking as both editor and FAC coord, I think it's always a good idea to get as many eyes on an article as possible before nominating at FAC. I'd try a Peer Review first, pinging relevant wikiprojects (perhaps including MilHist, even though I note the article isn't tagged under that project). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been to PR, but the response was so slow I didn't even know anyone had looked at it until, and I'm not joking, five years later. My experience with MILHIST A-class has been superb, but I'm not sure this topic has any overlap. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I know PR can be frustrating, which is why I think one has to ping projects and editors to join in. Yes, I don't know that MilHist ACR is necessarily the place for it, but some MilHist editors might be interested in commenting at a PR, e.g. Hawkeye7. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hardly a record; one article has been at GA since last October. As a rule, MilHist articles get reviewed faster than most. But this one is not in the scope of the MilHist project. I would advise bringing it to FAC once the GA is finished (and you have a slot). I'll give it a review there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)