Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020

Script request

Putting this here should we need it again: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about reviewing

SG said on the FAC talk page: As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily – for ones like these should we just mark in the notes column that they still meet FA criteria? Or go another route? Aza24 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just add Satisfactory to notes so we can begin to move out those that are in good shape and focus on the problematic ... apologies for brief ipad typing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Can you review an article here you already reviewed at FAC? Because that would quickly get some articles ticked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure I am understanding the question, but if you mean you supported a gazillion years ago, and the article is still at standard, a Satisfactory will do the job! Yes, there should be a number of quick ticks ... and getting those moved off the page will help us focus on the truly deficient. If you find minor things that need addressing you can do what I did at the entry on the page for Rhinemaidens ( Satisfactory, with note ) ... look through some of the samples, which is easiest done if you pull up a sort on the last (Notes) column. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

For example, I just looked at Apatosaurus, which I reviewed in 2015, so not that long ago (I remember it well), and the edits since then seem to mainly be updates, wikilinks, and other small improvements. So I ticked it off as satisfactory. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Perfect ... precisely what we need! I'll/We'll move articles off the list when they have three "satisfactory" entries (from people who know the standards), unless there is controversy, which we'll punt to the FAR Coords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing your own nominations

I would prefer not judging my own old nominations, so they are instead marked by uninvolved, more objective editors, but I see others have marked their own noms, so how do we feel about that? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Anticipating this question, and glad someone finally asked it :) IMNSHO, please evaluate your own articles, and then two other uninvolved editors will know to have a look. Why I think this is acceptable? Because if an FA writer evaluates one of their own deficient dated articles as Satisfactory, they will be quickly called on it, and ... the most serious issues are found in articles that are no longer watched. THOSE are the really bad ones we are looking for. That you are still watching your FAs bodes well for them, and we should get those moved off the list so we can focus on the truly bad. That doesn't mean your old FAs are perfect, nor do we expect them to be, but knowing that nominators have checked up on their FAs is a good start for other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And, that said, will someone please look at my very old (2006) Tourette syndrome, which was completely overhauled in 2020, involving about a dozen medical editors as well as non-medical Ceoil, Outriggr and Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, I have also made major overhauls post-FAC to many articles, so it would certainly not hurt to get them looked at. I'll start marking my "own" articles soon, then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the way Peacemaker67 handled this, in that he identified that they were his own ... good practice for others to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've marked one now[2], and noted it has had major overhauls since FAC, is it too much text or ok? It has changed a lot because it was also reviewed for Wikijournal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Will look momentarily. PS: In a similar vein, we should be looking for independent review, so as an example, we should not move Peacemaker's to the Kept section without review by at least one non-MilHist editor. And the biology/bird/etc articles should be looked at by non-biology types. All of this is why I am hitting as many as I can, once topic experts have seen them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to sign off on bio stuff, if it looks okay to me and two species-familiar editors think it's okay. However, I've new enough to FAC/FAR that I'm not entirely familiar with knowing who all of the science-related editors are, and what their areas of expertise are. Should we have a section where editors frequently involved here get classified by areas of expertise? Just spitballing here, it may be a horrible idea, but it's at least worth me typing this, I guess. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

'Tis true :0 WP:WBFAN is your friend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm a ways down there, but I hope to be working my way up that list over time *:) Hog Farm _Bacon 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

yes, but look at all those hollow stars to remember why we are doing this ... when I first started working at FAR in 2006, Emsworth was the main FA writer ... as was Cla68, whose articles have stood the test of time.

Anyway, to your question ... you know the MILHIST editors, FunkMonk is biology/animals, Jimfbleak is a bird man, I am medical/Venezuela ... who else do you want to know about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the non-Milhist editor check is necessary for Milhist articles, any more than non-medical editors are needed for medical articles. Mostly it is the Milhist editors who will see if there are content issues. Of course anyone can check the MOS and prose stuff. I watchlist and closely monitor all my FAs, and they have only been improved since promotion IMHO. The only issue with historical (as distinct from currently evolving) Milhist articles would be if the academic consensus on a subject had changed since promotion (I try to keep up on this for mine). I imagine that can also happen for other topics if the scientific consensus changes. This doesn't happen often for WWI and earlier, but can happen for WWII and more recent conflicts, the more recent, generally the more changes in academic views occur. BTW I agree anyone who is the primary editor should indicate that when they state they reckon it is ok, as I have. Everyone needs to remember this is a process of checking if they are satisfactory, not a new FAC or a FAR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe we should declare a medical article satisfactory if it is not digestible to a non-medical editor, because part of the problem with some of the older medical articles is that they are incomprehensible. And, if we extend the logic that only MILHIST editors need review MILHIST articles, do we extend that same logic to every project? So, if three video game editors or three hurricane editors or three Catholic editors or three art editors pronounce an article satisfactory, we don't want external input in any of those content areas? That starts us down a slippery slope. I sure agree that we want one, and hopefully two, topic experts, but expecting independent review could save us some unforeseen agida down the road. While it may work in the organized area that is MILHIST, I am not so sure it would be good practice across the board, because we can't foresee all circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually think we are making the process too bureaucratic to the extent that it will be unmanageable. There are a LOT of articles to check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PM on this one. A short and snappy review of lots of articles by just one or two independent pairs of eyes should identify FAs that have decayed over the years, which is surely the aim of the game. Expecting three detailed reviews by uninvolved editors including one from outside the topic area is going to make this a years-long project that will waste a lot of duplicated effort on articles that are still up to scratch, potentially meaning it takes much longer to find deficient FAs. Btw, Milhist is an enormous topic area; for example, my war memorial articles have almost nothing in common with PM's Yugoslav articles or Gog's ancient battles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am worried about where the “detailed review” idea crept in? is it something in the instructions that needs to be addressed? Generally, once a MILHIST editor, bio, bird, etc, indicates an article is Satisfactory, I just scan it. (I am a few days behind, but hope to catch up today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the requirement should just be two editors, regardless of whether one is the principal editor. The reality is that the principal editor knows the article status best, and we just need one other to confirm the article is satisfactory, and only need a third if they disagree. With such a huge list, we are wasting people's time requiring a third editor in all cases. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope to be able to re-orient your thinking about how to use the list ... once I catch up and have time to compose my thoughts ;) (The blooming business of cleaning up errors from 2005 and 2006 in FAC archives is a time killer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose thanks for the new batch! I did only a few and will get back on them soon, but want to prioritize the work Mike Christie left on my talk, as I don't want to slow down his data analysis of the FA archives.

And I still mean to get back to Peacemaker67 and HJ Mitchell here, but haven't had time to type up my thoughts. The TLDR version is that these new(ish) FAs (relative to the hundreds from 2006 through 2009) are not likely where the real problems will be found, so it does not concern me if any of them sit on the page for even a couple of years (the last time we did this, it took six years to finish). It may even be advantageous to spread those reviews out over years, in case some nominators go missing and someone destroys their work in the interim. But ... they aren't the articles most likely in need of FAR, which is what we're looking for. We are more likely to find those by processing through the oldest first.

I'd like to put a list over at MILHIST of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs that we really need to prioritize, to avoid situations like Battle of Blenheim-- those that are at risk of being submitted to FAR if we don't address them first. And the serious problems are not to be found among MILHIST articles so I want to make sure our process is oriented towards the more problematic areas. More later, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In regard to taking the old first, I have been hesitant to for example mark a lot of old dinosaur FAs as problematic yet, because we don't have the manpower at the dinosaur project to process so many that quickly, so we are trying to organise efforts to work on the older FAs gradually one by one or something like that, so they can be looked at for FAR afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For cases like that (where I have made a general note to Projects or contributors), I have been adding that note to the page on the older FAs, so we won't get premature noms (that is, we want to allow projects to approach their work methodically, and only FAR those that truly have no one willing to take them on). A note on the page helps us know who has done what! That way, when we come to something as we process them six months from now, and see nothing has happened, we will feel OK about sending them to FAR. For example most of the older FAs that need review are Hurricanes and MilHist. Hurricanes are on it; once they get through all of 2006, I'll review, and follow with a 2007 list. We need a MilHist list of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs for them to decide on a methodical approach. We just need to methodically get through the oldest first, as we have fallen so far behind. I am hoping that a goal of being through 2009 by the end of 2021 is doable ... so that we can gradually begin to catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Focus

... of the page should stay on, either submit to FAR, or move to FAR not needed. If we start filling up the page with commentary about the quality of the article (which belongs on talk), we will end up with an unwieldy mess. Diffs only please, either identify deficiencies, or enter an opinion that the article is satisfactory. If we get this page off on the right foot, it hopefully won't become an unwieldy mess full of random commentary about the quality of the article, which is better reserved for article talk or the actual FAR. The page is huge, we have a lot of work to do, so we have to keep commentary here brief and focused on yea or nay, any expanded commentary on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigs

Jimfbleak could you please sign this entry? When editors are entering a diff, we don’t need to chunk up the page with sigs, but when entering a Satisfactory opinion, we do need to know who entered that. Thanks for looking! I will tweak the instructions a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Global Hurricane notice

I added a global appeal at the Tropical cyclone WikiProject talk page. Perhaps we can see how that goes before deciding on other global appeals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Brevity

TomStar81 if you don't mind, could you please put these comments on article talk, with only a diff back to here? [3] The idea of this page is to sort which articles are Satisfactory, being worked on, noticed for FAR, need to go to FAR, or are at FAR. If everyone puts every list of every minor thing needed for every article on this page, it will become unmanageable. If you scroll down the page, you'll get the idea of what sorts of things are put on here; the idea is to be able to submit the truly deficient to FAR, know what has been checked, and keep track of what is OK or improving. (And from your comments, I am left with no idea if the article is still at status or not.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes moved to Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63), [4] [5] where I have added some queries. What we need here is for you/others to indicate "Satisfactory", work underway, etc. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

National parks, state parks, geology of same

Hog Farm you asked above about the expertise of different editors, and I have been meaning to get back to you on this notification about a park article. (This may be of interest to @Buidhe, RetiredDuke, and Femkemilene: and anyone else regularly engaging now at FAR.)

Pretty much all of the National Park FAs on Wikipedia are User:MONGO. MONGO is still active and helping out at FAC, and has (in the past) worked through everything asked of him as standards have changed. Notifying/pinging him is more useful than pinging a WikiProject, as MONGO is the one who will do the upgrades. But ... he is only one person, and he has so many FAs, that it may be helpful to approach him like a Project-Unto-Himself, and not overwhelm him with too many at once. On those articles, it can be helpful to check the FAC to see if the article is one of his.

Similarly, many of the Geology of ... parks ... were written by Mav, who hasn't been active since 2015. At some point, I will email him and see if he can be enticed back, and we can decide whether to proceed to FAR with any of his. At the top of the list, Mav has Geology of the Death Valley area.

MONGO's are like Kirill Lokshin's in MILHIST: he has so many, and is willing to keep them at standard, and we should be considerate of their time constraints.

MONGO, can you tell us if you have a plan for approaching any of the articles on this list (particularly the oldest last reviewed), so we don't send an article to FAR unnecessarily ? I see some needs in each of these, near the top of the list, which I know you can address:

1. Shoshone National Forest
2. Glacier National Park (U.S.)
3. Redwood National and State Parks
4. Retreat of glaciers since 1850

If you do improve them, please feel free to add your own "Satisfactory" to the page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Shoshone NF was originally at FA in 2007 and I tripled the refs and did a huge overhaul in 2014. I know that is now 6 years ago and I can check and see if the cites are working and if any new news is available to add. I do not think much needs to be done here.

Glacier NP was also brought to FA I think in 2007 and was expanded and updated in 2010...thats now 10 years ago so it will need some updates of course. I will put that in my cue.

Redwood NSP is a bit out of date since it was brought to FA...Would have to run the gambit on that to bring it back up to cue.

Retreat of glaciers is currently and very slowing getting an update. Its at the top of my list, followed by the others. I expect Retreat to have a full update by end of the year.--MONGO (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Sandy. Honestly I wasn't that concerned about the parks FAs; the ones I checked were obviously being taken care of so I just let them be, to focus on the badly neglected FAs. But yes, alerting big contributors about URFA/2020 is a must. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Once in 800 years: all hands on deck

An exciting opportunity to get four off the list at once, and run an exciting and topical TFA: see TFA discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was a dud. No response from either WikiProject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A needed lift

Because this work can be so depressing, I wanted to give a shout out to User:Aboutmovies for the 2009 Hillsboro, Oregon, which looks to be the rare city/state/country geography article that has been properly maintained! It's nice to come across a geography article that isn't a wreck :) So, now that I have hopefully enticed them to this page, perhaps Aboutmovies will do some reviews of some of our oldest FAs here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bringing in WP:WBFAN top nominators

I am going to ever so slowly starting pinging in some top nominators, eg Mike Christie and David Fuchs. I don't want to ping in Wehwalt, Cas, Sturm, Hawkeye, Parsecboy yet lest we overwhelm bio and milhist editors all at once. Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 are already in. On Hurricanehink, I pinged the entire Tropical cyclone project, and he responded there and is aware.

Ian Rose, do you have all of Brianboulton's watchlisted, or do we need to do something additional on his?

YellowMonkey is long gone, so his will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have quite a few FAs on my watchlist because I almost always tweak them a bit before promoting, and I often don't remove them. In Brian's case I deliberately put several on my watchlist when he was away for a while through illness -- obviously not all though as the Rhinemaidens article was new to me -- I'd be happy to revisit, his will not need much work. I also put several of Tim's, SchroCat's and Cass' on my list when they took extended breaks -- over and above those I'd reviewed or promoted anyway. I still have some of YM's Vietnamese and sporting military articles watched but there'd be a whole bunch I've never seen -- if I had time (unlikely) I could probably tackle some of his cricketing ones but there are others who could do as good a job or better there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

My early impression is that some of YM's are holding up well ... they don't seem to have been much edited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I 'm busy on a non-WP project at the moment, but look in here betweenwhiles to keep an eye on BB's FAs, as do several other editors, including Ian and Nikkimaria, whom I thank most sincerely. (I keep an eye on the articles that I took to FA too, of course.) Tim riley talk 00:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:David Fuchs; I (and others) will chip away at looking at those (no big hurry on FAs that are watched by nominators, as they are typically in good shape). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think most of my post-2010 articles are fine, and I've done a fair amount of overhauls on a lot of the old ones over the years already, but I haven't done a proper systematic check. I've got a few on my to do list that just take more time trawling for additional sources and the like. I was hoping to get through them this coming year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)