Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date. The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR. The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that: 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 re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria. The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system. If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

How to post a new nomination: I. Create the nomination subpage. In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page. II. Write the nomination. On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page. Your nomination should mention: when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out); when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks); and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date. III. Write the blurb. Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed. IV. Post at TFAR. After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article): ===February 29=== {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}} Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date. It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary. If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page. Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from November 2 to December 2.

Date	Article	Points	Notes	Supports†	Opposes†
Nonspecific
Feb 24	HMS Indefatigable (1909)	7	Centennial of commissioning, first TFA	5	0
Feb 25	Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne	2	Three and a half year FA. Next to be replaced	9	8
Mar 1	Posting system	2	Promoted over a year ago, anniversary	4	0
Mar 3	Round Church, Preslav	2	No church articles, 6 months	11	0
March 8	German women's national football team	2	International Women's Day	2	2

^† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers.

Date requests (5 max)

February 24

HMS Indefatigable was a battlecruiser of the Royal Navy and the lead ship of her class. Her keel was laid down in 1909 and she was commissioned on 24 February 1911. When the First World War began, the ship was serving with the 2nd Battlecruiser Squadron (BCS) in the Mediterranean, where she unsuccessfully pursued the battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau of the German Imperial Navy as they fled towards the Ottoman Empire. The ship bombarded Ottoman fortifications defending the Dardanelles on 3 November 1914, then, following a refit in Malta, returned to the United Kingdom. Indefatigable was sunk on 31 May 1916 during the Battle of Jutland, the largest naval battle of the war. Part of Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty's Battlecruiser Fleet, she was hit several times in the first minutes of the "Run to the South", the opening phase of the battlecruiser action. Shells from the German battlecruiser Von der Tann caused an explosion ripping a hole in her hull, and a second explosion hurled large pieces of the ship 200 feet (61 m) in the air. Only three of the crew of 1,017 survived. (more...)

7 points, 6 for the centennial of her commissioning and 1 because this is my first submission to TFA. The last warship TFA was 22 December. Feel free to edit the proposed blurb; I've trimmed it down, but I may have cut something worth keeping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—Linking to HMS Indefatigable (1909) would probably be better.—RJH (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Points look good--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Are these points correct? Hasn't Sturm already had a TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I restored it to seven. No article where you were a significant contributor has appeared at TFA? How did that happen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I really don't have that many FAs as I've had a lot of noms not promoted. You can see the list on my user page if you're curious.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

With nine FAs, I compared the list at WP:WBFAN to WP:FA (I have a script installed that shows that have been TFA in a different color), and was surprised you've never had a TFA. People like you are one reason this page exists-- have fun :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, with the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War starting this year, I need to start to bring those ironclad articles up to speed for FA and TFA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - difficult choice, but I personally find this one a bit more interesting, and the 100th centenary is perhaps a more significant milestone. Bob talk 18:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - probably better choice. PMG (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to say that a week ago I posted a potential upcoming date request for 24 February, in relation to a tercentenary article that has is still in preparation. I hope Raul will not select for this date until my article has a chance of being considered. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: seems like a better choice, especially on points, but I'm part of the Battleship Cabal, so... bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - more points than the other two possible options, and we can move the letter article above to the Alamo's anniversary. COI note, though - I'm a member of WP:OMT. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Ed. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

February 25

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne is a point-and-click adventure game with pre-rendered graphics, developed by Kheops Studio and published by The Adventure Company for the PC in 2005. The game's story focuses on a French adventurer's journey to the moon in the 19th century, and the ancient lunar civilization he finds there. Voyage is loosely based on the novels From the Earth to the Moon and Around the Moon by science-fiction author Jules Verne, and the novel The First Men in the Moon by science-fiction author H.G. Wells. Reactions to the game were generally mixed. In particular, some reviewers praised it for immersing the player in the look and feel of the 19th century; others have criticized it for featuring out-of-date graphics and dull textures. (more...)

This article became a FA on 28 June 2007. Total = 2 points. --Paaerduag (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't have any trouble with the two points. I don't much care for the third point, it was released in the UK on March 3, 2006, some months after the original release. I question the significance of the UK release for purposes of points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've changed it.--Paaerduag (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Just sayin' that if this changes to an unoccupied date it will cease to be the next to be replaced, which will then be the lower of the two February 24 articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Date changed.--Paaerduag (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. No more video games, please. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Article is informative, subject matter isn't notable, but this has been an FA for over three years, so I support. --Shaanxiquake (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, it's not the best article I've ever seen, really. Nothing wrong with it (apart from too many fairuse images), it just doesn't feel like our best work anymore. Bob talk 18:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many featured video game articles. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Three years as a FA it deserves to be on the main page. This article shouldn't be neglected simply because video games have been represented before. It's a quality article, and therefore receives my support. tjkirk (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, informative and historically important in the genre of video game. --多幡達夫 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per SlimVirgin and Kaldari. --JN466 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I fail to find SlimVirgin and Kaldari's arguments either valid or convincing. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many video games have been up on the mainpage.4meter4 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose overrepresented topic, really overuses non-free media, and could use some tightening before being in the spotlight. Courcelles 10:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not liking video game articles is not a valid reason to be against this. Honestly now, do you complain there are too many nature articles, or articles about people? Dream Focus 12:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – There are some WP:NFCC issues which could easily be fixed between now and then, but I would be more inclined to support if this was bumped up to sometime in the middle of March to be more consistent as we have been; also, the last video game article on the Main Page was a week ago, on February 7. –MuZemike 13:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I have no bias one way or another whether a video game article gets a TFA; to me it just shows the amount of dedication the project has to getting FA's (That's not to say that any other WikiProjects aren't). I do agree with MuZemike that there needs to be some updates to the article to comply with current FA standards, as it was promoted to FA over three years ago when things were a bit less stringent. Perhaps a peer review would be in order before front page promotion. It's a nice article, but front page articles need to be best-of-the-best FA quality in this editor's opinion. --Teancum (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Agree that opposing just for it being a video game is not a very good reason. Look at the subject matter, "Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne", just that title alone would draw many people to want to read it, and it's a great article, on a beautiful game. -- œ^™ 15:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Very good article, I am sure this article will make people want to read about Jules Verne. --Steve.jaramillov (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.jaramillov (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: "Too many video game articles" is not a fair excuse. This TFA request process is supposed to handle that aspect of frequency of appearance from a topic (Technically, this article should be at 0 points, since it loses 2 for the Raul-picked topic that appears a few days after this request). I do think that the article in question needs a bit of a quick review - by no means a FAR-level problem but the non-free use seems high, for example. Unfortunately, the next date that makes sense, March 3 (5th anniv of UK release) is already got a pick here. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Video games are actually underrepresnted on the main page- they account for 4.3% (135/3,165) of the total FAs but only hit the main page 3.6% of the time (13/365). --PresN 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I suspect that your statistic that video games "account for 4.3% (135/3,165) of the total FAs" is exactly the point; because there are so many video game FAs, there are a regular number of requests here for "date of release"-type nominations, and it's quite difficult to sort through them to find out which ones are the best candidates for front page exposure. Bob talk 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to address the non-free image issue by deleting two images and leaving only the picture of the box, and one other image which I deem the most important of the ones that were originally there. --Paaerduag (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because no one who complained about the free usage issue has changed their vote based on what I did. Therefore, I see no point in having made this change since there are free-use rationales in each and every image. Thanks. --Paaerduag (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written, detailed, and informative piece on the subject matter. It is deserving, by those standards, of being featured in the front page. ) mikagesouji4:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

March 1

Hideo Nomo as a player for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in 2005

The posting system is a baseball player transfer system which operates between Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) and the United States' Major League Baseball (MLB). Despite the drafting of the United States – Japanese Player Contract Agreement in 1967 designed to regulate NPB players moving to MLB, problems arose in the late 1990s. Some NPB teams lost star players without compensation, an issue highlighted when NPB stars Hideo Nomo (pictured) and Alfonso Soriano left to play in MLB after using loopholes to void their existing contracts. A further problem was that NPB players had very little negotiating power if their teams decided to deal them to MLB. In 1998, the Agreement was rewritten to address both problems and was dubbed the "posting system". Under this system, when an NPB player is "posted", MLB holds a four-day-long silent auction during which MLB teams can submit sealed bids in an attempt to win the exclusive rights to negotiate with the player. If the MLB team with the winning bid and the NPB player agree on contract terms before the 30-day period has expired, the NPB team receives the bid amount as a transfer fee, and the player is free to play in MLB. (more...)

March 1st marks the end of the posting system's 11th posting period and the article was promoted over 1 year ago---Total: 2 pts. I really like this article. I think it's a good mix of sports and culture and is a relatively unknown part of baseball. --Torsodog^Talk 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment points look good. I should note that the advocates of this article have been asking for it to run since 2009. Perhaps now is its time?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. High quality page, educational, encyclopedic, nice work. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Torsodog summed it up. I was oblivious to the details of this (and I am an M's fan) so thank you to the contributors on this one. I also love the layout of the images.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, a shame we missed out on the 10th posting period, (I'm a fan of round numbers), but I don't see any problems here. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

March 3

The ruins of the Round Church in Preslav

The Round Church is a large partially preserved early medieval Eastern Orthodox church in Preslav, the former capital of the First Bulgarian Empire, today a town in northeastern Bulgaria. Unearthed and first examined in 1927–28, the church dates to the early 10th century, the time of Tsar Simeon I's rule. Considered to be one of the most impressive examples of medieval Bulgarian architecture, the church takes its name from the distinctive shape of one of its three sections, the cella (naos), which is a rotunda that serves as a place of liturgy. The church's design also includes a wide atrium and a rectangular entrance area, or narthex, marked by two circular turrets. The church has been likened to examples of religious architecture from the late Roman Empire, the Caucasus, and even the Carolingian Pre-Romanesque of Charlemagne because of its characteristic plan, which is significantly different from contemporaneous Bulgarian or Byzantine buildings. The church's alternative name, the Golden Church, stems from its possible and popular identification with a "new golden church" in Preslav. The Round Church's rich interior decoration, which makes ample use of mosaics, ceramics and marble details, distinguishes it from other churches in Preslav. (more...)

The last church TFA was St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao in July 2010, over 6 months ago (2 points). 3 March is Bulgaria's most important national holiday, Liberation Day. The church is not related to the holiday, but it's the only Bulgaria-related FA we can potentially feature, not sure if this is enough for another point. — Toдor Boжinov — 22:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. Two points.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Let's hear it for Bulgaria. O.K. I admit, I am anti-video games (until someone creates me my own). I am voting to break the tie.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support as an excellent recent FA on an appropriate date. Bencherlite^Talk 06:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Nice article, and preferable to the video game, as per Tony. Bob talk 09:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Preferable to the video game, as above. Courcelles 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Looks good, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Fascinating article.--Shaanxiquake (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Interesting article and it has been a while since a church was featured.4meter4 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. About time for a Bulgaria-related article on the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. Very interesting subject! This would do well on the main page I think. -- œ^™ 15:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

March 8

The German women's national football team represents Germany in international women's football and is directed by the German Football Association (DFB). The team – informally called West Germany in English – played its first international match in 1982. After German reunification in 1990, the DFB squad remained the national side of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German national team is one of the most successful in women's football. They are the two-time reigning world champions, having won the 2003 and 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup. Germany is the only nation which has won both the men's and the women's World Cup and the UEFA European Cup. The team has won seven of the ten UEFA European Championships, claiming the last five titles in a row. Germany has won three bronze medals at the Women's Olympic Football Tournament, finishing third in 2000, 2004 and 2008. Women's football was long met with scepticism in Germany and official matches were banned by the DFB until 1970. However, the popularity of the women's national football team has grown since the team won their first World Cup title. They were chosen as Germany's Sports Team of the Year in 2003. As of November 2010, Germany is ranked No. 2 in the FIFA Women's World Rankings. (more...)

2 points. 2 points for promoted over 2 years ago. 1 point for date relevance: March 8 is International Women's Day. 2 point for widely covered: 21 articles in other languages. 1 point for subject under-representation: Women's sports. -2 points for Main Page representation. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think you've miscalculated the number of points. I would count 2 points for promoted over 2 years ago, 2 points for widely covered, 0 for date relevance (I understand that you would want to nominate this for March 8 because it is International Women's Day, but there isn't a direct connection between International Women's Day and a German football team), 0 for diversity (it isn't an underrepressented topic at FA, which is based solely on the category on the FA page, in this case "sports and recreation"), and either 0 or -2 points for a similar article being TFA recently. There is a football player article scheduled for February 15, and personally I would say anything on football is similar to anything else on football, though I don't know if players and teams are normally counted as similar. So I would say this has 2 or 4 points. Calathan (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and there should be a deduction of 2 points, leaving 2. Any football article is going to be similar to any other football article. Otherwise, you could have Pele one day, History of Nowheresville United the next, a stadium the third, the ball the fourth, all solemnly stating they are dissimilar to each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Women's World Cup soccer championships will be held in Germany this year, and the Germans will obviously win ;) so we get the jump on that by having the article on International Women's Day. --WiseWoman (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak support. We should definitely have an FA on March 8 that ties in with International Women's Day, but does it have to be football? --JN466 21:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#International Women.27s Day for some other suggestions. Feel free to replace this one if another article has more points. Kaldari (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made some additional suggestions (with better scores) on the talk page. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I'd prefer this one for 26 June when the WC kicks off, rather than on IWD. Not too fussed over it, though. Courcelles 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Better choices (with higher points) have been identified on the talk page. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Per Skotywa. --Shaanxiquake (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)