Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests: Difference between revisions
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
::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. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] ([[User talk:Paaerduag|talk]]) 01:32, 18 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. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] ([[User talk:Paaerduag|talk]]) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::That helped the image issue, but I still don't think the prose, sourcing, or comprehensiveness of research are up to FA standard. This was promoted nearly four years ago, and its age is showing. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::That helped the image issue, but I still don't think the prose, sourcing, or comprehensiveness of research are up to FA standard. This was promoted nearly four years ago, and its age is showing. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::I accept this is your point of view, but I don't think there are issues with |
::::I accept this is your point of view, but I don't think there are issues with references or comprehensiveness. In terms of comprehensiveness and references, I went to all the reliable sources I could, which wasn't a great number, but I still made use of them where I could. In terms of the prose, I have tightened it up somewhat, although I don't feel there was anything intrinsically wrong with it to begin with. Thanks. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] ([[User talk:Paaerduag|talk]]) 08:29, 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. ) '''[[User:mikagesouji|mikagesouji]]'''4:50, 16 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. ) '''[[User:mikagesouji|mikagesouji]]'''4:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 08:54, 18 February 2011
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.
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 article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
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 December 1 to December 31.
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific | |||||
Feb 24 | HMS Indefatigable (1909) | 7 | Centennial of commissioning, first TFA | 6 | 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.
Nonspecific date (1 only)
Date requests (5 max)
February 24
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Not that I'm aware of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are these points correct? Hasn't Sturm already had a TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 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... bahamut0013wordsdeeds 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
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)
- 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)
- Fair enough, I've changed it.--Paaerduag (talk) 05:02, 6 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. -- Ϫ 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)
- That helped the image issue, but I still don't think the prose, sourcing, or comprehensiveness of research are up to FA standard. This was promoted nearly four years ago, and its age is showing. Courcelles 04:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I accept this is your point of view, but I don't think there are issues with references or comprehensiveness. In terms of comprehensiveness and references, I went to all the reliable sources I could, which wasn't a great number, but I still made use of them where I could. In terms of the prose, I have tightened it up somewhat, although I don't feel there was anything intrinsically wrong with it to begin with. Thanks. --Paaerduag (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- That helped the image issue, but I still don't think the prose, sourcing, or comprehensiveness of research are up to FA standard. This was promoted nearly four years ago, and its age is showing. Courcelles 04:28, 18 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
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. --TorsodogTalk 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 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. BencherliteTalk 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. -- Ϫ 15:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
March 8
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)
- 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)
- 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. --SkotyWATC 04:29, 14 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)
- 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. --SkotyWATC 16:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. Per Skotywa. --Shaanxiquake (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)