Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
MLS Cup 2022	Review it now
Buangkok MRT station	Review it now
Starship Troopers (film)	Review it now
Fountain Fire	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:22, 25 January 2014

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Martin Keamy	Review now
Pauline Fowler	Review now
Microsoft Security Essentials	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

Image/source check requests

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newton's Parakeet/archive1 -- image/source reviews pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2 -- image review pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abe Waddington/archive1 -- image/source reviews pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion problem?

I notice that some recent comments added to FAC reviews (including my own on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive3 added some hours ago) are not appearing on the FAC page. Is there a problem here? Also – this may or not be related – the talkpage links to FAC on Talk:Jim Umbricht and Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia appear incomplete. Can someone knowledgeable please take a look? Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(later) The comments have now appeared, but there's still a problem with the links on the above two talkpages. Brianboulton (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been a problem a few days ago as well. Someone else made a similar observation before reverting themselves when the problem "fixed". Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was me who had that problem. It was the same thing that's happening above, however, I noticed a day or two later that it "fixed itself".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, checking the FACs Brian mentions I can see that the talk pages still have the "initiate the nomination" bit after the nomination page has been completed. Trying to isolate the problem, has this only been occurring since the new year? Not sure why that would affect things as I don't recall anything similar last year but it's all the springs to mind first up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, apparently not, I hadn't checked the links from Sarastro that refer to an issue in late December... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's just happened again with this nom and the article talk page, so at least the damn thing's consistent... Again trying to isolate things, @Brianboulton:/@Sarastro1: as long-time FAC participants, have you seen this before, because I don't think I have... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar things have happened before re slow updating, on the WP:PR page. The delayed completion of the talkpage link to FAC is a new problem to me. I have used the purge process described above to complete these links, but for some reason this doesn't work with Elizabeth of Bosnia. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's cache is sometimes slow in updating. All you need to do is purge the pages by adding ?action=purge to the end of the URLs. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Ed said. This is happening throughout the Pedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha -- I hadn't noticed it elsewhere. Anyway, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, FLC list is not updating, and neither is FPC, except after the page itself has been updated with a new nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, proving to be a serious annoyance, since it is no longer possible to check progress on FACs from the FAC page. As I write, comments added more than 24 hours ago have yet to appear. We really do need a solution from the boffins. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you refresh it, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to actually refresh the cache. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Withdrawal

Please withdraw Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Graham Colm (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I on 2-week nomination probation now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Just get the improvements in and then it'll garner support. Good luck! Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually going to nominate another article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Content page in the Signpost

... hasn't been started yet for this week's issue (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-01-15/Featured content). If anyone's interested in doing at least the promoted FACs, I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see Ed published without it ... maybe next week. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I punted it to the 22nd, in the hope that both weeks will be covered. Thanks for adding a note here, Dank, and anyone interested in helping can contribute by using Wikipedia:Goings-on. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting your own nomination

Back in the early days of FAC, nominators would support their own nomination. I understand that that practice is frowned upon nowadays because of the obvious conflict of interest. However, Poeticbent and I will be renominating Treblinka extermination camp sometime in the next month, and I've been thinking about giving my support to the nomination (and explaining why I am undertaking such a step, of course).

My planned explanation is going to look like this:

Support: I support the promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. I understand that nowadays nominators never (or almost never) support the promotion of their own article, but please bear with me as I explain the unusual circumstances at work here. I've copy-edited/peer-reviewed the article three times, as you can see below:
1. I copy-edited and reviewed the article during its GAN in late October 2013 (48 edits to the GAN page and 76 comments).

2. I copy-edited and reviewed the article during its first run at FAC in early November 2013 (76 edits to the FAC review page and 15 new comments).

3. I copy-edited and reviewed the article immediately after its FAC was archived in mid-December 2013 (126 edits to the article talk page and 60 more comments).
Thus, I've copy-edited the article three times and made 675 edits to the article proper, bringing me to a total of 924 Treblinka-related edits, along with 151 comments. All of these 151 comments have been addressed by Poeticbent, so I believe the article is ready for promotion.

My question is: In these circumstances, would it be appropriate to support my own nomination? AmericanLemming (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to sound flippant, but I thought that the understanding is that editors implicitly support their own nomination by nominating it for Wikipedia's highest status (with co-nominators also obviously being implicitly supportive). Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to add details of peer reviews etc. or any other relevant facts you think of, to the top of the nomination. As Nick says, though, there's little point having an explicit "support" listed because it's obvious you support otherwise you wouldn't be nominating. And also, this process is not a vote. You could have fifty support "votes" listed, but if one editor raises serious and verifiable objections and you don't deal with them, then the article would not get featured. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a bad idea. It merely advertises your involvement with the article. It's not about who did what; it's about how good the article now is. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I won't explicitly support it, then. I agree that my involvement with the article is irrelevant in itself, but I would hope that three copy-edits/peer reviews. nearly 1,000 edits, and 150 comments says something about the quality of the article. But yes, you obviously need to deal with actionable objections in a timely manner if you want your article to be promoted. One of the main reasons it failed the first time around at FAC was the quality of the prose, so afterwards I went through the article a third time and nitpicked it to death. And of course we'll be inviting the reviewers who opposed promotion last time to take a look at it again.

@Nick-D, @Amakuru, and @Stfg: Thanks for the feedback, all three of you. By the way, Stfg, do you recommend not only not supporting it but also leaving out the part below as well? AmericanLemming (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited/peer-reviewed the article three times, as you can see below:
1. I copy-edited and reviewed the article during its GAN in late October 2013 (48 edits to the GAN page and 76 comments).

2. I copy-edited and reviewed the article during its first run at FAC in early November 2013 (76 edits to the FAC review page and 15 new comments).

3. I copy-edited and reviewed the article immediately after its FAC was archived in mid-December 2013 (126 edits to the article talk page and 60 more comments).
Thus, I've copy-edited the article three times and made 675 edits to the article proper, bringing me to a total of 924 Treblinka-related edits, along with 151 comments, all of which have been addressed.

@AmericanLemming: I'd even leave that out. It doesn't add anything. At the very most, in the nomination statement I'd say something like: "All comments from the previous FAC review have been addressed, and the article has been thoroughly copy edited." This highlights that the new nomination respects the feedback from the previous review. I don't see the point in saying more than that. --Stfg (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on whether you include those facts, but you have to bear in mind that they don't in themselves confer any higher status on the article. Copy edits are great, of course, in that they improve the language and prose of the article. They don't usually add anything in terms of content, article structure, sources and verifiability though, so if those things are lacking then the FA still won't succeed. As far as I can see the article hasn't actually been through a WP:Peer review - this is not the same as a copyedit, but it's up to you whether you find it useful or not. Secondly, the number of edits that you or anyone else have made to the page is almost irrelevant I'd say - one good edit could be more valuable than a thousand bad ones! Personally, I think the most important thing you need to do when nominating is to address all the points that were raised in the last FAC nomination, and explain to reviewers how those points have been addressed. Then of course those reviewers will look at the article and decide if they have indeed been addressed. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the difficulty is that the main FAC reviewer, Squemish Ossifrage, did not revisit his objections after they had been addressed; a cursory glance at the first FAC will tell you that Poeticbent has addressed all 122 of Squemish Ossifrage's comments (which were all very helpful in improving the article, I should add), but that the reviewer in question did not return to take a second look. I'm actually glad it was failed the first time around, as it gave me time to do a thorough copy-edit (improving the prose) and informal peer review on the talk page (in which I suggested where to add information), as well as revisit the FAC review page to make sure we actually addressed all of Squemish Ossifrage's comments (Poeticbent missed a few here and there, but there were 122 of them, so I don't blame him). I really do believe the article is of very high quality at present, and I am confident that those who opposed it the first time around will raise a few quibbles during the second FAC, after which they will support its promotion. AmericanLemming (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, and proposal seems to be specifically thought of to salvage this case. It doens't matter how many times an article has been copyedited, peer reviewed, etc., it is the quality of the text itself that matters. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating an article is tacit support of its promotion. No explicit statement is needed. If you want to detail your work on the article, you might do that in the nomination statement. It can't hurt, and it shows that you have thought out the nomination rather than just done a drive-by. --Laser brain (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your feedback everyone. I'll take into consideration when Poeticbent and I renominate the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demote/promote to GA instead of FA fail

Some time ago I proposed that FAC reviewers should be able to demote/accept as GA during a FAC review if they did not fulfil the FA criteria, and were not already GAs. Since the GA criteria are already inherent in the FA criteria, it would not be an "extra GA review" as some complained back then. There was quite some interest in the idea, but also huge protests and insults, from an editor who does not even review articles. Such a feature would spare a lot of reviewer manpower, since all demoted FAs would not have to be GA reviewed again, and a FAC fail would not necessarily be in vain if the article could become GA instead. It would mean more GAs, and it would mean less "humiliation" for nominators. And I stress again, it would not mean extra work for reviewers. And note again that this promotion would be optionable, not required. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA isn't some easy option. If an article fails at FAC it might well fail for the same reasons at GAN. Eric Corbett 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Mr. Corbett. Many FAs that fail FAR would not pass a GAN due to similar reasons; it's rare we demote articles soley because their prose isn't up to a brilliant quality standard. Pragmatically, having potential FFAs go through GAN seems like a good option for improving the quality incrementally anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Almost any article that goes through a GAN nomination ends up getting significant tweaks before being promoted to GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any mileage at all in the idea that FA reviewers should be allowed to decide on GA status. And I say that as someone who's done loads of reviews in both places. Eric Corbett 15:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a FAR delegate, I agree with Eric, especially his comment from 14:18, 23 January 2014. FARs are usually brought due to referencing or NPOV issues, rather than prose, and generally fail the GA criteria as well as the FA criteria. It is completely allowable for a reviewer to say "hey, this article doesn't meet FA criteria, but I think it's pretty close to GA. Why don't you nominate it over there and I'll review it for you". However, automatically making demoted FAs into GAs is a very bad idea, given that, as I've already said, most demoted FAs don't meet either set of criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with Eric, Dana, David and Tony. Any delisted article would do well to go through the GAC process again. J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would make a alot of sense to have demotion/promotion to GA as an option so that a reviewer reviewing a FAR may choose to grant GA status if it is thought that it qualifies. It shouldn't be a default option, but in many cases a reviewer would be able to say that this doesnt qualify for FA but it meets the GAC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If FA reviewers were to have such an option, it wouldn't be long before someone would propose that it be extended to allow reviewers to have the option of grading FAR articles as A-class, B-class etc or to extend it to FA nominations so that an assessor could regrade an article as A-class, GA-class if it didn't meet FA criteria. I think the real problem lies in the disjointed quality scale (WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ), which has such similar sounding criteria for FA, GA, and A-class that you'd be forgiven for thinking they were just copy-and-pasted. I think it is absurd that A-class sits above GA but it doesn't require GA-status for an article to become A-class. The system could be improved by two changes: the A-class reviews could be moved from being done by Wikiprojects, to become a formal process like FA and GA; there could be a requirement that only GA-class articles could be nominated for A-class, and only A-class articles could be nominated for FA status. However, there shouldn't be automatic regrading for FAR fails etc. Green Giant (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with formalising the A-class structure. I think there's a sufficient amount of bureaucracy around the assessment process already. Given that editors' time is stretched and there's usually a big backlog of articles in WP:GAN and WP:FAC before we even consider WP:FAR, WP:FARC, WP:GAR and WP:PR, introducing yet another formal process for A-class would be too much hassle, for a limited benefit. The A, B and C classes are intentionally informal giving project users the opportunity to classify things within their projects and thereby organise their work, without having to wait around for formal processes to be completed. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is being completely missed here, the purpose is not to make GA a dump for failed FAs. A failed FAC might pass as GA, or it might not. This idea only applies to those cases where it might. All it would do is spare reviewer time. I'm not sure what the supposed downside is. It is an extra option that will save time in those cases (few or not) where it would pass as GA, nothing more. Even if it would apply to only one in every ten FAC/FAR, it would be better than now. I guess the main hurdle would be how to implement it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time or inclination to also do a GA review when reviewing FACs. The latter is quite enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else might have time and inclination. Noone is suggesting that it should be forced or automatic, simply an option.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat from the first comment: "Since the GA criteria are already inherent in the FA criteria, it would not be an "extra GA review" as some complained back then." FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more sympathetic than most above to the idea in theory, but I expect it would lead to many more noms at FA by people who think they might get FA but should certainly get GA - ie what are really GA noms. Apart from other things, FA gets going much faster and avoids the wildly variable GA reviews that result from having a single reviewer - the great weakness of GA. So I'm opposed. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had this discussion not so long ago and the consensus was similar to what we have here -- a nice thought, perhaps, but more practical to leave GA to the GAN process and FA to the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking from the two POVs this offers:

FAR > GA: While the GA criteria is more lax than the FA one, the overlapping is so big that the reasons for being demoted of a bronze star probably mean the article would not pass the green shield review.
Failed FAC > GA: If the editor nominates an article straight to the FA and fails, that could get some priority in the GAN queue as the review during the two-week waiting period could help future noms. That's about it, cutting one review would be faster but that would not guarantee the article is up to standards. igordebraga ≠ 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this may be better suited for FAR (in the cases where an article does fit the GA criteria, however few they may be), since as someone mentioned, people may nominate prematurely for FAC because they know it could end up as GA anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to oppose, as per Eric's comments at the top of the stream. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new FAs that don't have the star

It appears Voxelbot is missing to close some recent FA promotes. It got Nancy Mitford but didnt touch others like A Song for Simeon and Franklin Peale. Beerest 2 talk 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time limits

I was wondering why there's an informal time limit to the FAC process; e.g., why older FAC's might be closed prior to all active reviewers taking a stance on an article.

I'm not suggesting there isn't a good (possibly technical) reason for doing this; I just don't find the answer intuitive. (Note: My search in the archives for "time limit" just found a bunch of formal time limit proposals) Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around Wikipedia that long (slightly less than a year), but my understanding is that is all comes down to a lack of reviewers:

1. Articles on technical and/or obscure topics are likely to have a hard time attracting the 3-5 reviewers necessary for it to be considered to have had "enough eyes on it", as the FAC delegates often put it. Thus, they end up at the bottom of the FAC list, and since the delegates can't leave them there forever, at some point they have to archive the nomination. I think the informal time limit is generally a month or two.

2. Another problem is that an "active reviewer" will frequently oppose promotion and list their concerns, the nominator will address them (or attempt to address them), but then the reviewer will never revisit their objections and say whether they consider their concerns to have been addressed. Thus, consensus to promote will not develop, and the FAC delegate will be forced to archive once it gets down to the bottom of the list.

3. Lastly, in light of the fact that consensus to promote often fails to develop, not because of the nominator's failure to promptly address any concerns that come up, but rather because not enough people review or reviewers fail to revisit their concerns, FAC delegates will sometimes waive the two-week waiting period. But that's only in cases of " no (or minimal) feedback", as the FAC instructions say.

4. Since amphetamine (your FAC nomination) received a decent amount of feedback but reviewers did not revisit their objections, consensus failed to develop. I'm sorry that it was archived, but Wikipedia is run by a bunch of volunteers (as you well know), so it can be hard to get people to commit to a review, especially at FAC. My first FAC only had one reviewer, and he didn't return to revisit his objections. It was probably for the better, since the article wasn't ready yet. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I actually wasn't asking about my recent FAC in particular, though the answer obviously applies to it. In my particular case, two editors were still reviewing my FAC, 1 opposed and didn't respond for about a month, 1 remained neutral, and 1 supported at the time it was closed. Nonetheless, I'm more interested in the general reasoning as opposed to my particular case, since that's not going to be my only FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

running for a fifth time - 10 Feb to 9 march....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 ::4. Since [[amphetamine]] (your FAC nomination) received a decent amount of feedback but reviewers did not revisit their objections, consensus failed to develop. I'm sorry that it was archived, but Wikipedia is run by a bunch of volunteers (as you well know), so it can be hard to get people to commit to a review, especially at FAC. My [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International emergency medicine/archive1|first FAC]] only had one reviewer, and he didn't return to revisit his objections. It was probably for the better, since the article wasn't ready yet. [[User:AmericanLemming|AmericanLemming]] ([[User talk:AmericanLemming|talk]]) 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 :::Ah.  I actually wasn't asking about my recent FAC in particular, though the answer obviously applies to it.  In my particular case, two editors were still reviewing my FAC, 1 opposed and didn't respond for about a month, 1 remained neutral, and 1 supported at the time it was closed.  Nonetheless, I'm more interested in the general reasoning as opposed to my particular case, since that's not going to be my only FAC. [[User:Seppi333|'''<font color="#32CD32">Seppi</font>''<font color="Black">333</font>''''']]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert&nbsp;'''2¢''']]) 03:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
+== [[Wikipedia:The Core Contest]] ==
+running for a fifth time - 10 Feb to 9 march....[[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)