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 December 16 to January 15.

Date	Article	Notes	Supports†	Opposes†
Nonspecific 1
Nonspecific 2
Nonspecific 3
Nonspecific 4
April 21	Runaway Scrape	180th anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto	3
April 23	William Shakespeare	400th anniversary of death	2
April 24	Nelson's Pillar	100th anniversary of Dublin Easter Rising	1
April 25	Battle of Kaiapit	Anzac Day	4

^† Tally may not be up to date. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Specific date nominations

April 21

Runaway Scrape

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 21, 2016 by  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Runaway Scrape was the 1836 flight of Texas residents from the encroaching Mexican Army of Operations under the command of Antonio López de Santa Anna during the Texas Revolution. Civilian evacuations began on the Gulf Coast in January after the vanguard of the Mexican army crossed the Rio Grande to quell the insurrection of American colonists and Tejanos (Mexicans born in Texas). Weeks later, news of the Battle of the Alamo and the Goliad massacre created a state of panic in the rest of the population. Sam Houston was Texas commander-in-chief of raw recruits who had little or no combat experience. Fleeing civilians moved in tandem with Houston's troops for protection, as he sought a safe training camp for his soldiers. The pursuing Mexican army had orders to execute all rebel combatants, and cut a swath of destruction in its search for them. After a mere three weeks training near the Brazos River, the Texas troops finally parted ways with the civilians who were given a military escort to safety. Houston turned his army southeast and engaged the Mexican army at the April 21 Battle of San Jacinto that resulted in Santa Anna's surrender. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Battle of Agua Dulce
• Main editors: Maile66
• Promoted: November 7, 2015
• Reasons for nomination: The event culminated in the April 21, 1836 Battle of San Jacinto and the surrender of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.
• Support as nominator. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. 180 years? Sure. sst✈ 16:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. High quality and good relevant date. — Cirt (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. A well-written article that brings the subject to life. Bede735 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

April 23

William Shakespeare

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

William Shakespeare (1564 (baptised) – 1616) was an English poet, playwright, and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language, often called England's national poet. His extant works, including collaborations, consist of about 38 plays 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, and was the part-owner of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later the King's Men. He seems to have retired at age 49, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive, which has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his sexuality, and whether the works attributed to him were written by others. Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories. He then wrote mainly tragedies until about 1608, including Hamlet, Othello, and Macbeth, considered some of the finest works in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also known as romances. His plays remain highly popular, and are constantly studied, performed, and reinterpreted in diverse contexts throughout the world. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Ralph Richardson
• Main editors: Tom Reedy, smatprt, qp10qp
• Promoted: October 10, 2007
• Reasons for nomination: 400th anniversary of death, Vital-3 article
• Support as nominator. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Note: this article was TFA on 10 October 2007 – it was promoted to FA on 14 August 2007, not as stated above. Repeat TFA appearances are only agreed in very special circumstances, so a particular case will need to be made if this is to run again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I wanted to bring Shakespeare's funerary monument up to FA status and nominate it for TFA for 23 April for the same reason, but I have had a lot of personal events prevent me from working on the article, so it won't be finished in time. Maybe next year. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Having taken a look over this article, it's showing its age. Please check for any dead links, and ensure it meets the MOS and the quality of the text / referencing is up to FA standards. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed a dead link. What else do you want? JerrySa1 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I already told you what to look for. This is not FAC or PR; it is not our role here to provide in-depth reviews. One of the most blatant issues is the fact that the last sentence of the lead is nowhere else in the article, a violation of both WP:LEDE and probably WP:WEIGHT. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Further concerns: The nominator here, JerrySa1, is not a significant contributor (1 edit), while Tom Reedy, shown as the main editor, last edited the article on 4 October 2015. I appreciate that this may have been for unavoidable personal reasons, but careful preparation for a proposed TFA is essential for a featured article of this age. More specifically, a quick read-through reveals a number of substantial statements in the article which are not cited to any source. Here are some obvious ones:

• "Some attributions, such as Titus Andronicus and the early history plays, remain controversial, while The Two Noble Kinsmen and the lost Cardenio have well-attested contemporary documentation. Textual evidence also supports the view that several of the plays were revised by other writers after their original composition."
• "By the time of Romeo and Juliet, Richard II, and A Midsummer Night's Dream in the mid-1590s, Shakespeare had begun to write a more natural poetry. He increasingly tuned his metaphors and images to the needs of the drama itself."
• "In the First Folio, Ben Jonson called Shakespeare the "Soul of the age, the applause, delight, the wonder of our stage", though he had remarked elsewhere that "Shakespeare wanted art"."

So there's lots of work that needs to be done, quickly, if the article is to have any chance of a repeat TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 24

Nelson's Pillar

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 24, 2016 by  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Nelson's Pillar was a large granite column capped by a statue of Horatio Nelson, erected in the centre of O'Connell Street, Dublin, Ireland in 1809. In March 1966, it was severely damaged by explosives, and was subsequently demolished by the Irish Army. The monument was erected after the euphoria following Nelson's victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. It proved a popular tourist attraction but provoked aesthetic and political controversy, and there were frequent calls for it to be removed, or replaced with a memorial to an Irish hero. Nevertheless it remained, even after Ireland became an independent Free State in 1922, and a republic in 1948. Although influential literary figures defended the Pillar on historical and cultural grounds, its destruction just before the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising was, on the whole, well received by the Irish public. The police could not identify those responsible; when in 2010 a former republican activist admitted planting the explosives, he was not charged. The Pillar was finally replaced in 2003 with the Spire of Dublin. Relics of the Pillar are found in various Dublin locations, and its memory is preserved in numerous works of Irish literature. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Nothing similar recently
• Main editors: Brianboulton and Carcharoth
• Promoted: 30 March 2016
• Reasons for nomination: 24 April 2016 is the actual centerary of the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin, widely celebrated over Easter last weekend. It seems appropriate to run a Dublin-related article on this anniversary.
• Support as nominator. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Tentative support: 24 April, the Easter Rising date really has nothing specific to do with Nelson's Pillar itself as it was hardly damaged during that week of fighting all around it. It might be better to keep it for the anniversary of its opening date 21 October. We have just missed the other two significant dates. ww2censor (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since I started work on this expansion I have widely canvassed my intention to nominate this for 24 April; it is the Rising centenary I'm interested in, not the Pillar's opening date which is of little historical importance. There are no other Dublin-related featured articles that can be shown as TFA on this date and I am hoping that a relatively neutral topic will allow that anniversary to be marked without animosity. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I am not co-nom for this request, but I was co-nom on the FAC, which is probably the same thing anyway. Agree with Brianboulton's comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 25

Battle of Kaiapit

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 25, 2016 by  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous nomination

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath, starting with {{TFAR nom|article=NAME OF ARTICLE}}. The result was: not scheduled by BencherliteTalk 22:42, 26 August 2013‎ (UTC) The Battle of Kaiapit was an action fought in 1943 between Australian and Japanese forces in New Guinea during the Finisterre Range campaign of World War II. Following the landings at Nadzab and at Lae, the Allies attempted to exploit their success with an advance into the upper Markham Valley, starting with Kaiapit (pictured). The Japanese intended to use Kaiapit to threaten the Allied position at Nadzab, and to create a diversion to allow the Japanese garrison at Lae time to escape. The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in to the Markham Valley from Port Moresby in 13 USAAF C-47 Dakotas, making a difficult landing on a rough airstrip. Unaware that a much larger Japanese force was also headed for Kaiapit, the company attacked the village on 19 September to secure the area so that it could be developed into an airfield. The company then held it against a strong counterattack. During two days of fighting the Australians defeated a larger Japanese force while suffering relatively few losses. The Australian victory at Kaiapit enabled the Australian 7th Division to be flown in to the upper Markham Valley. It accomplished the 7th Division's primary mission, for the Japanese could no longer threaten Lae or Nadzab, where a major airbase was being developed. The victory also led to the capture of the entire Ramu Valley, which provided new forward fighter airstrips for the air war against the Japanese. (Full article...) 1 points = Promoted over a year ago 2 points = Date relevance 3 points = Total Another battle against the odds between a large Japanese force and a small group of Australians armed with nothing more than submachineguns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC) 2 point as there's a two-point penalty for being within a month of another US—Japan WW2 battle, Battle of the Eastern Solomons (24th August). This is also very, very similar to the nomination for 5th September, Landing at Nadzab - we can't mark every battle's 70th anniversary. BencherliteTalk 07:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest featuring the Nadzab article over this one as Nadzab was a larger and more significant operation, so the anniversary is more important. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Not scheduled as it would have been the third TFA about a Japanese—American battle during World War Two within a month.

The Battle of Kaiapit was an action fought in 1943 between Australian and Japanese forces in New Guinea during the Finisterre Range campaign of World War II. Following the landings at Nadzab and at Lae, the Allies attempted to exploit their success with an advance into the upper Markham Valley, starting with Kaiapit (pictured). The Japanese intended to use Kaiapit to threaten the Allied position at Nadzab, and to create a diversion to allow the Japanese garrison at Lae time to escape. The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in to the Markham Valley from Port Moresby in 13 USAAF C-47 Dakotas, making a difficult landing on a rough airstrip. Unaware that a much larger Japanese force was also headed for Kaiapit, the company attacked the village on 19 September to secure the area so that it could be developed into an airfield. The company then held it against a strong counterattack. During two days of fighting the Australians defeated a larger Japanese force while suffering relatively few losses. The Australian victory at Kaiapit enabled the Australian 7th Division to be flown in to the upper Markham Valley. It accomplished the 7th Division's primary mission, for the Japanese could no longer threaten Lae or Nadzab, where a major airbase was being developed. The victory also led to the capture of the Ramu Valley, which provided new forward fighter airstrips for the air war against the Japanese. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): Benjamin Franklin Tilley (29 March 2016)
• Main editors: Hawkeye7
• Promoted: 6 December 2011
• Reasons for nomination: Anzac Day
• Support as nominator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Maile (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support great article on a lesser-known action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support good choice for the day. Coordinators, don't forget to change the category of unsuccessful nominations to Category:Wikipedia Today's featured article unsuccessful nominations that have subsequently appeared on the Main Page if this is selected. Bencherlite^Talk 11:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent quality improvement efforts by Hawkeye7 and good selection for the date itself. — Cirt (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

April 25

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Brianboulton (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jack Parsons (1914–1952) was an American rocket and chemical engineer, rocket propulsion researcher, inventor, businessman, writer, and occultist. He was one of the founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Aerojet; both both began under the GALCIT Rocket Research Group (pictured, with Parsons front right), which developed jet-assisted takeoff for the U.S. military. Parsons invented the first castable, composite solid rocket propellant, and pioneered the advancement of both liquid and solid-fuel rockets. After a brief involvement in Marxism, he converted to Thelema, the English occultist Aleister Crowley's new religious movement in 1939. He joined the Agape Lodge, the California branch of the Thelemite Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) in 1941, and replaced Wilfred Talbot Smith as its leader in 1942. With his friend L. Ron Hubbard and wife Marjorie Cameron, he conducted the Babalon Working, a series of rituals designed to invoke the Thelemic goddess Babalon. He resigned from the OTO after his former girlfriend Sara Northrup and Hubbard defrauded him of his life savings, and became a consultant for the Israeli rocket program. Amid the climate of McCarthyism he was accused of espionage and banned from all classified projects, effectively prohibiting him from working in rocketry. He died in a home laboratory explosion; the police ruled it an accident, but associates suspected suicide or murder. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s):
• Main editors: JJARichardson, Midnightblueowl
• Promoted: 6 January 2015
• Reasons for nomination:
• Support as nominator. I encountered this article when I was asked to review it at FAC, based on my known affinity for mad scientists. Since then I've been recommending it to friends as reading. I thought maybe everyone would enjoy it as much as I did. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Looks good. I made minor tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Speaking as one of the main contributors to this article, I think that Halloween (October 31) would be an ideal date as 1) the GALCIT Group's first successful rocket test which led to the creation of JPL took place on October 31, 1936, a detail which could be added to the TFA template (the photo below could be used) and 2) there is an obviously paranormal and devilish connotation to the Parsons story. This is a while away though, so Parsons' death date (June 17) or 101st birthday (October 2) are other options. JJARichardson (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Rocket-motor-test-browse.jpg GALCIT Group, Halloween 1936

• Procedural comment - There are only 4 "non-specific" slots. The nominator should have waited for another article to be selected first, or removed one which had more oppose than support (the latter not being likely). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, about the image: File:JackParsons3.jpg does not show a reverse. Copyright notices were generally not printed immediately on the image (who'd want to reuse that?) but, if included, they were on the back of the file photo. Unless we've been able to find a copy with the back showing, or a source which explicitly states this is public domain, I don't feel comfortable showing this on the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

With this in mind I've replaced the photo with that of the GALCIT Group from November 1936, a fairly iconic image from the history of the U.S. rocket program. JJARichardson (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)