Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Shortcut

WT:FAR

Archives

Archives for former FARC process

Archive 1: May 2004 – Feb 2005; Archive 2: Mar 2005 – Sep 2005; Archive 3: Oct 2005 – Feb 2006; Poll: Mar 2006 poll on policy; Archive 4: Feb 2006 – Jun 2006

Archives for current FAR process

archive 1: to July 2006; archive 2: to Sep 2006
archive 3: to Dec 2006; archive 4: to Feb 2007;
archive 5: to mid Jun 2007; archive 6: to Jul 2007
archive 7: to Jan 2008; archive 8: to Feb 2009
archive 9: to Mar 2010; archive 10: Apr 2010 to 2011
archive 11: 2012; archive 12: 2013–2018
archive 13: 2019–2021; archive 14: 2021–2022
archive 15: 2023–

To the coords

		The Patience Barnstar
		To the FAR coordinators. For showing skill and patience during the sudden uptick in FAR processing - looking at the archives, FAR hasn't been this busy in years. I have to imagine it's a thankless job, but it keeps the process going, and y'all have been doing a good job at balancing allowing time for article improvements and not letting the page get unmanageable due to length. And looking at WP:FARGIVEN, the higher throughput may be coming for awhile yet. Thanks for being patient with a process that's probably a lot busier than anticipated. Hog Farm _Talk 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—second this 100%! (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are all awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extension of 5 nominations limit

Hi @FAR coordinators: , I was going to nominate an article for FAR, but I realised I already have 5 articles posted at FAR/FARC. Can I add a sixth nomination? The list of articles I have nominated, and their status, is below:

2021-01-27: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Extratropical cyclone/archive1 (FAR, on hold until Tropical cyclone FAR is complete)
2021-02-17: Wikipedia:Featured article review/St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery/archive1 (FARC)
2021-03-03: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Amchitka/archive1 (FARC)
2021-03-10: Wikipedia:Featured article review/War of the Fifth Coalition/archive1 (FAR)
2021-03-17: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chinua Achebe/archive1 (FAR)

Thanks for considering my request. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You and RetiredDuke seem to have a penchant for nominating articles that then end up in the "ongoing improvements underway" category, causing you to reach your limit. I endorse extension of your limit while any one of these is in the "being improved" queue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah happy for another to be nominated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too

We just got news of another week delay on Menstrual cycle for an external expert peer review (which is actually pretty exciting news), so it looks like I may be needing an extension this week as well, depending on Greek mythology progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too, too

Two of 'mine' are being improved by editors with limited time / a lot of work (Geology of the Death Valley area and Tropical cyclone), so hitting my 5 limit for the first time this week. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me four

Several of mine are undergoing improvements, can I go to 6? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: ? (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if the coords don't view this as a good idea, as the current process isn't broken, but with limits frequently being hit and WP:FARGIVEN having grown to almost 150 articles, it may be useful to consider a temporary loosening of the limits, as there's a very substantial backlog. Just spitballing, though; not suggesting the current thing needs change, as FAR seems to be working well. Hog Farm _Talk 04:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you to go to 6 - have been closing some a day early too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me, again

I'm scheduled to nominate another FAR tomorrow but I am at my 5 limit again. Can I have another extension? Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of my nominated FARs was closed recently, so I am back at 5 FARs in the queue. I haven't nominated one this week, so can I get an extension to nominate a sixth article? The articles I have at FAR are:

Chinua Achebe (March 17)
Extratropical cyclone (Feb 24)
British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War (March 24)
Order of St Patrick (March 31)
Paul Stastny (April 7)

Thanks for your consideration. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @FAR coordinators: in case they missed my new request above. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another extension

@FAR coordinators: It's been two weeks since my last nomination, and one of my noms has closed. Since I'm still at my 5 limit, can I have another extension? My noms at FAR are:

Chinua Achebe (March 17)
Extratropical cyclone (Feb 24)
Order of St Patrick (March 31)
Paul Stastny (April 7)
Nigel Kneale (April 21)

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And me

I hate for this to be an every-other week occurrence, but given the URFA backlog of ones needing review, @FAR coordinators: may I have a sixth nomination (the meteorological history of Katrina one is looking like its about wound down, so I understand if you want me to wait another week). Hog Farm _Talk 20:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - after years and years of tumbleweeds blowing anc crickets chirping at FAR and I delriously happy that more than one person is taking any interest at all. Really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: - (the weekly ping comes again) May I have a sixth, this week as well? The Katrina FAR has closed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: - May I have a 6th? I'm currently have:

The Greencards, FAR, 10-9
Gillingham F.C., FAR, 10-3
Cincinnati, Lebanon, and Northern Railway, FARC, 9-25
Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico, FARC, 7-24
Great Lakes Storm of 1913, FARC, 5-8

Hog Farm _Talk 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, I've closed Gillingham so you have room for another nom. Could I also get you to give an update at the Sherman review? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - I've provided an update at the Sherman one; unfortunately the book I borrowed was not helpful. Hog Farm _Talk 18:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR transcluded to FAC

Perhaps it is time to revisit the viability of transcluding the FAR page to FAC. Depending on where FAR regulars stand on this issue, we might make a recommendation at WT:FAC. FAR is functioning. Nicely! Coords are responsive. FAC is not functioning; it is stagnant. Do we have any indication that readers of FAC are looking at the list of FARs and using that list to come here to weigh in? Did anyone who regularly contributes at FAR come here because they saw an article listed at FAC? How are people coming to FAR? With the FAC page as out of control as it now is, I have a hard time imagining anyone even being able to scroll to the bottom of the list, and am beginning to wonder why we are there. The FAC page is too large to load, and FACs are too long to read, and no one will monitor them as we do here. Please, thoughts, no !votes ... depending on our thoughts here, we can propose something over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed, it would shorten the FAC page somewhat and make it easier to load. (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, do you recall what brought you to FAR? Was it a Project notification, an article notification, an article you were already involved with, seeing it at FAC? It would be helpful to talk about how FAR participants found their way here. For me, it was the horror of seeing a massively POV Hugo Chavez as a Featured article in 2006-- that is, I came to FAR because of a specific article in my topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same: I found my way here after it was suggested this would be a good venue to further improve climate change. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons I came to FAR. 1) I was completing edit requests from COI editors and would recommend FA articles as templates. It took me dozens of articles to find an FA article I could recommend as a template, which frustrated me. 2) I followed the WP:URFA/2020 link from somewhere (I think it was from an FAC page), saw that there was an effort to check older FAs, and wanted to help. I started by nominating the articles I could not recommend in the COI process.

I don't mind removing FAR from the FAC page. I felt no need to help out because I saw the FARs underneath the FAC. From what I see, most FAR reviewers are here because they have the FAR'ed article watchlisted or the Wikiproject notification. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came to FAR because of Battle of Shiloh, which was a badly decayed older one. Stuck around because I saw how bad the issue was; will be here to stay. Hog Farm _Talk 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do know I came to FAR because of FAC. I made some (very sporadic) FAC comments here and there back in 2017 and I noticed FAR at the bottom. Back then FAR was virtually dead and it would take months to get people to commit one way or another, even to get a single declaration. Eventually I grew tired of seeing Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/West_Bengal/archive1 there, so I left a comment. Then I started nom'ing some articles, too. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... that's one (at least) very valuable FAR participant who found us via the FAC transclusion. Are there others? What do the rest of you say about the possibility of missing a future RetiredDuke if we drop FAR from FAC, not because of FAR issues, but because of FAC problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think removing FAR from FAC does anything good for FAR, and it would only be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at FAC (the problems there are not caused by the inclusion of FAR), so I personally would support keeping this with FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm being honest I don't know if I would engage if it were today; I can't remember the last time I managed to scroll down halfway through FAC. But I do think the 2 processes are best kept together. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the solution we deserve, but the amount of articles at FAC right now is getting kind of ridiculous, and anything would help. It makes sense, practically in my mind, both are largely independent projects—different coords, different participants, articles, general culture etc.—and the connection doesn't seem direct enough to warrant its transclusion on FAC. I would speculate that the new editors who (like Retired Duke above) discover FAR through FAC, could be led there still if we replace the transclusion with a little blurb about FAR and a link to the page (similar to what is there right now, just without the articles). This would actually make a lot of sense; we already have a (in big text) "New reviewers should read the full FAR-instructions before reviewing, or nominating an article for review."—so we want new reviewers to go the main FAR page to see the instructions anyways, why are we transcluding the articles below then if they can be accessed in the main review page (which is where the new reviewers would end up going to read the instructions)? Also, its not as if this is the only action we're going to take to help with long FACs/transclusion limits—which is why I disagree with HF's titanic sentiment above. If we were rearranging the chairs and then leaving the ship, that would be a problem, but there's no one saying that we're doing this and then calling it a day—we can certainly look at other (additional) solution, such as the many suggestions about adopting a PR like transclusion system at FAC talk. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the FAC page should only display nominators' introductions. T8612 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't that be accomplished by simply adding noinclude tags to the bottom and top of every FAC? That would solve the load time and transclusion limits, but do absolutely nothing to address the fact the FAC is no longer FAC, rather peer review, and would leave each FAC still unreadable. Anyway, can we stay focused here on the FAR issue? Is there a benefit to having FARs transcluded? Do reviewers come to FAR because they see articles of interest at the end of the FAC page. And Aza24, historically FYI, it was one page, one process; of course they are related. They are not different participants; the processes are intrinsically linked via WP:WIAFA and WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's something we can reliably determine, we could doing a big poll, but that still seems dubious. Is there a way to perhaps display the links to the nominations, for FAR but not trasclude the reviews? Maybe that could both help with transclusion limits and also not erase the possibility of attracting reviewers by displaying the articles below. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to that, but I'd wager that DrKay does! And ... I think that's a brilliant solution ... we stay transcluded, but add little to the page load :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that solution - cuts a good compromise. Hog Farm _Talk 00:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have gone in limbo, @DrKay: do you know if this is possible? Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible, but I haven't found a way of doing it. I think we need a better coder than me to look at that. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
- List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
- Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs

WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.

Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.

Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limit of five nominations at FAR

There is currently a limit at FAR for: "No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator." I went through the FAR and FAC talk page archives but could not find the discussion of why and when this rule was first implemented. I also couldn't find instances of FAR coordinators rejecting an extension request. Two weeks ago, four editors asked for this extension, and it's likely that next week I will ask for an extension to seven articles. What is the rationale behind this rule, and should we revisit this limitation? Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've understood, there are two reasons why this limitation exists. The first is to avoid overloading the FAR process. If everyone had 10 nominations on there, it would be much more difficult to keep track of. The other is that we don't want to have so many up at one time that it overloads editors who want to try to improve the articles and save the star, much like why it's discouraged to have multiple similar articles at FAR concurrently. What the overwhelming numbers currently are, I do not know. FAR has also gone through a lot of different climates. Many years ago, way before I started editing, it looks like it was a happening place. When I started into FAR last year, it was a graveyard. Everything was slow and few people were involved. And now things are picking up again. Hog Farm _Talk 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually an allowance of only one nom at a time for years - it was boosted for URFA noms initially in 2015 and then for all noms just in 2020, I believe. I'm not inclined to boost it further at this point. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/archive_9#Concerns has some relevant discussion. In addition to the rationales listed by Hog Farm, the other consideration is that ideally nominators would be actively engaged in identifying issues, even addressing them themselves when possible. Obviously that doesn't happen on every nom, but it's more possible when the nomination numbers are limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion where we loosened the number to five is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 13#Pickup up the pace at FAR. For all the reasons mentioned by Hog Farm and Nikkimaria, I feel like we are at about the right pace now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the current limitation in place, as the queue is getting a bit too long. The idea is that every nom gets its opportunity to be attended to. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we have to stop somewhere (for practical reasons—this isn't a delisting process), and the current seems more than enough. Aza24 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think that if we automate some of the process (f.i. notification, updating the URFA/2020), it may open up editor time to keep even better track of listed FARs and help get quicker keeps, and we could increase up to 6. As it stands, 5 seems appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Chopin again

I want to ask opinion about FA review for this article. It was the subject of substantial controversy over the past 6 months and much of it has been rewritten. I would like to feel confident that it still meets FA criteria. In one area it seems to me to be clearly deficient. That area was the source of controversy.

All modern accounts of the life of Chopin raise the matter of his correspondence at the age of 19 or 20 with Tytus Woyciechowski. In this correspondence Chopin uses language which can, and has been, interpreted by biographers as having possible homosexual implications. Most authorities conclude that the evidence is equivocal or may represent a passing phase. Some WP editors claimed (although there is no clear evidence) that Chopin was clearly homosexual. A number (including myself) felt that the article should, citing the aprorpriate authorities, mention this correspondence and note that it was equivocal. Others felt that, although the matter was mentioned by all modern authorities, no reference should be made to it; they gave no reason except that they considered it WP:UNDUE. It is not appropriate here to speculate on their motives; but my personal feeling is that it is wrong to 'censor' Wikipedia from reporting opinions that some editors may dislike, even when these are opinions of respected authorities.

Now that the furore has subsised I have restored to the article a paragraph on Chopin and Woyciechowski, citing the various relevant authorities. I hope this will prove acceptable to editors, but some of them may yet object further.

If this article is effectively censored as a consequence of the objections of a few editors, I am doubtful that it can reasonably continue to hold featured status. This issue of course raises general questions about de facto censorship of WP beyond this particular article. I should be very interested to learn of other editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerus, I only speak for myself, and this opinion is based on my short time here and how I assess articles at FAR. Currently, British Empire is at FAR and there is a disagreement on what content to include in the article. That FAR started in October and the discussion is still ongoing. If Chopin is brought to FAR, there's a possibility that the same thing will happen; Chopin's sexuality dispute spills into FAR and the article languishes in FAR purgatory because editors can't come to a resolution. I don't think that is what anyone wants.

I suggest bringing the article to dispute resolution; perhaps some RfCs on proposed text, or WP:DRN to help untangle the UNDUE concerns. If this is brought to dispute resolution, editors should be prepared to "lose" or not have their preferred perspective included in the article. I would be happy to reevaluate its FAR suitability after dispute resolution has been attempted since I can look at how a more formal process unfolded and get a better understanding of the dispute. I am also willing to help bring this article to DR; although I won't mediate the dispute, I will help determine which route everyone wants to take, help get the process started and submit information to the appropriate place, if necessary. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thoughtful comment. Let's see how the reaction goes to the edits I have just made in the article. One of the most contentious editors last time has just been indefinitely blocked from WP (for actions in other articles) so it just may be easier to get an acceptable consensus now.....--Smerus (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Z1720. FAR is not a good mechanism for sorting out contentious content inclusion/exclusion. The article will just sit in purgatory for months and nobody will be happy in the end. Hog Farm _Talk 21:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK so far (touch wood) so good, so I will drop FAR unless things change. Thank you all for your opinions.--Smerus (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 2Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA) by:
- Listing older FAs that are ready for the main page
- Helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before they run on TFA

This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.

Progress

Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)

In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.

If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How can you help?

Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix article concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing FA standards and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR instructions and URFA link

Just worked through the process of creating a FAR for the first time, for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rugby World Cup/archive1. Hopefully I did it all correctly. A few of procedural points/questions:

Firstly, I'm surprised there's no link from Wikipedia:Featured article review to URFA/2020. Instead, I have to go to this talkpage and then to Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles (which is historical at this point I think?), and then to Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. This is unintuitive, even as someone already aware of the URFA process. What I'd expect is something like Wikipedia:Good article nominations, which has a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021 right at the top.

Secondly, why doesn't Template:FARMessage create a talkpage header?

Lastly, I removed the article from Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given as I had seen others do before. This is again visible only on this talkpage, and is a step absent from the FAR instructions. If this is something that is meant to be kept up, it could be noted, even if as an optional item.

Best, CMD (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the FAR instructions should be updated. I think it should include that a notice must be placed on the talk page for at least two weeks before it can be nominated for FAR, and I agree that removing a notice from FARGIVEN should be included. I think URFA/2020 was hesitant to add a link to the top of this page because editors wanted to test out the process before there was an influx of editors. However, I think the process is working well and a link at the top can be helpful to recruit for the URFA/2020 working group. As for WP:URFA being historical, I think that discussion should happen at URFA, not here. A talk page header for FARMessage would be wonderful. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure WP:URFA itself is historical for all practical purpose - the list of unreviewed articles there states Unreviewed articles on this list have been re-listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and status is no longer being tracked here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the link to the updated URFA page more noticeable in the main URFA page. I don't think having a banner is ideal; the URFA process will take far longer than a month like the GA drives, so its inclusion at the top of the page might be mostly clutter if anything. Also, it's not like there's been a small amount of articles at FAR anyways. Having an automatic header in the FAR message is a great idea, that's something we could ask for assistance with on the technical pump. Aza24 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a URFA2020 link to the linklist beside the instructions, and added a header to {{FARMessage}}. Z1720, the instructions already say that the talk-page stage should last two to three weeks; are you proposing it should say something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: It is mentioned in the "Reviewing featured articles" section (the dark blue background) but not in the "Nominating an article for FAR" (the light blue section). We've had a couple times when new nominators have not waited the two week period. Should there be something added to step 2 like, "Articles should be noticed (Step 1) for two weeks before they are listed here." However, if this is making the process more complicated, then it shouldn't be added. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relevant to FAR

Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#What_happens_when_today's_FA_is_apparently_not_in_a_fit_condition_to_be_a_FA?. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to regulate FAR themes

I believe I've seen before somewhere, but cannot find to hand, the idea that opening multiple FARs covering similar topics is undesirable as it is often the same editors working on these topics. Is my recollection correct? If so, is there a vague consensus on what this might mean? I notified 2003 Pacific hurricane season back in April and it hasn't seen work since, despite a bit of discussion on the Wikiproject page, so I feel it would be appropriate to bring it into a formal FAR. However, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Great Lakes Storm of 1913 are currently at FARC. Would it be preferable to wait for one or both to finish up? Thanks, CMD (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - it's generally up to a judgment call. The editors working on the Great Lakes Storm of 1913 are generally not hurricane editors, so that isn't of concern here. So I guess it'll just be a judgment call (personally I'd recommend waiting until the Katrina one closed, just in case to prevent a repeat of the time we had Wikipedia:Featured article review/Extratropical cyclone/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical cyclone/archive1 running at the same time, especially when there's a backlog of roughly 140 other articles potentially needing FAR). The Katrina one may be winding down, though. Hog Farm _Talk 05:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - The Katrina one is now closed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Joyce FARC extension request?

I'm not sure if this should go on this talk page for the James Joyce FARC discussion subheading, but the instructions seemed to suggest posting here is reasonable. I was just going through the Featured Articles Review list and saw James Joyce on the removal list. I think taking on HAL33's concerns and Nikkimaria's summary is something that can reasonably addressed with this articles. Though I have two caveats and a question.

First, there is a request for modern academic research. I can certainly try to move in this direction, but my access to the other side of the academic paywall is limited, so I probably won't be catching the latest.

Also, there was a question regarding Nikkimaria's summary. HAL33 mentioned length, Nikkimaria mentioned coverage. I know these are both related, but I felt like length is never a problem with such articles, so if it doesn't grow substantially, is this okay? My goal is to try and get it back into citation shape, though I'll add what I discover on the way. And, of course, if other editors are inspired to add content, that's great. But if it can stay focused, and on the lean side that could be good too.

Finally, a question. How does the FAR process compare to FAN? My goal is to help out, and I'm definitely open to some in-depth peer review and ensuring that all raised FAR concerns are addressed as well as possible, but I'm hoping that it is seen as assisting with maintenance and not having to address the more open-ended gamut of concerns that are properly expected from an FAN article. I'm just hoping that helping out is a bit less intense that an FAN. If the FARC team is okay with my caveats, I'd like to request an extension to the delisting, that can be noted on the Joyce FARC page, so I can give being lead editor to maintain the article a shot. If it is too late or my request is unreasonable, just let me know. If so poor Joyce will just head toward a commodious vicus of recirculation (FW, p.1) Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv: - If you leave a note that you plan on working on it at the FAR page, you'll be given time to work on it. Sometimes, even just one person working on an article can inspire others to chip in. The FAR coordinators are generous with giving time when work is still ongoing. Although sometimes when significant work is needed, it's sometimes better to work on it outside of the FAR process. Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the quick response. I guess I'm figuring on working to helping to keep its FA status. This seems a quite different process than having to clamber the GAN and FAN slopes for the article again. So if multiple extensions can be given in the face of progress that would be great. I'd totally agree though that the clock has to run out at some point. I'll note this on the FAR page too! Again, I appreciate your guidance and feedback! Wtfiv (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv, you can get access to academic research via The Wikipedia Library and/or the Resources Exchange. As Hog Farm noted, happy to give time to work to bring this back up to standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FARC team. And thanks, Nikkimaria for the heads up regarding resources. Wtfiv (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest putting the article on hold. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with putting it on hold; as it stands, editors who should have been brought in were not, and putting it on hold will only make others less likely to be aware of this FAR (as would have/could have happened in my case, as a relevant party who should have been notified). As I find time, I will look in to see how things are progressing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: wondering if you were aware of this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, have been following. I don't agree with putting "on hold", not a good call at all imo, the edits to date have been rather informnd, and some direction from the process might help. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery: missing or inadquate notifications

Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

These instructions have been part of FAR since ... forever. Why are they not being followed, and separately, who is checking? When I am editing, I check every FAR, but since I haven't been editing, I see that notifications at worst are not happening, or at best are not being listed.

Because of work on its 2006 FAR, before Wtfiv started work, I still showed as the top contributor by edits to James Joyce, even though I added no significant content. Buidhe ... Why wasn't I notified? I am only today discovering this FAR, and it would have been my pleasure to ping in some editors qualified to work on it. I haven't taken the time yet to see how I feel about such a massive rewrite being done via FAR for such a topic; will get to that as I have time, but it is concerning to see such a complete overhaul at FAR, and I wonder if a new FAC is better indicated (have not looked yet). Separately, HAL333, this notification of deficiencies was not adequate. Provide a sample of the referencing formatting issue. Provide a sample on non-reliable sources. Provide a sample of recent academic work that is not represented. We don't use article size in KB to indicate whether an article is comprehensive and "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; we document what facts or details are missing. We should be checking for adequate notifications before nomination so that we don't see grumbles down the road that will reflect negatively on the FAR process, where we often see claims that FAR simply seeks to delist articles.

More importantly, why is no one checking notifications? After seeing this, I scanned the page and found this problem on multiple FARs. The instructions do NOT say to notify only the nominator; the goal is to cast as wide of a net as possible, to find someone who might be willing to improve the article, and for that reason the instructions recommend viewing the stats tool. Further, one of the reasons the instructions say to indicate at the top of the FAR who you have notified is so that someone can doublecheck that it has actually happened.

Therapyisgood, one editor notified at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive11?

HAL333, one editor and one WikiProject at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1?

Bumbubookworm You surely know or can see from everything else on the page that this is inadequate; it makes it very difficult to verify what notifications were done.

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Globular cluster/archive1 is inadequately notified; when looking at the stat tools, you can scroll down the page to where dates of last edits are indicated to find recently active editors even when the main nominator is gone. I stopped there, but this is enough to give concern that this is the tip of the iceberg and FAR isn't making its best effort to bring in editors who might be interested or able to salvage a star.

Lest anyone needs a complete example of how to list notifications, I offer a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oriel College, Oxford/archive1. With all the activity and improvements this year at FAR via WP:URFA/2020, please, let's not risk having FAR get the rap of being a place where articles are delisted without adequate attempts to locate editors who might save them. Please do the notification, check that they are done, and make sure that the FAR needed notices are adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize and will alert more editors and give a more thorough list of issues going forward. But in my defense, I actually notified the TAMU and Texas WikiProjects as well, and I did not nominate James Joyce for FAR. All of my actions fell under "1. Raise issues at the article's talk page". Also, in my first FAC nomination, I was told that I should aim for a particluar KB count. Was that not accurate? ~ HAL333 19:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain KB count that it's generally not good to exceed for various reasons, but in general just the KB count isn't a good measure - it's better to identify certain areas too thin/too detailed as some subjects will be longer/shorter by nature. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 22:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I'm good with whatever is decided. I saw this article just on the edge of falling off its featured article status and thought a project to keep it on would be fun. At first, I thought I would just be adding references, cleaning prose, and changing claims based on the evidence of accessible references. (e.g., the claim that Jung called Joyce schizophrenic or that Ibsen wrote Joyce back have been corrected with accessible citations.) I didn't even think the article would necessarily need expansion.

I think the first half of the article continues to track the original fairly well, though undoubtedly my voice intrudes. But as you can see, it got bigger once I got to Trieste. As HAL333 noted or warned, post-Dublin was thin. I just didn't think about it until after I had gotten there and gotten into the project After that it got bigger as I pulled together sources (trying to ensure every one of them is accessible and trying to get the multiple perspectives) and tried to fill out Joyce's post-Dublin life. Then recently, I added pictures just to make it look not so text heavy So, I suppose it is a major rewrite, but I tried to respect as much of the original material as I could. (i.e., the Ulysses censorship material was integrated into Joyce's biography.)

In addition to expanding post-Dublin, I did separate out Joyce and Politics, as it seemed to be a nice parallel to Joyce and Religion. I did add the information on his passport as there seems to be an ongoing set of disruptive edits regarding Joyce's English passport. I figured it's best to start a secont on it.

Still, if I've done something that would be better not done, or in some fashion undermined the original integrity of the article, please feel free to revert all. Watching the work evaporate would be difficult, but I understand that there is implicit ownership of articles, and I certainly didn't mean to encroach. I learned an incredible amount from the process and am grateful for the opportunity to learn a biography in depth.

You will be seeing me enlarging and reworking the first paragraph of Joyce and Politics section. As mentioned, I'm replacing out the second-hand mentions of Ellmann, Scholes, and Mangianello...plus a number of more recent critics...with verifiable citations from these critics. But this is just my need to wrap up. After that, I'm pretty much done. I expected my wrap up to be done by today or tomorrow, and I can leave the article alone from there.

Again, my apologies. Had I known the article had an active lead editor with access to fellow qualified editors to work on the article, I would have steered clear. Perhaps, there is material here worth keeping, and if little of that, perhaps resources provided- for example, the directly linked, verifiable references- that you find you can integrate and use. Wtfiv (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv no apologies needed, other than mine for coming across as so rude in my frustration-- and not about you making needed improvements to an article, but about a basic function of FAR going by the wayside. Please forgive my poor manners. I haven't even looked at the article yet, and I don't consider myself a "lead editor" (I only have a high edit count because of Manual of Style type cleanup I did in the last FAR), but I did know editors who would have possibly taken an interest had there been notifications. It is not your much appreciated work that had me frustrated; it was the absence of notifications :) Thank you ever so very so much for taking on this important article and I look forward to catching up with your work if/when I find a free moment (occupied elsewhere at the moment). I believe there was some past controversy about religion, so that will need to be handled with care? But I am not a literature type at all, and trust Joyce is in good hands since you took the interest. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this article by the way Wtfiv. I do believe you have considerably improved a high-traffic article. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Thank you! As mentioned, I'm pretty close to done with my major edits. After thinking about this over the last weekend, I had decided it was time to wrap up: Rework the first paragraph on politics a bit, and stop there. (except for the unless pruning, addition and tinkering with citations, prose and format.) Then I planned to ask if it could stay as an FA, since I covered the concerns outlined by HAL333. It'd be great if you could come in to edit as you see fit once your other projects have been taken care of. I'm always uncomfortable working without the eyes of another editor, particularly one generally passionate about the topic, watching and collaborating. Wtfiv (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think the silver lining may be that you are now aware of the changes and can participate in its further formation (or reclamation). Thank you again. Wtfiv (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking further: I'd like to request the following, if possible. Could you look and see if you feel it is still meets FA criteria in your opinion? If so, we could toss it out to the FARC team for an abbreviated FA reassessment review? I'd ask the FARC team if we could get an experienced FA reviewer to go over the article and ensure it maintains FA criteria. On the other hand, if you feel the article has just wandered too far from your vision, we could just demote it. I'm not interested in accompanying the article through a full FA process myself, but eventually somebody would own, edit and advocate for it.

Given that your engagement with this article, what do you think is the best course of action? I'll do the follow up. Wtfiv (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv, you are to a point where you need not worry … when you let others know that you are done with major edits, regulars at FAR will take a look anyway. And we don’t easily demote FAs :) It sounds like you are almost over the line. I am, probably, considerably older than the rest of you here, and am at my limit today for how much longer I can sit at a computer and type, but I will give it a look soon. There is no hurry at FAR (although I know you will want feedback sooner rather than later). Meanwhile, some other Irish and literature knowledge editors may have a look as well. I pinged Ceoil, and I can think of a few more editors who might want to have a look— I’ll ping them soon. Thanks again for all the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, what you were told is more nuanced than just judging an article on KB. I agree with Esculenta that more aggressive summary style would be beneficial. Ideally an article like this would be somewhere in the 45-55 kb range, imo, for the right balance between comprehensiveness and readability. (According to an online calculator, reading this article would take over an hour). Summary style is a good way to ensure that the information does not disappear from the encyclopedia, while enhancing readability and conciseness. That is much more specific advice than saying, articles should be X KB. And it was about an article being too long needing use summary style, rather than an article being allegedly too short, where the more correct argument is to explain what is missing in terms of comprehensiveness. Thanks for understanding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, guilty as charged. In the future I'll look at the major contributors to see if there are other editors besides the FA nom who should be notified. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go and do this retroactively for pages I've given notice too that haven't been yet nominated for FAR yet. ~ HAL333 22:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: You said Why are they not being followed, and separately, who is checking? I thought it was the FAR co-ord's role to ensure procedures are properly followed. Is this not the case? Pinging @FAR coordinators: as I mentioned them. If there are any concerns about my nominations, please ping me and I will immediately fix it. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, my take on this is that it is a job that anyone can do, but the Coords should make sure it is being done. Truth is, probably no one knew I was doing it regularly so no one knew it had fallen through the cracks during my editing absence. Now we all know :). If I am not editing, someone should be checking … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the fun stuff happens when I'm asleep...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 3Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
Listing older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before run on TFA

This is the third quarterly update on the project. Previous reports are listed below:

Progress

Since URFA/2020's launch, 145 FAs have been Delisted, and 114 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR, which the percentage of FAs needing review reduced from 73% to 71%. Work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 136 articles have been delisted during this time while 9 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 84 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 30 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 17 users edited WP:URFA/2020 at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR.

The project continued to reach out to active editors listed at WP:WBFAN to check the FAs they nominated. The project encourages experienced FA writers to check articles already marked as "Satisfactory" by a reviewer; the first reviewer is often the original nominator or interested in the topic, and they might answer questions or concerns if pinged on the talk page.

As of the end of this quarter, we have 135 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, a decrease of 17 listings from the Q2 report. This is a result of older notices being rechecked and listed at FAR. The project needs experienced FA editors to review older notices and determine if the article should be submitted to FAR or marked as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.

If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take over 29 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How to help

Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, Wikiprojects listed on the talk page, and editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 3Q2021. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FARGIVEN

There's 50 items on there first noticed in 2020 or before, would anyone else be interested in making an informal push to try to prioritize these in triage? Some of them may no longer need FAR and so will need to be removed from the listing. Hog Farm _Talk 14:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through and re-noticing the ones farther from the FAR criteria that no one's working on, starting with the oldest ones. I would appreciate another person going through the notices to ping the original noticer to encourage them to check again. I am up to Nathu La. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find the time and motivation to re-engage, I will prioritize this. After the last (four or five ?) recent medical FAC/FAR/TFA experiences, writing new content no longer holds much interest for me, so maybe I can find the time to re-engage URFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of process needed, not sure what

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination) just closed as merge. The merge has not yet been conducted, and DRV may occur so we don't want to be super hasty here, but Lewis (baseball) is an FA, so some sort of housekeeping will likely be needed here if it goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 14:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forget which article, but I'm pretty sure there's a precedent for this. The article is delisted on redirection. DrKay (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was Tropical Depression Ten (2005) last year, the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten (2005) was merge. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Open a procedural FAR, just to get the bookkeeping straight … eg Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Depression Ten (2005)/archive1. Would do it myself but 101 fever after booster, brain fog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated the procedural FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1; I believe the @FAR coordinators: can act on it without the usual two weeks FAR/two weeks FARC, once sufficient editors have agreed that the procedural FAR is in order. Coords, should the muse return and I become active again, I hope this won't count towards my FAR limit--just doing it per discussion above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a third one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination) (already at FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential risk for much of the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948 there. CMD (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition for FAR work

There was some discussion at WT:FAC about how editors are more motivated to nominate FACs then they are in fixing up FAs at FAR. I think a difference between the two processes is that editors can more recognition for completing an FAC (a shiny FA star, listed at WP:WBFAN, etc.) but do not get much formal recognition for FAR.

Brainstorming an idea, can a line be added to the FAR nomination code that, when the article is closed as kept, it would send a barnstar to major contributors to fixing the FARs? The way I imagine this would work is when an FAR is closed as kept, the closing co-ord would record the editors who made major contributions to the review in a line of code automatically generated from original nomination. A bot would then deliver the barnstar to those editors and list the editor on a list like WP:Wikipedians by featured article reviews. Hopefully, this will encourage editors to join the FAR process and give them formal recognition for their work.

Thoughts? Other ideas? Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking along similar lines. Given a participant in a way 'rescues' an FA status, I thought a barnstar similar to those developed by the Article Rescue Squadron might be helpful, eg File:Rescuebarnstar.png. One could also suppose such a recognition would allow a userbox similar to those for GANs and FACs, "This user has helped save X Featured Articles". The downside risk here is perhaps that it does slightly incentivise allowing articles to reach FAR rather than dealing with issues beforehand, but article often don't seem to be picked up anyway so I'm not sure that's a huge risk. Further, like all barnstars, it can always be awarded ad-hoc without a formal FAR process. CMD (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant idea, worthy of discussion, not sure of the technicalities since it can sometimes be hard to tell who gets credit. The stat tools don't allow us to generate stats before and after, I don't think (?), so one portion of this might be listing on the article FAR talk page what the stats looked like (contributors) when the FAR was initiated. As an example, if you look at James Joyce stats now, you can't necessarily see that (because of my past cleanup of MOS), I was previously the highest editor by count but not by authorship, and it is hard to determine that the article is being saved by Wtfiv. You can tease that out by looking at the dates (Wtfiv's work began on 09/22/2021), but we can't just look at the stats to know who saved the star unless we have a record of the stats at the time the FAR was initiated. Then, for example, if other editors have helped Wtfiv (or do before we finish), what is the cutoff used in terms of who gets credit? It won't always be as clear as it is in this case--that it's all Wtfiv. Unless someone here better knows how to get such data out of the tools? (PS, most grateful about how we are able to discuss process improvements at FAR without acrimony or pointiness ... that is part of why FAR has been so successful :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention that I just found myself in FA by accident. Just one of those nice serendipities, where I saw an article at the edge of FAR and wanted to see if I could jump in and explore the FAR process. For me, the pleasure was the challenge of getting an article back in shape that many people feel passionately about, while learning more about a topic that interests me. The article rescue barnstar seems a good one to use, though editors may enjoy something more specific. Perhaps creating an FAR-userpage template along the lines of the GA-userpage

, and FA-userpage

that people could post on their personal pages might be a good idea. There's a set of intertwined issues that needs to be addressed though that I see.

How does one get the word out that articles need FAR? I could see- after I took on the page- that a banner pops up on the talk page. But my encounter was just chance based on going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after completing an FA review. But would something on the article main page be useful? Perhaps something replacing the FA star? Or is that just too messy?
FAR may need a process similar to GAN or FAC. The editor who adopts the FAR would then go through a FAR process. My preference is that it would be similar to GAN. The problem, of course is that the time between an editor adopting an article and feeling it is ready for FAR evaluation can be large. The James Joyce article I was working on was significantly more work than I thought it would be when I started. Maybe working with one editor, plus others who are interested, to ensure the article is back in shape. That would help it be self-documenting.

But these are just thoughts from someone who likes to work with articles in clean up. I can see that the administrative details could get terribly complex. Wtfiv (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first query (how to get the word out), when the processes are being followed, we do a very good job. That's why the notifications are important; if we delist FAs without people being aware, there will be grumbling. Not all of the issues I raised above have been addressed. The Coords do not have to do-- or should not have to do-- all of the grunt work here. Other FAR regulars need to take on checking that notifications are done correctly. Other than that, I don't see how much more we can do, as we have it pretty well covered.

Re "process similar to GAR or FAC", that is what this is :) That may not have been very transparent in your case, since you were seemingly working alone for a long time, because of the lack of notifications. Now there are other editors watching, and they/we will get to it as time allows ... we're all busy ... but by the time the JJ FAR closes, it should have been evaluated against all of WP:WIAFA, just as it would be at FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy I didn't mean to sound critical of the process. Keeping on top of the FARC is hard work and its clear the work done is great (and you have the benefit of a very cohesive, positive group). I'm just mixing up trying to understand the process with a bit of brainstorming, if it is helpful at all. My concern with notifications is to help enlist more for people like me, if that is one of the goals. People who may be interested on working with an apparently neglected FA, but wasn't necessarily an active editor. For instance, in the JJ article I never contributed, wasn't a primary editor, and wasn't considered one of the qualified ones. If it wasn't FAR, I'd probably have just left it alone. (I tend to avoid editing FAs that are appear to have a single editor overseeing them. Why get in someone's way with an article that is working? That's why FAR seems interesting. One can help out by picking up a once-good article that's neglected, learn a bit in the process, and not be perceived as disrupting someone else's hard work). It may appear my comments are travelling a little far from the current award discussion. But I think it is related to encouraging more participation in FAR recovery, if that is what is needed. For people like me, part of the "carrot" is really just knowing the need exists: learning about an article that needs work that I may not have considered in the first place. Of course, having set of rewards for FAR recovery like GA and FA would be great! I know many editors post them on their personal page with great pride!Wtfiv (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not sound critical at all. If it sounds like I was saying you were, it's only because I am typing fast and furious trying to catch up. By the way, where did you happen to see that James Joyce was at FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy I was on the FA nomination page wrapping up a FAC and clicked in featured article review (FAR) having no idea what it was. After learning what it was, I then scrolled down to see who was on the outs, and saw that James Joyce was FARCed and near the dregs of the bottom. To me, it looked like the last call before closing time when I got there. From there, I placed my request for an extension on the FAR talk page, as per guidelines. Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found us! People sometimes ask that we remove the FAR listings from the FAC page; editors like you make it worthwhile to have the full list in one place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with some sort of carrot/award/recognition and glad this discussion is taking place. Not sure about automated barnstars though but do think something needs doing. Just pleased something is happening here after decades of tumbleweeds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, another thing to remember ... I added Femke to Wikipedia:Million Award#Million Award Hall of Fame after the Earth FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]