Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination, Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

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)

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

Request for extension of 5 nominations limit

Please add requests here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

• I suggest putting the article on hold. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  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)

  @Ceoil: wondering if you were aware of this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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?

   Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

   Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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.

   Done This one was bad and the FAR should be held open in case someone shows up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• 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.

  Too old to worry about, lots of editors in there anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

And ... another, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/England national rugby union team/archive1,  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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:

• 2021 Q1 report
• 2021 Q2 report

Progress

Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Glad to see this generated some discussion. Responses to the above:

• I like CMD's idea to use File:Rescuebarnstar.png, but replace the barnstar with an FA star. Anyone else like/dislike this idea? Is anyone good at creating graphics?
• Responding to using barnstars: Barnstars for FAR work is currently awarded on an ad-hoc basis, at a user's discretion, and with no criteria. I am hoping that FAR can create an easy, automated process that requires minimal work for editors to recognize those who worked on an FAR. Perhaps this would be to create a list like WP:WBFAN for editors to see their stats. I am not sure how that list is created at FAC, so that might be something for us to explore.
• In terms of who gets the credit for FAR rescues: I think the nature of FARs will mean that this is a subjective process. While FAC, GAN or DYK have nominators who can automatically get credit, usually editors who do the majority of work fixing up articles at FAR are not the nominators. This is why I suggested that FAR co-ords determine who gets the credit; they are reading through the FARs to determine if its ready to be kept, so perhaps they can record who is doing the work as they are reading. I would also support the co-ords being liberal about giving out credit, as getting a star might encourage an editor to come back.
• I think having official credit from another user is better than something that is self-reported. Editors will trust a user that says they rescued an article if someone else "verifies" this by giving the award. This is why WP:4AWARD and WP:TRIPLECROWN have a user check to ensure the nominator deserves the award. A self-reported award or claim does not have as much legitimacy.
• Responding to advertising FAR: I know I have seen userboxes stating how many articles that someone has rescued at FAR, I just can't remember who had it. There are lists like WP:FARGIVEN and Wikipedia:Featured article review/FAR urgents that editors look at, but users have to stumble upon them. My goal is that users will start displaying topicons or userboxs which state the articles they rescued at FAR, similar to what users have for FAC, GAN, or DYK. This provides free advertising for FAR on user pages.

Those are my thoughts. Sorry they are not under the specific users, but there's lots of conversation happening and I have lots of thoughts. If I missed anything, please let me know. I'm excited to get something like this going! Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m a bit worn out after an entire week of one thing after another, but what we should decide this week is whether the Coords should give a barnstar for the JJ save, or whether any of us can do it, or whether we want a nomination process (something like happens at Editor of the week), or whatevs … too tired to think, but we have one editor who should be entitled to display the JJ star on their userpage, so should decide on something. When to award a save is one of those “you know it when you see it” things, when the editor goes from 0 to number 1 in the stats, and we’ve got one of those coming up for a close soon. I’d like to see us have a process where we all agree that a star is awarded, and decide by whom. And I’m too tired for anything beyond that, but appreciate you keeping this moving, Z1720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And we have another #1 editor in authorship in this month’s archive, for the Storm. Need to decide on a threshhold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry that I dropped the ball on getting this rolling: I have been busy the past few weeks. For JJ and Great Lakes, I think this can be given manually. In the Great Lakes FAR, I would give a star/award to North8000 because they were answering the reviewer's queries in the FAR and did the bulk of the work. Although I made some copyedits and prose fixes, I did not add research or prose, therefore I would be considered a "reviewer".

For future closes, I think FAR co-ords should give out the award, as this process will be subjective and they already have to read the FAR so they are best placed to make that determination. To try to simplify the process, I was hoping that FACBot could deliver this award on the FAR co-ord's behalf. When Types Riot was promoted as an FA, I received a talk page banner from FACBot (diff here). Can FAR implement something similar, but instead of the nominator getting the award, the FAR co-ord would add an editor's username to a line of the template upon its close, and the FACBot would deliver the award on their behalf? Here's a draft of what the award message might look like. Does FACBot also manage WP:WBFAN, and is it possible for FACBot to manage a similar list for FA saves? Pinging @Hawkeye7: as they manage FACBot. I don't want to create extra work for @FAR coordinators: if they don't want it, so are the co-ords OK with adding this extra step to the FAR closing procedure? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the wording on the Barnstar. But I suggest adding something to the effect of "you can proudly display the star for this FA in your userspace" (better wording needed, but that's the message we want to send-- you are responsible for this star).

I don't think FACbot can or should do it, because (I believe) FACbot just automatically sends something to every FAC nominator when it processes the close, and the bot would not know the parameters to use for this, and it would not always be the nominator, and there would not always be enough changes to an article at FAR for us to say that one editor is responsible for the save, nor would it be the nominator, so who would FACbot choose via algorithm? Most of that also applies to how WBFAN is built, and we would need to do something like that manually. (I am personally not that interested in a WBFAN-type page, as that has promoted a very unhealthy "reward culture" at FAC, which hallelujah, is not a problem at FAR, where we work together, selflessly, for articles that represent someone else's old work, and most of us don't care about winning some internet prize for our effort.)

My goal is that we come up with some sort of threshold for when we would award the star. I suggest we just set some criteria, and then have a Nomination subpage here, and then Coords judge consensus and issue the star. It is obvious in the case of case of James Joyce (from 0 to 88% of the content), less obvious but still so for the Lakes (North engaged in 2018, and is now the top contributor), while the Arsenal presents the possibility to discuss where we draw the line between an article that would have been defeatured but was mostly patched up at FAR by a diligent and helpful editor, but the majority of the content there is still someone else's work. My personal opinion is that, while we absolutely value the effort ChrisTheDude made at Arsenal, and the article would have been defeatured without him, my concern is that we build consensus, using these examples, about where we draw the line of recognition of one author responsible for the save. All who participated in the save? (Noting that would be a problem; I rack up hundreds of edits on FARs for doing trivial MOS work, so I should always be not counted, IMO.) Which editors who contributed to those saves? Or only saves where one editor had to pretty much rewrite? Or only when the editor who saves becomes responsible for most of the content? We need to set parameters, and those three give examples we can use for discussion.

For all of these reasons, I don't think it can be automated, the times they will be bestowed are rare, and I suspect it will be more meaningful coming from the Coords, based on consensus at a Nomination subpage we set up.

Then I suggest we review 2021 archives for the saves. As one example, by my preferred criteria (not just kept it from being defeaturd, but they became the lead editor in what was essentially a rewrite), I would award one to Graham Beards for Menstrual cycle. Perhaps others here will have other samples or opinions-- just throwing mine out. Thanks for all you do in here ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PS, considering we have at most four saves per month, I hope that judging consensus for, and awarding these barnstars, is not too much of a burden for @FAR coordinators: , but we should hear from them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I don't think FACBot should decide who gets the star, either; it's going to have to be decided by a human editor. DYK has a parameter in their template (click here for an example where the names of the nominators are added under "Credits" and the bot delivers the message. The bot doesn't decide who gets the award, only delivers the message. Would something like this work in FAR, where the FAR co-ords add an editor's name when they close the FAR under a "credits" parameter upon its closure?

I added prose to the draft message about displaying the star on their user page. For criteria: my opinion is that awarding these stars should be very liberal, especially if it's an editor's first time at FAR. After all, we want to encourage editors to come back to FAR and fix another article. If a person becomes a "regular" the co-ords can decide to make the criteria more strict for that editor (and I would expect a stricter criteria would be used for me). Anyone who "leads" the clean-up on an article, responds to queries (as opposed to reviewing the article, fixing prose, and pointing out problems), or adds prose from sources to an article should be awarded a star; a star can be awarded to more than one editor.

Looking at the Menstrual cycle example, I see that most of the clean-up happened off of the FAR page, which means co-ords will also have to look at the article history to determine who gets a star. I looked at the history from the FAR's listing in Feb 2021 to its close in April, and I would agree that Graham Beards would get the award because they did a large amount of edits (both in number and in adding prose) during its FAR. Clayoquot and Sandy would also get awarded as they made edits that used sources to expand the article (Clayoquot example, Sandy example though the co-ords may choose to not award Sandy for this save as they are an FAR regular and would thus be subject to a stricter criteria. Making this determination took me about 10 minutes, and hopefully practice will reduce this time, but I agree that I'd want to hear from the co-ords first before this was implemented. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, that gives me lots to go on. Would something like this work in FAR, where the FAR co-ords add an editor's name when they close the FAR under a "credits" parameter upon its closure? I think that would be giving the Coords an unnecessary burden, and force them into the nitty gritty of looking at article and talk contribs, and making their own decision, which is a weighty decision (especially if someone feels left out).

I'd rather see a system where we have a Nominations page, and reviewers come to consensus, and the Coords just close the discussion and deliver. That would require them to view up to five more discussions per month, at the rate we're going. Asking them to also view talk pages is just too much work; the regular participants here know who gets the credit, and I'd opt for a process where we just Nominate, Vote, and leave it to the Coords to close and deliver.

I agree that we want to encourage participation, but hate the reward culture that has taken over FAC (fueled by WBFAN and contests), and do not want us to head that direction. For example, I would turn down any credit for Menstrual cycle, as that is Graham's baby, totally, my participation was just bookkeeping. (Opt-out might be part of the proposal.) If we look at every FAR where I contributed trivial stuff, I'd end up with hundreds of these barnstars, and I don't want that to be the purpose; I don't have the extended engagement on any of them that led to the save (offering me as an example for discussion). On the other hand, if we go to a simply Nominate, Vote, Consensus, Deliver mode on a sub-page, each person can apply their own criteria, but we don't want to dilute the value of this star and encourage a reward culture. At FAC, only the nominator gets to display the star, so I'd not want us to be so lax that we award it to everyone who had a say in the review (we don't do that at WBFAN, and I've had way more active participation in getting hundreds of FA promoted than I do getting FARs saved).

Let's hear what other regulars here think, and then after enough discussion, we can put forward a formal proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, Buidhe, RetiredDuke, Femkemilene, Chipmunkdavis, and Bumbubookworm: wassup … need some feedback to get this moving. (Please don’t tell me we lost two of our most active and engaged FAR participants when they were named FAC Coords!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Will dive into the recent FARs that would be eligible for this and write up some thoughts over lunch break. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the nomination system method is the one I prefer - less digging the coords need to do. I really think we ought to have some form of an opt-out, though, where someone does not want to receive the credit or does not feel that they did enough for the credit. Not sure what the standards for who would qualify would be, though. Looking at some recent examples:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)/archive1 - FAR saver has about 15% authorship now, and put in quite a bit of work to save this one. I'd call it eligible.
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2 - massive amount of work by North to save this one, would consider it eligible
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gillingham F.C./archive1 - original FAC nominator did repairs, not near as much to bring it back up to code. Probably redundant with the FAC here
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Million Dollar Homepage/archive1 - group effort, and not a huge one at that, nobody really stands out to give it to here?
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Tippecanoe/archive1 - Victoriaearle did a complete sourcing overhaul here, definitely would consider this one eligible

I think we'll probably just have to go case-by-case for awhile, rather than have any fixed standards at first. Hog Farm _Talk 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're going with nomination + consensus it seems reasonable to be quite permissive around what sort of work can be proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m seeing that too, Nikki. We set up a subpage for nominations … when a FAR closes as a Keep, anyone can nominate participants for a barnstar, but !voting is closed if the nominee opts out (for example, I always would). After (a designated period … ??? … one week or two ? …) Coords close discussion and deliver barnstar designed by Z1720. The only outstanding question I have is … if the original FAC nominator is the one doing the save … do we reward them for … essentially restoring their own work? If we use a consensus model, different folks will say different things; I would not agree with rewarding the original FAC nominator for a save, as theoretically, they should have been maintaining the article all along. Others may disagree, and Coords judge consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As per Z's opening post, I would say the original nom already has the recognition - they keep the shiny star, they're still listed at WBFAN. But open to being persuaded otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nikki above: original FAC nom already has a star for the article, they shouldn't get an additional one for saving it. I also wouldn't award a star to the FAR nominator: they should fix up the article and ask for comments at PR or URFA/2020. Nominating an article at FAR and then fixing it up feels a little like gaming the system for a reward. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Not to muddy the water, but if someone does fix up the article in response to URFA, should they also be eligible for getting this "save" recognized? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting … my gut says … only if they run it through FAR just to get the endorsement? I’m thinking, though, of all the Geography articles that you fix, and we know they’re good!! Maybe they should come through FAR again, because then they get a new time and datestamp in articlehistory, and we get to barnstar you :) :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're saying we want articles improved via URFA to run through FAR anyways, we're going to need to reconsider how that process is working - there have been several articles that I'm aware of significantly cleaned up in response to those notices that were as a result marked satisfactory and never taken through FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a wrinkle … more thought needed … I’ve been up to my eyeballs in Aggies. Not sure what to do here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've now wrapped my head around this dilemma, and have tried to apply some consistent logic :) There is probably lots of content on Wikipedia that might reach FA level but is unrecognized, and the editors responsible for that content don't have an "award" to display because they haven't submitted to FAC. We have similar wrt restoring FA content that has deteriorated; lots of editors as part of normal collaborations restore or maintain featured content, but are not "rewarded" via a new FAR. I have such an example wrt the complete rewrite of 13-year-old Tourette syndrome prior to its TFA appearance last year, where a cadre of FA writers combed through it with me to update and upgrade prose--none of those editors ended up with any "credit" for the newer version of TS, as we didn't resubmit to FAR (and I would argue that resubmitting to FAR would be a timesink, as so many FA writers who know the standards were involved). Do we really intend to encourage such efforts to resubmit to FAR, or would that unnecessarily overwhelm FAR? Thinking about this example led me to contemplate what exactly we are trying to reward and encourage here, and to my mind, we are trying to encourage and incentivize FA/FAC/FAR participation from editors who previously had nothing to do with the article, and take it on out of the blue, as opposed to what so many of us do as routine collaborations. I realize that if we take this approach, it leaves out people like us who work to restore articles via URFA, and that may not be ideal, but I fear we will stall if we don't limit our focus to the Wtfivs and North8000s, who came out of the blue and restored FAs that would have been otherwise lost. Maybe as a complement to this, we could vote on annual or semi-annual URFA awards, similar to the awards routinely issued by MILHIST? I am not convinced on my reasoning here--just throwing this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Two options are: URFA/2020 creates their own reward system (maybe a barnstar?) for articles that are fixed up before FAR, or the FAR awards system can also be awarded to editors who significantly fix up FAs that they did not originally nominate. I like the second option because any incentive to fix up FAs is eventually less work for FAR, as it stops an article from being placed here. For example, I would not object to awarding Iazyges for their work on Basiliscus in October. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See my response below on naming; extending this beyond FAR is increasingly of concern to me, considering some current FARs. Some of the problems revealed go well beyond the initial FAR nomination concerns, while some concerns in nomination statements may not actually be problematic. I am leaning more and more towards only recognizing editors of articles that go through FAR. (I can still be convinced to change my mind.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Z, since this is your baby, do you want to suggest a sub-page name? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Clever name of the new recognition barnstar program … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Brainstorming some ideas, feel free to suggest better ones: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Featured article review award (FARA), Wikipedia:Featured article review/Featured article repair award (FARA), Wikipedia:Featured article review/featured article save award (FASA), Wikipedia:Featured article review/Featured article save star (FASS), Wikipedia:Featured article review/Award for saving a featured article (ASFA or AfSaFA). None of these acronyms have a Wikipedia page associated with it (that why I don't suggest Wikipedia:Featured article review/Featured Article Save, because WP:FAS is taken.) Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Which of those to choose depends on whether we decide to include efforts of editors on URFA FAs that don't go through FAR. Honestly, after what I am seeing on the A&M article (that has been at FAR for months), I am increasingly concerned about opening up rewards to articles that haven't been more globally re-assessed via FAR, where they are likely to get many more eyes (including non-FAR regulars). There are also several current FARs that cast some doubt on the original notification statements, and show why our broad notifications are so valuable in making sure we get more eyes. On that basis, I would nix calling it the FARA, and focus only on the actual FAR saves. I would lean towards FASA, FASS, or (using the terminology in archives, Keep) FAKA, limiting to only actual saves or keeps via FAR. If we initiate a separate URFA award, I won't feel so bad about those we leave out. So, the naming depends on getting more feedback in here from everyone else as to the scope of the award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume FAKA would be Wikipedia:Featured article review/Featured article keep award. There's also Wikipedia:Featured article review/Featured article keep star (FAKS) Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Once we come to consensus on scope, I defer to you-- this is your baby! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah, this is a group effort, and I've never wanted a baby :P. I hope to hear other's opinions on the name. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be nice. I agree with SG that we should only count articles that go through FAR. I would like a million award specific to FAR, which could be self-awarded after getting a FARA/FAKA. Something like "This editor won the Million Award for bringing restoring Climate change to Featured Article status quality." I feel like I'm slightly misleading people on my userpage now, by saying "bringing"

Don't have an opinion on the name FARA/FAKA/something else. Femke (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FAC that impacts FAR

… and yet, was not noticed to this talk page.

Please see:

• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Time to stop transcluding FAR

See also the

• discussion above where we realized many participants find their way to FAR because of the FAC transclusion, and
• similar expressed here by Wtfiv, who is close to finishing the restoration of James Joyce to FA status.

Buidhe, as in the thread earlier on this page, it would have been considerate to raise your idea first at FAR, then move on to FAC based on feedback here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Worth giving a periodic check?

Ran into this discussion a couple minutes ago - does anyone remember exactly how the check was done last year? Running the check for untranscluded FARs might be something to think of doing once or twice a year from a housekeeping perspective. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think (not sure) it is done by checking Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (which right now matches at 28). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. Anyone have any clue why Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) exists with only a user subpage in it? Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the category was recreated after Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_11#Category:Wikipedia_featured_article_review_candidates_(closed). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would someone do that? That looks to be a relic from the days before Gimmetrow and DrPda created article history, and we used to have a gazillion different FA process templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)