Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JKBrooks85 (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 24 December 2021 (→‎January 2022 tentative TFA schedule). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

URFA/2020 and
instructions		Very old FAs
(2004–2009)		Old FAs
(2010–2015)		DiscussionMonthly stats
and reports
Shortcut

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Question about reviewing

SG said on the FAC talk page: As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily – for ones like these should we just mark in the notes column that they still meet FA criteria? Or go another route? Aza24 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just add Satisfactory to notes so we can begin to move out those that are in good shape and focus on the problematic ... apologies for brief ipad typing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I am understanding the question, but if you mean you supported a gazillion years ago, and the article is still at standard, a Satisfactory will do the job! Yes, there should be a number of quick ticks ... and getting those moved off the page will help us focus on the truly deficient. If you find minor things that need addressing you can do what I did at the entry on the page for Rhinemaidens ( Satisfactory, with note ) ... look through some of the samples, which is easiest done if you pull up a sort on the last (Notes) column. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I just looked at Apatosaurus, which I reviewed in 2015, so not that long ago (I remember it well), and the edits since then seem to mainly be updates, wikilinks, and other small improvements. So I ticked it off as satisfactory. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect ... precisely what we need! I'll/We'll move articles off the list when they have three "satisfactory" entries (from people who know the standards), unless there is controversy, which we'll punt to the FAR Coords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your own nominations

I would prefer not judging my own old nominations, so they are instead marked by uninvolved, more objective editors, but I see others have marked their own noms, so how do we feel about that? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating this question, and glad someone finally asked it :) IMNSHO, please evaluate your own articles, and then two other uninvolved editors will know to have a look. Why I think this is acceptable? Because if an FA writer evaluates one of their own deficient dated articles as Satisfactory, they will be quickly called on it, and ... the most serious issues are found in articles that are no longer watched. THOSE are the really bad ones we are looking for. That you are still watching your FAs bodes well for them, and we should get those moved off the list so we can focus on the truly bad. That doesn't mean your old FAs are perfect, nor do we expect them to be, but knowing that nominators have checked up on their FAs is a good start for other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, that said, will someone please look at my very old (2006) Tourette syndrome, which was completely overhauled in 2020, involving about a dozen medical editors as well as non-medical Ceoil, Outriggr and Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that, I have also made major overhauls post-FAC to many articles, so it would certainly not hurt to get them looked at. I'll start marking my "own" articles soon, then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way Peacemaker67 handled this, in that he identified that they were his own ... good practice for others to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked one now[1], and noted it has had major overhauls since FAC, is it too much text or ok? It has changed a lot because it was also reviewed for Wikijournal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will look momentarily. PS: In a similar vein, we should be looking for independent review, so as an example, we should not move Peacemaker's to the Kept section without review by at least one non-MilHist editor. And the biology/bird/etc articles should be looked at by non-biology types. All of this is why I am hitting as many as I can, once topic experts have seen them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to sign off on bio stuff, if it looks okay to me and two species-familiar editors think it's okay. However, I've new enough to FAC/FAR that I'm not entirely familiar with knowing who all of the science-related editors are, and what their areas of expertise are. Should we have a section where editors frequently involved here get classified by areas of expertise? Just spitballing here, it may be a horrible idea, but it's at least worth me typing this, I guess. Hog Farm Bacon 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true :0 WP:WBFAN is your friend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a ways down there, but I hope to be working my way up that list over time *:) Hog Farm Bacon 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but look at all those hollow stars to remember why we are doing this ... when I first started working at FAR in 2006, Emsworth was the main FA writer ... as was Cla68, whose articles have stood the test of time.
Anyway, to your question ... you know the MILHIST editors, FunkMonk is biology/animals, Jimfbleak is a bird man, I am medical/Venezuela ... who else do you want to know about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the non-Milhist editor check is necessary for Milhist articles, any more than non-medical editors are needed for medical articles. Mostly it is the Milhist editors who will see if there are content issues. Of course anyone can check the MOS and prose stuff. I watchlist and closely monitor all my FAs, and they have only been improved since promotion IMHO. The only issue with historical (as distinct from currently evolving) Milhist articles would be if the academic consensus on a subject had changed since promotion (I try to keep up on this for mine). I imagine that can also happen for other topics if the scientific consensus changes. This doesn't happen often for WWI and earlier, but can happen for WWII and more recent conflicts, the more recent, generally the more changes in academic views occur. BTW I agree anyone who is the primary editor should indicate that when they state they reckon it is ok, as I have. Everyone needs to remember this is a process of checking if they are satisfactory, not a new FAC or a FAR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we should declare a medical article satisfactory if it is not digestible to a non-medical editor, because part of the problem with some of the older medical articles is that they are incomprehensible. And, if we extend the logic that only MILHIST editors need review MILHIST articles, do we extend that same logic to every project? So, if three video game editors or three hurricane editors or three Catholic editors or three art editors pronounce an article satisfactory, we don't want external input in any of those content areas? That starts us down a slippery slope. I sure agree that we want one, and hopefully two, topic experts, but expecting independent review could save us some unforeseen agida down the road. While it may work in the organized area that is MILHIST, I am not so sure it would be good practice across the board, because we can't foresee all circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we are making the process too bureaucratic to the extent that it will be unmanageable. There are a LOT of articles to check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PM on this one. A short and snappy review of lots of articles by just one or two independent pairs of eyes should identify FAs that have decayed over the years, which is surely the aim of the game. Expecting three detailed reviews by uninvolved editors including one from outside the topic area is going to make this a years-long project that will waste a lot of duplicated effort on articles that are still up to scratch, potentially meaning it takes much longer to find deficient FAs. Btw, Milhist is an enormous topic area; for example, my war memorial articles have almost nothing in common with PM's Yugoslav articles or Gog's ancient battles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried about where the “detailed review” idea crept in? is it something in the instructions that needs to be addressed? Generally, once a MILHIST editor, bio, bird, etc, indicates an article is Satisfactory, I just scan it. (I am a few days behind, but hope to catch up today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the requirement should just be two editors, regardless of whether one is the principal editor. The reality is that the principal editor knows the article status best, and we just need one other to confirm the article is satisfactory, and only need a third if they disagree. With such a huge list, we are wasting people's time requiring a third editor in all cases. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to be able to re-orient your thinking about how to use the list ... once I catch up and have time to compose my thoughts ;) (The blooming business of cleaning up errors from 2005 and 2006 in FAC archives is a time killer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose thanks for the new batch! I did only a few and will get back on them soon, but want to prioritize the work Mike Christie left on my talk, as I don't want to slow down his data analysis of the FA archives.

And I still mean to get back to Peacemaker67 and HJ Mitchell here, but haven't had time to type up my thoughts. The TLDR version is that these new(ish) FAs (relative to the hundreds from 2006 through 2009) are not likely where the real problems will be found, so it does not concern me if any of them sit on the page for even a couple of years (the last time we did this, it took six years to finish). It may even be advantageous to spread those reviews out over years, in case some nominators go missing and someone destroys their work in the interim. But ... they aren't the articles most likely in need of FAR, which is what we're looking for. We are more likely to find those by processing through the oldest first.

I'd like to put a list over at MILHIST of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs that we really need to prioritize, to avoid situations like Battle of Blenheim-- those that are at risk of being submitted to FAR if we don't address them first. And the serious problems are not to be found among MILHIST articles so I want to make sure our process is oriented towards the more problematic areas. More later, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to taking the old first, I have been hesitant to for example mark a lot of old dinosaur FAs as problematic yet, because we don't have the manpower at the dinosaur project to process so many that quickly, so we are trying to organise efforts to work on the older FAs gradually one by one or something like that, so they can be looked at for FAR afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For cases like that (where I have made a general note to Projects or contributors), I have been adding that note to the page on the older FAs, so we won't get premature noms (that is, we want to allow projects to approach their work methodically, and only FAR those that truly have no one willing to take them on). A note on the page helps us know who has done what! That way, when we come to something as we process them six months from now, and see nothing has happened, we will feel OK about sending them to FAR. For example most of the older FAs that need review are Hurricanes and MilHist. Hurricanes are on it; once they get through all of 2006, I'll review, and follow with a 2007 list. We need a MilHist list of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs for them to decide on a methodical approach. We just need to methodically get through the oldest first, as we have fallen so far behind. I am hoping that a goal of being through 2009 by the end of 2021 is doable ... so that we can gradually begin to catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Glynn Lunney, the NASA engineer who led the team that brought back Apollo 13, died yesterday. Unfortunate that our URFA/2020 notes were not cleaned up before his death, but happy that MLilburne has come out of a 9-year absence! Please keep an eye on whether we can mark this “Satisfactory” after obit-related updates. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that we should prioritize making sure all of our BLPs of older individuals are up to snuff, eg, recent work at Sandy Koufax. User:SD0001, do you know if it is possible for a script to pull a list of every article on the URFA/2020 list that is a) a BLP, and b) of an individual older than 65 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SD0001/sandbox&oldid=1013287421 it lists BLPs from URFA/2020 born in 1956 or earlier. – SD0001 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ever so much; that was speedy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed BLPs on older subjects

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:

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

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.

Discussion 3Q2021

If you have any questions or feedback, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great job to everyone doing the reviews. This winter should hopefully be a great time to buckle down and get through marking a lot more of mine satisfactory and hopefully helping out more with others' as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a fairly inactive quarter. Things should start slowing down at work soon, so I hope to be more active with this over the coming quarter. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesomeness to Z1720 and Hog Farm for keeping this going :) SO sorry I have been so busy; I wish I could help more, and hope the muse returns, but things don't look encouraging at the pages I have visited so far :( Thanks again to all of you for the awesome work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next round of WP:WBFAN invites?

Our last round of invites to those at the top of WP:WBFAN was in July. I have been noting who has already been invited to participate in URFA/2020 and who has edited the page. By my observations, the next three editors to invite are Parsecboy (ships), Iridescent (British geography and history bios), and Ucucha (biology). Are there any concerns about sending them invites? Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z, could we preview the text of the proposed invite? Iri's talkpage is Grand Central Station, so it's akin to putting it in the Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found, here; I feel like it could explain more, but I tend towards verbosity :) How did the July notifications go? Would it make sense to explain exactly what they should do? That is, if they have continuously maintained the FAs they nominated, they can mark them "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020, which will trigger others to have a look with an eye towards moving them off of the review list. Or some such better phrasing ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the goal of the invite was to bring the users to URFA/2020, and they could read the instructions at the top. I was concerned that if the talk page message was too long, the user wouldn't read it. I'm always down for a rewording though; I think I might be the opposite where I try to shorten prose as much as I can :P. If I had to redo the July invite, I would probably add information about checking "their" articles and marking them as Satisfactory, or encourage edits to bring them back to standards and pinging our team when the work is complete.
After the last invites, Hawkeye7 and Ceoil both marked articles as Satisfactory. HurricaneHink did not respond to the message (but they have only been somewhat active the past few months). I don't recall them having problems with the process, although Hog Farm reviewed some of the articles that they marked as Satisfactory.
My best-case-scenario goal with these invites is that it brings experienced FA writers to this process who start marking articles as Satisfactory, starting with their own noms but then reviewing other ones. While this process has done well in identifying articles that need work (and bringing them to FAR), I think it lacks experienced reviewers who can mark articles as Satisfactory. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect (could be misremembering?) I had already reach Hink via a WikiProject notification earlier on. The word their can be problematic (owernship), and sticking with “nominated by” is better. My main point is that the post will generate discussion on Iri’s talk, that is likely to stay on that page rather than come here, so it should anticipate to be effective. And I agree that the bottom line is the need to get more experienced reviewers marking the Satisfactory articles, so my suggestion is we not miss the chance to make the best plug possible on Iri’s talk. Others may have better wording suggestions, as I am always too verbose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made an idea about this in Village pump

Hi! I came up with an idea related to this fantastic page over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#URFA_addition_to_article_milestones which might be of interest to you all. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving diff to discussion before it archives. Seems to have fizzled out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the oldid

Grapple X did a really good thing here, as the third reviewer to mark an article “Satisfactory”. Saving the oldid in the third “Satisfactory” note means we don’t have to go looking for the “satisfactory” version, and if we convert to articlehistory, we don’t have to look up the oldid. We should probably all be doing that if we are the third reviewer marking satisfactory and moving. Thx, Grapple X (and congrats on today’s FA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A small celebration

Hi! Just wanted to say that I'm really surprised and happy seeing everyone pitching in to my newbie idea in VP, and while we wait for the template editors to respond I'm optimistic about the whole thing and looking forward to how the discussion moves along :D I'm bit bogged down by work and an RfC I'm participating on but once that's done I'll give URFA a shot Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you need someone to review an article you are working on, please ping me and I will add it to my list. I prefer reviewing articles that people are working on so that I can ask questions to someone. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 year-end goal ?

@Buidhe, David Fuchs, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, FunkMonk, Grapple X, Hog Farm, Hurricanehink, RetiredDuke, and Z1720: it would be grand if we could get all of the 2004 to 2006 group at least looked at by year-end. Most of the remainder are hurricanes.

I will get PTSD if I have to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam ever again (note the use of restart on that most dreadful of all FACs), so hope someone else will have a look. I also hesitate to tackle Ketuanan Melayu as it has long been one of my least favored FAs, and don't think I can be objective there wrt length. I have avoided Angelina Jolie because of previous experiences with socks and an arbcase. I am willing to take on review of all the Hurricanes, because unless something gives after the third project-wide notice, I will start to wonder if we need to think in terms of a mass FAR for the lot. I will be interested in seeing if any of WikiProject Cyclone articles are resolved by January of next year.

Can we all make a concerted effort to get these oldest of the old moving by year-end? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add @Graham Beards and Jo-Jo Eumerus: for various biology/medical (Graham) and Mauna Loa (Jo-Jo) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that given my annual update of User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/article work and non-FA and non-Wikipedia committments I can't take on another article. If it goes to FAR I can help with Mauna Loa but I can't promise anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The three you've recused from, I'll try get looking at this week. I might be able to make a start this evening but the next few hours are already accounted for. I haven't looked at the specific hurricane articles in question but my memory is that they tend to be the shortest FAs quite routinely; on one hand that should make for lighter reviewing but on the other it does raise the question of potential mergers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and tackle some of this once I get Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1 mostly sorted through. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not science-minded so I'll avoid hurricanes until someone else gives the article its first "satisfactory". There are still lots of non-science/math articles to review, so I'll shift my focus away from re-noticing older articles into reviewing the 2004-06 list. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely sold on some of the hurricane ones. Not sure that 95% government reports is a good sourcing mix for FAs. Hog Farm Talk 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a nice place to work; you are all wonderful. @Grapple X: those are three of the most difficult. Should you find any issues at Jolie, I strongly suggest extreme care in your wording.
Thanks, Z1720; as I have processed through, I am more conscious now of also updating the notes. I have already encountered quite a few URFA sections on talk that have been auto-archived, so I unarchive and add a new note.
Hog Farm some info for those who weren't around for the extended debates, discussions and controversies a decade ago at FAC talk over "short" articles, "cookie cutter" articles, and what used to be our main "niche" articles, then referred to as "pop culture". Sometimes all of these terms were used with derision, but the delegates' (now called Coords) have to respect consensus, and consensus always favored them. While choosing my wording carefully to avoid WP:BEANS and (further) attacks on my character re "niche" articles, the problem with applying one standard to hurricanes is that there are HUGE numbers of other FAs in other large categories of FAs and by many editors with high ranking at WP:WBFAN that would then have to be looked at vis-a-vis the same standard. Delisting articles such as hurricanes by this standard is a matter that has not been sufficiently discussed at FAC, would impact huge numbers of other FAs if it did, and for which broad consensus does not exist. And, it is very difficult to discuss those topics at FAC without being attacked as discussions become personalized.
Meaning ... I will continue to apply the standard to hurricanes, "short" articles, and "niche" articles that has consensus, until/unless a discussion changes that consensus (a discussion which I hope we won't have at FAC talk during the holiday season, because I have put away my asbestos suit for the year. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a conversation for FAC anyway, I don't believe—if the issues are about size and/or independent sourcing then AFD is the best venue, featured or not. It may be best if this is delved into (if I have a look at them during this I'll decide what my own judgement says) from the smallest one up; thankfully it seems some of the worst disruptors at AFD are out of the picture so an earnest discussion on merit should be possible. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not in terms of demonstrating the enduring notability of the tropical storm, but that's also not part of FA (or GA, for that matter) criteria. Of course heavy reliance on government reports for a clearly-big-deal storm might also suggest sourcing weakness beyond notability concerns. I do think that given the number of delisted/merged tropical storm articles I've seen in recent years that it's something WPTC is aware of and the community is dealing with. I will try and step up the checks during my holiday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk

Hurricane update

I will have gotten through all the 2006 storms other than the hurricane season FAs from that year by the end of today. I have four more left to review as of right now. NoahTalk 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! If I don't get a response from the CCI people soon, I will just continue doing what I was doing on the "Season" articles. Perhaps, if you get to them before me, you can give them an overall look, knowing that I will come back and do the Copying within checks (which are excruciatingly time-consuming). Thanks for all the help, Hurricane Noah! I will be traveling Thursday thru Monday end of this week, so appreciate that you got done much of what I was supposed to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Im still wondering if a mass FAR won't be required since most of our editors are occupied most of the year between work and school. Many people are either unwilling to work on these articles or do not have the expertise to do so. I may enquire and leave a discussion open for a month to see if anyone would be willing to work on saving some of these if we were to go through with such a measure. I don't like the idea of dragging this out for years and years. I'm thinking if we resort to a mass FAR, we do it one year at a time (ie. all of the 2006 ones first). NoahTalk 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit premature to decide on a mass FAR; how about if we give things a few months and see how they develop, particularly wrt the CCI? We have plenty to work on in here :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked around and many people simply said "I don't have time" or "I couldn't care less". Many of the original authors are gone or have slowed down significantly. Given our staple article had minimal effort to save it shows what's bound to happen to the rest of these even if we stretch it out a long time. I would think of waiting until maybe January 15 to start FARing after asking the project if anyone is interested in saving a specific article. NoahTalk 01:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP Cyclone CCI

Continued from #2021 year-end goal ?

Don't want to get this derailed too much here, but also something to keep in mind with hurricane ones - there's four pages of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Not all are copyvios, of course, and the US government stuff should be public domain, but recommend checking for copyvio on these. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fiddlesticks, I wasn't aware of that. I'm unable to tell from the CCI which editors to watch out for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this statement give me some relief on what I need to check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

To complicate it, we've already cleared out some of the seasons of copyvio (denoted via FA icon or Green tick) and we haven't checked other articles within WPTC. I hope we can clear this soon; more editors are going to be active soon and not all of them understand copyright. Sennecaster (What now?) 17:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster, MER-C, Moneytrees, and Vami IV: - pinging CCI big dogs who know more about this situation than I do. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially did a preliminary veiw of WPTC articles with Chlod in my userspace; that has since been deleted since the time of case opening, so that is where the checking thing came from. It shouldn't impact the flow too much; I will go through the listings and mark ones that have already been cleaned during the preliminary review.
I would be on the lookout for unattributed PD copying and a lot of meteorological agencies are copyrighted. Most of the ones that were checked were not GA/FA, and I haven't found any copying from them so far, but I definitely found an FA with pirated links. The issue with WPTC is that I haven't identified any singular editor that has been a problem; it seems to be a huge mix of what kind of copying is done, and the project itself has chronic unattributed copying issues between season articles like 2021 Pacific typhoon season and cyclone articles, like Cyclone Tauktae. Hope this cleared things up. (please ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oops sorry Sennecaster, edit conflict on my post below ... there is a list there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether I have to also worry about copyvio as I am reviewing old FAs (2004 to 2006, this list) to see if they still meet FA criteria. And if so, what am I looking for. Some of the original diffs at the CCI are revdel'd, so I can't see them. If privacy is a concern, pls do email me as to what to watch for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps this explains why I haven't gotten responses from WP Cyclone re older FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Original diffs are RD1 redacted so no privacy concerns. I noticed that most of the problems are post-2006, so I think you will be fine. Wouldn't hurt to occasionally spot check, and I'll see if I can swing by and check them for CV. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I don't think FA needs to worry about that CCI at all. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21 is probably the only CCI that has a non-negligible number of FAs listed. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, crap ... I seem to recall that I noted that issue VERY early on, MANY years ago, in a FAC DYK. Not surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at the talk page of the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sample hurricane CCI check

For those following at home, I have put hours, hours, and hours into this example at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1. I'm waiting for more feedback from the CCI peeps, but this work is arduous, and I doubt I caught everything. Also, on an individual hurricane URFA review here. Hope everyone will have a look at what is involved. My new knowledge forced me to go back to my days as a new editor, and template my early moving around of content as I built the Tourette syndrome suite; even though it was almost always my own writing I was moving around between sub-articles, in the early days (2006 and 2007), I did not know to state in edit summary when I was copying between articles. This has really slowed me down, and we have tons of work ahead with Hurricane article evaluation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc21 CCI

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21

  1. System Shock 2 2012
  2. Sinistar: Unleashed 2012
  3. Homework (Daft Punk album) 2013
  4. Gravity Bone 2013
  5. Armada of the Damned 2013
  6. Typhoon Maemi 2014
  7. Thirty Flights of Loving 2014
  8. Flotilla (video game) 2014

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees and Wizardman: is this CCI completed and do we need to still check these older FAs? As I recall, the early problems were with Spanish-language sources, and these FAs seem different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flagged on list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can tell, Hahc21 did not get a source check on his first FAC, then this on second (scanty). And no source check on third, where I indicated article was not FAC ready. Stopped there: These will all need closer scrutiny.
@Buidhe and Hog Farm: this is why User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 makes that happen FIRST, before the FAC can proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the completion question, answer is no. I can put that in in my high priority list to clear since it's not a large CCI at least (sadly can't give a better guarantee than that, nearly all my edits the past 6 months have already been CCI-based as it is). Wizardman 22:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poor you ... it is such hard work ... thanks for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other FAs at CCI

Per above, there are other FAs on the 2020 list that are also on the 2020 Unreviewed featured articles per User:Moneytrees/GAFAFLCCI:

Of these three, Kingdom Hearts II and Mana (series) have meaty edits in the CCIs while Elizabeth II doesn't. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged on list, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have time to pull the rest of Judgesurreal777's FACs from WP:WBFAN and list them here? We need to see why they aren't flagged on the CCI (or maybe they are). Not worried about Elizabeth, as that was a DrKay nomination. Haven't looked at Favre1fan93; heading out for the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super smash bros and Metroid are not on the CCI. The CCI only covers Judgesurreal's edits from 2006 to September 2011. Those FA's may of come later. The issue in that CCI is splitting and merging without attribution, so in most cases, I believe the text itself will not be removed for copyvio. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other ones, just in case:
Just those 4. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We didn’t start copyvio checks at FAC until November 2010. I flagged all of these so we will remember to look into them—not an indication that any of them actually have copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to read the CCI pages; what are the N and X indicating? The Kingdom Hearts II edits are not by the FAC nominator, but sure are a lot of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay see the CCI at the top of this section; there is a CCI on an editor who was editing FA Elizabeth II in 2017 (after the 2012 FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems found on those edits. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: N is the articles that the user created. We use X mark (articles with no vio} and tick (articles with vio). As for these FA articles, there could be copy violations by the CCI user but a different person nominated the article at FAC. In either case, hopefully there was no copying in the old or current revision of these FAs. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, there's also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kailash29792 (Courtesy ping @Kailash29792:), which has six FA's listed; Keechaka Vadham (2018), Andha Naal (2017), Mayabazar (2016), Kalidas (film) (2015, went through a FAR in 2017), Enthiran (2015), Chandralekha (1948 film) (2014, went through a FAR in 2018). I haven't seen any violations on those articles, but they should probably be checked. I don't have a full list of all the FAs listed at CCI, but I think most of them have been listed here now. If I find any others I'll make sure to note them here. Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moneytrees. This page focuses only on the older FAs, so there was only one to flag but ping @TFA coordinators: so they know to check this thread for all of the FAs that have open CCIs.
Moneytrees, if I might trouble you, where we most need your expertise and advice so we can move forward at both URFA and FAR, is to make sure I am doing the work correctly at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1 and Talk:Hurricane Nora (1997)#WP:URFA/2020. I hesitate to continue reviewing the hurricanes if I'm not doing the CCI checks thoroughly, or if I am tagging the article talk pages with {{Copied}} incorrectly. With so much work to be done here, I am concerned that FAR may need to take a global approach to the hurricanes, cyclones and seasons, so it's important to make sure my work so far is heading the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees might you review my work at Hurricane Irene (1999)? I did everything I know to do to check for both copying within, copyvio, and text taken from public domain sources without attribution. This includes stepping back through diffs of the hurricane article and the season article, and running general Earwig, as well as specific Earwig on archive.org links. In this case, the first two iterations of the article did contain public domain text without attribution, but that has since been rephrased, so I assumed (??) that attribution in the article was not needed. Please let me know if I'm on the right track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some experienced eyes

Hi! I just made some notes on an article in the list here. I'd appreciate if one of you could tell me if that's a good edit and what steps to do next. I'd like to notify relevant wikiprojects about the notes and am wondering if there's a specific template y'all recommend I use for that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. C., thanks for jumping in !
I have to head out for the day and evening, but others here will lend a hand. In general, you got the steps right, but I am guessing (?) you would upgrade that to Noticed, and add it WP:FARGIVEN, in the event no one responds after a week or two? Notifying WProjects at this stage is less likely to result in improvements, but browse the tools for any editors you might ping.
One other thing you should do is always provide samples, for instance:
  • prose is very hard to read in various parts of the article (give a few examples)
  • article itself is short ... that is not a WP:WIAFA disqualifier, unless ...
  • and not very broad in coverage (needs examples of what is missing, or what sources are not used), and
  • seems to need a MOS review as well. (needs some examples)
But that's a fine start you've made, and you got it added correctly at WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original numbers by year for year-end report

Re this note, in the early iterations of the page, we didn't have articles divided by year, and we didn't have a counter on the page. I seem to recall that somewhere down the line, we found a few errors, that resulted in some adjustments. So, I did not try for absolution precision here. I counted in the early iteration how many were in 2004 to 2006,[3] how many in 2007,[4] how many in 2009,[5] and just lumped the difference in to 2008.

I thought we'd want these numbers for Z1720's year-end report, to see how we've done in each group. I'm thinking we may want to approach The Signpost about a year-end article, and plan to spam the main WikiProjects; that is, we should write more than just a year-end report, and aim to get more involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a wider posting and trying to get a signpost article would be great here - I'm willing to help if needed on this. Hog Farm Talk 04:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of submitting the year-end report in the WP:SIGNPOST, and talking to one of their reporters about the group. For the Wikiprojects, it would be nice if we could do project-specific reports: for example, for WP:CYCLONE we could give an update on HurricaneNoah's work on the 2004-2006 list, or provide a suggestion of 10 articles the project could review. I'd also like to get a URFA/2020 report into project newsletters, like The Bugle for WP:MILHIST. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great ideas! Who wants to approach the Signpost ? (Not me, for reasons best left unstated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that other than hurricane/cyclone season articles, I have checked through 2004-2007. NoahTalk 02:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost usually publishes at the end of the month, so maybe we will aim for the Jan issue? I can contact the editor or post on their Newsroom after the December issue is published. As for project-specific newsletters, here are the ones that I think are active:
If everyone signs up for a newsletter, we can get project-specific reports out in no-time. I'm happy to write a draft project-report template if others are interested. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I can touch bases with Ajpolino about Medicine. We had a great save with Menstrual cycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: can you contact the editors of the Hurricane Herald and see if they are interested in a project-specific URFA/2020 report? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've belated posted something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom, we'll see if we can get any fish to bite. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Small note on the signpost thing, would it be a good idea to mention there the idea lab thread as a like "this is how we are trying to grow urfa into the future" type shout out? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want a signpost article to focus on what has happened and how the process is going. If things are implemented in the future, we can mention it in the next signpost article. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Sydney Hailstorm

I'm not an expert on hailstorms, but it seems like 1999 Sydney hailstorm is weirdly formatted and likely is not comprehensive enough on impact given the level of damage that occurred. I have seen more academic literature related to damage and aftermath out there as well. Would like additional thoughts on this. NoahTalk 02:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, the two reports listed in the To do on the article's talk page should be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about SNOWs?

Hi! I was wondering what to do about articles who seem like a snow demotion from FA status (and possibly GA as well). I recently came across Israel the Grammarian's BLP while trying to find good examples of FAs on literary bios for a discussion at J.K. Rowling's FAR. The article is immensely short and not very comprehensive, barely giving much information on the individual. I've left some comments on the talk page, but I was wondering what the procedure is. Do I go straight to FAR and notify relevant users/WPs? Spending my Friday the best way I know how, Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz: Don't bring it to FAR yet. If no one responds in two-three weeks, then bring it to FAR. In your description (where you describe why you are nominating it for FAR) outline why the article might be a candidate for a quick delist. FAR reviewers and co-ords will determine if it's a quick delist. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, Z1720. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that one should come to FAR at all; I'll respond to the concerns you raised on article talk, but basically two things: a) standards have not increased since that article was promoted, and b) length is not part of WP:WIAFA. Short articles are fine; to show they are not comprehensive, you would need to demonstrate what sources are left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I haven't investigated too carefully, I don't think that's a SNOW case at all. The reason it's short is probably because there just isn't too much to say about a tenth-century scholar. Additionally, the nominator, Dudley Miles, is still active, so he should be able to deal with any concerns. An article is only too short if there's something specific that it isn't covering. (On a sidenote – and I may be in the minority here – I don't really see the purpose of trying to rush through with speedy delists. Most URFA articles have been FAs for a decade or more, so there surely isn't any urgency. While I have no trouble with allowing coördinators to close FAR(C)s sooner rather than later to save the time of reviewers, it isn't really something we should be too worried about.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with EW entirely and will respond on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, EW, there is one reason to speed along the hopeless cases; each nominator can only have five noms on the page at a time, more with permission, so we are often stalled in bringing forward new nominations. Right now, I cannot nominate a FAR. We have 160 listed at WP:FARGIVEN, and less than a dozen of us doing all the noms-- you can see we can't get there from here, so I do agree with speedying the most hopeless. In fact, I am beginning to be concerned in the opposite direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair: I didn't think of the five-nom limit (probably because I've never started nearly enough FARs to encounter it – sorry). Perhaps it would be worth discussing that rule again, particularly since the once-a-week limit would prevent the number of FARs from getting too out of control. (I know the coördinators have been reluctant to support changing the rules, but it still might be a discussion worth having.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Coords are quite amenable to extending the number on the page if one asks, but I am at six now, which is too much for most people. The problem that is developing is editors who say they are working on an article, but then don't, so that the nom stays on the page for months. I am starting to lose patience with those cases. Even more difficult is when editors who don't know the standards engage to save a star, only to make it worse. And then, the nominators who don't do notifications so we have to expend extra time on bookkeeping. We do have a problem with the five limit, and I am stalled from making another nom for about ten more days, but I'm not yet sure what the solution is. We really should have this discussion at WT:FAR, but maybe after the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: I opened a discussion about this topic in April. Click here to read that discussion. I agree with SG that this discussion is for WT:FAR. I encourage you to nominate at FAR if you are prepared to review the article if someone wants to save it. Feel free to bring any article that I have noticed. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the general question of "what to do about snows", see Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1. When an article looks truly unsalvageable, and there is consensus among reviewers, the Coords are amenable to an accelerated process. ANAK was only five days in FAR, and six days in FARC, so delisted in under two weeks. Also, questions of this nature can be raised at WT:FAR, where the @FAR coordinators: will weigh in. Best regards, and thanks again for digging in to help out at URFA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't expect it to be such a short process once accelerated. Thankfully most FAs are very, very salvageable if in need of work, especially when editors involved are still active, so I don't expect to need aviation goggles anytime soon :). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Santacruz: - ANAK isn't even the shortest one I've seen - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 (3.5 days). That was an unfortunate case. Hog Farm Talk 03:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz:, please, absolutely do not judge a Featured Article on its length alone, or compare its contents with the kind of info that you'd expect to have on a modern-day subject. We have several series of FAs (the sci-fi magazines FAs, the Middle Ages English people FAs, the mushrooms FAs, the East Indies old films FAs, those obscure TV series FAs, the race horses FAs, from the top of my head), where the articles are very short but meet the FA criteria. There's simply not much to be said about those subjects. You have to check for comprehensiveness instead. Also, Israel the Grammarian is not a WP:BLP, the man has been dead for a while. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 tentative TFA schedule

The start of the tentative WP:TFA schedule for January 2022 has been posted. Listed here are the articles, FAC nominator, and year of promotion. Articles within the URFA/2020 scope are highlighted in bold. Please review the older noms, and post in WT:TFA if there are any concerns.

1. Black-and-red broadbill (AryKun, 2021)
2. Seventy-Six (novel) (Dugan Murphy, 2021)
3. 2008 Orange Bowl (JKBrooks85, 2008)

@JKBrooks85, Sportsfan77777, and Giants2008: would be able to look in to see if this is mainpage ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JK's work was typically sound from what I can recall, but there are a couple things I'd like to do with it. There's one source that looks unreliable to me; I was about to replace it but ran into Microsoft forcing me to use Edge and causing me to lose my edit, so that will have to wait for another day now. Also, I'd like to check more thoroughly for dead links as I already repaired one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a scrub, too. I'm not very active anymore, but I've got some time this weekend. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. 1st Missouri Field Battery (Hog Farm, 2021)
5. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (Eewilson, 2021)
6. Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) (Kosack, 2021)
7. Hammond's rice rat (Ucucha, 2010)

NOTE: This article is listed on URFA/2020 as "Mindomys" Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk and Ucucha: would you be able to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the rice rat seems to hold up, and Ucucha's articles are also the most comprehensive and well-sourced animal articles form that era. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8. Missouri Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt, 2018)
9. Power Mac G4 Cube (David Fuchs, 2021)
10. Ursa Minor (Cas Liber, 2015)

@Casliber: for a tuneup if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok - has changed little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11. Croatian Spring (Tomobe03, 2021)
12. Mu'awiya I (Al Ameer & AhmadLX, 2021)
13. Ham House (Isaksenk, 2021)
14. Low (David Bowie album) (zmbro, 2021)
15. The Trundle (Mike Christie, 2021)
16. Ghostbusters (Darkwarriorblake, 2021)
17. Chinatown MRT station (ZKang123, 2021)
18. Battle of Hayes Pond (Indy beetle, 2021)
19. Hoodoo Mountain (Volcanoguy, 2021)
20. Old Exe Bridge (HJ Mitchell, 2021)
21. Schichau-class torpedo boat (Peacemaker67, 2021)
22. Legend Entertainment (Shooterwalker, 2021)
23. Archaeoindris (Maky, 2012)
24. New York Stock Exchange Building (Epicgenius, 2021)
25. Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) (GeneralPoxter, 2021)
26. Australian Air Corps (Ian Rose, 2018)
27. Ba Congress (Peacemaker67, 2021)
28. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (Balon Greyjoy, 2021)
29. A Beautiful Crime (DanCherek, 2021)
30. Benedetto Pistrucci (Wehwalt, 2017)
31. Delichon (Jimfbleak, 2010)

@Jimfbleak: I saw you make edits to this today. Is this main page ready? Can it be marked as Satisfactory? Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I was just looking through since it was listed at TFA. This sort of genus article usually doesn't change much over the years, but in this case one of the species was split to give four, instead of three, members of the group, and I was checking for consistency. I'll probably have another look to see if I can update any of the refs, but it's definitely satisfactory Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've updated the conservation status refs to 2021 sources, taxonomy already had refs to this year, other sections don't need ref updates, so all looks good. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More will be posted when they are selected at TFA.

Pinging @TFA coordinators: to notify them of this posting. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 is this schedule from 2021, and did you intend to get 2022? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Darn, you are correct, forgot to change the year. Let me try again in a couple minutes... Z1720 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The correct list is now here. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Jan 2022 list has now been posted in its entirety. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tabs

Since splitting the page in two, the presentation is quite busy, and navigating is complex. Now that I have seen how tabs work at WP:FASA, I suggest that is a good option. Unless anyone objects, I’d like to convert the URFA pages to tabs, similar to those at FASA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created a markup at User:Z1720/URFA2020/Tabs; anyone can edit this if they wish. I chose ivory as the colour because that's what is used at the top of URFA/2020 right now, though I have no opinion on this. I think the tabs would be an improvement. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. My only concern is that, while URFA and FAR work together, URFA is a precursor to FAR, while FARGIVEN is part of FAR. Should the talk page for FARGIVEN redirect to the URFA talk page or the FAR talk page? Do the @FAC coordinators: have an opinion? I feel like it's OK to have all the discussion at URFA, as long as we are careful to ping in the Coords if their feedback is needed. But I am unsure here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "link to" above to "redirect to". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: did you mean to ping the FAR coords? Also, if we implement this and have an instructions tab, can the instructions be removed from the main URFA/2020 page? Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes :) The idea is to simplify the amount of gobbledy-gook on each page now. Sorry FAC Coords, re-pinging @FAR coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is anticipated to go under "Main"? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed scheme

See User:Z1720/URFA2020/Tabs
  • Taken from Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020, the Main tab would take the first paragraph (minus the gobbledy-gook about where to find the other pages, as they will now be easily seen in tabs), and the Monthly stats. Only.
  • All talk pages would redirect to one discussion page (although I am unsure if WP:FARGIVEN should redirect to URFA talk or to FAR talk). I am OK with redirecting it to URFA, although it is part of FAR, only if the Coords agree, and if we are all careful to make sure URFA talk doesn't pre-empt FAR talk.
  • To simplify things, the instructions (now at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Instructions) would not be repeated on each page, as they would be easily found via the tab. They would only be on the Instructions page, which would reduce the gobbledy-gook on all the other pages.
  • Then the Old and Very old tabs would only include the data tables at each (eg Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009) without having to repeat all the gobbledy-gook instructions, etc.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would be more inclined to keep the instructions on the main tab and hive off the stats to their own tab, and IMO FARGIVEN should redirect to FAR talk. Open to other thoughts though. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with either, depending on what other main participants say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of putting stats on their own page, and keeping the instructions on main. I don't think FARGIVEN should go to WT:FAR; either remove it (my preference) or name the tag FAR Talk (but this might confuse visitors to URFA/2020). Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then we should just remove FARGIVEN from the URFA tabs, as it is really part of FAR, and having it here at all is what creates the confusion. We can mention it in the instructions instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, FARGIVEN is more of a cousin to URFA and a sibling to FAR, rather than an integral part of URFA. I do think URFA should keep its own talk page; I don't feel strongly about what to do with FARGIVEN's. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Please check my work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good! Hog Farm Talk 00:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting some moved to "FAR not needed" by year-end

FunkMonk has done quite a job of marking articles in WP:URFA/2020B, and I am the second reviewer on most of them. An editor interested in making an impact on our year-end numbers might do the third reviews. Similarly, Ian Rose has quite a few where I am already the second reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020&oldid=1061897873"