Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
1973 FA Charity Shield	Review it now
Costello's	Review it now

Shortcut

WT:FAR

Archives

Archives for former FARC process

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

Archives for current FAR process

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

To the coords

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

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

Apply for mass message sender

It makes doing the FAR notifications so much easier! (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha! So that's why the notifications didn't show in your contribs ... I was checking why Putnam hadn't been transcluded and thought you were still working :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I just got interrupted twice and forgot which parts I'd already done (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the page: Wikipedia:Mass message senders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave it to you, Sandy -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero I so appreciate it ... can I mass murder now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, Just Do It!

Wikipedia:Mass message senders.

Samples with info at

User:SandyGeorgia/Useful#Mass message and then notification list like at
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Gustav (2002)/archive1.

It saves you 15 minutes on a short notification list (and even more on a long one).

Fill it the send form by putting your personal MMS list in the first space, subject of the message (which is also the edit summary) as, for this case, Featured article review for Hurricane Gustav (2020), nothing in page to be sent, and then in the Body of the message for this case: {{subst:FARMessage|Hurricane Gustav (2002)|Sandy Georgia}} ~~~~ , hit preview, then submit it.

Next FAR, just edit your MMS page and add new targets, and send again. And there it is! But you have to go apply at Wikipedia:Mass message senders (or talk to Guerillero). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm _Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request permission for sixth nom

I have been crazy busy IRL since late October, but believe/hope things are settling now. @FAR coordinators: I have five noms up; may I have permission for a sixth while three are (slowly) being worked on?

Improvements underway

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1 2022-09-25
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Nora (1997)/archive1 2022-12-02
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1 2022-12-18

No engagement

Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Harper (Rhodesian politician)/archive1 2022-12-24
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eli Lilly/archive1 2022-12-31

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down

Unreviewed Featured articles: year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

**Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles**
Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area	Delisted	Kept	Total Reviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62)	Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	10	6	16	0.60	19
Biology	13	41	54	3.15	67
Business, economics and finance	6	1	7	0.17	2
Chemistry and mineralogy	2	1	3	0.50	7
Computing	4	1	5	0.25	0
Culture and society	9	1	10	0.11	8
Education	22	1	23	0.05	3
Engineering and technology	3	3	6	1.00	5
Food and drink	2	0	2	0.00	3
Geography and places	40	6	46	0.15	22
Geology and geophysics	3	2	5	0.67	1
Health and medicine	8	3	11	0.38	5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11	1	12	0.09	6
History	27	14	41	0.52	38
Language and linguistics	3	0	3	0.00	3
Law	11	1	12	0.09	3
Literature and theatre	13	14	27	1.08	24
Mathematics	1	2	3	2.00	3
Media	14	10	24	0.71	40
Meteorology	15	6	21	0.40	31
Music	27	8	35	0.30	55
Philosophy and psychology	0	1	1	–	2
Physics and astronomy	3	7	10	2.33	24
Politics and government	19	4	23	0.21	9
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14	14	28	1.00	8
Royalty and nobility	10	6	16	0.60	44
Sport and recreation	32	12	44	0.38	39
Transport	8	2	10	0.25	11
Video gaming	3	5	8	1.67	23
Warfare	26	49	75	1.88	31
Total	359 ^{Note A}	222 ^{Note B}	581	0.62	536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC header not showing on WP:FAR

It's supposed to appear after Wikipedia:Featured article review/Supernova/archive1. I was thinking there might be a formatting error in that FAR causing the bug but I cannot find any. (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, maybe this is a problem with User:A455bcd9/nominations viewer.js? I tried installing it and the header suddenly disappeared. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the script for some time without any problems (t · c) buidhe 07:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the problem is: what's the header that is not showing? And where should it be displayed normally? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The header is "Featured article removal candidates" - it currently appears between the reviews for Supernova and Eli Lilly. It is displaying correctly there for me, so I suspect either the script mentioned above or some other user-specific script or setting is to blame. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me as well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had any issues seeing it with desktop or mobile myself. Could well be a script of some sort. Hog Farm _Talk 03:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is indeed caused by User:A455bcd9/nominations viewer.js (and User:Gary/nominations viewer.js, upon which my script is based). However, even with one of these scripts activated, you can still see the "Featured article removal candidates" header on the left sidebar ("Contents") if you have Vector (2022). If you click on "Show" after "Supernova" you'll see that the "Featured article removal candidates" header is actually hidden at the very end of this collapsable section. You have the exact same problem on WP:FAC where the "Older nominations" header is hidden as well. Has this always been the case? The nominations viewer.js scripts didn't change. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following, and have no problem on my end, and I have never used those goofy nomination viewers, but it occurs to me (after seeing all the complaints at WP:VPM) that it could be related to the new Wikipedia:Vector 2022. What a complete and total trainwreck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem, and I also think it is because of the new layout. I use the viewer mentioned above. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never switched from the original Monobook skin. If you try switching back to Monobook in Preferences --> Appearances, does the problem go away? If so, it would be a Vector issue, and you should post to one of the many threads at the Village Pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Scripts that add additional buttons to the header no longer work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, which I presume to be the same issue, on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, the “Older nominations” header is missing on the page, although still in the contents. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the same issue. Both are H2 HTML headers and even though the script should not include them in the collapsable box, for whatever reason, it does. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, I think: the "discussion tools" beta gadget (whether or not you have it turned on) is wrapping the h2 header in a div (<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2 ext-discussiontools-init-section">, to be precise), but the nominations viewer is looking for h2s that are "siblings" of the h3 headers for each nomination. Since the h2 isn't sibling any mroe but is a child of a sibling div, it gets swallowed by the previous collapsed nomination. I'll play around with a fork and see if I can fix it, this has been bugging me over at FLC. --Pres N 03:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, @A455bcd9: got a fix at User:PresN/nominations_viewer.js. I forked the Gary script and made a fix; I can't edit the Gary script directly as I'm not an interface administrator. If anyone reading this is, my fix was: Change line 357 from

 !['H2', 'H3'].includes(nomNextSibling.nodeName) &&

to

 !(
   ['H2', 'H3'].includes(nomNextSibling.nodeName) || 
   (
    nomNextSibling.childNodes &&      	
    nomNextSibling.childNodes.length > 1 &&
    ['H2', 'H3'].includes(nomNextSibling.childNodes[1].nodeName)
   )
  ) &&

I think the "expand all/collapse all" toggle is also broken; I did not attempt to fix it. --Pres N 03:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented it in my version (User:A455bcd9/nominations viewer.js, which is an improved version of Gary's script) and it works: thanks a lot @PresN! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The script at WP:NOMV is fixed now. Gary (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment needed

FARs at least a week old needing more keep/move to FARC declarations:

FARCs needing additional input:

Not listed: any article where work seems to be ongoing (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, this list confuses me ... we usually allow at least two weeks in each phase, and I don't like to pressure editors unnecessarily. For example, on Redwood, Feb 5+14 = 19, and today is only the 10th. Pretty much the same for Panic and Gustav. We need not rush to declare, which can make others feel like we are rushing to delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the one that really needs attention the most is Supernova could use some additional looking-over to see what the status is at this point. (I've been too worn out to keep up with that one, and can't really tell what the status is). Hog Farm _Talk 05:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night / Bonfire Night (UK)

I reviewed an article earlier today and found what I considered to be a bizarre situation. The major celebration that we in the UK call Bonfire Night was being described as Guy Fawkes Night. The article was plainly describing the UK celebration and no other dedicated article for this topic exists - also bizarre, so I moved the page to what I consider its correct name Bonfire Night (UK). I'd expected the FAC discussion to be minimal but instead there had been a discussion but the dissenting editors had been canvassed and their comments discounted. Anyway as there are editors from the FAC discussion still around I thought I should leave a note. Desertarun (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria has reverted this change because there was a failed move request in the archived talk page. The move request was rightly denied because it was requested that the page Bonfire Night be overwritten or merged. I'd moved the page to Bonfire Night (UK) so this wasn't going to be the problem. The move request was from 2015 and the suggestion was to rerun this. This will need sorting out for it to remain at FA. Desertarun (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PCM has information about starting a full-length move discussion if you want to go down that route. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the article's FA status, though: titling isn't something that's part of the FA criteria, so these sorts of disputes aren't well suited for FAR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a contentious page move discussion, that would only the case if the page Bonfire Night was to be merged/overwritten. I don't see why we can't have separate pages for Bonfire Night (UK), Bonfire Night (Canada) etc. Desertarun (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a firm opinion on the move itself, but since Nikkimaria has reverted it, it's considered contentious and needs to be discussed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get this reconsidered but that seems unlikely. Anyway, there's no rush. Desertarun (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]