Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Battle of Saipan	Review it now
The Motherland Calls	Review it now
Infant school	review it now
It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water	Review it now

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Image/source check requests

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom Planet/archive1 -- needs image and source reviews, please; surrounding FACs have them. Tezero (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering its a fairly new nomination, I don't think it's time to post here yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When is it appropriate to post here? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually wait for two supports, but I'm not sure what the delegates do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spokane, Washington/archive3- SR (including spot check) needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How long should an FAC nomination stay open?

I nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1 on 15 September, aiming to have it ready for a Main Page appearance on 9 November - the centenary of the subject. As of today, 20 October, it has had six reviews and supports, with no opposing votes. Could someone please advise how much longer the FAC nomination should stay open, given that there appears to be a substantive consensus in its favour? I'm keen to resolve the nomination in good time, bearing in mind that I still need to get the article into a WP:TFAR slot for 9 November, and that I have another time-sensitive article that I need to nominate for a January deadline. Prioryman (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I generally make a mid-week pass through the list of open FACs so should catch it, and other likely closures, within a couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Ian. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, the Tony Hawk's Underground review hasn't been touched in two weeks, yet it has three supports (four if you count a very early one) and passed image and source reviews with no outstanding comments. It's not time-sensitive like that one, but is there anything else I should be doing with it? Tezero (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that one during the week and thought I'd left a message on the FAC page but evidently not. From memory all the reviewers appeared to be from the WP gaming community (correct me if I'm wrong) and while that's very useful in terms of expert opinion, we do like to see more diversity in commentary, i.e. from outside the related Wikiproject area, particularly as it helps iron out accessibility issues, reduce jargon, etc. Similarly one likes to see at least one review of a MilHist FAC from a non-MilHist editor, and so on -- you get the idea... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's SNUGGUMS, but he could go either way: I don't think he's really involved with WP:VG himself, but it's not like he's never reviewed one of its GANs or FACS before. Man, the no-canvassing rule sucks. Tezero (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco's supported. Good thing I found about this when I did, heh. Tezero (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status toolboxes - most work again

As most reviewers probably know, the toolbox links in FAC-nominations are almost completely down. The problem is solved in the sandbox, but still needs checking and activating by an authorized template editor. However the links in the "small" toolbox at WP:FAC "Nomination procedure" are active and can be used in the meantime. Unfortunately I can't tell, if and when the "long" toolbox on the nomination pages will work again. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC) - (most tools fixed now - see below)[reply]

There still appears to be a problem with peer reviewer and reflinks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, peer reviewer worked a few weeks ago, iirc - never used reflinks (I'll do a few more tests). But some functional tools are still better than none :). Many thanks for your help, DrKiernan. GermanJoe (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewer and all other tools (except reflinks) work again, you may need to clear your cache on the tool's page before using it (Ctrl + Shift + R atleast for Firefox). GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once an FA, always an FA (Featured article review is moribund)

See Featured article statistics, Unreviewed featured articles and the FAR archives.

Between 2006 and 2010, a concerted effort was made to review featured articles via an organized list and systematic approach (see WP:URFA as an example of how 50% of the FAs on the books when standards changed in 2005 were systematically reviewed and either upgraded to meet current standards or were removed as FAs).

The Featured article review process has essentially died. As the number of FAs has grown, the percentage of FAs demoted has dramatically declined. This is not because more FAs are being kept after review: since 2010, the number of FAs reviewed at all has also been declining. With declining editorship, it is unlikely that this effect is due to increased surveillance of existing FAs. Who is watching them?

The value of the bronze star is deteriorated when those articles that achieved FA status with stringent review stand alongside others that have not been reviewed for years. With less than 1% of FAs now being demoted, we have essentially a situation of "once an FA, always an FA"; FAs that have deteriorated over time but remain listed at WP:FA devaule the star on every FA.

Is there some way to get FAR kickstarted again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Year	FAs at start of year	Demoted during year	% Demoted
2008	1862	143	7.7%
2009	2365	156	6.6%
2010	2769	115	4.2%
2011	3166	47	1.5%
2012	3460	39	1.1%
2013	3794	29	.8%

Discussion of FAR stats

I don't mean to contradict your strongly held conviction, but I wonder if this is necessarily a problem. I sense that the standards for featured articles, while still increasing, are doing so much more slowly than they used to. Looking back at my own FAs promoted in 2009, the criteria then were much, much closer to the current ones than to those of 2004. This is to be expected, of course, as the encyclopedia stabilizes. Could it be that most of the FAs that don't fit the criteria have already been demoted? Tezero (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in recent years the standards for featured articles have stabilised but the FAR process also has to deal with articles that were of high quality when promoted but have subsequently deteriorated. This can easily occur when the main editors of an article retire from Wikipedia. One of the most difficult areas to police is the accretion of extra material into top level summary articles. Aa77zz (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is a three-step process. Should the two later stages (review and removal candidate) be merged into a single step (reassessment)? DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I always thought the two-step process was unnecessarily complex and pointless. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments are generally the same as those of Tezero; perhaps the reason why so few FAs are demoted nowadays is because we've already caught most of the bad apples. But seeing as we don't have enough editors willing and/or to undertake such a systematic review of all older FAs (those promoted before, say, 2010), how about focusing on the most popular/most important old FAs? I don't think our readers pay too much attention to the GA icon or FA star at the top of the article, but demoting one highly visible article not worthy of FA status is likely to be a better use of our scare volunteer pool than demoting 10 very obscure FAs not up to par that no one looks at.

You could also argue that our time might be better spent trying to improve our most popular and most important (WP:VITAL) articles to FA status rather than scouring every old FA to see if it still meets the criteria. At any rate, if you're still are interested in a systematic review of older FAs, perhaps you could market it as a competition along the lines of the Wikipedia:WikiCup or the more recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup. Admittedly, these contests likely draw from the same pool of editors, meaning that yet another competition could result in editor dilution, but it still might be worth a shot. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AmericanLemming, we could start out by reviewing the most popular older articles to get an overview of how bad/good the situation is, and get a tangible improvement for the readers at the same time. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FACs now take about three months to complete, FARs about six. We could simply run FARs against the articles that have been the longest since their FAC or last FAR. But I fear that the availability of reviewers will be the critical factor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly bad apples out there - see User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page, which is a useful resource / starting point. I'd disagree with the sentiment that reviewing old FAs isn't the best use of time - if something is of FA status but isn't fit for the main page, it gives a false impression of what our standards are and complicates selection of TFAs. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it'd be good to prioritise working through User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page, which (a) gives more options for TFA coordinator and (b) will give more of an idea about FAs that need FAR out there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB: How about everyone reading takes a bit of time today to look at one article on User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page and give it a tick or otherwise notice on its talk page about what needs fixing and then FAR in six weeks if no action? Just so we can get a bit of a clearer picture. Also maybe comment on articles areadly at FARC and we can close them? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tezero, I am not sure what you are referencing with "increasing standards since 2009". You can find the benchmark dates in the FA process among the footnotes at this chart ~~(which by the way hasn't been updated since 2011, hint, hint)~~ UPDATED. The last time there was a change in the criteria was March 2009: we've had only minor wording changes for clarity or linking since then. The last benchmark change in FAC reviewing processes occurred in November 2010 (copyvio checking was tightened). Reviewing standards have become more lax: we no longer have, as examples only, the highly detailed sourcing checks which were done by Ealdgyth, prose checks on the level of writer Tony1, and copyvio checking also seems to have declined. I could name scores of FAs still on the books that are not up to snuff, but don't do so as not to single out any particular group or editor. I don't doubt that at least a quarter of our FAs are out of compliance. More importantly, because no one has been systematically checking, how do we know if it's not worse?

@ DrKiernan, I agree it's time to revamp the FAR process, because it has gone moribund. The two-step process worked quite well, and was necessary when we had to process 50% of the FAs on the books at the time for citation reviewing. It's no longer working. We are going to need to do something to get the process reinvigorated and to encourage at minimum a list of all old articles that have not been reviewed -- not one generated by hand, but one generated systematically by bot as was done in the past (see WP:URFA). And we may need to at least talk about putting in some time limits at FAR, and even consider some sort of "sweep" as was done in the "Refreshing Brilliant Prose" phase (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches for a history of the FA process). Putting through FAs at one pace, while disregarding the maintenance end of reviewing the older ones, devalues every star on the books.

@ Cas, while I agree reviewing Dweller's list is helpful in the TFA selection process, I disagree that it is helpful overall. Reviewing only articles that haven't run on the main page, so that the main page can reflect better quality, goes the wrong direction in terms of leaving the impression that other FAs are at that standard. TFAR is one process: FAR is another. FAR's mandate is to review all FAs; TFAR should have its own processes, and Dweller's list may accomplish that, but FAR needs a list of unreviewed articles including those that have run mainpage already.

As one example, User:YellowMonkey was for years, the top FA producer (and a FAR delegate) before his departure in 2010. Who is following his 60+ FAs? I didn't want to single out one editor, but there's an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the official criteria haven't really changed, but I get the feeling, as someone who's gotten FAs promoted in both 2009 and 2014, that FAC wasn't quite as strict in the areas of comprehensiveness, aesthetics/layout, and source reliability as it is now. At the very least, three supports from well-established editors (including one from someone unaffiliated with the subject matter) is an official requirement now, while then it was more of just a recommendation. Even if the FA criteria had loosened, though, that wouldn't invalidate my point, which is that the 2009 criteria are closer to 2014's than to 2004's. Tezero (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I, on the other hand, disagree particularly in the comprehensiveness and sourcing realms. No reviewer has approximated Ealdgyth's sourcing reviews, or Awadawit's comprehensiveness reviews. And, if three supports is really "an official requirement now", then we have a(nother) serious problem! And saying three supports was "just a recommendation" in the past is not correct. Passing FACs on three supports would be a departure from history: FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero and Sandy, My guess what the three supports is is that three supports indicating the reviewer has taken a good look at the article, plus an image review plus a source review is the absolute minimum level of input an article needs to pass FAC, but that any suggestion of issues means an article will be left open longer for more in-depth analysis and work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better :) Except you left off a copyvio/close paraphrasing check, or at least a spotcheck, although this is often passed over for repeat nominators if they have been checked in the past. The big if is three reviewers that have "taken a good look at the article", because that doesn't always happen. Unfortunately, the notion that three supports = passing FAC seems to be taking hold. Three supports can mean, well, nothing if they aren't good reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot that - I am not sure about it taking hold. I've seen delegates wait until consensus is more solid or ask for checks quite regularly, even on regular nominators, like me, which is fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy I've gotten into the habit of clicking through TFAs to their FAC pages, but I haven't come across any of these source reviews of Ealdgyth or comprehensive reviews of Awadawit yet. Could you link us to a couple examples so we could have a model to refer to? What I've experienced as a reviewer is that you're pretty much on your own figuring out how to carry out a review, which kept me from reviewing at all for a long time. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear, that is a challenge to my memory. While I go off and dig back four years into archives to find an example of the comprehensive issues Awadewit used to raise, I want to provide at least something to encourage reviewers. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches provide bits to chew on; perhaps Ealdgyth will link us to a representative sample of her older, thorough sourcing reviews, and I will be back once I can locate an Awadewit comprehensive review in archives. But basically, it involves a search of the relevant literature to make sure nothing significant has been left out (which depending on the topic area may require university access). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back; searching archives by name stinks, but one of the reasons you may not have come across what we are discussing is that your search on TFAs would reveal only FACs that passed-- searching on those that were archived may be more productive in the "how to review" department, because the Oppose button can be a fast route to article improvement, and that is where you will find the sample deficiencies. While reviewing archives, I remembered that Karanacs was also good on evaluating comprehensiveness by, basically, going out and making sure no important sources were left out. Some samples:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spokane, Washington/archive1 (Karanacs)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Davenport, Iowa/archive2 (Awadewit points out unused sources)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive2 (Awadewit points out missing sources)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth/archive1 Awadewit on sources

I'm afraid none of those represent the best samples of Karanacs or Awadewit's work, but finding things I might remember after reading four or five thousand FACs is about impossible ... I hope that gives you the idea, though, which is that to evaluate comprehensiveness, you may need access to real books and a real library, or to search a library database to make sure the most relevant sources have been covered, per criterion 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find exemplary examples it would be nice to put them somewhere where new reviewers can find them. I've found reviewing difficult because I've had to figure things out on my own—we aren't really given any guidance on how to carry out a review. And if you have trouble digging out examples that you've seen with your own eyes, where does it leave those of us who haven't seen such examples? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria is one of our experienced source (and image) reviewers -- her guide to source reviewing (part of a larger guide to FAC reviewing) is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, first I've seen that. Clicking through to Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing_featured_article_candidates shows it's not linked from anywhere many are likely to find it, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following from that guide seems bit odd to me: "If you find yourself leaving a huge "wall of text" on a review page, consider whether your comments are best placed elsewhere (article talk, review talk, etc), or whether the volume of concerns merits an oppose !vote and a suggestion of peer review" In my experience, most thorough reviews are pretty much walls of text. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; this is a change from years ago, when reviews were often quite short. I had reason to look at one of my earliest FACs the other day and was startled to discover that it would fit on a page. There's been intermittent debate over the years about whether this is a good thing. On the one hand the argument is that FAC should not be peer review: articles with problems should be removed from the queue quickly. On the other hand I personally find it hard to oppose when I think all the issues are easily fixable, and I think there are some articles that would never be promoted without help of this kind. Of course this does mean that FAC slows down and becomes more labour-intensive, which is undesirable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, personally I don't find long reviews problematical, it is rather the wait between reviews that drags out. In fact, long reviews gives the nominator something to do in the meantime, instead of just waiting... FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Mike Christie says, when Asser was promoted in 2007, reviews were often very short. But during 2008 and 2010, review length grew (significantly) as sources and images were checked on every FAC, and with the addition of copyvio checks in 2010. FAC was processing monthly double the amount of nominations it sees today, (FAC stats by month), and most were processed within two weeks, but even with FACs being processed fairly quickly, the drain on reviewer time, and the page length, were issues. The provision to be able to remove an ill-prepared nom upon suggestion of a reviewer was added, so that those articles could be better served at peer review.

Historically, a bit more than 50% of FACs were promoted; now we are running at about 2/3 (an all-time and increasing high). Summary: I still agree with what Nikki stated in her guide: "If you find yourself leaving a huge "wall of text" on a review page, consider whether your comments are best placed elsewhere (article talk, review talk, etc), or whether the volume of concerns merits an oppose !vote and a suggestion of peer review". That might be one of many steps that might help get this page reinvigorated relative to historical numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, it seems I've not come up with a satisfactory answer for you :) So, until/unless I can comb through more than 4,000 FACs and FARs I've read to provide you with better examples, two suggestions:

Pick an area where you excel and feel confident, and review in that area alone for a while. Whatever you do, be the best at it. (As Ealdgyth did with source reviews, Nikki with images and copyvio, Elcobbola and Jappalang with images, Tony with prose, Epbr123 with MOS, etc). Then the person passing the FAC can develop an assurance that, at least, your area has been well reviewed. Do not, though, Support an article on a partial review. FACS should not be passing with supports based on partial reviews by reviewers who have not engaged all of the criteria.
A comprehensive sample which I hope you will find instructive is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1. I found that FAC with support to promote, but several deficiencies (it was almost a promotional puff-piece), so I recused and did the review myself. (I also made sure Elcobbola and Jappalang had cleared images before supporting, since I am not an image reviewer. Raul654, FA director, promoted five days after I supported.) I hope you find that FAC to be instructive of the kinds of issues that may be missed in FAC review. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA processes

I am moving my post down from above, as no one answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one example, User:YellowMonkey was for years, the top FA producer (and a FAR delegate) before his departure in 2010. Who is following his 60+ FAs? I didn't want to single out one editor, but there's an example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another example:

ColonelHenry and socks]

ColonelHenry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was active at FAC and TFAR, and was not blocked until April 2014. S/he created hoax articles, and had seven FAs. The notice that review of all of his/her work was needed was posted at ANI. And yet, I am unable to find in archives (my apology if I have missed it) any mention at either FAC or FAR of anyone initiating a review of the Colonel's a) FAs, or b) reviews.

Has there been a review of Colonel's FAs, initiated at either FAC or FAR? Who is taking the leadership role in issues such as this one? This is not just a FAR issue: it is an issue within the whole process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are listed at User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup (for fact-checking). DrKiernan (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr (as usual, you're on it!) But that is a CCI, initiated by MRG for copyvio checks. My question is related to FAs. Who is reviewing the FA candidates supported by ColonelHenry, and who is reviewing the FAs authored by him/her vis-a-vis all of WP:FACR, not just copyvio? Were deficient FAs passed on ColonelHenry review, and do his/her seven FAs meet standards in addition to copyright policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed TFA coord team

Hi all, please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Proposed TFA coord team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the FACs by length list measure?

I was just looking at Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length because I was concerned about the length of AI Mk. IV radar, which is currently at FAC and which I suspect would be the longest FA by readable prose. However, I can't match up the numbers in that table with the numbers coming out of the page size script. Does it measure raw bytes? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Bencherlite and/or User:The ed17 have made lists that compare FAs by readable prose, but the two longest I found were Middle Ages at 14,441 words of readable prose and Manhatten Project at 16,750 words. Also, Douglas MacArthur clocks in at 12,757 words. Of course, the FAC in question probably doesn't cover a topic broad enough to justify its current length, but there are precedents for extremely long FAs. AmericanLemming (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not me, guv. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, try searching the archives here for posts by Dr pda, as he once explained it ... or maybe it was Gimmetrow. It is somewhere in archives, but have fun with that :) Or alternately, scan the talk page at WP:FAS, where we used to organize stuff like that in one place .. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas MacArthur contains 78,994 characters (12,757 words) of "readable prose". That means excluding HTML markup. "Characters" is not the same as bytes. This is because were are using a character encoding called UTF-8. An octet byte has only eight bits, and therefore can hold up to 2^8 = 256 values. Fine for holding our Latin characters, but we need more if we want to hold other character sets as well. In fact some, like Chinese, have more than 256 characters to start with. So we encode in such a way that Latin characters fit into one octet, but Greek, Cyrillic, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew and Arabic require two, and others will need up to six. So in an article containing a lot of Chinese, the character count will be quite different from the byte count. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is FAC moribund also?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive3

While FAC is passing record-high numbers of candidates (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics#Promoted and archived FACs by month), the FAC nomination of a stellar FA writer (User:Wasted Time R) has been sitting, for 11 days, unaddressed except for the image review by Nikkimaria (thanks, Nikki!).

As far as I know, Wasted Time R achieves neutrality in his political BLPs, earlier nominations of that article failed on reviewer misinterpretation of the 1e stability criterion, and it is so not right for WTR to be ignored at FAC that I am tempted to review the nomination myself, but I do not trust my own neutrality wrt HRC.

So, what gives and what steps might we take to ensure that *worthy* nominations get prompt review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to review in waves. start at teh bottom every so often and read what interests me (mentally I try to review three articles for every (sole or joint) nomination I have . Haven't done it for a bit due to quite a bit of other stuff going on but will definitely take a look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to all of that; I just started another pass and should get two or three reviewed in the next week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I take offense at the idea that some FACs are more "worthy" than others, barring obviously doomed ones that wouldn't even come close to passing GA. I have seven FAs (and over 20 GAs), and I'm not complaining about Freedom Planet, my current FAC, not being reviewed, although I did request source and image reviews above since the surrounding ones had them before being corrected about how that works. Editors are welcome to request feedback from anyone else they please, as long as they're not too badgering about it, but no one should be obligated to review anything, especially not for a trivial reason like who nominated it. Tezero (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, you may be reading "worthy" much differently than I wrote it. There are ill-prepared nominations (as described in the FAC instructions, those can be removed if a reviewer suggests withdrawal); this nomination -- as I wrote -- failed previously on reviewer misinterpretation of criterion 1e. (There were several similar, and perhaps Wasted Time R remembers on which of those I wrote up a summary of why I discounted the 1e opposes ... too many FACs to remember where to find that, but WTR may remember.) We do not have to wait for someone to be dead and the history books written for an article to be stable; we have to have no ongoing edit wars and no rapidly changing text. "Worthy" in my vocabulary relates only to whether the nomination is ill-prepared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you're saying, SandyGeorgia: we shouldn't give him preference because he's an accomplished writer (which would actually work against the idea of privileging first FACs by users, as is used in WT:TFAR), but because his article has failed FAC multiple times on misinterpretation of one criterion. That I can accept, so if it hadn't already gotten a number of comments, I'd review it. Tezero (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be in complete agreement (because I am also concerned about repeat nominators whose FACs are getting increasingly light review by an increasingly limited pool of qualified reviewers ... it is my opinion that many repeat nominators are not getting rigorous review). I was by no means advocating "privileging ... FACs by users", although I did want to mention that I hadn't detected blatant POV in WTR's political bios. But then, I've got my own POV, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Sandy. But I'm a patient guy, I know reviewing is hard and reviewers are at a premium. And yes you are right about the stability criterion interpretation changing – in two others I was involved with, the John McCain article made FA less than three months before the general election, and in the next election cycle the Mitt Romney article got promoted four days before his general election! It was considered a positive sign of WP's ability to achieve high quality at any time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks all. I was surprised by the lack of reviews myself. Tezero, I understand your concern with the idea that some articles might be considered more 'worthy' than others, but this is after all about a major political figure, an article that has been mentioned several times in the media, etc. Sometimes I think that the 'bigger' the article, the longer it takes for one reviewer to make the first move... Anyway, Sandy's post seems to have raised awareness of this article at least. In terms of attracting attention to nominations in general, I never discourage people from posting neutrally worded notes around the place, like project talk pages (occasionally when I think an article with good project-related support needs an 'outside' opinion I'll specifically ask an experienced reviewer if they could take a look, but that doesn't apply until several reviews have taken place). For languishing noms, I also try to re-populate the 'FAC urgents' list at the top of this page every week or so (I've probably missed this past week I admit). I welcome other suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will admit that I considered reviewing it upon first seeing it, but was intimidated by the size. In the meantime, I can try my teeth at another FAC or GAN, but I'll take a look at this a little later on if no one else does. Tezero (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA length

While much has changed, one thing that has been stable for as many years as I have been reviewing is the recommendation of a 10,000 word limit at WP:SIZE, because of reader attention. WTR is a good writer, but I still oppose any article that exceeds recommended size. There are numerous FAs still on the books that have grown substantially since passing FAC. That means they have considerable text that has not been vetted in an FA review process.

Has anyone started a list of the ultra-long FAs, specifically those that have significant unvetted text, with the aim of reviewing them at FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably start with all FA that are also BLP because there will inevitably be life developments. Logical to start from the one promoted the longest ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that too, but way back when this list was generated, it was the Dynasty articles that had grown by as much as 30% post-FAC. It would be so good if we had a comprehensive list of all articles needing review (whether for ColonelHenry hoax/socking, significant growth since promotion, or length of time from review), similar to what was once done at WP:URFA (which the good Dr is keeping track of, but that list is years old). Then, it would be grand if we had some list-making, record-keeping types involved at FAR to help process through these systematically. I realize that Dweller's list looks at those that haven't been TFA, but that is just a subset of the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Ketuanan Melayu. HUGE article (15,000 words of prose, 50% more than recommendation at WP:SIZE). Promoted in 2006. Never reviewed. Principal editor long, long gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about setting up a process (perhaps bot mediated) to remove all FAs from the list after an agreed term. Then ending FAR and replacing it with Former Featured Article Review, where active editors can nominate former FAs for reinstatement in a process similar to FAC? Graham Beards (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be that, before we even begin to discuss solutions, we get an idea of the magnitude of the issue. How bad, or not, the problem is will inform best solutions. In "older" days, Gimme or Dr pda would have bot-generated the lists for us. Who can generate a list of a) all FAs exceeding 10,000 words prose, and b) all FAs passed before <we need to pick a date> and unreviewed since <we need to pick a date>, c) all FAs written by or supported by ColonelHenry, and from there, we can add any BLPs of concern as mentioned by Wehwalt. My concern is that we will find that we have thousands of FAs needing review. If that is the case, it's not possible for current FAR processes to work. So, we need to know the scope of the problem.

Thank you for speaking up, Graham :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, Hawkeye7 indicates (below) that he can write these scripts. So we need to pick screening dates. And a new/separate discussion thread for discussing this separate from the tallying issues (Dr Kiernan, once those errors are all sorted, WP:FAS may need to be footnoted, since the diff links to the FA page are now no longer in sync with the chart [1]). Hawkeye, do you want to start a new thread to let us know what info you need for scriptwriting, or should I? And a ping to Nikkimaria, since this involves WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of bots

Speaking of bots (above at 16:49) reminded me of another concern. Gimmetrow's bots used to do all of the housekeeping of making sure the definitive list of WP:FA was accurate. Category:Featured articles shows 4,391 FAs, but WP:FA shows 4,424. Gimmebot also kept up with name changes in FAs, updating re-named FAs wherever they occurred, and he made sure the WP:FFA page was kept in sync. Is all of that being done? It doesn't appear so, since the FA category and tally are now well out of sync. Which Coordinator is watching issues like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category count is wrong: it is an artifact created by the way the wiki software works (it also gives an incorrect transclusion count of 4626 for Template:Featured article). Using AWB, there are 4424 pages transluding the template and 4424 pages in the category. DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that (it has always been true), but there were times when Gimme was able to bring them in to sync, and the bigger question is, has anyone checked the tally lately? I checked it monthly, by hand, to make sure no errors had crept in, until Gimme took over somehow (beyond my ken) doing it by bot. Dr, so nice to have you back in here again, with your institutional memory! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I know WP:FFA was accurate as of November 2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been regularly manually checking the FA count from the time we had that error caused by a redirect. Graham Beards (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmn. That's interesting. I get 4422 articles on the FA page. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne and Joker venom are masquerading as FAs. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Rana Muhammad Akram Khan. And why is 2nd Canadian Division linked on WP:FA without a FAC? DrKiernan (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: that's the redirected one? So, is that now an FA or not? DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be removed from the old talkpage (can be converted in a non-cat text comment) in my opinion. Anyway, I made a list of some remaining differences in the listings - see previous section. GermanJoe (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. No answers here, but these are the kinds of issues that can happen. ~~DrKiernan, can you move all of these posts (from 18:07) into the section above (speaking of FA-lists)? They seem to have ended up in the wrong discussion.~~ (DONE) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have pasted a numbered list list here. I get a total of 4423. If someone can spot where my checking is going wrong, I would be grateful. Graham Beards (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have the 2nd Canadian division in your list (which should be former FA, see end of next section). But there must be a second troublemaker - I'll crosscheck your list with mine. GermanJoe (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Line 200 is empty in your list (and FA-page has no entry there) - so 4,421 should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GJ. I have corrected the spreadsheet on my PC. I am glad there weren't too may errors. I'll update my sandbox in case others want to cross-check it. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch have taken the responsibility for updating the FA stats page over the last few years. DrKiernan, I've seen your changes to the figures, can I assume they're as a result of these false FAs you mentioned above? If so, did you work out how and when these began masquerading as FAs so we can monitor this more closely in future? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the false numbers were due to arithmetical errors: [2][3]. The false FAs were just a confounding factor easily dismissed. DrKiernan (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:DrKiernan, for specific errors identified. Once everything is settled, I will footnote the chart at WP:FAS to explain why tallies no longer match the FA month-end diffs. You all rock! Problem raised, problem solved, prontissimo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of FA-lists

Is anyone still using Category:Wikipedia featured articles (filled by the talkpage category as opposed to the article star) for statistics or anything else? Category:Wikipedia featured articles and Category:Featured articles are definitely out of sync.
Articles marked as "FA" without matching talkpage category (looks like some of the newer promotions didn't get the category on their talkpage):

~~American paddlefish, Australian raven, Ellen Wilkinson, Master System, Murder of Leigh Leigh, Nativity (Christus), Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman, Three Beauties of the Present Day~~, ~~Tony Hawk's Underground~~

non-FA redirect categorized as "FA" in the talkpage (due to an old move/merger):

~~2nd Canadian Infantry Division~~.

If the "Wikipedia ..." category is no longer in use, feel free to ignore that listing. GermanJoe (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After allowing for Tony Hawk's Underground and 2nd Canadian Division, I now get the same 4420 articles in both categories, transcluding the template and linked from WP:FA. That still leaves 2 out of 4424 articles unaccounted for. DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out articles have been fixed manually by DrKiernan (thanks) and me. GermanJoe (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the counter is wrong, an Excel import only lists 4,422 records. However Excel CSV import is notoriously unreliable, so I would have to write a script to double-check this. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the problem that raises is that when the error is found, WP:FAS (and perhaps some archives) will have to be fixed. I can't write scripts for double-checking, but if I can help fix FAS, please ping me. Would it be related to this from a year ago? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FACBot was having trouble with Tony Hawk's Underground due to hanky panky with the apostrophe. It should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the great new toolserver (yeah, that was sarcasm) is down again. I'll check the lists again, when it comes back up. Regarding SandyGeorgia's question: comparing the actual lists will only show actual differences; without a deeper analysis of the log histories (probably beyond my coding skills) I can't tell you exactly, when the error sneaked in. GermanJoe (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 more entry found: 2nd Canadian Division is listed as FA (it got "demoted" during a merger from 2nd Canadian Infantry Division). The old article name "2nd Canadian Infantry Division" should probably be listed as former featured article (?), although it does no longer exist in this form. Please double-check and fix (not sure, I know all statistic pages to fix this). GermanJoe (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current total number is 4,421 featured articles, based on FA-page and both FA categories. GermanJoe (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comment above? Graham Beards (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you all please point me to this FA demotion of the Canadian via merger? What can/might/should/? be done in a case like that is to create and archive a dummy FAR page, so records are accurate. What was done? Is it listed at FFA? Where do I look for the record-keeping? The merge discussion can be listed in a dummy FAR that goes in ArticleHistory, goes in FAR archives, and goes for the removal at FA and addition to FFA. Then our numbers would account for the merger, and there would be a record of what happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from WP:FA but I haven't added to WP:FFA because I am confused wrt the article history. Graham Beards (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I manually removed "currentstatus=FA" from the redirect's talkpage Talk:2nd Canadian Infantry Division to get the redirect out of the FA-category. The complete old talkpage is still at the former article's location (now redirect). GermanJoe (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi all, just arisen on this Sydney Sunday morning. I'll start here. Yes, I did notice something odd about this a while ago and raised queries on the article talk page about the validity of the merge and sought opinions about undoing it or leaving it and therefore having to demote it or put it through FAR. Unfortunately it seemed the main editor and even FAC reviewers weren't active any more and we didn't reach a conclusion. I hadn't come across this situation before but my bad for not just calling it one way or the other and either undoing the merge or demoting it -- I see Graham's done the latter now but I'd assume we should have a dummy FAR for record-keeping. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after six edit conflicts) OK, I've momentarily lost the plot, but will catch up :) If we need a dummy FAR for archives, I will create that and run it by Nikkimaria, but what I don't understand is that, since DrKiernan made the numbers sync, but this was removed without adjusting the tally,[4] how is the tally still correct? I still need to footnote WP:FAS to reflect this and the two other errors DrK found. Also, once I sort out whether we need a dummy FAR, what about listing at FFA? @Nikkimaria: again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if we get this all sorted and in FAR archives before tomorrow (month-end), we'll be month-end accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graham corrected the tally immediately before removal[5]. DrKiernan (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments needed

Anyone care to comment here: [6]? Graham Beards (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition

When I opened the FAC for Francis Poulenc I forgot to add it to the list on the FAC page. I've now done so, but am unsure if I ought to have put it at the top, as the review page is three days older than that of the entry immediately below it on the list. If the presiding authority here thinks Poulenc should be moved down, I shall perfectly understand. So sorry about this, and grateful thanks to the kind editor who pointed out the omission to me. Tim riley talk 08:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, as the FAC has already received some reviews, I have moved it down the list. I don't think this will be a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham! Apologies for my absent-mindedness. Tim riley talk 09:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another item I routinely checked manually (whether all FAC pages were transcluded), until GimmeBot took over doing that by bot.

Add this housekeeping item to the list of those I am inquiring about above.

Since both Gimme and Raul were chased off of Wikipedia by a sockmaster (the same one), who has taken over these routine leadership and housekeeping chores? Untranscluded FAC checking is one of those items. Which editor or coordinator is now doing the routine, tedious, time-consuming stuff ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check for untranscluded FACs using VeblenBot. I missed Tim's because I have been tied up with emails this week. Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Graham. Does your bot have the ability to count the number of FAs on the WP:FA page and make sure that agrees with the tally? (Similar for FFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my bot, and no. But see my comment above. Graham Beards (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. There's a note from Dana one my User Page, which serves as a constant reminder of the extra step needed when reinstating former FAs. Graham Beards (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my Bot. The FACBot does indeed check that pages are transcluded, but only sends me a warning. This is because it could be running at the time when someone is creating the FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ha :) Hawkeye7, are you willing or able to write the kinds of scripts we are discussing above (for generating lists of FAs for potential FAR review)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FA scripts

We are looking at three scripts for analyzing FAs:

all FAs exceeding 10,000 words prose
The trick here is figuring out how to count the words of prose.
all FAs passed before <we need to pick a date> and unreviewed since <we need to pick a date>
The ArticleHistory should contain this information, but from memory the early FAs have poor article histories
all FAs written by or supported by ColonelHenry, and from there, we can add any BLPs of concern as mentioned by Wehwalt
If we can find the nomination page, this is actually the easiest of the three to do.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does User:Dr pda/prosesize.js have what you need for #1? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, all early FAs have absolutely accurate ArticleHistory (Gimmetrow, Maralia and I went through every single one of them ... painstakingly ... which accounts for my high edit count!) Dr pda prosesize is what I use ...
So, I suggest all FAs promoted before 2011 (that is, thru 2010) for our first pass, that haven't been reviewed since 2010. I wonder, preliminarily, how many that yields? If that is too few or too many, then we adjust ? Thank you so much for taking this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]