Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Banksia

WT:BANKSIA

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 20 sections are present.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

{{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings for WP:BANKSIA

The template {{WP Banksia}} produces the same quality ratings for this project as for the general WP:PLANTS, i.e. ratings using this template appear in the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Assessment. However, looking at some of the articles, my impression is that the quality ratings for Banksia articles are rather low, compared tot WP:PLANTS as a whole. E.g. if it had a WP:PLANTS template, I wouldn't hesitate to change Ecology of Banksia from C to B. Am I over-impressed or is this project too harsh in its ratings? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We only have a couple of members, so we self-assess, and when self-assessing it is wise to be conservative. With respect to ecology of Banksia, this article was written before Dryandra was merged into Banksia, so the ecology article only reflect the ecology of about a third of the species. I think it was downgraded from B to C at that time. Hesperian 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with hesp - my rule of thumb is 'B' is fully sourced and comprehensive (i.e. striking distance of GA), C is with chunks un-inline reffed or some sizeable holes around, but cover most material...etc. Don't forget, many articles rate 'B' were rated before inline referencing was widespread and before there was a 'C' category, so many 'B's that are not fully inlined should really be Cs Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't wish to disagree with you two, and I now see the reason for a C for Ecology of Banksia. On the subject of B rated articles, I've skimmed some of those in WP:PLANTS (list here) and I agree that there are a few which are over-rated (e.g. Perilla was rated B until I reduced it to C). Compared to some other areas of Wikipedia, I think that plant editors are rightly quite tough, but we perhaps need to be careful not to get too tough. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia neoanglica, Banksia spinulosa sensu stricto and Banksia cunninghamii

The taxonomy of this species complex is being discussed in this paper, with implications for a number of articles within the scope of WP:BANKSIA. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha/well spotted! - glad to see this come out. I've spoken with 3 of the 4 authors about it....now to go read.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's in (a) style?

I ran across this paper on style morphology while checking up on Banksia grossa: Ladd, Alkema & Thomson, 1996. It doesn't appear to be cited for any Banksia articles, and while microscopic carpel architecture may be a bit much for a typical Banksia article, the abstract suggests it discusses the implications for pollinator specificity as well. Choess (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check that one before but it focusses on morphology at a very small level. I must have missed the bit on pollinators - I didn't think there was much on that but might have missed something useful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the abstract, so if you've already seen it, there's probably not much to it. Choess (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

This discussion is of interest to this project: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24#Category:Banksia_redirects. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to watch the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

endangered woodlands

Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain has just been declared "Endangered".[1] Hesperian 03:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hesperian: ....oh dear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

we've been aware of the this threat for the last 9 years File:Menziesii threats 01 gnangarra.jpg Gnan garra 00:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo's

Planning some trips to get more photos, let me know if there is any specific you need me to shoot. Gnan garra 02:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try speaking to me offline if you can - its obvious there are heaps of photoless one liners that need working upon... JarrahTree 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On here is fine, would hate to think people thought this project was abandoned. If theres a specific article you are working on or planning to just list them here no guarantees but.... will try to get images when they are flowering. Gnan garra 12:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least there wasnt a banksia p..... items listed below have no photo and minimal text

Banksia_cynaroides - florabase gives potential current flowering and within reasonable distance

Banksia_cypholoba - florabase gives potential current flowering and within reasonable distance

down south and more than an easy day drive

Banksia_alliacea -

Banksia_foliosissima -

Banksia_lepidorhiza -

Banksia_meganotia - later flowering

Probably about another hundred one liners from the full field that might be in flower in the short term, but have ot take into account the weather issues, some might be later or earlier... JarrahTree 12:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific species that is being worked up to GA/FA, I assume not all of these are going to be expanded at once Gnan garra 00:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the list was not specifically looked at for GA/FA, one liner stubs with no photo - ie nothing to identify by photo or text or region or anything JarrahTree 00:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any photos of anything would be good. the one that did not go to FA due to lack of photo was Banksia oligantha. I am happy to buff any that get photos. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

will run down to Wagin in 4-6 weeks so there is a good likelyhood of it being in flower, Gnan garra 11:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia telmatiaea

@Casliber, Melburnian, Circeus, JarrahTree, Gderrin, and MargaretRDonald: Hi Folks its been while but thanks to Wikimedia Australia as part of another project I was able to revisit the site where the Banksia telmatiaea type species was collected by Alex George. Some of you may remember this one created a bit of a ripple that ended back with George due to the significant variance between the plant in Kings Parks propagated from seeds he collected to the plant in its natural location(as an side to that the plant wasnt in the KP banksia garden a couple of weeks ago). Back in 2007 during the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia telmatiaea the question was asked by Melburnian why is this called the swamp fox banksia, in particular the "fox" aspect, there was no source that explained it for this or the Fox Banksia B. sphaerocarpa. I think a couple of these photographs demonstrate the reason for the "fox" component in the name as being from a visual characteristic dur the middle stages of flowering. Gnan garra 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Banksia telmatiaea[reply]

This one the fox tail like feature is developing
this one the fox tail fur feature has just past but its still there
this one is also showing the development of the fox tail like feature

I think we could revisit the article and give it a spruce up, Margaret could you check the Noongar Bush medicine book I left with you to see what it says about Banksias, I doubt this species will be specifically named even though its found on Whadjuk Noongar country close to where Aunty Vivienne lives, though there should be something about using the banksia in general. Gnan garra 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work @Gnangarra: Gderrin (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great new photos - yes, I can see a resemblance to fox-tail shapes in the flower buds. But looking at the Banksia sphaerocarpa article it says: "Three weeks before the flowers open, the spikes develop a strong musky smell" I'm now wondering if the original "fox" reference was to this smell perhaps being thought to be similar to the musky smell of foxes? Melburnian (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt notice any smell when taking photos but I wasnt specifically taking any notice either. Gnan garra 06:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirmuellera

While tidying up Banksia aemula for FAR-related reasons, I wound up looking up some sources and writing a new chunk of boilerplate for the spceis that were placed in this genus, as follows:

In 1891, Otto Kuntze, in his Revisio Generum Plantarum, rejected the generic name Banksia L.f., on the grounds that the name Banksia had previously been published in 1776 as Banksia J.R.Forst & G.Forst, referring to the genus now known as Pimelea. Kuntze proposed Sirmuellera as an alternative, referring to this species as Sirmuellera [epithet].^[1] This application of the principle of priority was largely ignored by Kuntze's contemporaries,^[2] and Banksia L.f. was formally conserved and Sirmuellera rejected in 1940.^[3]

How do members feel about using this in the other articles about species that Kuntze placed in Sirmuellera? Choess (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kuntze, Otto (1891). Revisio generum plantarum. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Arthur Felix. pp. 581–582.
^ Rehder, A.; Weatherby, C. A.; Mansfeld, R.; Green, M. L. (1935). "Conservation of Later Generic Homonyms". Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). 1935 (6/9): 368. doi:10.2307/4107078. JSTOR 4107078.
^ Sprague, T. A. (1940). "Additional Nomina Generica Conservanda (Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae)". Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 1940 (3): 99. doi:10.2307/4111642. JSTOR 4111642.

I can't see the point of repeating the same information about a genus name in every article about the many species. Kuntze is only briefly mentioned in the Banksia article itself. In some Banksia articles, we have long, repeated (and in my view boring) information about the taxonomy of the genus and little relevant information about the species itself, as in the Banksia acuminata article. Gderrin (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this would be inserted into about 47 articles—Kuntze recognized Dryandra and so most species in the current circumscription of Banksia L.f. do not have synonyms in Sirmuellera that need to be explained. IMO, we need at least one sentence per relevant taxon article to explain why Sirmuellera [epithet] is in the synonymy of that taxon; this is not strictly about the genus.

The "boilerplate" above is adapted from what @Casliber: has already inserted into all the FA-class Banksia articles with a combination in Sirmuellera. I'm not averse to trying to slim it—I agree with your general point about not wanting to repeat genus-level information on every species page—but I'd like to hear him weigh in first, as it would involve trimming down a number of FAs. Choess (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For FA-level comprehensiveness we've been keeping material like this on all species that were placed - despite it being a bit 'boilerplatey' it is in line with the comprehensiveness that has been expected of biological articles at FAC for several years now. So yeah my vote is to keep it in, sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried wordsmithing it down, but this is about as short as I could get it, although I welcome attempts at improvement. I'm going to gradually work through the taxa with a combination in Sirmuellera and add the appropriate variation on this, and make sure the synonym is in the taxobox and we have a redirect. I have tweaked Banksia a little; I think it's pretty well explained in more detail there.

As I have time over the next month or so, I'm planning to do a "recent lit review" like the one at Talk:Banksia integrifolia for other Banksia FAs to facilitate the FAR process. Choess (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated taxoboxes

Banksia taxa ~~are~~ were, as far as I can see, the largest single group of plant articles that still used manual taxoboxes. I have been working through them converting to automated taxoboxes (i.e. {{Automatic taxobox}} or {{Speciesbox}} as appropriate). As far as I could I have retained the display of ranks between genus and species that were in the original manual taxobox, although

the number present is inconsistent; some species articles only have the genus Banksia, others have up to subseries, series, section and subgenus (personally I don't think that species articles need all these)
the classification system used seems mostly to be George (1999), but not always; in taxonomy templates I have tried to keep to George (1999).

Please adjust the taxonomy templates if you think my classification isn't right. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the taxonomy templates I needed to create or use to automate the existing taxoboxes are listed below. The classification is based on that in Taxonomy of Banksia, which I think is based on George (1999), unless otherwise noted below. The taxonomy templates need to have |refs= completed. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly italicized page titles

I'm aware that right now page titles like the one at Banksia subser. Longistyles are incorrectly italicized. They can be forced to be correct manually, as at Banksia subser. Banksia, but I am working on changes to {{Automatic taxobox}} which will fix this either automatically or in a simpler way. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Automatic italicization now works for botanical names with connecting terms; it's no longer necessary to add any kind of manual italicization. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kuntze, Otto (1891). Revisio generum plantarum. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Arthur Felix. pp. 581–582.

[2] Rehder, A.; Weatherby, C. A.; Mansfeld, R.; Green, M. L. (1935). "Conservation of Later Generic Homonyms". Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). 1935 (6/9): 368. doi:10.2307/4107078. JSTOR 4107078.

[3] Sprague, T. A. (1940). "Additional Nomina Generica Conservanda (Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae)". Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 1940 (3): 99. doi:10.2307/4111642. JSTOR 4111642.

[1]

[2]

[3]