Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Jumping Flash! Review it now
Hex Enduction Hour Review it now
The Oceanides Review it now
Westminster Assembly Review it now
Shortcut:
Featured article removal candidates
view edit
Pulaski Skyway Review it now
Tamils Review it now
O-Bahn Busway Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist
2014

Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism

2013

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

2010

Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review
Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3
Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2
Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1
Mar 15: GA Sweeps end
Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards

2009

Nov 2: Inner German border
Oct 12: Sounds
May 11: WP Birds
May 4: Featured lists
Apr 20: Valued pictures
Apr 13: Plagiarism
Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations
Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates
Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds
Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT
Feb 23: 100 FS approaches
Feb 16: How busy was 2008?
Feb 8: April Fools 2009
Jan 31: In the News
Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates
Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders
Jan 10: December themed page
Jan 3: Featured list writers

2008

Nov 24: Featured article writers
Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page
Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest
Oct 13: Latest on featured articles
Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview
Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images
Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch
Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August
Sep 1: Featured topics
Aug 25: Interview with Mav
Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Aug 11: Reviewing free images
Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July
Jul 28: Find reliable sources online
Jul 21: History of the FA process
Jul 14: Rick Block interview
Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June
Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine
Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources
Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale
Jun 9: Main page day
Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May
May 26: Featured sounds
May 19: Good article milestone
May 12: Changes at Featured lists
May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities
May 2 (late): Did You Know
Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes
Apr 14: FA milestone
Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence
Mar 31: Featured content overview
Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter
Mar 17: Changes at peer review
Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration
Mar 3: April Fools mainpage
Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories
Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity
Feb 11: Great saves at FAR
Feb 4: New methods to find FACs
Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer.
For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests[edit]

Edit notice for FAs[edit]

Last month TomStar81 (talk) got the idea for an editnotice for all MilHist articles to try and minimize disruptive editing and Nikkimaria (talk) pointed to the one that WP:MED uses for articles under its purview :

Attention editors Management of multiple sclerosis is one of the English Wikipedia's featured articles. While it is open for editing like any other, it has gone through a community review process where it was checked for high quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the featured article criteria, including a consistent citation style. It is requested that you discuss significant changes of text or images on this article's talk page before editing.

As a medical article, this article must also comply with Wikipedia's medical content and sourcing guidelines.

Having cleaned up any number of badly-cited, unsourced or incorrectly formatted changes to FAs over the years, I think something like this would be a great idea for high-quality articles. The basic language of the MED editnotice would work fine for us although I'd add that date formats, EngVar, etc., should conform to the existing style of the article. Once we've established the exact language, I'd hope that Hawkeye7 could modify the FACBot to add it to new FAs and perhaps a task could be added to an existing bot to add it to the existing articles. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% behind this. While I know our editors mean well, the top 1% or so of the articles that have an FA-Class rating and the bronze star need to adhere to certain standards, and I think it best that the community is notified upfront that these articles need to be maintained at a certain level so as to remain quality articles. I was unaware that MED had a template for this purpose, however since this fact was brought to my attention I am of the opinion that it will be a much needed and very welcome addition to FA-Class articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Years ago I would have said No. Now I've drifted from Purist to Pragmatist, esp. since this still does not prevent new editing. +S. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Fully behind this idea, though I'd suggest that the notice advises users to discuss a change on the article's talk page (Talk:{{PAGENAME}} should work, right?), which has the benefit of inviting users to collaborate and possibility opening an avenue for them to learn about editing through discussion. GRAPPLE X 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be a pragmatic solution. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea. Seeing the support here, perhaps we should seek broader consensus and start an WP:RfC with a concrete proposal? Wugapodes (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. The wording above has been taken and customised from WP:OWN, it has no shortcut to this section for edit summaries, perhaps it should?
While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner LinkFA-star.png) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. The {{article history}} template on the talk page will contain a link to the Featured article candidacy and any subsequent Featured article reviews. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the wording, though I would take out Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership. as I don't think that's particularly relevant to editing. Because the text is Creative Commons, We must link to it for attribution purposes, but I believe we can provide attribution in the edit summary when we add it to pages. Wugapodes (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not suggesting that wording is used, just showing where it was derived from. An edit notice on the editing screen would need to be much shorter (and in big red letters!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm personally in favor of such a notice, I fear that some in the broader community might take it as implying article ownership, see for example this discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Implications of article ownership might be an issue, but it seems from the discussion that the problem was the (now deleted) wording of the template which listed a particular editor. From the closer's comment, it seems like the community might be willing to think about particular wording for something along this line. Wugapodes (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
If no editor is named then there is no ownership problem which is what WP:OWN stresses in relation to FA stewardship, any notice would relate to the community's wish to maintain high standards. I hope this idea is followed through, it might encourage me to nominate more articles for a standard that I tell friends is just about the only type of WP article that can be trusted to be accurate. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC bot problem?[edit]

I noticed on my previous FAC nomination the text on the article talk page did not update after the FAC nomination page was started, so a redlink was still left in place. I've now seen it happen on another nom, despite the nom page being active:

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
Please feel free to initiate the nomination.
Also edit here and add {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isabella Beeton/archive1}} to the top of the list.

I thought this may be a problem with my PC, but I've purged the cache and it's still there, and another editor has also commented that it needs to be looked at. Anyone got any thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks fine to me; I suspect this is a local cacheing issue at your end. Try opening it in another browser. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Odd. It's working OK now, but it wasn't a local caching problem: another editor pointed it out to me as a problem on their machine, and both my PC and tablet showed the redlink still in place. It looks like the bot is just running slowly, if it is a bot that makes the change. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the bot has anything to do with this. I think it's a database lag issue on the server side. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll nod sagely in agreement, even though I don't understand anything after "it's a..."! Thanks to all for your thoughts. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove FAR from list[edit]

Can we remove the FAR listings from the bottom of the FAC list? I recall that this was to be a trial of sorts, during SandyGeorgia's attempts to reform the FAR process. I haven't observed that it's been successful in drawing more attention to FAR listings, as I believe was the purpose. I do believe it's confusing for anyone scrolling through the master list to be suddenly in FARs. --Laser brain (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I must admit I don't think it has increased traffic at all, so I can't argue for it to stay....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I, for one, have commented on a couple of articles I wouldn't otherwise have been aware of... FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it should either be in the talk page box, or at the end of the project page listings, but not both, and I would favor the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Image/source check request" section[edit]

What do others think about putting the image/source check request section on a different page and simply transcluding it here (similar to how GA reviews are transcluded on the article talk page)? The benefit is that editors who want to get notified of image and source check requests can get them separately from these talk page notifications by adding that page to their watchlist. Perhaps its not a big deal, but I think it could be a minor improvement. I created the page Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests with the current content, so if there's interest in trying it out, we can transclude it. Wugapodes (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, the current section seems a bit like a makeshift solution... FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: I think that would be fine. I always feel like I'm spamming everyone's watchlist when I edit that list, and cause a reduction in visibility for other matters that are posted here. Ian Rose and Graham Beards? --Laser brain (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)