Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FACs needing feedback view •
Tyrone Garland	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Georg Forster	Review it now
O-Bahn Busway	Review it now

Featured content dispatch workshop

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.

History of tropical cyclone naming

Hi, I put this article up for FAC the other day here but i guess i must of forgotten to put it on the main page. How do we rectify this situation? Jason Rees (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It already got some input, so I would just transclude it in the right place.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I've added it. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Laser brain:.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' Church, Sleaford source review

Hello. I am new to the FAC process, but the above article now has 5 supports and no opposes, and is one of oldest noms. Am I right in thinking that it's time for a source review? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC).

I think so - have added your nom to the list at the top of the page as well. GermanJoe (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Nominations viewer giving incorrect support counts

The nominations viewer is giving incorrect support counts in a couple of cases. It says Oviri has two supports, for example, when it fact it has three; and conversely it says St Denys' Church has six supports, when it fact it has five. The support count is one of the most useful things about the viewer, and it would be good to make this more accurate. Can anyone who understands the script see what is causing the errors? I suspect that people putting "support" in section headings may be part of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a bit older post about the script's general search behaviour. Gary is maintaining the script, and is still active at times. Just checked the mentioned cases: "Oviri" has really only 2 bolded supports (the script is explicitly searching for bold formatting with ''' characters), "St Denys' Church" includes a bolded statement of "Not quite a support yet", which confuses the script (it accepts some additional leading and trailing bolded characters to allow short statements like "I support this nomination." as valid votes (up to 25 characters to the left and right, if I read the script correctly). Hope that helps a bit, but of course the script maintainer could give more detailed information. GermanJoe (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never learned javascript, and this one is a sterling example of why.. ah yes, GermanJoe is right, the Oviri problem is the semicolon syntax used by Coldcreation... still looking ...a nd yep, he's right again, the script doesn't understand the meaning of "not quite" and "yet" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How many co-nominations?

The guidelines currently say "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." Does this mean that a user can also only have two co-nominations at a time? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My reading, and in my experience, the practice, has been you are allowed one nomination as of right, presuming you are not in a 15 day period following a failed nomination. If you have a co-nom nomination, you're allowed a second nomination. It is irrelevant whether one is solo and the other joint, or both are joint works. Anything further requires discussion with a coordinator.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

yeah that was my understanding of it as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)