Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations Review it now
2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final Review it now
Featured article removal candidates
view edit
New Jersey Devils Review it now
Cerebellum Review it now
Marian Rejewski Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?


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


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


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]

Removing FA review candidates from FA candidates[edit]

See also Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive63#One-month trial transclusion of FAR to FAC

Can we remove the pages nominated for FA demoting? It looks kind of confusing since some months ago there were only the articles nominated for promotion. We have separate procedure for that matter, the Wikipedia:Featured article review, so basically the same nominees exist at two different places.--Retrohead (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See above. I'm wondering what specifically troubles you, because it has actually been helpful in bringing more eyes to FAR, which is finally moving again. By the way, FAR is not a nomination for "demotion": it's a page for review of featured status, hopefully with the aim of restoring articles to status! (PS: I have fallen down on reviews both at FAC and FAR because of IRL events, which should be settled now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That mandate expires tomorrow. Do the FAR coordinators plan to come in and give an interim report and a recommendation on extension? I have been wondering, frankly, about the marginal value of keeping it on the project page, as by now all FA regulars (who are most likely, as Ian alluded to above, to give worthwhile reviews) have had the opportunity to see the change and review the discussion, and are either participating, planning to, or otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought there'd been alot more review and movement on the FAR segment than the previous six months, so I thought it was a very good sign......? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sandy, I hadn't started editing Wikipedia yesterday and I know what is the purpose of FAR. The page title reads "FA candidates" so it would be logical only those nominees to be included here. Attracting other editors attention is not a valid explanation for that action, to me at least. I haven't seen a report if there's been increased activity at the review nominees, but again, if we have those pages listed here, then someone might ask why not to merge these two projects.--Retrohead (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Cas, if you think it's a help to you (and I don't want to make life hard for the coordinators) then I would have no objection to a reasonable extension. But I don't think FAR should be a permanent resident and at some point I would like to see an interim report from the coordinators, with the statistics one would expect, to gauge progress toward solving the problem. There were other potential solutions, such as "aging out" articles unless spoken for that could do with more discussion, should alternative ways be sought.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I very rarely get involved with FAR so I am commenting mostly as a FAC regular. I don't find the FARs at the bottom of the page a problem; particularly since the nominations viewer makes it trivial to skip over them if I want to. If others would prefer to see them removed I've no objection, but I'm fine with leaving them where they are, and if that helps move them along so much the better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been commenting on any FARs recently (waiting for the first old video games ones to pop up), but I find having it at the bottom of the page helpful for keeping track of them; I'd also point out, as to it being confusing, that the Featured List, Pictures, and Topics projects all include demotion requests on their regular nomination pages without issue. --PresN 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Aaah good point PresN. @Wehwalt:, it's not about whether it's a help to me as that is irrelevant. It's about the FAR entries being seen and commented on by more people and hence we are processing them more quickly, rahter than them gathering dust and cobwebs on a page that few people visit. Anyway, I agree that quantifying comments and throughput over a set period would be a very good idea and suggest we do this after another two months (say, end of March). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Longer if you like.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This removal of the separate heading and instructions for the two processes a few days ago does, IMO, lead to confusion about what is on the FAC page, so I removed the noinclude. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a slimmed-down version of the FAR header, appearing only on the FAC page via "includeonly" tags, is the answer? I "noincluded" the instructions because it seemed odd to me to start off with "This page [emphasis added] is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria (no, not "this page", but another page that is transcluded here for additional visibility) and unnecessary to have another copy of {{Fapages}} taking up space. BencherliteTalk 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
If the transclusion helped to increase FAR-traffic and is kept after the test phase, I'd prefer a slimmed-down FAR-box too, basically 2-3 introduction sentences and a few clear links to the FAR-coordinators and the full FAR-information would be enough. Currently the combined FAC/FAR page has over 5 full screens of rules and information - that's a bit overwhelming (even without FAR it was already crowded with text). A second point: if we keep FAR transcluded, the nominations viewer tool needs a small tweak: Currently this tool hides and shows the FAR-information together with the last FAC-nomination, but should handle it as separate text of course. That should be possible to solve, but I would have to ask the tool's developer (Gary). GermanJoe (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bencherlite, I am not well versed in how to best take advantage of noinclude tags, but what if ... brainstorming ... we had only one line added to the FAC instructions explaining that Featured article review is a separate process that is transcluded here, with a link to the full instructions at Template:FAR-instructions, so that we could then noinclude the FAR instructions here ?

On the idea of stats, anything above zero is good ... FARs were sitting without attention for as long as six months, and now the page is moving again. PLUG: there are still a couple that could use more eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR small box - draft[edit]

Something like this to go between FAC- and FAR-sections? (Feel free to tweak grammar and content) GermanJoe (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

I like it! BencherliteTalk 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No objections so far. I activated this version for now (can be easily reverted, if problems arise). If this works, I'll check with Gary, if such boxes can be ignored by the nominations viewer tool. The box can be found at Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox, if anyone needs to tweak something. GermanJoe (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The minor technical glitch should be solved now. The navbox will stay visible, with or without nominations viewer. GermanJoe (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for preliminary advice on potential nomination[edit]

G'day all. I am considering nominating 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) for FAC, but during the recent successful Milhist A-Class Review it was suggested that the article might be a bit "list-y" for FAC, and might need to go to FLC instead. Could the coords have a quick look and consider this issue? Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just scanning it now, looks to be more prose than list to me, hence I'd have thought more FAC than FLC -- but I welcome other opinions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. --Laser brain (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree; definitely too much prose for FLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
FAC, not FLC, but yes ... too listy for an FA and needs to be better prosified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why was my nomination closed?[edit]

I was away from my computer for two days and my nomination was closed after @SandyGeorgia: suggest that I withdrew the article from FAC. BTW, thanks SandyGeorgia for your review :) Anyways, I don't see why with just one review and less than a week that a nomination would be closed after one reviewer decided that it should be withdrawn from FAC because of sourcing? (in fact, just because of translation problems, nothing on prose) If my nominated article was still up, I wouldn't have withdrawn it from FAC, I would have gone to WP:Latin music and asked the community who are fluent in Spanish to have help with the Spanish-language sources that SandyGeorgia brought up. This could have been easily fixed, yes I don't know Spanish, but that doesn't mean that the Wikiproject that I am more active in would not have helped me. Granted if they couldn't, I would have withdrawn it until I could find someone who speaks Spanish or understands it at a higher lever than I do. I'm just saying that this isn't fair, the nomination should have continued even if I was inactive for just two days. Best, jona(talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The FAC instructions say "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:....a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." The article was not ready for nomination and SandyGeorgia was correct in suggesting that it should be withdrawn and the FAC coordinator followed procedure by archiving it. You can renominate the article again after two weeks from the archiving date. In the meantime you can address the issues raised. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested urgents[edit]

As it happens I've done more reviews than usual over the last couple of weeks, so I've had a fairly good look at most of the reviews in the older half of the page. I don't want to intrude on the privileges of the coordinators so I won't update the urgents list at the top of the page, but here are my suggestions if you're looking for something to review.

I've sorted by date; older nominations are at the top of this list. Everything else in the older half either has three supports already or looks like it's going to get three; I know this isn't a vote-counting exercise but since the reverse is true -- that a nomination without three supports is very likely to fail -- it's a good bar for the urgents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mike, since we didn't get round to updating the urgents list after last week's closures. FWIW, I don't think any of the coords is too precious about people updating the urgents as long as common sense is employed, such as you've done with this list... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
On Mike's suggestion, I had a look at the first two:
and found the prose so troubling in both that engaging would not be a productive use of limited reviewer time. Perhaps that's why people don't engage, and very old FACs that haven't gained support could be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for source review of Exhumation of Richard III of England[edit]

The current nomination of Exhumation of Richard III of England at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1 has not yet had a source review. Could someone possibly do one? It should be pretty straightforward... Prioryman (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Auction catalog as RS[edit]

Hi guys. Another editor suggested this auction catalog as a source for 1804 dollar, which I plan to take to FAC soon. It's a catalog from Heritage Auctions, which is a major auction house and probably the most well-respected firm for the auctioning of coins. The information in there would be useful for the article, but I'm not sure how FAC reviewers will feel about the catalog as an RS. Could I please have your opinions on that?-RHM22 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be considered a high quality RS. Major auction houses are very knowledgeable about coins. This exhibits itself not only in the catalogs, but in pieces for journals like The Numismatist—I know the top two finishers for the George Heath Literary Award for best researched article in that journal for 2013 were from auction houses.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Wehwalt, though for historical information I'd prefer scholarly articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the input so far. If it makes any difference, I would probably use the auction catalog primarily as a reference for prices reached at various auctions (not necessarily Heritage) through the years.-RHM22 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • From a reputable auction house, I'd definitely accept that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Crisco! I will introduce this reference to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How should the links to the full article/list at the end of the Today's Featured Article/List sections be formatted?[edit]

You may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of (Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bosnia and Herzegovina/archive2 This was nominated by a user involved in an edit war on the page. The page is fully protected. I took it down as a disrupticve edit, but probably overstepped my boundaries and will request here that FAC coordinators sort it out. Apologies if I was out of line. --Gaff (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks eminently sensible to me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI for the coords: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That actually took longer than I expected.... --Gaff (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Core Contest[edit]

is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting concept. I'm sure a lot of articles achieve higher quality. I'm also sure there's significant debate about which is best; it's just the nature of such things. HalfGig talk 13:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that looks fun. I may sign up, although as (bad) luck would have it, I'm tied up for two of the four weekends in March, so this may limit my ability. I don't particularly expect to win, but it's nice to get into something a bit collaborative. @Casliber: is it OK to take part even if I'm not certain of doing a vast amount of work?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Even buffing some broad articles is good and can be done quite quickly - take a look at some of the old entries pages. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FA sourcing crit[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#high-quality_is_undefined_and_non-consensual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)