Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for September 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 1 1 20 Jo-Jo Eumerus 11 5 SchroCat 15 1 UndercoverClassicist 9 Gog the Mild 8 750h+ 6 Mike Christie 6 Alavense 5 Hog Farm 5 Tim riley 5 AirshipJungleman29 4 Ceoil 4 ChrisTheDude 4 Matarisvan 2 2 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 Edwininlondon 2 1 Generalissima 1 2 John 3 Shushugah 3 Steelkamp 3 Vacant0 3 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Choliamb 2 Crisco 1492 2 Draken Bowser 2 Dudley Miles 2 Eem dik doun in toene 2 FunkMonk 2 MaranoFan 1 1 MSincccc 2 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy 2 Penitentes 2 Phlsph7 2 RoySmith 1 1 Sawyer777 2 Serial Number 54129 2 Wehwalt 2 AryKun 1 Aza24 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 BorgQueen 1 Borsoka 1 Casliber 1 CosXZ 1 DanCherek 1 Drmies 1 Dylan620 1 Epicgenius 1 Femke 1 Graeme Bartlett 1 Graham Beards 1 Guerillero 1 HAL333 1 Hawkeye7 1 HJ Mitchell 1 Hurricanehink 1 Ian Rose 1 Ippantekina 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Joeyquism 1 Jonesey95 1 Joy 1 KJP1 1 Llewee 1 LunaEclipse 1 Moisejp 1 NegativeMP1 1 Neutralhomer 1 Nick-D 1 NordNordWest 1 Noswall59 1 Paleface Jack 1 Pendright 1 QRep2020 1 Reidgreg 1 Rjjiii 1 Skyshifter 1 SnowFire 1 Sohom Datta 1 Ssilvers 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 ThaesOfereode 1 The ed17 1 Tomobe03 1 TompaDompa 1 Unlimitedlead 1 Vigilantcosmicpenguin 1 Voorts 1 Wolverine XI 1 Wtfiv 1 Wuju Daisuki 1 Totals 167 27 28

Supports and opposes for September 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 1 1 20 22 SchroCat 13 1 2 16 Jo-Jo Eumerus 16 16 UndercoverClassicist 5 4 9 Gog the Mild 7 1 8 Mike Christie 5 1 6 750h+ 4 2 6 Alavense 5 5 Hog Farm 5 5 Tim riley 5 5 Matarisvan 2 2 4 AirshipJungleman29 2 1 1 4 ChrisTheDude 3 1 4 Ceoil 3 1 4 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4 Vacant0 2 1 3 Edwininlondon 1 2 3 Steelkamp 3 3 John 2 1 3 Generalissima 1 2 3 Shushugah 3 3 Draken Bowser 1 1 2 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy 1 1 2 Serial Number 54129 1 1 2 MaranoFan 2 2 BennyOnTheLoose 2 2 Dudley Miles 2 2 Wehwalt 2 2 RoySmith 1 1 2 Phlsph7 2 2 Penitentes 2 2 FunkMonk 2 2 MSincccc 2 2 Choliamb 1 1 2 Sawyer777 2 2 Eem dik doun in toene 2 2 Crisco 1492 2 2 Dylan620 1 1 Drmies 1 1 ThaesOfereode 1 1 NordNordWest 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 QRep2020 1 1 Borsoka 1 1 Llewee 1 1 HAL333 1 1 Tomobe03 1 1 Graeme Bartlett 1 1 The ed17 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 Vigilantcosmicpenguin 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Paleface Jack 1 1 Casliber 1 1 LunaEclipse 1 1 Unlimitedlead 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 Ssilvers 1 1 KJP1 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Neutralhomer 1 1 Reidgreg 1 1 Wolverine XI 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Wtfiv 1 1 DanCherek 1 1 Noswall59 1 1 Rjjiii 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 Wuju Daisuki 1 1 AryKun 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 Skyshifter 1 1 Joeyquism 1 1 CosXZ 1 1 Aza24 1 1 Femke 1 1 Voorts 1 1 Joy 1 1 BorgQueen 1 1 Jonesey95 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 Sohom Datta 1 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 HJ Mitchell 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Totals 122 1 1 10 88 222

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for July 2024 to September 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 5.0 41.0 8.2 AirshipJungleman29 6.0 40.0 6.7 Aoba47 4.0 45.0 11.2 BennyOnTheLoose 4.5 10.0 2.2 Borsoka 3.0 10.0 3.3 ChrisTheDude 11.0 73.0 6.6 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 4.0 0.8 Dudley Miles 5.0 31.0 6.2 Dugan Murphy 3.0 10.0 3.3 Eem dik doun in toene 2.0 9.0 4.5 Epicgenius 7.5 18.0 2.4 FunkMonk 3.8 27.0 7.0 Ganesha811 2.0 None 0.0 Generalissima 8.0 43.0 5.4 HAL333 2.0 10.0 5.0 Hawkeye7 6.0 14.0 2.3 Heartfox 6.0 27.0 4.5 Hog Farm 5.0 33.0 6.6 Hurricanehink 1.5 14.0 9.3 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 207.0 34.5 Joeyquism 2.0 15.0 7.5 Kung Fu Man 2.0 None 0.0 Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0 Kyle Peake 3.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 4.0 2.0 0.5 LittleJerry 1.5 2.0 1.3 MaranoFan 5.0 18.0 3.6 Matarisvan 4.0 32.0 8.0 Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 6.0 60.0 10.0 NegativeMP1 2.0 10.0 5.0 Nick-D 3.0 14.0 4.7 Noorullah21 3.0 None 0.0 Paleface Jack 3.0 1.0 0.3 PCN02WPS 2.0 19.0 9.5 Peacemaker67 7.0 3.0 0.4 Phlsph7 6.0 13.0 2.2 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 5.0 2.5 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 33.0 3.5 PSA 2.0 4.0 2.0 RoySmith 4.0 45.0 11.2 SafariScribe 2.0 3.0 1.5 Sammi Brie 2.5 15.0 6.0 SchroCat 15.0 139.0 9.3 Serial Number 54129 3.0 46.0 15.3 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 SounderBruce 4.0 3.0 0.8 The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5 The Green Star Collector 2.0 None 0.0 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 9.0 2.2 Therapyisgood 2.3 6.0 2.6 Tim riley 5.0 50.0 10.0 TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 1.0 0.3 Turini2 2.0 None 0.0 UndercoverClassicist 6.0 95.0 15.8 V.B.Speranza 2.0 None 0.0 Volcanoguy 3.0 7.0 2.3 Voorts 6.5 19.0 2.9 WeatherWriter 2.0 None 0.0 Wehwalt 8.5 33.0 3.9 Wolverine XI 5.0 8.0 1.6 ZKang123 5.0 15.0 3.0 Zmbro 2.0 1.0 0.5

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Article that heavily uses one source

I'm considering Maria Stromberger for FAC, and I believe I've found all of the significant sources on this person. The problem is that one of them is much longer than the others. A few article-length sources have been written about her, but there's also one comprehensive book, a biography written by a historian who was given personal access to all of her records and documents. As a result, this one source dominates the article. I've highlighted the parts sourced to it at Special:PermaLink/1250335874, which is the majority of the article. Is this an issue in terms of the FA criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't see that it necessarily would be: criterion 1c is the most obviously relevant here, and that requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. If this really is a representative survey of the relevant literature (and "it's the only book-length work on her and was published within the last five years" seems like a good reason to believe that this is true) then I can't see what else in WP:WIAFA that would violate. That said, I can't immediately think of an example of an FA which is quite so reliant on a single source – Aspasia comes to mind as a subject with a single monograph which dominates the scholarship, but it was published in 1995 and there have been several relevant articles and book chapters since, so Henry accounts for only about half of the references. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Herman the Archdeacon is up there as well. Hog Farm _Talk 20:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a better example – looks like the only comment about sourcing which came up at FAC was Heavy reliance on Licence, but it looks like that's the main source that exists. So looks like it's not a dealbreaker (though that review had pretty light participation, so I guess mileage may vary depending on how thoroughly individual reviewers grill you about justifying it?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say it should be fine as long as the major facts are supported by other sources and any opinions are attributed. It's only a problem if one source is being used at the expense of all others. It's not uncommon, especially with biographies, to have one full-length book on a subject and lots of not-so-detailed sources. Those articles should still be able to become FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The other possibility I'd suggest checking is whether there are relevant non-English sources not currently used. Those can be difficult to track in languages you don't know. (Not specific to this article, which I recognize does include non-English sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I went over all of the other sources one more time and nominated the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional source reviewers

If there are any folks willing to process Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests it would be very much appreciated. Especially folks familiar with videogames and popular culture topics (e.g Feather (song)) - I review these too but I am always a bit uncertain on the quality of the sources vis-a-vis the FA criterium "high-quality reliable source", as I am more familiar with academic subjects than these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, you could sign off your SR at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tesla and unions/archive1, which has been hanging for ten days now. SerialNumber54129 18:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Would a bit more politeness for someone who has done 123 source reviews at FAC this year alone hurt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What impoliteness have you identified. SerialNumber54129 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I had the same reading of the "well, you could sign off..." as Airship: a "just checking whether you'd see this" on the talk page might have been more diplomatic. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That's been done. My question wasn't so much about sharing the workload and more about recruiting people who are familiar with these kinds of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water/archive1 is one item where I have mostly completed the review but need a 2nd opinion (the dot 3) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I've written my fair share of FAs on popular culture, I suppose I could do some but I'd rather not recuse that often so I might do it if nobody else turns up. FrB.TG (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am currently on a wiki break, but I could do some source reviews for some of the more pop culture/entertainment FACs. I will likely not be able to do too much, but I want to help out where and when I can as I know that are a lot of nominations and work involved with the FAC process in general. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

another

@FAC coordinators: may I nominate another article? (also to minimize needing to bug yall in the future, should I just presume its okay to nom a second article when it gets up to the required amount of source and prose reviews?) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I will respond here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: But you don't know what the required amount of source and prose reviews are. No one can; it's dependent on every discrete nomination, every particular review, every individual coordinator. SerialNumber54129 22:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, there's certainly articles that need special attention, but doesn't 3 prose reviews/1 image review/1 source review generally hold as a minimum bar below which a nomination will get archived? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

1. What has whether a nomination will fail to reach a consensus to be promoted got to do with whether the nominator can nominate a second article? 2. See my response on the nomination's discussion page. 3. As a very general "rule" a nom needs source and image passes and three explicit general "supports" (not reviews as this nomination has) before a coordinator will even move on to 4. the stuff SN correctly alludes to – the intangible and ineffable aspects of a review page that we get the big bucks and the kudos for weighing and accrediting – and consider our binary output. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Basically what Gog said. Personally, I prefer to assess each nomination individually before allowing a second one. Although the minimum requirement of three supports, along with completed image and source reviews, is essential, I still examine the depth and quality of the reviews and the overall state of the article. FrB.TG (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus apparently calls for the inclusion of material that fails the FA criteria

What do we do in situation like this where it's claimed a consensus of editors favors a version that in my opinion does not meet the FA criteria, specifically 1c, 1d, and 4? (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

And in the consensus of other editors (myself included), that version meets these criteria more than the previous one... I will also note that nowhere, including in the linked discussion, you have expressed any concern about the sources used - until now. If you have concerns about some sources used, please discuss them on the article's talk page. They seem quite reliable to me, and they don't concern any REDFLAG content. Seriously, you are making a fuss over clarification of imprecise claim from your version (which stated "magnitude lower" that I have made more precise by adding "two to three percent", and addition of a single sentence linking to a directly relevant article about the group mentioned, i.e. Polish POWs (yes, it was longer before, I shortened it per consensus on talk, which you did not seem to have noticed)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not sure how you even got all these editors to express interest in a discussion. Where was the notification?

The editor who considers a source HQRS is obviously the one who should be expected to defend it. In my opinion, the Piotrowski source is not HQRS and I have no idea about the other one.

For context, the editors on talk are trying to add content that is not about Soviet prisoners of war, and which no reliable source connects to the problem of Soviet prisoners of war, for "context". Naturally they add only one national group—the Poles—when as I mentioned, if this content is relevant several others are also—thus causing a POV issue where none existed before. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I see no problems with Piotrowski, I think we can remove this source as it is not necessary (particularly some details were removed). Other sources will suffice - feel free to remove him, I have no objection to this.

As for context, prior ("your") version already mentioned Italians and Poles; I've just added a precise estimate (which was already present for Italians, but not for Poles), and a blue link to a related article.

Since you mention 1c (well-researched), 1d (neutral) and 4 (length), IMHO (and I think in the opinions on others who commented there) it is your version who was not well-researched (missing the precise estimate and not mentioning clearly the existence of other similar groups). And adding one or two sentences is not an issue with length - let's be serious. Oh, and regarding your claim that sources do not discuss Polish and Soviet prisoners together - hogwash, as you should know from "your" version (ex. Gerlach 2016:165)

“ The treatment and death rates of Polish and Soviet POW differed in the extreme, although in ‘racial’ terms there was not much of a difference between them ”

Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [2] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [3] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• By the looks of it your argument has merit, but I don't believe it would be a good idea for anyone seeing this to comment as the above message is not neutrally worded, and could be considered WP:CANVASSing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I commented at the article talk page before I saw this last comment about canvassing. I agree there's no doubt about what Buidhe's opinion is, so by that definition it constitutes canvassing. It's not as bad as "please come and support my position", though. When I started reading the discussion one thought I had was that the stability criterion might be at issue, in which case the right advice could be to withdraw until agreement had been reached. That's in line with the original question: "What should the nominator do when the consensus of others makes an article worse in a nominator's eyes?" The other issue with canvassing is that you're not supposed to request comments at a forum where you think everyone will agree with you -- e.g. calling Wikiproject members to vote stack at a discussion. I don't think it was possible to predict how the miscellaneous group of FAC regulars would react, so Buidhe could not know whether the additional readers of that discussion would come down on her side or not. Still, I agree that making it even more neutrally phrased would have been better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's not in a bad location and it's not completely terribly phrased, but as you say it's obvious what buidhe's opinion is and let's be honest, most FAC regulars (certainly including myself) have probably taken her side of the argument before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for October 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 1 23 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 15 6 SchroCat 11 4 Mike Christie 12 Generalissima 7 1 3 Hog Farm 8 2 ChrisTheDude 9 Matarisvan 4 4 UndercoverClassicist 8 750h+ 5 1 FunkMonk 6 AirshipJungleman29 5 Edwininlondon 5 Tim riley 5 Crisco 1492 4 Dugan Murphy 3 1 Jens Lallensack 4 Llewee 4 Phlsph7 1 3 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 Aoba47 3 Dudley Miles 3 Gog the Mild 3 Mujinga 2 1 RoySmith 3 Serial Number 54129 3 TechnoSquirrel69 2 1 Vacant0 2 1 Buidhe 2 Chipmunkdavis 2 Draken Bowser 2 Gerda Arendt 2 Graham Beards 2 Hurricanehink 2 Nick-D 2 Sammi Brie 2 Sawyer777 1 1 Shushugah 2 Steelkamp 2 Wehwalt 2 2601AC47 1 Alavense 1 Arconning 1 Aza24 1 Bneu2013 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 BorgQueen 1 Ceranthor 1 D.Lazard 1 David Eppstein 1 Dumelow 1 Eewilson 1 Femke 1 Frietjes 1 GA-RT-22 1 GamerPro64 1 Ganesha811 1 GeoWriter 1 HAL333 1 Hawkeye7 1 Heartfox 1 IceWelder 1 IJReid 1 IntentionallyDense 1 Joeyquism 1 Joshua Jonathan 1 Kavyansh.Singh 1 Kung Fu Man 1 MaranoFan 1 Mathwriter2718 1 MSincccc 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 NegativeMP1 1 Paleface Jack 1 PanagiotisZois 1 Panini! 1 Pbritti 1 PrimalMustelid 1 Queen of Hearts 1 Remsense 1 Reppop 1 Rjjiii (ii) 1 SandyGeorgia 1 Shooterwalker 1 SilverTiger12 1 Sky Harbor 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Spy-cicle 1 Ss112 1 ThaesOfereode 1 The Rambling Man 1 Tintor2 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 WhatamIdoing 1 XOR'easter 1 Zawed 1 Totals 201 35 38

Supports and opposes for October 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 24 24 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 21 22 SchroCat 7 3 5 15 Mike Christie 12 12 Generalissima 5 6 11 Hog Farm 6 2 2 10 ChrisTheDude 9 9 UndercoverClassicist 6 1 1 8 Matarisvan 4 4 8 FunkMonk 4 2 6 750h+ 5 1 6 Tim riley 5 5 Edwininlondon 5 5 AirshipJungleman29 3 2 5 Llewee 4 4 Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 4 Phlsph7 4 4 Crisco 1492 3 1 4 Dugan Murphy 3 1 4 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4 Mujinga 2 1 3 Serial Number 54129 1 1 1 3 Vacant0 1 1 1 3 Gog the Mild 2 1 3 Dudley Miles 3 3 TechnoSquirrel69 3 3 RoySmith 1 2 3 Aoba47 2 1 3 Sammi Brie 2 2 Hurricanehink 2 2 Chipmunkdavis 2 2 Graham Beards 1 1 2 Shushugah 2 2 Buidhe 2 2 Steelkamp 2 2 Nick-D 1 1 2 Sawyer777 1 1 2 Gerda Arendt 2 2 Draken Bowser 2 2 Wehwalt 2 2 Dumelow 1 1 Joshua Jonathan 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 MSincccc 1 1 HAL333 1 1 Panini! 1 1 IntentionallyDense 1 1 Paleface Jack 1 1 Rjjiii (ii) 1 1 Heartfox 1 1 Eewilson 1 1 IceWelder 1 1 XOR'easter 1 1 Spy-cicle 1 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 1 PrimalMustelid 1 1 Pbritti 1 1 WhatamIdoing 1 1 Frietjes 1 1 Reppop 1 1 The Rambling Man 1 1 MaranoFan 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Aza24 1 1 ThaesOfereode 1 1 BorgQueen 1 1 IJReid 1 1 GeoWriter 1 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 D.Lazard 1 1 2601AC47 1 1 Sky Harbor 1 1 Alavense 1 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 1 Remsense 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 Zawed 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Kung Fu Man 1 1 Arconning 1 1 Kavyansh.Singh 1 1 Femke 1 1 Queen of Hearts 1 1 Joeyquism 1 1 Bneu2013 1 1 SandyGeorgia 1 1 PanagiotisZois 1 1 Ceranthor 1 1 SilverTiger12 1 1 David Eppstein 1 1 GamerPro64 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Mathwriter2718 1 1 Ss112 1 1 GA-RT-22 1 1 Ganesha811 1 1 Totals 135 21 118 274

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 5.0 47.0 9.4 AirshipJungleman29 8.0 43.0 5.4 Amir Ghandi 2.0 None 0.0 BennyOnTheLoose 3.5 10.0 2.9 Boneless Pizza! 1.5 5.0 3.3 ChrisTheDude 9.0 73.0 8.1 Darkwarriorblake 6.0 4.0 0.7 Dudley Miles 6.0 30.0 5.0 Dugan Murphy 3.0 14.0 4.7 Eem dik doun in toene 3.0 9.0 3.0 Epicgenius 7.5 17.0 2.3 FunkMonk 2.8 28.0 9.9 Generalissima 9.0 54.0 6.0 Hawkeye7 5.0 8.0 1.6 Heartfox 5.0 26.0 5.2 Hog Farm 6.0 42.0 7.0 Hurricanehink 1.5 16.0 10.7 Ippantekina 5.0 5.0 1.0 Jens Lallensack 3.3 28.0 8.4 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 221.0 36.8 Joeyquism 3.0 16.0 5.3 Kung Fu Man 2.0 1.0 0.5 Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0 Kyle Peake 4.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 3.0 2.0 0.7 Llewee 2.0 7.0 3.5 M4V3R1CK32 2.0 None 0.0 MaranoFan 5.0 14.0 2.8 Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 6.0 64.0 10.7 NegativeMP1 3.0 10.0 3.3 Nick-D 2.0 14.0 7.0 Paleface Jack 3.0 2.0 0.7 Peacemaker67 6.0 2.0 0.3 Phlsph7 7.0 15.0 2.1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 5.0 2.5 Pollosito 2.0 None 0.0 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 36.0 3.9 PSA 2.0 4.0 2.0 Sammi Brie 3.5 13.0 3.7 SchroCat 15.0 143.0 9.5 Serial Number 54129 3.0 45.0 15.0 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 SounderBruce 3.0 1.0 0.3 The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5 The Green Star Collector 2.0 None 0.0 Thebiguglyalien 5.0 4.0 0.8 Tim riley 5.0 49.0 9.8 TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 2.0 0.7 Turini2 2.0 None 0.0 UndercoverClassicist 5.0 93.0 18.6 Volcanoguy 4.0 7.0 1.8 Voorts 5.5 15.0 2.7 WeatherWriter 2.0 None 0.0 Wehwalt 8.5 31.0 3.6 Wolverine XI 5.0 8.0 1.6 ZKang123 4.0 13.0 3.2

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Science articles are underrepresented

For a long time there has hardly been any science articles at FAC. Perhaps someone could remind me of the last successful candidate? But we have one at FAC now which is not garnering much attention, which is a shame. I'm not canvassing for support, despite having given mine, but is there any chance of a few reviews? Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look within the next couple days, although I've got quite a bit going on IRL. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. I'll have time to review this weekend. I can take on the source review as well if no one beats me to it (please feel free to beat me to it). Ajpolino (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it was the most recent, but off the top of my head there was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lise Meitner/archive1 not that long ago (if biography articles on scientists count). TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Right now we have Otto Hahn being reviewed. Plus of course Virgo interferometer, at which additional thoughts would be most welcome. I assume that science is being used in a way which excludes biology and geology? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis/archive1 counts as a science article, no? It has seven participants but only one review and is at risk of being archived. Adding onto that, it is a former featured article, which should be getting more views, especially because of its notable impacts in the Greater Antilles and the United States. _ZZ^Z'S 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).

• Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
• Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (25 Aug)
• Dracunculiasis (22 May)
• Prostate cancer (22 Apr)
• Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) (7 Jan)

My apologies for any I missed. We need more. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You missed Hurricane Cindy (2005). Its nomination was successfull on 27 September. I'm still surprised that a less notable, damaging, and deadly storm was promoted, but Hurricane Dennis, the opposite, is at a significant risk of being archived. _ZZ^Z'S 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Socompa/archive1. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and my queue has just become too long. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the case with many articles, not just science ones. If FAs are maintained, this should not be a problem. Also, many science articles are remarkably static. See Maxwell's equations, which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. Graham Beards (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Aye, I know about Wōdejebato and relatives which also don't get much new research. I guess I just used up my space of "how many articles can I maintain" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Tiger was promoted July 25. LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

They do. _ZZ^Z'S 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Bonn–Oberkassel dog (Aug 8) counts as a science article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not call a typical hurricane article a science article. For sure, meteorology is a science, and there's plenty you can write about hurricanes in general which is about the science. But most of these are just cookie-cutter recitations of the specific facts about events that happen dozens of times a year. What was the track, where it made landfall, pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall, damage caused. That's not science, that's just a data dump wrapped up in prose form with carefully formatted references. RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree, was thinking the same. Just because a hurricane comes about due to scientific phenomena does not make discussion of individual hurricanes scientific per se. We might as well argue Taylor Swift is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏  — Amakuru (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just addressing the elephant (hurricane writer) in the room, I kind of agree, that hurricane articles aren't really "science". In fact, as a hurricane writer, I make attempts to make it hurricane articles not appear too scientific, so it is accessible to the average reader. This isn't about a proton or a black hole where you talk about years of research and tons of research papers. No, instead we rely on "pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall", all different tools to describe what actually happened, and why a single storm affected so many different people. Sometimes storms can even cause wars and disrupt national economies, but they're such short-lived events, that it's not like they're an ongoing thing worthy of significant research, not when a lot of storms are honestly pretty similar. They all do very similar things, with some slight variations. That's why I find them fascinating, and why I write about them, and I'm not going to stop writing about them since I think the vast majority of tropical cyclone articles are useful and interesting. But they aren't exactly "science", like some kind of hypothesis or idea, and admittedly there should probably be more articles on the study of meteorology. I'm gonna have to do something about that... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing my comments for now. Will post again when I've had more time to think about the content. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Should WP articles aspire to meet the FA criteria?

I have argued at Talk:Pacific Repertory Theatre here that they should. Another editor argues: "A good number of us simply could not care less about GA/FA thing." Who is correct? Or is there a middle ground? Feel free to comment there either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

When we created an encyclopaedia that anyone could edit, we were confronted with the possibility that someone my take that literally. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. So we created WP:Verifiability. People must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. We also have other policies, such as neutral point of view and no original research. How do we make sure that articles conform with our policies? By a process of peer review whereby articles are checked. That is where GA and FA come in. It is the means by which we ensure the quality, reliability, neutrality and integrity of the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to look at the content discussion at Talk:Pacific Repertory Theatre and see if you wish to express an opinion there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm generally of the opinion that all articles should strive for GA and FA standards, but isn't this a little WP:CANVAS-y? It seems like anyone avidly watching this talk page would have a special appreciation for the process. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. I am not sure why this needs to be discussed here, or of all the articles here, choose one of the more contentious one under an active disagreement over other things. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing my comment for now. Will post later when I've had more time to think about them. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers aspire to, yes. But not every article can be featured or good. That doesn't mean we accept everything, nor that FA and GA aren't good to shoot for, but if every article should be able to be an FA or GA, just make those the minimum criteria for an article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

FA and GA absolutely could be a shelf-queen. You could have an absolute stunning luxury plane that is stunning in everyway, win awards and all on the ground even if it can't fly, because the ability to fly isn't part of the presentablility evaluation.

One of the fundamental requirements for a company article to even exist on Wikipedia is satisfying WP:NORG but Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria lists out criteria that must be met to be FA, but GNG or NCORP isn't part of that. An ultra hyper local subject that's of great local interest and has been thoroughly and reliably documented in ultra hyper local sources can be polished up to pass these requirements. They can pass stability test like a lot of spam articles, because articles that only a few people care about tend to get left alone and pass stability test even if it fails NCORP.

It's not bad to have aspiration, but the desire for FA/GA can also be a great distraction and a source of bickering over aesthetics and presentation of a plane that ends up not being able to pass the minimum requirements of being able to fly. Graywalls (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What a misguided load of claptrap. It's covered in the second sentence of the criteria "In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles...", and satisfying GNG or NCORP is obviously part of that. Any article that doesn't pass basic notability guidelines won't make it through FAC - and there are many articles on local subjects that are both notable and at FA standard (to some extent, most things are "ultra hyper local", to use your hyperbole).

The bigger point you are missing in your tortured and woeful metaphor is that we (as a project) should aspire to get all legitimate articles developed up to as high a standard as is possible, using all the reliable sources we can, despite your misguided thoughts about the FA process. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_3#Notability_missing_from_GA_criteria one and not only one such discussion. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And...? This is FA, not GA and I've already indicated the second sentence that articles have to be in line with relevant policies. I'm not sure why we're going off on this rather pointless tangent: the thread is about improving articles, which this side topic certainly isn't about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how the conclusion makes sense here. The argument is that since some articles don't pass the notability guidelines, it's not worth improving any articles because...? Or is it that Pacific Repertory Theatre in particular isn't notable, and so it's not worth holding it to higher standards...in which case why isn't it at AfD? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

About a half dozen other Carmel, California-related articles were recently nominated for AfD, after editors had removed many of the refs, and much of the material in them. I detected this and restored key information and refs, and the AfDs failed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback would be meaningless without knowing what "aspire" in the OP means for the purposes of this discussion. It sounds like "nice idea" but could be reinterpreted as "be required to" or "any editor can apply GA or FA criteria to anything in an article which is neither. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the recent discussions at Pacific Repertory Theatre, it should be clear what the disagreement is about. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd adopt quite the same framing as taken here: that is, I think the answer is more-or-less "yes", but that making the discussion about the FA criteria in themselves might miss the point. All Wikipedia articles should aspire to be good (in the full knowledge that most will never get there, and that "good enough" today usually beats "perfect" tomorrow), and the FA criteria are generally good sense as to what makes a quality article. In general, arguing for a change that would make an article more in line with the FA criteria is arguing for its improvement, and arguing for a change that would move it further away is arguing for the opposite.

I think I'm right in saying that practically all of the FA criteria are covered somewhere in the other PAGs (for example, the requirement to be comprehensive is an extension of WP:DUEWEIGHT, the requirement for professional-quality prose is a summary of the WP:MOS, and so on), so it should in theory be possible to make a policy-based argument for working towards the FA standards without needing to assert that those standards in themselves are themselves relevant to a given article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, but the issue that I was asking about is deletion of referenced, relevant and, IMO, encyclopedic information from a particular article (and a group of related articles), and whether people think that these deletions do, in this case, follow these basic "aspirations" for WP articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that, in theory, you shouldn't need to convince anyone that all articles should aspire to FA standard to demonstrate that doing that is wrong -- you only need point at WP:DUEWEIGHT, which is policy, and that it says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. If it can be shown that a viewpoint is prominent in published reliable sources, it breaks WP:DUEWEIGHT (and so WP:NPOV) to remove it, assuming that all other criteria for its inclusion like copyvio, verifiability, BLP and so on are met. That's a lot harder to wiggle out of than the FA standards, especially in an article that's nowhere near FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but, for example, an editor there is arguing this. And see what Graywalls is arguing here (scroll up). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither that comment nor what Graywalls is arguing above seem related to the FA criteria applying or not. That comment seems to be about WP:ONUS (WP:V), while Graywalls is arguing about notability. CMD (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The editor said to me: "your idea of 'improving an article' is adding more and more and more content that you feel is 'important information to anyone who wants to understand the operations of the company'." This was in response to my general arguments that we should, indeed, restore content and citations (and then do more research and improve content further, and so forth, in an ongoing effort to improve the article towards higher and higher classes, aspiring eventually towards FA (though obviously most articles never actually reach that level). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with CMD: it's clearly a frustrating and difficult content dispute, and I'm not convinced that Wikipedia really has the tools to deal well with those unless everyone involved is well-informed and collegial, but the applicability of the FA standards is not the issue here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Seattle Kraken nom

Hello there. A couple months back, I nominated the article Seattle Kraken for FA, but after five weeks, it didn't get the needed amount of reviews, and the nomination was subsequently closed. I nominated it again 11 days ago and it still hasn't received any reviews. Any reasons why? Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think in this particular case it might be the topic. Popular culture doesn't fare brilliantly for FAC reviewers, and sports are even more niche (in that just liking 'sport' isn't enough, rather the sport itself). The article itself isn't in bad nick as it goes; no major MOS violations jump out, everything's cited, sources all seem OK, if news heavy (but that's probably inevitable for a relatively young team like this). SerialNumber54129 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, i forgot to mention that you're allowed—encouraged—to page reviewers who took part in the early FAC... SerialNumber54129 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Another reason might be that you haven't reviewed any articles at FAC, according to the FAC statistics tool. Reviewing articles helps editors learn the FA criteria, shows that you understand the criteria, and builds goodwill among editors. If looking for reviews, I always recommend reviewing articles yourself. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Echoing this, particularly the "goodwill among editors" bit. Reviewing takes time, and I'm more willing to take that time to help someone who has invested in the FAC process. Note that when Graham Beards asked for volunteers a couple sections above, folks jumped in to review. If you're wondering why, feast your eyes on Graham's reviewing stats and imagine the kind of goodwill the guy has stockpiled. Ajpolino (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC at WT:BLP

Drawing the attention of project editors to an RfC concerning a proposed change to WP:SUSPECT, which could affect relevant FACs. Interested parties should join this discussion. SerialNumber54129 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)