Misplaced Pages

talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:20, 25 November 2024 editSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,462 edits →Seattle Kraken nom: outdent← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:35, 6 January 2025 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,286 edits →Second nom? 
(39 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 50: Line 50:
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d
|counter = 94 |counter = 95
|maxsize= 250000 |maxsize= 150000
}} }}
{{dablink|Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding ] to ].}} {{dablink|Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding ] to ].}}
Line 65: Line 65:
For advice on conducting source reviews, see ]. For advice on conducting source reviews, see ].


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2024 == == FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 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 has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) 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 has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for September 2024}} {{collapse top|Reviewers for October 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" {| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# reviews''' !'''# reviews'''
Line 80: Line 80:
|- |-
|Nikkimaria |Nikkimaria
|
|1 |1
|1 |23
|20
| |
|- |-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus |Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1
|15
|6
| |
|-
|SchroCat
|11 |11
|5 |4
|
| |
|- |-
|Mike Christie
|SchroCat
|15 |12
|
|
|
|-
|Generalissima
|7
|1 |1
|3
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|8
|2
| |
| |
|- |-
|ChrisTheDude
|UndercoverClassicist
|9 |9
| |
Line 103: Line 121:
| |
|- |-
|Matarisvan
|Gog the Mild
|4
|4
|
|
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|8 |8
| |
Line 110: Line 134:
|- |-
|750h+ |750h+
|6 |5
|
| |
|1
| |
|- |-
|FunkMonk
|Mike Christie
|6 |6
| |
Line 121: Line 145:
| |
|- |-
|AirshipJungleman29
|Alavense
|5 |5
| |
Line 127: Line 151:
| |
|- |-
|Edwininlondon
|Hog Farm
|5 |5
| |
Line 139: Line 163:
| |
|- |-
|Crisco 1492
|AirshipJungleman29
|4 |4
| |
Line 145: Line 169:
| |
|- |-
|Dugan Murphy
|Ceoil
|3
|1
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|4 |4
| |
Line 151: Line 181:
| |
|- |-
|Llewee
|ChrisTheDude
|4 |4
| |
Line 157: Line 187:
| |
|- |-
|Phlsph7
|Matarisvan
|2 |1
|2
| |
|3
| |
|- |-
Line 169: Line 199:
| |
|- |-
|Aoba47
|Edwininlondon
|2 |3
|1
| |
|
|-
|Generalissima
|1
|2
| |
| |
|- |-
|Dudley Miles
|John
|3 |3
| |
Line 187: Line 211:
| |
|- |-
|Gog the Mild
|Shushugah
|3 |3
| |
Line 193: Line 217:
| |
|- |-
|Mujinga
|Steelkamp
|3 |2
| |1
| |
| |
|- |-
|RoySmith
|Vacant0
|3 |3
| |
Line 205: Line 229:
| |
|- |-
|Serial Number 54129
|BennyOnTheLoose
|3
|
| |
|1
|1
| |
|- |-
|TechnoSquirrel69
|Choliamb
|2 |2
| |1
| |
| |
|- |-
|Vacant0
|Crisco 1492
|2 |2
| |1
| |
| |
|- |-
|Buidhe
|Draken Bowser
|2 |2
| |
Line 229: Line 253:
| |
|- |-
|Chipmunkdavis
|Dudley Miles
|2 |2
| |
Line 235: Line 259:
| |
|- |-
|Draken Bowser
|Eem dik doun in toene
|2 |2
| |
Line 241: Line 265:
| |
|- |-
|Gerda Arendt
|FunkMonk
|2 |2
| |
Line 247: Line 271:
| |
|- |-
|Graham Beards
|MaranoFan
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|MSincccc
|2 |2
| |
Line 259: Line 277:
| |
|- |-
|Hurricanehink
|Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
|2 |2
| |
Line 265: Line 283:
| |
|- |-
|Nick-D
|Penitentes
|2 |2
| |
Line 271: Line 289:
| |
|- |-
|Sammi Brie
|Phlsph7
|2
| |
| |
|2
| |
|- |-
|Sawyer777
|RoySmith
|1 |1
|1 |1
Line 283: Line 301:
| |
|- |-
|Shushugah
|Sawyer777
|
|2 |2
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Steelkamp
|Serial Number 54129
|2 |2
| |
Line 301: Line 319:
| |
|- |-
|2601AC47
|AryKun
|1 |1
| |
Line 307: Line 325:
| |
|- |-
|Alavense
|Aza24
|1
| |
|
|
|-
|Arconning
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Aza24
|Boneless Pizza!
|1 |1
| |
Line 319: Line 343:
| |
|- |-
|Bneu2013
|BorgQueen
|1 |1
| |
Line 325: Line 349:
| |
|- |-
|Boneless Pizza!
|Borsoka
|1 |1
| |
Line 331: Line 355:
| |
|- |-
|BorgQueen
|Casliber
|1 |1
| |
Line 337: Line 361:
| |
|- |-
|Ceranthor
|CosXZ
|1 |1
| |
Line 343: Line 367:
| |
|- |-
|D.Lazard
|DanCherek
|1 |1
| |
Line 349: Line 373:
| |
|- |-
|David Eppstein
|Drmies
|1 |1
| |
Line 355: Line 379:
| |
|- |-
|Dumelow
|Dylan620
|1 |1
| |
Line 361: Line 385:
| |
|- |-
|Eewilson
|Epicgenius
|1 |1
| |
Line 373: Line 397:
| |
|- |-
|Frietjes
|Graeme Bartlett
|1 |1
| |
Line 379: Line 403:
| |
|- |-
|GA-RT-22
|Graham Beards
|1 |1
| |
Line 385: Line 409:
| |
|- |-
|GamerPro64
|Guerillero
|1 |1
| |
Line 391: Line 415:
| |
|- |-
|Ganesha811
|HAL333
|1 |1
| |
Line 397: Line 421:
| |
|- |-
|GeoWriter
|Hawkeye7
|1 |1
| |
Line 403: Line 427:
| |
|- |-
|HAL333
|HJ Mitchell
|1 |1
| |
Line 409: Line 433:
| |
|- |-
|Hawkeye7
|Hurricanehink
|1 |1
| |
Line 415: Line 439:
| |
|- |-
|Heartfox
|Ian Rose
|1 |1
| |
Line 421: Line 445:
| |
|- |-
|IceWelder
|Ippantekina
|1 |1
| |
Line 427: Line 451:
| |
|- |-
|IJReid
|Jens Lallensack
|1 |1
| |
|
|
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|
|1
| |
| |
Line 439: Line 469:
| |
|- |-
|Joshua Jonathan
|Jonesey95
|1 |1
| |
Line 445: Line 475:
| |
|- |-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|Joy
|1 |1
| |
Line 451: Line 481:
| |
|- |-
|Kung Fu Man
|KJP1
|1 |1
| |
Line 457: Line 487:
| |
|- |-
|MaranoFan
|Llewee
|1 |1
| |
Line 463: Line 493:
| |
|- |-
|Mathwriter2718
|LunaEclipse
|
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|MSincccc
|Moisejp
|1 |1
| |
Line 475: Line 505:
| |
|- |-
|MyCatIsAChonk
|NegativeMP1
|1 |1
| |
Line 481: Line 511:
| |
|- |-
|NegativeMP1
|Neutralhomer
|
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Paleface Jack
|Nick-D
|1 |1
| |
Line 493: Line 523:
| |
|- |-
|PanagiotisZois
|NordNordWest
|1 |1
| |
Line 499: Line 529:
| |
|- |-
|Panini!
|Noswall59
|1 |1
| |
Line 505: Line 535:
| |
|- |-
|Pbritti
|Paleface Jack
|1 |1
| |
Line 511: Line 541:
| |
|- |-
|PrimalMustelid
|Pendright
|1 |1
| |
Line 517: Line 547:
| |
|- |-
|Queen of Hearts
|QRep2020
|1 |1
| |
Line 523: Line 553:
| |
|- |-
|Remsense
|Reidgreg
|1 |1
| |
Line 529: Line 559:
| |
|- |-
|Reppop
|Rjjiii
|1
| |
| |
|1
| |
|- |-
|Rjjiii (ii)
|Skyshifter
|1 |1
| |
Line 541: Line 571:
| |
|- |-
|SandyGeorgia
|SnowFire
|1 |1
| |
Line 547: Line 577:
| |
|- |-
|Shooterwalker
|Sohom Datta
|1 |1
| |
Line 553: Line 583:
| |
|- |-
|SilverTiger12
|Ssilvers
|1 |1
| |
Line 559: Line 589:
| |
|- |-
|Sky Harbor
|TechnoSquirrel69
|
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|SNUGGUMS
|ThaesOfereode
|1 |1
| |
Line 571: Line 601:
| |
|- |-
|Spy-cicle
|The ed17
|1 |1
| |
Line 577: Line 607:
| |
|- |-
|Ss112
|Tomobe03
|1
| |
| |
|1
| |
|- |-
|ThaesOfereode
|TompaDompa
|1 |1
| |
Line 589: Line 619:
| |
|- |-
|The Rambling Man
|Unlimitedlead
|1 |1
| |
Line 595: Line 625:
| |
|- |-
|Tintor2
|Vigilantcosmicpenguin
|1 |1
| |
Line 601: Line 631:
| |
|- |-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|Voorts
|1 |1
| |
Line 607: Line 637:
| |
|- |-
|WhatamIdoing
|Wolverine XI
|1 |1
| |
Line 613: Line 643:
| |
|- |-
|XOR'easter
|Wtfiv
|1 |1
| |
Line 619: Line 649:
| |
|- |-
|Zawed
|Wuju Daisuki
|1 |1
| |
Line 626: Line 656:
|- |-
|'''Totals''' |'''Totals'''
|'''167''' |'''201'''
|'''27''' |'''35'''
|'''28''' |'''38'''
| |
|- |-
|} |}
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for September 2024}} {{collapse top|Supports and opposes for October 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" {| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations''' !'''# declarations'''
Line 650: Line 680:
| |
| |
|1
| |
|
|
|24
|24
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1 |1
|20 |
|
|
|
|21
|22 |22
|- |-
|SchroCat |SchroCat
|13 |7
| |
| |
| |
|1 |3
|2 |5
|16 |15
|- |-
|Mike Christie
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|12
| |
| |
Line 671: Line 711:
| |
| |
|16 |12
|16
|- |-
|Generalissima
|UndercoverClassicist
|5 |5
| |
Line 680: Line 719:
| |
| |
|4 |6
|11
|-
|Hog Farm
|6
|
|
|
|2
|2
|10
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9
|
|
|
|
|
|9 |9
|- |-
|UndercoverClassicist
|Gog the Mild
|7 |6
| |
| |
| |
|1 |1
|1
|8
|-
|Matarisvan
|4
| |
|
|
|
|4
|8 |8
|- |-
|FunkMonk
|Mike Christie
|5 |4
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1 |2
|6 |6
|- |-
|750h+ |750h+
|4 |5
| |
| |
| |
|2
| |
|1
|6 |6
|- |-
|Tim riley
|Alavense
|5 |5
| |
Line 719: Line 785:
|5 |5
|- |-
|Edwininlondon
|Hog Farm
|5 |5
| |
Line 728: Line 794:
|5 |5
|- |-
|AirshipJungleman29
|Tim riley
|5 |3
|
| |
| |
| |
|2
| |
|5 |5
|- |-
|Llewee
|Matarisvan
|2 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|2 |4
|4 |4
|- |-
|Jens Lallensack
|AirshipJungleman29
|2 |1
| |
| |
| |
|1 |1
|1 |2
|4 |4
|- |-
|Phlsph7
|ChrisTheDude
|3
| |
|
|
|
|
|4
|4
|-
|Crisco 1492
|3
| |
| |
| |
|1 |1
|
|4 |4
|- |-
|Dugan Murphy
|Ceoil
|3 |3
| |
Line 782: Line 857:
|4 |4
|- |-
|Mujinga
|Vacant0
|2 |2
| |
Line 791: Line 866:
|3 |3
|- |-
|Serial Number 54129
|Edwininlondon
|1 |1
| |
| |
| |
| |1
|2 |1
|3 |3
|- |-
|Vacant0
|Steelkamp
|3 |1
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|1
|1
|3 |3
|- |-
|Gog the Mild
|John
|2
| |
| |
| |
| |
|2
|1 |1
|3 |3
|- |-
|Dudley Miles
|Generalissima
|1 |3
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|2
|3 |3
|- |-
|TechnoSquirrel69
|Shushugah
|3
| |
| |
Line 834: Line 908:
| |
| |
|3
|3 |3
|- |-
|RoySmith
|Draken Bowser
|1 |1
| |
Line 842: Line 917:
| |
| |
|1
|2 |2
|3
|- |-
|Aoba47
|Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|2 |2
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|1
| |
| |
Line 861: Line 927:
| |
|1 |1
|2 |3
|- |-
|Sammi Brie
|MaranoFan
|
|
|
|
|
|2 |2
|2
|-
|BennyOnTheLoose
| |
| |
Line 878: Line 936:
| |
| |
|2
|2 |2
|- |-
|Hurricanehink
|Dudley Miles
|2 |2
| |
Line 890: Line 947:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Chipmunkdavis
|Wehwalt
|2 |2
| |
Line 899: Line 956:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Graham Beards
|RoySmith
|1 |1
| |
Line 908: Line 965:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Shushugah
|Phlsph7
| |
| |
Line 917: Line 974:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Buidhe
|Penitentes
|2
| |
| |
| |
| |
|2
| |
|2 |2
|- |-
|Steelkamp
|FunkMonk
|2 |2
| |
Line 935: Line 992:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Nick-D
|MSincccc
|2 |1
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
|2 |2
|- |-
|Sawyer777
|Choliamb
|1 |1
| |
Line 953: Line 1,010:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Gerda Arendt
|Sawyer777
|2
| |
| |
Line 959: Line 1,017:
| |
| |
|2
|2 |2
|- |-
|Draken Bowser
|Eem dik doun in toene
|2 |2
| |
Line 971: Line 1,028:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Wehwalt
|Crisco 1492
|2 |2
| |
Line 980: Line 1,037:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Dumelow
|Dylan620
|1
| |
| |
Line 987: Line 1,043:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Joshua Jonathan
|Drmies
|
| |
| |
Line 996: Line 1,052:
| |
|1 |1
|
|1 |1
|- |-
|Tintor2
|ThaesOfereode
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,005: Line 1,063:
| |
|1 |1
|-
|MSincccc
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1 |1
|- |-
|HAL333
|NordNordWest
| |
| |
Line 1,016: Line 1,082:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Panini!
|Ian Rose
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,025: Line 1,091:
|1 |1
|- |-
|IntentionallyDense
|Jens Lallensack
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,032: Line 1,097:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Paleface Jack
|Graham Beards
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,043: Line 1,109:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Rjjiii (ii)
|QRep2020
| |
| |
Line 1,052: Line 1,118:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Heartfox
|Borsoka
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,059: Line 1,124:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Eewilson
|Llewee
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,070: Line 1,136:
|1 |1
|- |-
|IceWelder
|HAL333
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,078: Line 1,143:
| |
|1 |1
|-
|Tomobe03
|1 |1
|-
|XOR'easter
| |
| |
Line 1,086: Line 1,151:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Spy-cicle
|Graeme Bartlett
| |
| |
Line 1,097: Line 1,163:
|1 |1
|- |-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|The ed17
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,103: Line 1,170:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|PrimalMustelid
|Pendright
|1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|- |-
|Pbritti
|Boneless Pizza!
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,124: Line 1,190:
|1 |1
|- |-
|WhatamIdoing
|Vigilantcosmicpenguin
| |
| |
Line 1,133: Line 1,199:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Frietjes
|Hawkeye7
|
|
|
|
|
|1 |1
|1
|-
|Reppop
| |
| |
Line 1,140: Line 1,214:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|The Rambling Man
|Nick-D
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,151: Line 1,226:
|1 |1
|- |-
|MaranoFan
|Paleface Jack
| |
| |
Line 1,160: Line 1,235:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Shooterwalker
|Casliber
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,169: Line 1,244:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Aza24
|LunaEclipse
|
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
Line 1,178: Line 1,253:
|1 |1
|- |-
|ThaesOfereode
|Unlimitedlead
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,187: Line 1,262:
|1 |1
|- |-
|BorgQueen
|NegativeMP1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|-
|SnowFire
|1 |1
|-
|IJReid
| |
| |
Line 1,203: Line 1,277:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|GeoWriter
|Ssilvers
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,214: Line 1,289:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Boneless Pizza!
|KJP1
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,223: Line 1,298:
|1 |1
|- |-
|D.Lazard
|Epicgenius
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,231: Line 1,305:
| |
|1 |1
|-
|Neutralhomer
|1 |1
|-
|2601AC47
| |
| |
Line 1,239: Line 1,313:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Sky Harbor
|Reidgreg
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,247: Line 1,323:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Alavense
|Wolverine XI
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,259: Line 1,334:
|1 |1
|- |-
|MyCatIsAChonk
|Hurricanehink
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,265: Line 1,341:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Remsense
|Wtfiv
|1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|- |-
|NegativeMP1
|DanCherek
| |
| |
Line 1,286: Line 1,361:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Zawed
|Noswall59
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,292: Line 1,368:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|SNUGGUMS
|Rjjiii
|1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|- |-
|Kung Fu Man
|Moisejp
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,313: Line 1,388:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Arconning
|Wuju Daisuki
| |
| |
Line 1,322: Line 1,397:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|AryKun
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,329: Line 1,403:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Femke
|Guerillero
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,337: Line 1,413:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Queen of Hearts
|Skyshifter
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,347: Line 1,421:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
Line 1,358: Line 1,433:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Bneu2013
|CosXZ
|1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|- |-
|SandyGeorgia
|Aza24
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|PanagiotisZois
|Femke
|1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|- |-
|Ceranthor
|Voorts
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,394: Line 1,469:
|1 |1
|- |-
|SilverTiger12
|Joy
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,400: Line 1,476:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|David Eppstein
|BorgQueen
| |
| |
Line 1,412: Line 1,487:
|1 |1
|- |-
|GamerPro64
|Jonesey95
| |
| |
Line 1,421: Line 1,496:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Hawkeye7
|TompaDompa
| |
| |
Line 1,430: Line 1,505:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Mathwriter2718
|Sohom Datta
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,439: Line 1,514:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Ss112
|TechnoSquirrel69
| |
| |
Line 1,448: Line 1,523:
|1 |1
|- |-
|GA-RT-22
|HJ Mitchell
|1
| |
| |
Line 1,455: Line 1,529:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Ganesha811
|Ippantekina
|1 |1
| |
Line 1,467: Line 1,542:
|- |-
|'''Totals''' |'''Totals'''
|'''122''' |'''135'''
|'''1'''
|'''1'''
| |
|
|'''10'''
|'''88''' |
|'''21'''
|'''222''' |'''118'''
|'''274'''
|} |}
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
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. ] (] - ] - ]) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) 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. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for July 2024 to September 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}} {{cot|Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" {| class="wikitable sortable"
! !
Line 1,486: Line 1,561:
|750h+ |750h+
|5.0 |5.0
|41.0 |47.0
|8.2 |9.4
|- |-
|AirshipJungleman29 |AirshipJungleman29
|6.0 |8.0
|40.0 |43.0
|6.7 |5.4
|- |-
|Amir Ghandi
|Aoba47
|4.0 |2.0
|None
|45.0
|11.2 |0.0
|- |-
|BennyOnTheLoose |BennyOnTheLoose
|4.5 |3.5
|10.0 |10.0
|2.2 |2.9
|- |-
|Boneless Pizza!
|Borsoka
|3.0 |1.5
|10.0 |5.0
|3.3 |3.3
|- |-
|ChrisTheDude |ChrisTheDude
|11.0 |9.0
|73.0 |73.0
|6.6 |8.1
|- |-
|Darkwarriorblake |Darkwarriorblake
|5.0 |6.0
|4.0 |4.0
|0.8 |0.7
|- |-
|Dudley Miles |Dudley Miles
|6.0
|30.0
|5.0 |5.0
|31.0
|6.2
|- |-
|Dugan Murphy |Dugan Murphy
|3.0 |3.0
|10.0 |14.0
|3.3 |4.7
|- |-
|Eem dik doun in toene |Eem dik doun in toene
|2.0 |3.0
|9.0 |9.0
|4.5 |3.0
|- |-
|Epicgenius |Epicgenius
|7.5 |7.5
|18.0 |17.0
|2.4 |2.3
|- |-
|FunkMonk |FunkMonk
|3.8 |2.8
|27.0 |28.0
|7.0 |9.9
|-
|Ganesha811
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Generalissima |Generalissima
|8.0 |9.0
|43.0 |54.0
|5.4 |6.0
|- |-
|Hawkeye7
|HAL333
|2.0
|10.0
|5.0 |5.0
|- |8.0
|1.6
|Hawkeye7
|6.0
|14.0
|2.3
|- |-
|Heartfox |Heartfox
|6.0 |5.0
|27.0 |26.0
|4.5 |5.2
|- |-
|Hog Farm |Hog Farm
|5.0 |6.0
|33.0 |42.0
|6.6 |7.0
|- |-
|Hurricanehink |Hurricanehink
|1.5 |1.5
|14.0 |16.0
|9.3 |10.7
|-
|Ippantekina
|5.0
|5.0
|1.0
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3.3
|28.0
|8.4
|- |-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus |Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0 |6.0
|207.0 |221.0
|34.5 |36.8
|- |-
|Joeyquism |Joeyquism
|2.0 |3.0
|15.0 |16.0
|7.5 |5.3
|- |-
|Kung Fu Man |Kung Fu Man
|2.0 |2.0
|1.0
|None
|0.0 |0.5
|- |-
|Kurzon |Kurzon
Line 1,600: Line 1,675:
|- |-
|Kyle Peake |Kyle Peake
|3.0 |4.0
|None |None
|0.0 |0.0
|- |-
|Lee Vilenski |Lee Vilenski
|4.0 |3.0
|2.0 |2.0
|0.5 |0.7
|- |-
|Llewee
|LittleJerry
|1.5
|2.0 |2.0
|1.3 |7.0
|3.5
|-
|M4V3R1CK32
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|MaranoFan |MaranoFan
|5.0 |5.0
|18.0 |14.0
|3.6 |2.8
|-
|Matarisvan
|4.0
|32.0
|8.0
|- |-
|Mattximus |Mattximus
Line 1,631: Line 1,706:
|Mike Christie |Mike Christie
|6.0 |6.0
|60.0 |64.0
|10.0 |10.7
|- |-
|NegativeMP1 |NegativeMP1
|2.0 |3.0
|10.0 |10.0
|5.0 |3.3
|- |-
|Nick-D |Nick-D
|3.0 |2.0
|14.0 |14.0
|4.7 |7.0
|-
|Noorullah21
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Paleface Jack |Paleface Jack
|3.0 |3.0
|1.0
|0.3
|-
|PCN02WPS
|2.0 |2.0
|19.0 |0.7
|9.5
|- |-
|Peacemaker67 |Peacemaker67
|7.0 |6.0
|3.0 |2.0
|0.4 |0.3
|- |-
|Phlsph7 |Phlsph7
|6.0 |7.0
|13.0 |15.0
|2.2 |2.1
|- |-
|Pickersgill-Cunliffe |Pickersgill-Cunliffe
Line 1,673: Line 1,738:
|5.0 |5.0
|2.5 |2.5
|-
|Pollosito
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Premeditated Chaos |Premeditated Chaos
|9.3 |9.3
|33.0 |36.0
|3.5 |3.9
|- |-
|PSA |PSA
Line 1,683: Line 1,753:
|4.0 |4.0
|2.0 |2.0
|-
|RoySmith
|4.0
|45.0
|11.2
|-
|SafariScribe
|2.0
|3.0
|1.5
|- |-
|Sammi Brie |Sammi Brie
|2.5 |3.5
|15.0 |13.0
|6.0 |3.7
|- |-
|SchroCat |SchroCat
|15.0 |15.0
|139.0 |143.0
|9.3 |9.5
|- |-
|Serial Number 54129 |Serial Number 54129
|3.0 |3.0
|46.0 |45.0
|15.3 |15.0
|- |-
|Skyshifter |Skyshifter
Line 1,715: Line 1,775:
|- |-
|SounderBruce |SounderBruce
|4.0
|3.0 |3.0
|0.8 |1.0
|0.3
|- |-
|The ed17 |The ed17
Line 1,730: Line 1,790:
|- |-
|Thebiguglyalien |Thebiguglyalien
|5.0
|4.0 |4.0
|9.0 |0.8
|2.2
|-
|Therapyisgood
|2.3
|6.0
|2.6
|- |-
|Tim riley |Tim riley
|5.0 |5.0
|50.0 |49.0
|10.0 |9.8
|- |-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula |TrademarkedTWOrantula
|3.0 |3.0
|1.0 |2.0
|0.3 |0.7
|- |-
|Turini2 |Turini2
Line 1,755: Line 1,810:
|- |-
|UndercoverClassicist |UndercoverClassicist
|6.0 |5.0
|95.0 |93.0
|15.8 |18.6
|-
|V.B.Speranza
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Volcanoguy |Volcanoguy
|3.0 |4.0
|7.0 |7.0
|2.3 |1.8
|- |-
|Voorts |Voorts
|6.5 |5.5
|19.0 |15.0
|2.9 |2.7
|- |-
|WeatherWriter |WeatherWriter
Line 1,781: Line 1,831:
|Wehwalt |Wehwalt
|8.5 |8.5
|33.0 |31.0
|3.9 |3.6
|- |-
|Wolverine XI |Wolverine XI
Line 1,790: Line 1,840:
|- |-
|ZKang123 |ZKang123
|5.0 |4.0
|15.0 |13.0
|3.0 |3.2
|-
|Zmbro
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|} |}
{{cob}} {{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) -- ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Science articles are underrepresented ==
== Article that heavily uses one source ==


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 ] 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? ] (]) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm considering ] 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 ], which is the majority of the article. Is this an issue in terms of the FA criteria? ] (]) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
: I'll try to take a look within the next couple days, although I've got quite a bit going on IRL. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:I can't see that it necessarily would be: criterion 1c is the most obviously relevant here, and that requires {{tq|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 ] 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 – ] 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. ] (]) 20:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:: ] is up there as well. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 20:58, 9 October 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). ] (]) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure if it was the most recent, but off the top of my head there was ] not that long ago (if biography articles on scientists count). ] (]) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a better example – looks like the only comment about sourcing which came up at FAC was {{tq|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?) ] (]) 21:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Right now we have ] being reviewed. Plus of course ], at which additional thoughts would be most welcome. I assume that science is being used in a way which excludes biology and geology? ] (]) 16:43, 11 November 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. ] &#124; ] 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::I believe ] 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 ] and the United States. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 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).
:::::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). ] (]) 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks everyone! I went over all of the other sources one more time and nominated the article. ] (]) 02:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


*Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
== Additional source reviewers ==
*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. ] (]) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
If there are any folks willing to process ] it would be very much appreciated. Especially folks familiar with videogames and popular culture topics (e.g ]) - 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. ] (]) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:Well, you could sign off your SR at ], which has been hanging for ten days now. ]'']'' 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? ] (]) 10:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What impoliteness have you identified. ]'']'' 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. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 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. ] (]) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::] is one item where I have mostly completed the review but need a 2nd opinion (the dot 3) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


:You missed ]. Its ] was successfull on 27 September. I'm still surprised that a less notable, damaging, and deadly storm was promoted, but ], the opposite, is at a significant risk of being archived. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
== another ==
:There is also ]. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and ]. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. ] (]) 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 ], which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. ] (]) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Aye, I know about ] 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" ] (]) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Tiger was promoted July 25. ] (]) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? ] (]) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They do. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think ] (Aug 8) counts as a science article. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 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. ] ] 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
{{@FAC}} 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?) <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 19:56, 27 October 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 ] is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏 &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 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 ] or a ] 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... ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 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. ]] 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:I will respond ]. ] (]) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply|Generalissima}} But you don't know what the {{tq|required amount of source and prose reviews}} are. No one can; it's dependent on every discrete nomination, every particular review, every individual coordinator. ]'']'' 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? <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 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{{snd}}the intangible and ineffable aspects of a review page that we get the big bucks and the kudos for weighing and accrediting{{snd}}and consider our binary output. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)


== Seattle Kraken nom ==
== Consensus apparently calls for the inclusion of material that fails the FA criteria ==


Hello there. A couple months back, I nominated the article ] 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. ] (]) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
What do we do in situation like 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? (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 01:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)


:To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. ] (]) 07:30, 25 November 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).<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:00, 28 October 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). ]'']'' 12:23, 25 November 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?
::<small>Also, i forgot to mention that you're allowed—encouraged—to ] reviewers ] ] part in the early FAC... ]'']'' 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
::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.
:Another reason might be that you haven't reviewed any articles at FAC, according to the . Reviewing articles helps editors learn the ], shows that you understand the criteria, and builds goodwill among editors. If looking for reviews, I always recommend reviewing articles yourself. ] (]) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::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. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 02:15, 28 October 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 {{U|Graham Beards}} asked for volunteers a couple sections above, ]. If you're wondering why, feast your eyes on and imagine the kind of goodwill the guy has stockpiled. ] (]) 20:20, 25 November 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.
::One caveat here is that we don't want "I'll support/oppose your article if you support/oppose mine"-type situations. Each article needs to be reviewed dispassionately. ] (]) 13:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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) {{cquote|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. for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), ("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. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 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 ], and could be considered ]ing. ] (]) 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. ] (] - ] - ]) 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. ] (]) 12:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)


== RfC at WT:BLP ==
== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2024 ==
Drawing the attention of project editors to an RfC concerning a proposed change to ], which could affect relevant FACs. Interested parties should join ]. ]'']'' 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Japanese and Farsi/Persian speakers needed ==
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 has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Reviewers for October 2024}}
There are two FAC reviews where the source spotcheck hinges on Japanese and Farsi/Persian sources. Specifically, ] for Farsi/Persian and ] for Japanese. Anyone who knows how to read them? ] (]) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Google Lens' translate function is quite good these days for translating pictures of documents. ] (]) 13:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Unfortunately not all of the problem sources are in image form; some are behind paywalls and stuff. ] (]) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

==Images in BLPs==
There is a thread at ] about adding images of BLPs, and possibly not passing FAC if no non-free one can be found. All comments are welcome. - ] (]) 19:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Strikethrough error ==

There appears to be some sort of error in one of the FACs as several of the listings in the "Older nominations" section have all their comments displayed with a strike-through. I was wondering if there was any way to have that fixed? I am guessing that it is an issue with one of the FAC that is bleeding out into the other FACs on the list. ] (]) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

==RfC at ]==

There is an RfC at ], an FA. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''. - ] (]) 05:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024 ==

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 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 has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for November 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" {| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# reviews''' !'''# reviews'''
Line 1,866: Line 1,930:
|- |-
|Nikkimaria |Nikkimaria
| |3
|1 |1
|23 |17
| |
|- |-
|SchroCat
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1 |14
|15
|6 |6
|
| |
|- |-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|SchroCat
|11
|4
| |
|7
|3
| |
|- |-
|Crisco 1492
|Mike Christie
|12 |9
| |
| |
Line 1,890: Line 1,954:
|- |-
|Generalissima |Generalissima
|7 |5
|1 |1
|3
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|8
|2 |2
|
|
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9
|
|
| |
|- |-
|Matarisvan |Matarisvan
|4 |6
|4 |1
| |1
| |
|- |-
|Hog Farm
|UndercoverClassicist
|8 |6
|
|
|
|-
|750h+
|5
| |
|1 |1
| |
|- |-
|Aoba47
|FunkMonk
|6 |3
| |2
| |
| |
|- |-
|Dudley Miles
|AirshipJungleman29
|5 |5
| |
Line 1,937: Line 1,983:
| |
|- |-
|UndercoverClassicist
|Edwininlondon
|5 |5
| |
Line 1,943: Line 1,989:
| |
|- |-
|750h+
|Tim riley
|5 |4
| |
| |
| |
|- |-
|Gog the Mild
|Crisco 1492
|4 |4
| |
Line 1,955: Line 2,001:
| |
|- |-
|Boneless Pizza!
|Dugan Murphy
|3 |3
|1
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|4
| |
| |
| |
|- |-
|Borsoka
|Llewee
|4 |3
| |
| |
| |
|- |-
|Ceoil
|Phlsph7
|1
|
|3 |3
| |
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|3
|1
| |
| |
|- |-
|Gerda Arendt
|Aoba47
|3 |3
| |
Line 1,991: Line 2,025:
| |
|- |-
|Graham Beards
|Dudley Miles
|3 |3
| |
Line 1,997: Line 2,031:
| |
|- |-
|Hurricanehink
|Gog the Mild
|3 |3
| |
Line 2,003: Line 2,037:
| |
|- |-
|Premeditated Chaos
|Mujinga
|2
|1 |1
|2
| |
| |
|- |-
|TheJoebro64
|RoySmith
|3 |3
| |
Line 2,015: Line 2,049:
| |
|- |-
|Tim riley
|Serial Number 54129
|3 |3
| |
Line 2,021: Line 2,055:
| |
|- |-
|AirshipJungleman29
|TechnoSquirrel69
|2 |2
|1
| |
|
|-
|Vacant0
|2
|1
| |
| |
|- |-
|ChrisTheDude
|Buidhe
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,039: Line 2,067:
| |
|- |-
|Cukie Gherkin
|Chipmunkdavis
|2
|
| |
|1
|1
| |
|- |-
Line 2,051: Line 2,079:
| |
|- |-
|Epicgenius
|Gerda Arendt
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,057: Line 2,085:
| |
|- |-
|Heartfox
|Graham Beards
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,063: Line 2,091:
| |
|- |-
|Jens Lallensack
|Hurricanehink
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,069: Line 2,097:
| |
|- |-
|MaranoFan
|Nick-D
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,075: Line 2,103:
| |
|- |-
|Medxvo
|Sammi Brie
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Sawyer777
|1 |1
|1 |1
Line 2,087: Line 2,109:
| |
|- |-
|PARAKANYAA
|Shushugah
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,093: Line 2,115:
| |
|- |-
|Phlsph7
|Steelkamp
|2
| |
| |
|2
| |
|- |-
|Piotrus
|Wehwalt
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,105: Line 2,127:
| |
|- |-
|Vacant0
|2601AC47
|1 |2
| |
| |
| |
|- |-
|Ajpolino
|Alavense
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,117: Line 2,139:
| |
|- |-
|Balon Greyjoy
|Arconning
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,123: Line 2,145:
| |
|- |-
|Biruitorul
|Aza24
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,129: Line 2,151:
| |
|- |-
|Caeciliusinhorto
|Bneu2013
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,135: Line 2,157:
| |
|- |-
|Choliamb
|Boneless Pizza!
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,141: Line 2,163:
| |
|- |-
|Czar
|BorgQueen
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,147: Line 2,169:
| |
|- |-
|Dugan Murphy
|Ceranthor
|1
| |
|
|
|-
|D.Lazard
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Eddie891
|David Eppstein
|1
| |
|
|
|-
|Dumelow
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|Eewilson
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,177: Line 2,187:
| |
|- |-
|Fifelfoo
|Femke
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,183: Line 2,193:
| |
|- |-
|Gen. Quon
|Frietjes
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,189: Line 2,199:
| |
|- |-
|HAL333
|GA-RT-22
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,195: Line 2,205:
| |
|- |-
|Hawkeye7
|GamerPro64
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,201: Line 2,211:
| |
|- |-
|IntentionallyDense
|Ganesha811
|1
| |
|
|
|-
|GeoWriter
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Ippantekina
|HAL333
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,219: Line 2,223:
| |
|- |-
|JennyOz
|Hawkeye7
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,225: Line 2,229:
| |
|- |-
|Joeyquism
|Heartfox
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,231: Line 2,235:
| |
|- |-
|Johnbod
|IceWelder
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,237: Line 2,241:
| |
|- |-
|Jonesey95
|IJReid
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,243: Line 2,247:
| |
|- |-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|IntentionallyDense
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Joeyquism
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,255: Line 2,253:
| |
|- |-
|Lankyant
|Joshua Jonathan
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,261: Line 2,259:
| |
|- |-
|Lazman321
|Kavyansh.Singh
|1
| |
|
|
|-
|Kung Fu Man
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|LittleLazyLass
|MaranoFan
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,279: Line 2,271:
| |
|- |-
|Mike Christie
|Mathwriter2718
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,285: Line 2,277:
| |
|- |-
|Mrfoogles
|MSincccc
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,291: Line 2,283:
| |
|- |-
|Mujinga
|MyCatIsAChonk
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,298: Line 2,290:
|- |-
|NegativeMP1 |NegativeMP1
|
|1 |1
|
| |
| |
|- |-
|Nick-D
|Paleface Jack
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,309: Line 2,301:
| |
|- |-
|Paleface Jack
|PanagiotisZois
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,321: Line 2,313:
| |
|- |-
|Relativity
|Pbritti
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,327: Line 2,319:
| |
|- |-
|RFNirmala
|PrimalMustelid
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,333: Line 2,325:
| |
|- |-
|Rjjiii
|Queen of Hearts
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,339: Line 2,331:
| |
|- |-
|Sammi Brie
|Remsense
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,345: Line 2,337:
| |
|- |-
|Shapeyness
|Reppop
|1
| |
| |
|1
| |
|- |-
|Shushugah
|Rjjiii (ii)
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,357: Line 2,349:
| |
|- |-
|SnowFire
|SandyGeorgia
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,363: Line 2,355:
| |
|- |-
|Srnec
|Shooterwalker
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,369: Line 2,361:
| |
|- |-
|The Rambling Man
|SilverTiger12
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,375: Line 2,367:
| |
|- |-
|Thelifeofan413
|Sky Harbor
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,381: Line 2,373:
| |
|- |-
|Thuiop
|SNUGGUMS
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,387: Line 2,379:
| |
|- |-
|Tintor2
|Spy-cicle
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,393: Line 2,385:
| |
|- |-
|TompaDompa
|Ss112
|
|
|1
|
|-
|ThaesOfereode
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,405: Line 2,391:
| |
|- |-
|Volcanoguy
|The Rambling Man
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,411: Line 2,397:
| |
|- |-
|Wehwalt
|Tintor2
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,417: Line 2,403:
| |
|- |-
|WikiOriginal-9
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,423: Line 2,409:
| |
|- |-
|Wtfiv
|WhatamIdoing
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,429: Line 2,415:
| |
|- |-
|Zmbro
|XOR'easter
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,435: Line 2,421:
| |
|- |-
|Zzzs
|Zawed
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,442: Line 2,428:
|- |-
|'''Totals''' |'''Totals'''
|'''201''' |'''155'''
|'''35''' |'''26'''
|'''38''' |'''27'''
| |
|- |-
|} |}
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for October 2024}} {{collapse top|Supports and opposes for November 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" {| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations''' !'''# declarations'''
Line 2,468: Line 2,454:
| |
| |
| |3
|24 |18
|24
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1
|
|
|
|
|21 |21
|22
|- |-
|SchroCat |SchroCat
|7 |8
| |
| |
| |
|3 |4
|5 |8
|15 |20
|- |-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|Mike Christie
|12
| |
| |
Line 2,497: Line 2,473:
| |
| |
|12 |10
|-
|Generalissima
|5
|
|
|
|
|6
|11
|-
|Hog Farm
|6
|
|
|
|2
|2
|10 |10
|- |-
|Crisco 1492
|ChrisTheDude
|9 |9
| |
Line 2,526: Line 2,485:
|9 |9
|- |-
|Generalissima
|UndercoverClassicist
|6 |3
| |
| |
| |
|1 |2
|1 |3
|8 |8
|- |-
|Matarisvan |Matarisvan
|4 |5
| |
| |
| |
| |
|4 |3
|8 |8
|- |-
|Hog Farm
|FunkMonk
|4
|
|
|
|
|2
|6
|-
|750h+
|5 |5
| |
| |1
| |
| |
|1 |1
|6 |7
|- |-
|Aoba47
|Tim riley
|5 |2
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|3
|5 |5
|- |-
|UndercoverClassicist
|Edwininlondon
|5 |4
|
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|5 |5
|- |-
|Dudley Miles
|AirshipJungleman29
|3 |3
| |
| |
| |
|2
| |
|2
|5 |5
|- |-
|750h+
|Llewee
|4
| |
| |
Line 2,595: Line 2,546:
| |
| |
|4
|4 |4
|- |-
|Gog the Mild
|Jens Lallensack
|1 |2
| |
| |
| |
|1 |1
|2 |1
|4 |4
|- |-
|Tim riley
|Phlsph7
|3
| |
| |
Line 2,613: Line 2,564:
| |
| |
|4 |3
|4
|- |-
|Premeditated Chaos
|Crisco 1492
|3
|
|
|
|1 |1
| |
|4
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|3
| |
| |
| |
| |2
|1
|4
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|3 |3
|
|
|
|
|1
|4
|- |-
|Gerda Arendt
|Mujinga
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,652: Line 2,584:
|3 |3
|- |-
|Hurricanehink
|Serial Number 54129
|1 |3
| |
| |
| |
|1
|1
|3
|-
|Vacant0
|1
| |
| |
|
|1
|1
|3 |3
|- |-
|Borsoka
|Gog the Mild
|3
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|2
|1
|3 |3
|- |-
|Graham Beards
|Dudley Miles
|3 |3
| |
Line 2,688: Line 2,611:
|3 |3
|- |-
|Boneless Pizza!
|TechnoSquirrel69
| |2
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|3
|3 |3
|- |-
|TheJoebro64
|RoySmith
|1 |2
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|2
|3 |3
|- |-
|Ceoil
|Aoba47
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,715: Line 2,638:
|3 |3
|- |-
|Vacant0
|Sammi Brie
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,724: Line 2,647:
|2 |2
|- |-
|PARAKANYAA
|Hurricanehink
|2
| |
| |
Line 2,731: Line 2,653:
| |
| |
|2
|2 |2
|- |-
|Draken Bowser
|Chipmunkdavis
|2 |1
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
|2 |2
|- |-
|Piotrus
|Graham Beards
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,751: Line 2,674:
|2 |2
|- |-
|ChrisTheDude
|Shushugah
|
|
|
|
|
|2 |2
|2
|-
|Buidhe
| |
| |
| |
| |
|2
| |
|2 |2
|- |-
|Heartfox
|Steelkamp
|2 |1
|
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|2 |2
|- |-
|MaranoFan
|Nick-D
|1 |1
| |
| |
|1
| |
| |
|1
|2 |2
|- |-
|AirshipJungleman29
|Sawyer777
|1 |1
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1
|2 |2
|- |-
|Phlsph7
|Gerda Arendt
|2
| |
| |
Line 2,803: Line 2,716:
| |
| |
|2
|2 |2
|- |-
|Epicgenius
|Draken Bowser
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,814: Line 2,728:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Jens Lallensack
|Wehwalt
|2 |2
| |
Line 2,823: Line 2,737:
|2 |2
|- |-
|Cukie Gherkin
|Dumelow
| |
| |
Line 2,829: Line 2,743:
| |
| |
|1 |2
|1 |2
|- |-
|Medxvo
|Joshua Jonathan
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,838: Line 2,753:
| |
|1 |1
| |2
|1
|- |-
|Lankyant
|Tintor2
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,850: Line 2,764:
|1 |1
|- |-
|IntentionallyDense
|MSincccc
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,857: Line 2,770:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Balon Greyjoy
|HAL333
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,865: Line 2,780:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Caeciliusinhorto
|Panini!
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,877: Line 2,791:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Ajpolino
|IntentionallyDense
| |
| |
Line 2,886: Line 2,800:
|1 |1
|- |-
|The Rambling Man
|Paleface Jack
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,895: Line 2,809:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Shapeyness
|Rjjiii (ii)
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,902: Line 2,817:
| |
|1 |1
|-
|Nick-D
|1 |1
|-
|Heartfox
| |
| |
Line 2,910: Line 2,825:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Paleface Jack
|Eewilson
|1 |1
| |
Line 2,922: Line 2,836:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Gen. Quon
|IceWelder
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,928: Line 2,843:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Joeyquism
|XOR'easter
| |
| |
Line 2,940: Line 2,854:
|1 |1
|- |-
|LittleLazyLass
|Spy-cicle
| |
| |
Line 2,949: Line 2,863:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Jonesey95
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,956: Line 2,869:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Zzzs
|PrimalMustelid
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Thelifeofan413
|Pbritti
|1
| |
| |
Line 2,974: Line 2,887:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|JennyOz
|WhatamIdoing
| |
| |
Line 2,985: Line 2,899:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Srnec
|Frietjes
| |
| |
Line 2,994: Line 2,908:
|1 |1
|- |-
|SnowFire
|Reppop
| |
| |
Line 3,003: Line 2,917:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Choliamb
|The Rambling Man
|1
| |
| |
Line 3,010: Line 2,923:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Lazman321
|MaranoFan
| |
| |
Line 3,021: Line 2,935:
|1 |1
|- |-
|WikiOriginal-9
|Shooterwalker
|1
| |
| |
Line 3,028: Line 2,941:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Mike Christie
|Aza24
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,039: Line 2,953:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Hawkeye7
|ThaesOfereode
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,048: Line 2,962:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Wtfiv
|BorgQueen
| |
| |
Line 3,057: Line 2,971:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|IJReid
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|GeoWriter
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,075: Line 2,980:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Thuiop
|Boneless Pizza!
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,084: Line 2,989:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Fifelfoo
|D.Lazard
|
| |
| |
Line 3,091: Line 2,995:
| |
|1 |1
|1
|-
|2601AC47
|
|
|
|
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|NegativeMP1
|Sky Harbor
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,111: Line 3,007:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Dugan Murphy
|Alavense
|1
| |
| |
Line 3,118: Line 3,013:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Wehwalt
|MyCatIsAChonk
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,129: Line 3,025:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Mrfoogles
|Remsense
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Czar
|NegativeMP1
| |
| |
Line 3,147: Line 3,043:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Rjjiii
|Zawed
|1
| |
| |
Line 3,155: Line 3,050:
| |
|1 |1
|-
|SNUGGUMS
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1 |1
|- |-
|Volcanoguy
|Kung Fu Man
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,174: Line 3,061:
|1 |1
|- |-
|RFNirmala
|Arconning
| |
| |
Line 3,184: Line 3,071:
|- |-
|Kavyansh.Singh |Kavyansh.Singh
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Femke
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,201: Line 3,079:
|1 |1
|- |-
|TompaDompa
|Queen of Hearts
| |
| |
Line 3,210: Line 3,088:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Johnbod
|Joeyquism
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,219: Line 3,097:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Panini!
|Bneu2013
|1
| |
| |
Line 3,226: Line 3,103:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Sammi Brie
|SandyGeorgia
|1
| |
| |
| |
| |
|1
| |
|1 |1
|- |-
|Zmbro
|PanagiotisZois
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,246: Line 3,124:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Relativity
|Ceranthor
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,255: Line 3,133:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Tintor2
|SilverTiger12
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,264: Line 3,142:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Biruitorul
|David Eppstein
|
|
|
|
|
|1 |1
|1
|-
|GamerPro64
| |
| |
Line 3,279: Line 3,149:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Eddie891
|Hawkeye7
| |
| |
Line 3,291: Line 3,160:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Shushugah
|Mathwriter2718
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,300: Line 3,169:
|1 |1
|- |-
|Mujinga
|Ss112
| |
| |
Line 3,309: Line 3,178:
|1 |1
|- |-
|HAL333
|GA-RT-22
|1
| |
| |
Line 3,315: Line 3,185:
| |
| |
|1
|1 |1
|- |-
|Ippantekina
|Ganesha811
|1 |1
| |
Line 3,328: Line 3,197:
|- |-
|'''Totals''' |'''Totals'''
|'''135''' |'''105'''
| |
|'''1'''
|
|'''1'''
|
|'''21''' |'''16'''
|'''118''' |'''85'''
|'''274''' |'''208'''
|} |}
{{collapse bottom}} {{collapse bottom}}
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. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC) 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. ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}} {{cot|Nominators for September 2024 to November 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable" {| class="wikitable sortable"
! !
Line 3,346: Line 3,215:
|- |-
|750h+ |750h+
|5.0 |6.0
|47.0 |51.0
|9.4 |8.5
|- |-
|AirshipJungleman29 |AirshipJungleman29
|8.0 |7.0
|43.0 |39.0
|5.4 |5.6
|- |-
|Amir Ghandi |Amir Ghandi
Line 3,359: Line 3,228:
|None |None
|0.0 |0.0
|-
|BennyOnTheLoose
|3.5
|10.0
|2.9
|- |-
|Boneless Pizza! |Boneless Pizza!
|1.5 |2.5
|5.0 |8.0
|3.3 |3.2
|- |-
|ChrisTheDude |ChrisTheDude
|9.0 |9.0
|73.0 |66.0
|8.1 |7.3
|- |-
|Darkwarriorblake |Darkwarriorblake
|6.0 |6.0
|4.0 |3.0
|0.7 |0.5
|- |-
|Dudley Miles |Dudley Miles
|6.0 |6.0
|30.0 |33.0
|5.0 |5.5
|- |-
|Dugan Murphy |Dugan Murphy
Line 3,389: Line 3,253:
|14.0 |14.0
|4.7 |4.7
|-
|Dxneo
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Eem dik doun in toene |Eem dik doun in toene
|3.0 |3.0
|9.0 |10.0
|3.0 |3.3
|- |-
|Epicgenius |Epicgenius
|7.5 |8.5
|17.0 |17.0
|2.3 |2.0
|- |-
|FunkMonk |FunkMonk
|2.8 |2.8
|28.0 |27.0
|9.9 |9.5
|- |-
|Generalissima |Generalissima
|9.0 |9.0
|54.0 |61.0
|6.0 |6.8
|- |-
|Hawkeye7 |Hawkeye7
|5.0 |5.0
|8.0 |7.0
|1.6 |1.4
|-
|Heartfox
|5.0
|26.0
|5.2
|- |-
|Hog Farm |Hog Farm
|6.0 |7.0
|42.0 |49.0
|7.0 |7.0
|- |-
|Hurricanehink |Hurricanehink
|1.5 |2.5
|16.0 |19.0
|10.7 |7.6
|- |-
|Ippantekina |Ippantekina
|5.0 |5.0
|5.0 |6.0
|1.0 |1.2
|- |-
|Jens Lallensack |Jens Lallensack
Line 3,442: Line 3,306:
|Jo-Jo Eumerus |Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0 |6.0
|221.0 |218.0
|36.8 |36.3
|- |-
|Joeyquism |Joeyquism
|3.0 |3.0
|16.0 |17.0
|5.3 |5.7
|-
|Kung Fu Man
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|- |-
|Kurzon |Kurzon
Line 3,464: Line 3,323:
|None |None
|0.0 |0.0
|-
|Lee Vilenski
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|- |-
|Llewee |Llewee
Line 3,484: Line 3,338:
|14.0 |14.0
|2.8 |2.8
|-
|Mattximus
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Mike Christie |Mike Christie
|6.0 |6.0
|64.0 |54.0
|10.7 |9.0
|- |-
|NegativeMP1 |NegativeMP1
|3.0 |3.0
|10.0 |11.0
|3.3 |3.7
|- |-
|Nick-D |Nick-D
|2.0 |2.0
|14.0 |15.0
|7.0 |7.5
|-
|Noorullah21
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Paleface Jack |Paleface Jack
|3.0 |3.0
|2.0 |3.0
|0.7 |1.0
|- |-
|Peacemaker67 |Peacemaker67
Line 3,516: Line 3,370:
|- |-
|Phlsph7 |Phlsph7
|7.0
|15.0
|2.1
|-
|Pickersgill-Cunliffe
|2.0
|5.0 |5.0
|2.5 |16.0
|3.2
|- |-
|Pollosito |Pollosito
Line 3,531: Line 3,380:
|- |-
|Premeditated Chaos |Premeditated Chaos
|9.3 |8.3
|36.0 |35.0
|3.9 |4.2
|- |-
|Relayed
|PSA
|2.0
|4.0
|2.0 |2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|- |-
|Sammi Brie |Sammi Brie
|3.5 |3.0
|13.0 |12.0
|3.7 |4.0
|- |-
|SchroCat |SchroCat
|15.0 |15.0
|143.0 |155.0
|9.5 |10.3
|- |-
|Serial Number 54129 |Serial Number 54129
|3.0 |3.0
|45.0 |39.0
|15.0 |13.0
|-
|Skyshifter
|4.0
|6.0
|1.5
|-
|SounderBruce
|3.0
|1.0
|0.3
|- |-
|The ed17 |The ed17
Line 3,571: Line 3,410:
|- |-
|The Green Star Collector |The Green Star Collector
|2.0 |3.0
|None |None
|0.0 |0.0
Line 3,577: Line 3,416:
|Thebiguglyalien |Thebiguglyalien
|5.0 |5.0
|4.0 |3.0
|0.8 |0.6
|- |-
|Tim riley |Tim riley
|5.0 |5.0
|49.0 |52.0
|9.8 |10.4
|- |-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula |TrademarkedTWOrantula
Line 3,596: Line 3,435:
|- |-
|UndercoverClassicist |UndercoverClassicist
|5.0 |6.0
|93.0 |89.0
|18.6 |14.8
|- |-
|Volcanoguy |Volcanoguy
Line 3,604: Line 3,443:
|7.0 |7.0
|1.8 |1.8
|-
|Voorts
|5.5
|15.0
|2.7
|-
|WeatherWriter
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|- |-
|Wehwalt |Wehwalt
|8.5 |7.5
|31.0 |29.0
|3.6 |3.9
|-
|Wolverine XI
|5.0
|8.0
|1.6
|-
|ZKang123
|4.0
|13.0
|3.2
|} |}
{{cob}} {{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC) -- ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
>>>


== Status of Virgo interferometer ==
== Science articles are underrepresented ==


{{@FAC}} What is the status of ]? Gog the Mild promoted it, FrB.TG ] for a spotcheck. , and I am not sure if what Hurricanehink mentioned is a spotcheck. ] (]) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
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 ] 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? ] (]) 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. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 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). ] (]) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Not sure if it was the most recent, but off the top of my head there was ] not that long ago (if biography articles on scientists count). ] (]) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Right now we have ] being reviewed. Plus of course ], at which additional thoughts would be most welcome. I assume that science is being used in a way which excludes biology and geology? ] (]) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::I believe ] 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 ] and the United States. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article ==
Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).


I would appreciate input at ]. This is one of my earliest FACs, and I would appreciate some additional thoughts to make sure I'm not being too harsh on myself; this one isn't really up to my current standard. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 04:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
*Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (25 Aug)
*Dracunculiasis (22 May)
*Prostate cancer (22 Apr)
*Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) (7 Jan)


== disputing archiving ==
My apologies for any I missed. We need more. ] (]) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


] was archived with 5 supports, 1 oppose (which had been mainly resolved), and 3 reviews currently in progress. I think this is very premature — the closer said that the most recent review by {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} showed that it was not ready for promotion, but this mainly consistented of minor text tweaks and recommendations that would be resolved in a matter of minutes. I feel that this should be reopened, though obviously I'm going to be biased in that respect; I wanted to see what everyone else thought. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 13:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:You missed ]. Its ] was successfull on 27 September. I'm still surprised that a less notable, damaging, and deadly storm was promoted, but ], the opposite, is at a significant risk of being archived. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:fwiw, although Ian didn't know this when closing, the rest of my review would not have been resolved in a matter of minutes; I was intending, among other things, to deeply question the reliance on one book so recently published I can find zero scholarly reviews of it. ] (]) 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:There is also ]. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and ]. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. ] (]) 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 ], which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. ] (]) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) ::Yeah, given that Airship's review so far was only on the lead and already included a couple of non-trivial comments, plus given the nom had been open for weeks already and had another outstanding oppose, I think a closure was reasonably justifiable, though of course disappointing. ] (]) 14:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Aye, I know about ] 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" ] (]) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC) ::Ah, that's fair enough I suppose. To PR! <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Tiger was promoted July 25. ] (]) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? ] (]) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They do. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think ] (Aug 8) counts as a science article. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


== On source reviews for foreign language sources ==
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. ] ] 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 ] is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏 &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 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 ] or a ] 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... ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


] came down to three sources that were offline and in Farsi. I know that ] to get at offline sources, but I wonder if anyone's sitting on a way to handle spotchecks or sourcechecks when the source to be checked is in a foreign language. Folks vouched for DeepL on Hungarian sources and I think Polish sources too, but is Google Translate reliable for translating Farsi? I don't feel comfortable with skipping certain sources just because it's too hard to verify them, so these need to be checked as well. ] (]) 11:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Removing my comments for now. Will post again when I've had more time to think about the content. Apologies. ]] 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
: found that GT was 67.5% reliable for translating medical phrases into Farsi. If the sources are linguistically complicated, I would expect the reliability to be around the same; if they are linguistically simple, the reliability will go up. GT has also improved since 2021. ] (]) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would assume good faith if other sources' spot-check did not indicate unverified statements or close paraphrasing. In this case, the nominator could also be requested to provide a translation. ] (]) 05:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Archive problem ==
==Should WP articles aspire to meet the FA criteria?==
I have argued at ] 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. -- ] (]) 04:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


There seems to have been a problem with the bot archiving ]. The bot has not added ] or ] to the page or updated ]. ] (]) 04:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:When we created ], we were confronted with the possibility that someone my take that literally. ]. So we created ]. People must be able to check that any of the information within Misplaced Pages 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 ] and ]. 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 Misplaced Pages. ] ] 04:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:Tks, I think I've located so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI {{u|Hawkeye7}}. Cheers, ] (]) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes. It has run now. ] ] 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


==Second nom?==
::Feel free to look at the content discussion at ] and see if you wish to express an opinion there. -- ] (]) 17:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
{{@FAC}} Would I be okay to pop in a second nom? ] has been going for a couple of weeks and has five supports and has cleared image and source reviews, so most of the heavy lifting appears to be done on that. No problems if you'd rather I wait a little longer, obviously. Cheers - ] (]) 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm generally of the opinion that all articles should strive for GA and FA standards, but isn't this a little ]-y? It seems like anyone avidly watching this talk page would have a special appreciation for the process. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:@] 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.--] (] &#124; ]) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, you would. ] (]) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (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.
::Thanks very much ] - that's great. Cheers - ] (]) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the fundamental requirements for a company article to even exist on Misplaced Pages is satisfying WP:NORG but ] 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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).{{pb}}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. - ] (]) 08:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::] one and not only one such discussion. ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 ] 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? ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:If you look at the recent discussions at ], it should be clear what the disagreement is about. -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ], the requirement for professional-quality prose is a summary of the ], 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. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 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. -- ] (]) 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 ], which is policy, and that it says {{tq|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 ] (and so ]) 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. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 21:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree, but, for example, an editor there is arguing . And see what Graywalls is arguing here (scroll up). -- ] (]) 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:V), while Graywalls is arguing about notability. ] (]) 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). -- ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 12:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Seattle Kraken nom ==

Hello there. A couple months back, I nominated the article ] 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. ] (]) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. ] (]) 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). ]'']'' 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:Another reason might be that you haven't reviewed any articles at FAC, according to the . Reviewing articles helps editors learn the ], shows that you understand the criteria, and builds goodwill among editors. If looking for reviews, I always recommend reviewing articles yourself. ] (]) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:35, 6 January 2025

    Shortcut
    Pages, tools and templates for
    Featured articles
    Articles seeking peer review
    before featured article candidacy
    Unanswered peer reviews
    FACs needing feedback
    view • edit
    Tesla Model S Review it now
    How You Get the Girl Review it now
    2007 Greensburg tornado Review it now
    Featured article removal candidates
    Boogeyman 2 Review now
    Shoshone National Forest Review now
    Northrop YF-23 Review now
    Emmy Noether Review now
    Concerto delle donne Review now

    Featured article review

    Talk notices given
    1. Diocletianic Persecution 2020-05-03
    2. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 2020-05-22
    3. Underwater diving 2020-09-15
    4. Józef Piłsudski 2020-09-25, 2021-08-07
    5. Supernatural (season 1) 2020-11-02
    6. Supernatural (season 2) 2020-11-02
    7. Kahaani 2020-11-18 2023-02-25
    8. Major depressive disorder 2020-11-20 2022-08-18 2024-11-19
    9. India 2020-11-29 and 2023-11-28
    10. 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash 2020-11-30
    11. Tumbler Ridge 2020-12-26 2024-11-19
    12. Glacier National Park (U.S.) 2020-12-30
    13. Ivan Bagramyan 2021-02-21
    14. Bird 2021-02-21
    15. Hamilton, Ontario 2021-02-22
    16. Comet Hyakutake 2021-02-22
    17. Mary Wollstonecraft 2021-03-03
    18. Postage stamps of Ireland 2021-03-11, 2023-03-25
    19. The Joy of Sect 2021-04-08
    20. The World Ends with You 2021-04-23
    21. Defense of the Ancients 2021-06-10
    22. Dwarf planet 2021-08-14
    23. Robert Garran 2021-10-09
    24. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna
      of Russia       2021-11-27
    25. Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04
    26. Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05
    27. Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05
    28. Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05
    29. Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05
    30. Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05
    31. Effects of Hurricane Ivan
      in the Lesser Antilles
      and South America       2021-12-05
    32. Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05
    33. Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 2021-12-05
    34. Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05
    35. Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05
    36. Effects of Hurricane Isabel in
      Maryland and Washington, D.C.       2021-12-06
    37. Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06
    38. Hurricane Isabel 2021-12-06
    39. Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06
    40. Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07
    41. Hubble Space Telescope 2022-01-08
    42. Dürer's Rhinoceros 2022-02-04
    43. Io (moon) 2022-02-13
    44. Solar eclipse 2022-04-30
    45. Manchester 2022-05-12
    46. Transformers (film) 2022-06-05
    47. Slate industry in Wales 2022-07-05
      Working
    48. Schizophrenia 2022-08-18
    49. Amanita muscaria 2022-08-26
    50. Battle of Corydon 2022-10-10
    51. White Deer Hole Creek 2022-10-22
      Work ongoing December 2022
    52. Mayan languages 2022-11-19
    53. Sentence spacing 2022-11-19
    54. Indigenous people of the Everglades region 2022-11-21
    55. First-move advantage in chess 2022-11-21
    56. King Arthur 2022-11-22
    57. Stephen Crane 2022-11-22
    58. Mark Kerry 2022-12-01
    59. California Gold Rush 2022-12-02
    60. Harry McNish Noticed 2022-12-03
    61. History of Lithuania (1219–1295) 2022-12-03
    62. Władysław II Jagiełło 2022-12-03
    63. David I of Scotland 2022-12-03
    64. Coeliac disease 2022-12-03
    65. Metabolism 2022-12-03
    66. Northern bald ibis 2022-12-09
    67. Cane toad 2022-12-09
    68. Boeing 777 2022-12-09
    69. Second Crusade 2022-12-09
    70. Delichon 2022-12-10
    71. Rock martin 2022-12-10
    72. Lion 2022-12-10
    73. Victoria Cross for New Zealand 2023-01-01
      Work ongoing January 2023
    74. Bengali language movement 2023-01-15
    75. USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23
    76. West Wycombe Park 2023-01-25
    77. Holkham Hall 2023-01-25
    78. Redshift 2023-01-26
    79. Angkor Wat 2023-01-28
    80. Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02
    81. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia 2023-02-12
    82. Guy Fawkes Night 2023-02-14
    83. Marcus Trescothick 2023-02-22
    84. Moe Berg 2023-03-10
    85. Falaise Pocket 2023-03-29
    86. James Nesbitt 2023-03-29
    87. Johnstown Inclined Plane 2023-04-23
    88. Dengue fever 2023-04-30
    89. Wood Badge 2023-05-15
    90. Hurricane Claudette (2003) 2023-05-16
    91. Cleveland 2023-05-16
    92. Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20
    93. Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02
    94. Surrender of Japan 2023-06-30
    95. Felice Beato 2023-08-04
    96. Augustus 2023-08-08
    97. Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13
    98. Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01
    99. Hydrogen 2023-11-01
    100. Ancient Egypt 2023-11-18
    101. Acetic acid 2023-12-8
    102. Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02
    103. Adelaide Anne Procter 2024-01-30
    104. Boston 2024-04-15
    105. Borscht 2024-06-15
    106. Khan Noonien Singh 2024-07-03
    107. Taylor Swift 2024-08-02
    108. Nahuatl 2024-08-04
    109. Carnivàle 2024-08-09
    110. Your Power 2024-08-16
    111. Washington, D.C. 2024-08-27
    112. George Washington (inventor) 2024-08-30
    113. Alien vs. Predator (film) 2024-10-26
    114. Mom and Dad (1945 film) 2024-10-26
    115. A Cure for Pokeritis 2024-10-26
    116. Zombie Nightmare 2024-10-26
    117. Naruto Uzumaki 2024-12-31
    Find more: Unreviewed featured articles
    Scripts and tools
    Article alerts
    Guidance
    Advice pages
    Writing
    Image and source reviewing
    Archiving icon
    Archives

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 (2007) 22 23 24 25
    26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability)
    35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41
    42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate)
    49 (2011) 50 51 52 53
    54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58
    59 60 (2013)
    61 62 63 (proposals) (2014)
    64 (2015)
    65 66 (2016)
    67 68 69 (2017)
    70 71 72 73 74 (2018)
    75 76 77 (2019)
    78 79 80 81 82 83 (2020)
    84 85 86 87 (2021)
    88 89 (2022)
    90 91 92 (2023)
    93 94 (2023–24)

    Archives by topic:

    Alt text, Citation templates (load times)


    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.

    Image/source check requests

    Current requests

    Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted several reviews and declarations of support. Premature requests can be removed by any editor.

    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 Misplaced Pages:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

    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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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'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'S 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    There is also Misplaced Pages: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'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)

    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)
    One caveat here is that we don't want "I'll support/oppose your article if you support/oppose mine"-type situations. Each article needs to be reviewed dispassionately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 6 December 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)

    Japanese and Farsi/Persian speakers needed

    There are two FAC reviews where the source spotcheck hinges on Japanese and Farsi/Persian sources. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 for Farsi/Persian and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pulgasari/archive1 for Japanese. Anyone who knows how to read them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Google Lens' translate function is quite good these days for translating pictures of documents. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not all of the problem sources are in image form; some are behind paywalls and stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Images in BLPs

    There is a thread at Talk:Len Deighton#Lack of an image about adding images of BLPs, and possibly not passing FAC if no non-free one can be found. All comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Strikethrough error

    There appears to be some sort of error in one of the FACs as several of the listings in the "Older nominations" section have all their comments displayed with a strike-through. I was wondering if there was any way to have that fixed? I am guessing that it is an issue with one of the FAC that is bleeding out into the other FACs on the list. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think I've fixed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    RfC at Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

    There is an RfC at Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, an FA. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024

    Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 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) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Reviewers for November 2024
    # reviews Type of review
    Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
    Nikkimaria 3 1 17
    SchroCat 14 6
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 7 3
    Crisco 1492 9
    Generalissima 5 1 2
    Matarisvan 6 1 1
    Hog Farm 6 1
    Aoba47 3 2
    Dudley Miles 5
    UndercoverClassicist 5
    750h+ 4
    Gog the Mild 4
    Boneless Pizza! 3
    Borsoka 3
    Ceoil 3
    Gerda Arendt 3
    Graham Beards 3
    Hurricanehink 3
    Premeditated Chaos 1 2
    TheJoebro64 3
    Tim riley 3
    AirshipJungleman29 2
    ChrisTheDude 2
    Cukie Gherkin 1 1
    Draken Bowser 2
    Epicgenius 2
    Heartfox 2
    Jens Lallensack 2
    MaranoFan 2
    Medxvo 1 1
    PARAKANYAA 2
    Phlsph7 2
    Piotrus 2
    Vacant0 2
    Ajpolino 1
    Balon Greyjoy 1
    Biruitorul 1
    Caeciliusinhorto 1
    Choliamb 1
    Czar 1
    Dugan Murphy 1
    Eddie891 1
    Eem dik doun in toene 1
    Fifelfoo 1
    Gen. Quon 1
    HAL333 1
    Hawkeye7 1
    IntentionallyDense 1
    Ippantekina 1
    JennyOz 1
    Joeyquism 1
    Johnbod 1
    Jonesey95 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1
    Lankyant 1
    Lazman321 1
    LittleLazyLass 1
    Mike Christie 1
    Mrfoogles 1
    Mujinga 1
    NegativeMP1 1
    Nick-D 1
    Paleface Jack 1
    Panini! 1
    Relativity 1
    RFNirmala 1
    Rjjiii 1
    Sammi Brie 1
    Shapeyness 1
    Shushugah 1
    SnowFire 1
    Srnec 1
    The Rambling Man 1
    Thelifeofan413 1
    Thuiop 1
    Tintor2 1
    TompaDompa 1
    Volcanoguy 1
    Wehwalt 1
    WikiOriginal-9 1
    Wtfiv 1
    Zmbro 1
    Zzzs 1
    Totals 155 26 27
    Supports and opposes for November 2024
    # declarations Declaration
    Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
    Nikkimaria 3 18 21
    SchroCat 8 4 8 20
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 10 10
    Crisco 1492 9 9
    Generalissima 3 2 3 8
    Matarisvan 5 3 8
    Hog Farm 5 1 1 7
    Aoba47 2 3 5
    UndercoverClassicist 4 1 5
    Dudley Miles 3 2 5
    750h+ 4 4
    Gog the Mild 2 1 1 4
    Tim riley 3 3
    Premeditated Chaos 1 2 3
    Gerda Arendt 2 1 3
    Hurricanehink 3 3
    Borsoka 3 3
    Graham Beards 3 3
    Boneless Pizza! 2 1 3
    TheJoebro64 2 1 3
    Ceoil 2 1 3
    Vacant0 2 2
    PARAKANYAA 2 2
    Draken Bowser 1 1 2
    Piotrus 1 1 2
    ChrisTheDude 2 2
    Heartfox 1 1 2
    MaranoFan 1 1 2
    AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2
    Phlsph7 2 2
    Epicgenius 2 2
    Jens Lallensack 2 2
    Cukie Gherkin 2 2
    Medxvo 1 1 2
    Lankyant 1 1
    IntentionallyDense 1 1
    Balon Greyjoy 1 1
    Caeciliusinhorto 1 1
    Ajpolino 1 1
    The Rambling Man 1 1
    Shapeyness 1 1
    Nick-D 1 1
    Paleface Jack 1 1
    Gen. Quon 1 1
    Joeyquism 1 1
    LittleLazyLass 1 1
    Jonesey95 1 1
    Zzzs 1 1
    Thelifeofan413 1 1
    JennyOz 1 1
    Srnec 1 1
    SnowFire 1 1
    Choliamb 1 1
    Lazman321 1 1
    WikiOriginal-9 1 1
    Mike Christie 1 1
    Hawkeye7 1 1
    Wtfiv 1 1
    Eem dik doun in toene 1 1
    Thuiop 1 1
    Fifelfoo 1 1
    NegativeMP1 1 1
    Dugan Murphy 1 1
    Wehwalt 1 1
    Mrfoogles 1 1
    Czar 1 1
    Rjjiii 1 1
    Volcanoguy 1 1
    RFNirmala 1 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1 1
    TompaDompa 1 1
    Johnbod 1 1
    Panini! 1 1
    Sammi Brie 1 1
    Zmbro 1 1
    Relativity 1 1
    Tintor2 1 1
    Biruitorul 1 1
    Eddie891 1 1
    Shushugah 1 1
    Mujinga 1 1
    HAL333 1 1
    Ippantekina 1 1
    Totals 105 1 1 16 85 208

    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) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nominators for September 2024 to November 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
    Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos)
    750h+ 6.0 51.0 8.5
    AirshipJungleman29 7.0 39.0 5.6
    Amir Ghandi 2.0 None 0.0
    Boneless Pizza! 2.5 8.0 3.2
    ChrisTheDude 9.0 66.0 7.3
    Darkwarriorblake 6.0 3.0 0.5
    Dudley Miles 6.0 33.0 5.5
    Dugan Murphy 3.0 14.0 4.7
    Dxneo 2.0 None 0.0
    Eem dik doun in toene 3.0 10.0 3.3
    Epicgenius 8.5 17.0 2.0
    FunkMonk 2.8 27.0 9.5
    Generalissima 9.0 61.0 6.8
    Hawkeye7 5.0 7.0 1.4
    Hog Farm 7.0 49.0 7.0
    Hurricanehink 2.5 19.0 7.6
    Ippantekina 5.0 6.0 1.2
    Jens Lallensack 3.3 28.0 8.4
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 218.0 36.3
    Joeyquism 3.0 17.0 5.7
    Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0
    Kyle Peake 4.0 None 0.0
    Llewee 2.0 7.0 3.5
    M4V3R1CK32 2.0 None 0.0
    MaranoFan 5.0 14.0 2.8
    Mike Christie 6.0 54.0 9.0
    NegativeMP1 3.0 11.0 3.7
    Nick-D 2.0 15.0 7.5
    Noorullah21 4.0 None 0.0
    Paleface Jack 3.0 3.0 1.0
    Peacemaker67 6.0 2.0 0.3
    Phlsph7 5.0 16.0 3.2
    Pollosito 2.0 None 0.0
    Premeditated Chaos 8.3 35.0 4.2
    Relayed 2.0 1.0 0.5
    Sammi Brie 3.0 12.0 4.0
    SchroCat 15.0 155.0 10.3
    Serial Number 54129 3.0 39.0 13.0
    The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5
    The Green Star Collector 3.0 None 0.0
    Thebiguglyalien 5.0 3.0 0.6
    Tim riley 5.0 52.0 10.4
    TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 2.0 0.7
    Turini2 2.0 None 0.0
    UndercoverClassicist 6.0 89.0 14.8
    Volcanoguy 4.0 7.0 1.8
    Wehwalt 7.5 29.0 3.9

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) >>>

    Status of Virgo interferometer

    @FAC coordinators: What is the status of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virgo interferometer/archive2? Gog the Mild promoted it, FrB.TG asked for a spotcheck. None was done in the short timespan between the edits, and I am not sure if what Hurricanehink mentioned is a spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article

    I would appreciate input at Talk:Landis's Missouri Battery#Revamping. This is one of my earliest FACs, and I would appreciate some additional thoughts to make sure I'm not being too harsh on myself; this one isn't really up to my current standard. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    disputing archiving

    Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Gusuku period/archive1 was archived with 5 supports, 1 oppose (which had been mainly resolved), and 3 reviews currently in progress. I think this is very premature — the closer said that the most recent review by AirshipJungleman29 showed that it was not ready for promotion, but this mainly consistented of minor text tweaks and recommendations that would be resolved in a matter of minutes. I feel that this should be reopened, though obviously I'm going to be biased in that respect; I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    fwiw, although Ian didn't know this when closing, the rest of my review would not have been resolved in a matter of minutes; I was intending, among other things, to deeply question the reliance on one book so recently published I can find zero scholarly reviews of it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, given that Airship's review so far was only on the lead and already included a couple of non-trivial comments, plus given the nom had been open for weeks already and had another outstanding oppose, I think a closure was reasonably justifiable, though of course disappointing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, that's fair enough I suppose. To PR! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    On source reviews for foreign language sources

    Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 came down to three sources that were offline and in Farsi. I know that there are ways to get at offline sources, but I wonder if anyone's sitting on a way to handle spotchecks or sourcechecks when the source to be checked is in a foreign language. Folks vouched for DeepL on Hungarian sources and I think Polish sources too, but is Google Translate reliable for translating Farsi? I don't feel comfortable with skipping certain sources just because it's too hard to verify them, so these need to be checked as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    This 2021 paper found that GT was 67.5% reliable for translating medical phrases into Farsi. If the sources are linguistically complicated, I would expect the reliability to be around the same; if they are linguistically simple, the reliability will go up. GT has also improved since 2021. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would assume good faith if other sources' spot-check did not indicate unverified statements or close paraphrasing. In this case, the nominator could also be requested to provide a translation. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Archive problem

    There seems to have been a problem with the bot archiving Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1. The bot has not added Template:Fa top or Template:Fa bottom to the page or updated Talk:Corleck Head. Steelkamp (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Tks, I think I've located the issue so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI Hawkeye7. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. It has run now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Second nom?

    @FAC coordinators: Would I be okay to pop in a second nom? My current one has been going for a couple of weeks and has five supports and has cleared image and source reviews, so most of the heavy lifting appears to be done on that. No problems if you'd rather I wait a little longer, obviously. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, you would. FrB.TG (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks very much FrB.TG - that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)