| Revision as of 07:37, 20 July 2009 editYellowAssessmentMonkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,460 edits rm something which is no longer true← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:13, 21 July 2009 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,025 edits Back to the long-established aims of FAR, if these are to change, let's have broad discussion including FAC, encouraging many noms at a time will remove deliberative aspect of FACNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| '''Featured article review''' (FAR) | '''Featured article review''' (FAR) | ||
| *In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". |
*In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. | ||
| *Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. | *Reviews can improve articles in various ways: Articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. | ||
| *The featured article director, ], or his delegates ], ] and ], determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage. | *The featured article director, ], or his delegates ], ] and ], determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| <span style="font-size:15pt"><b>Nominating an article for FAR</span></b> | <span style="font-size:15pt"><b>Nominating an article for FAR</span></b> | ||
| Nominators should not nominate articles that are ] (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content. | Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are ] (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content. | ||
| # Place <nowiki>{{subst:FAR}}</nowiki> at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page". | # Place <nowiki>{{subst:FAR}}</nowiki> at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page". | ||
| # From there, click on the "add a comment" link. | # From there, click on the "add a comment" link. | ||
Revision as of 14:13, 21 July 2009
|
Reviewing featured articles Shortcuts
This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. Featured article review (FAR)
Featured article removal candidate (FARC)
Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the article talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAR}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{articlehistory}}. |
Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article review (FAR): Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
Toolbox |
|
Nominating an article for FAR Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.
| |