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 15:02, 18 September 2009 editOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Proposed topic ban of Fowler and Fowler← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:35, 6 January 2025 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,280 edits →Second nom? 
Line 1: Line 1:
<includeonly></includeonly>{{skip to bottom}}{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}{{FA sidebar|expanded=FAC}}
:: For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see ]
{{archives
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|collapsed= yes
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|counter = 40
|algo = old(21d) |auto = no
|editbox = no
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)2d
|search = yes
|searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive
|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] <br />
] ] ]
] ] <br />
] ] ] ]
] ]
] ]
] <br />
] ] ]
] ] ] ] <br />
] ] ] ] ] ] ] <br />
] ] ] ]
] <br />
] ] ]
] ] <br />
] ] (2013)<br />
] ] ] (2014)<br />
] (2015)<br/>
] ] (2016)<br/>
] ] ] (2017)<br />
] ] ] ] ] (2018)<br />
] ] ] (2019)<br />
] ] ] ] ] ] (2020)<br />
] ] ] ] (2021)<br />
] ] (2022)<br />
] ] ] (2023)<br />
] ] (2023–24)
<div style="text-align: center;">'''Archives by topic:'''<br />
], ]
</div></div>
}} }}
{{Archive basics
{{FixBunching|beg}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d
{{Template:FCDW/T}}
|counter = 95
{{FixBunching|mid}}
|maxsize= 150000
{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}}
}}
{{FixBunching|mid}}
{{dablink|Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding ] to ].}}
{| class="infobox" width="238px"
{{dablink|For a list of foreign-language reviewers see ].}}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests}}
==FAC mentoring: first-time nominators==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
<!-- DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE ] 09:21, 8 May 2053 (UTC) -->
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 ] 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. ] (]) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

==FAC source reviews==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
For advice on conducting source reviews, see ].

== 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 has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for October 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# reviews'''
! colspan="4" |Type of review
|-
!Reviewer
! data-sort-type="number" |Content
! data-sort-type="number" |Source
! data-sort-type="number" |Image
! data-sort-type="number" |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'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for October 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations'''
! colspan="7" |'''Declaration'''
|-
!'''Editor'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose converted to support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''None'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''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'''
|}
{{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)
{{cot|Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!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
! align="center" | ]<br />]
|5.0
----
|8.0
|1.6
|- |-
|ZKang123
| colspan="2" STYLE="font-size: 80%;"|
|4.0
], ],
|13.0
], ],
|3.2
], ],
],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ],
], ]
|} |}
{{FixBunching|end}} {{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}
<inputbox>
bgcolor=
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive
break=yes
width=60
searchbuttonlabel=Search FAC talk archives
</inputbox>


== Science articles are underrepresented ==
== New tutorial on wikilinking skills ==


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 bring to the attention of nominators and reviewers a recently prepared ] to assist editors in building advanced linking skills.
: 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)


Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).
Your feedback on the talk page would be welcome. ] ] 04:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


*Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
== Image reviews ==
*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)
Can someone perform an image review on some of the FACs at the bottom - looking for copyright problems, fair use problems, etc. I noticed that the hasn't yet received one among others (so, those at the 20 day mark and older are in need). ] (]) 13:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
: We have at least 14 image reviews outsanding on FACs that are maturing towards promotion. I typically promote on Saturday, although lately, I've been waiting 'til Sunday because image reviews are lacking. If they don't get done, my choices are to 1) not pr/ar, or 2) promote FACs with no image review. Going through FAC with so many still missing image reviews doesn't make much sense. Feedback? ] (]) 17:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
::I've hit up ], ], and ]. I'll try to do a few more later this evening. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> (<small><font color="#993300">]</font></small>)</sup> 18:11, 5 September 2009 (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)
=== Needed ===
: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)
* <s>]</s> <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> (<small><font color="#993300">]</font></small>)</sup>
::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)
] (]) 17:43, 6 September 2009 (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)
Thanks David!


== Seattle Kraken nom ==
* <s>]</s> <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> (<small><font color="#993300">]</font></small>)</sup> 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


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)
] (]) 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


:To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. ] (]) 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*<s>]</s>
: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)
*]
::<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>
*<s>]</s> <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 18:18, 13 September 2009 (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)
*<s>]</s>
::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)
*<s>]</s> <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 17:46, 13 September 2009 (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. ] (]) 13:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>]</s><font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


== RfC at WT:BLP ==
] (]) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
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 ==
Can someone please review Postman's park (linked above) and http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Loihi_Seamount/archive3 ASAP? Thanks! ] (]) 02:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:Got Postman's but I'm afraid I don't have time to do the other one right now. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> (<small><font color="#993300">]</font></small>)</sup> 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::Loihi was done by Stifle. ] (]) 15:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


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)
::You guys are awesome - thank you!! ] (]) 16:11, 13 September 2009 (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==
== Another contest ==
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 ==
* ] ] (]) 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


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)
== Restructuring ] ==
:]. ] (]) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


==RfC at ]==
During its proposed deletion several months ago, {{User|Outriggr}} suggested restructuring it. I thought it was a good idea and could be used by editors looking for help or suggestions from others who have written similar articles. The discussion seems to have stalled and I opened an RfC on it. ] --] (]) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


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)
== green links ==


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024 ==
Friends of Featured articles, please help me out!


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)
I have made a proposal to showcase featured articles ]. Please comment! ] (]) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for November 2024}}

{| class="wikitable sortable"
== Boldly going - in the lead sentence ==
!'''# reviews'''

! colspan="4" |Type of review
An editor recently began removing the bold in various article opening sentences, several of them FAs such as ] & ]. To my surprise these actions are backed up by a MOS guideline I had not come across before - ] - see the ] section - which states that "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."
|-

!Reviewer
The problem as I see it is that the policy of emboldening article titles is so widespread that this guideline has in effect fallen into disuse and its likely that hundreds of articles, many of them FAs and certainly FLs do not adhere to it. It seems to me that is going to be easier and more consistent to amend this MOS page than the many others it affects.
! data-sort-type="number" |Content

! data-sort-type="number" |Source
See ]. ] ]] 18:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
! data-sort-type="number" |Image

! data-sort-type="number" |Accessibility
:Well, speaking as someone with more familiarity with FLC than FAC, I think you'll find that the FL community is well aware of this guideline. No list has been promoted with "This is a '''list of things'''" as the lead sentence for a very long time. So I'm not sure why you wrote "certainly FLs do not adhere to it". Old ones may not, but then again old FAs and FLs may be deficient in various ways. ]] 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|-

|Nikkimaria
::My issue with this is that one editor took it upon himself to change dozens of FAs when the FA community has a differing opinion of what this means. The rule itself is unclear. I don't know why the first line/title of the article should not be bold, so I don't know where this particular issue comes from. I cannot say who put it in WP:MOSBOLD and what community discussion/thought process went into adding it. If folks here decide to make it clear and widely understood in FAs, then so be it, but I think it should be discussed here before changes are made to articles. --] (]) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|3

|1
::: Guidelines don't need to be discussed at FAC before being implemented. Changes to MOS are discussed at the relevant MOS talk pages and FAs are expected to follow them as is any other article. If you disagree with the specific MOS guideline then you can propose a change over there. And while editors are certanly free to discuss the issue here, any final decision needs to be taken at the relevant talk page. ] (]) 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|17
:::: I understand where changes need to be made and discussed, but if an editor is going to change FAs only when editors who work on FAs have a different general understanding about the MOS, then FA editors should be aware that 1. their understanding of MOS issues is flawed, or the policy should be clarified and 2. FAs should adhere to the MOS, and editors should be given the opportunity to give input or make changes to the articles they work on. --] (]) 21:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|

|-
:Just noting there's a parallel thread at ] ] (]) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
|SchroCat

|14
==Reviews needed==
|6
There are a lot of articles at the bottom of the list that have been up for almost a month and have few or no reviews. Several of the articles are pretty close to being able to be promoted, but still need more eyes. PLEASE review as many articles as you can over the next few days so that I won't have to archive these. Thanks! ] (]) 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
|
:Which ones are close? - ] (]) (]) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|
::Look at ] and check out the ones that have one or two supports. ] (]) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|-

|Jo-Jo Eumerus
==Instructions on reviewing==
|
I've been wondering if we need to make it more clear in the FAC instructions that all editors are invited to review an article. Twice in the last few weeks I've spoken with nominators who weren't sure if they needed permission to begin reviewing or not. I want to make sure we get as many reviewers as possible. Perhaps we could expand the first point under Supporting and Opposing? ] (]) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|7
*'''Support''' :) as a newbie, I wasn't sure what the process was, even after reading guidelines, etc. Also, it could be made clearer that some reviewers actually only review on one or two of the requirements, such as images or sources, or whatever...and that they simply write meets c 3 , or something to that effect. ] (]) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|3

|
: Does ] cover it? We want ''good'' reviews, not just supports and opposes. Can't we just link that somewhere ? ] (]) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|-
::Tailing on that, I review on what I feel qualified to review on, which sometimes is connected to an overall feeling or impression of the article. I was hesitant to get involved in review in the beginning because I didn't feel I had the expertise to comment on aspects of subject I knew nothing of, or articles that were too technically outside my scope. I think reviewers should be welcomed to give reviews on whatever they feel like reviewing as long as they can back it up with some reasoning. --] (]) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|Crisco 1492

|9
:::Would a change such as this reassure newbies who feel like Moni or Auntieruth did? ] (]) 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|

|
<blockquote>To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see ] for an overview of the review process.</blockquote>
|

|-
::::I'll pile-on agree with Moni here. Except in absolutely glaring cases (images forced so wide they go off the edge of the screen, color-coded headers, etc) I always ignore MOS considerations entirely when it comes to reviewing, as I don't agree with strict-compliance or standardization of appearance and think the main criteria should be "Is it accurate?", "Is it verifiable?", "Is it comprehensive?" and "Is it interesting?". If we give the impression that everyone is supposed to be looking at every aspect, all it does is put people off; I imagine I know more than most about Misplaced Pages standards, but I no longer touch GAC reviewing because of the insistence that reviewers are familiar with all the arbitrary standards against which every reviewer is expected to check every article.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|Generalissima

|5
Karanacs' suggestion is an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough in welcoming and encouraging reviewers. This welcoming should also be put at the very start of the instructions. I propose the following change as well (<ins>new text</ins>):
|1
: ]Here, we determine which articles are to be ]. FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the ]. <ins>All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the ].</ins>
|2
{{-}}] (]) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|

|-
:*I think it's a help, definitely. It should also be clear to new editors that we don't have to be experts on all of the "criteria", right? I try to make it clear that I'm not touching the images and much of the technical stuff... I leave that to people like Eubulides and Stifle, who know the rules about public domain etc. better than I do. What I do feel comfortable discussing, on nearly any subject, is the quality of the writing, contextualizing the subject/topic, and the relationship to claim and verifiability. And basically, if the quality of the writing is good, it doesn't matter what the subject is, because it's an e n c y c l o p e d i a, duh, and we should be able to learn something from it. I've read more about those **** battleships than I ever thought I would, am not really interested in those **** battleships, but the articles are well and intelligibly done, and a sensible contribution. If I'm done reading it and am totally confused, as I was with some bridge thing I reviewed not too long ago, or put off, as I was on a different article, or it would take tooo much to get it into shape, then ... obviously, it's not ready for prime time.
|Matarisvan
:* on a slightly different note, and perhaps this will eventually warrant another section...there recently was an article by a non-native English writing editor that had really quite minor grammatical problems, easily fixed. A couple reviewers made it sound like it was the end of the world. Another editor and I fixed the grammatical problems, but the response to this editor's nomination was initially very bluntly stated. ] (]) 19:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
|6
::* Unless we're talking about a different case, I believe that was a translation, and translations get into serious ] issues-- did the person translating consult and verify all of the sources, or did they just translate what was there? If we're talking about the same case, the comments were warranted, not because of the prose, but because it was a translation. ] (]) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
|1
:::no, it's not the same case. This wasn't a translation of another article on another wiki, it was an original article. And it did have some serious problems in the prose, which were fixed. It seemed to me that the reviewer bringing this up was less than tactful (and I got on that reviewer's case about it too, but off the review page). The article is in good shape now, and I think it will go through the process without a problem. ] (]) 14:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
|1

|
I've made updates to the instructions. There are now 2 invitations to review (with links to the dispatch FAQ) as well as a note for specialized reviewers to let us know what the support means. Does this loook okay? ] (]) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
|-

|Hog Farm
== ] launched ==
|6

|
Dear nominators and reviewers: a few weeks ago there was extensive on this page about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style, which concerns the FAC process through the operation of Criterion 2. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:
|1
*it is often wordy;
|
*it provides more examples than necessary;
|-
*it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
|Aoba47
*it is a little repetitive and disorganised.
|3

|2
As a service to nominators, reviewers and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:
|
#brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
|
#new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
|-
#the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
|Dudley Miles
#the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including ''Blason'';
|5
#the addition of a ''Currency'' section, summarised from MOSNUM.
|
#improvements in structural organisation;
|
#the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.
|

|-
Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified here, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page.] ] 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
|UndercoverClassicist
:I support the condensing of our guidelines and policies, so good luck. - ] (]) (]) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
|5

|
== Left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading ==
|

|
Just as a heads-up for reviewers: the thread at '']'' has caused the following guideline to be removed from '']'':
|-
: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."
|750h+
That thread is still discussing a proposal to replace "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" with "Images should be laid out so that they work well with browser windows as narrow as 800 pixels and as wide as 2000 pixels". Further comments are welcome there. ] (]) 23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
|4
::Thanks for the update Eubulides. This had been a stable guideline since 2007, but consensus at WT:MOS and FACs (partly a result of discussion with a visually impaired user who uses a screen reader) is that there is no accessibility problem with this practice, as some had thought. ] (]) 00:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
|
::: and the instruction has been as murky as mud to a lot of people. the bit about placing images directly below a 3 level heading. It took me about 3 months to figure out what that actually '''meant'''. And in the meantime dabomb got pretty annoyed w/ me when I kept putting the image left aligned (following the instruction left right left right on images), and s/he kept moving it back, and then I kept moving it back, and so on. ] (]) 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
|
:::: Yes, MOS#Images has always been confusing (don't sandwich images, stagger left-right, images face the page, start with a right-aligned image even when this contradicts other MOS guidance, etc). Hopefully Tony1's will help. <small>I'm male by the way :)</small> ] (]) 00:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
|
:::::thanks for letting me know. Trying not to make assumptions, although I rather figured you were. ;) ] (]) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
|-
:WP:ACCESS should still require that FAs are not to have left aligned images after a subheader. ] (]) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
|Gog the Mild

|4
== Image review double check ==
|

|
Hey there. I would appreciate if another image reviewer could check my logic at ]. Thanks, <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
|

|-
== Proposed topic ban of Fowler and Fowler ==
|Boneless Pizza!

|3
].
|

|
If people would remember, Fowler has trolled my FACs before, including ], and he was warned for it. Almost everything he says either goes against all basic English grammar or is pure nonsense. He even claims that there is a problem with "The ode begins with an epigraph from Matthew 6:28: 'They toil not, neither do they spin.'" It is a declarative sentence that is impossible to find any grammatical fault with.
|

|-
I am proposing the following:
|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'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for November 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations'''
! colspan="7" |'''Declaration'''
|-
!'''Editor'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose converted to support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''None'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''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'''
|}
{{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. ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for September 2024 to November 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!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
|}
{{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
>>>


== Status of Virgo interferometer ==
# Ban Fowler indefinitely from all FACs I am nominator on, and I will not edit any FACs that he is nominator on.
# or Ban Fowler from FAC indefinitely.
# or Block Fowler for ] and general disruption followed by a removal of his comments from the FAC so normal people with legitimate concerns are not overwhelmed by this.


{{@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)
] (]) 19:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


== Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article ==
:Meanwhile, can anyone on Misplaced Pages, any of the FAC regulars,such as Awadewit, Tony1, Moni3, Karanacs, Malleus F., Ceoil, Cert, YellowMonkey&mdash;other than Ottava Rima, that is&mdash;point out mistakes in my critique? This seems to be the standard Ottava Rima response. Either quote unnamed people who have agreed with him privately in various forums, or drag the critique to ANI or wherever it is this time. The problem with the sentence quoted above is that it is ambiguous. Think about it. ]] 19:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::I have to agree that some of your criticisms are excessively trivial, and could be fixed simply by clicking the edit button. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 19:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::If your comments are going to be nitpicks, they should be identified as such. ''']'''] 19:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Ceranthor - they aren't nickpicky. They are trolling. shows that the first thing he does on coming back is to do this. He did the same thing at ] FAC and ] FAC. He has not edited -any- other FAC in this manner. He has also declared that every page I write is filled with grammatical errors and problems and that not one line is correct. This was during The Lucy poems FAC. The "concerns" range from trivia to patently absurd and show a complete lack of understanding basic grammatical structure. ] (]) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I realize that now, after reading through the comments. The suggested corrections are somewhat ridiculous, I haven't came across one that made sense. ''']'''] 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


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)
We generally do not ban editors from FAC. Sandy and I read through all the comments and give them the appropriate weight.
*Fowler&Fowler, it is not necessary (nor encouraged) to list every single prose issue that you found in the article on the FAC page. In general, it is best to list a representative sample on the FAC page, and you can leave further details on the article talk page (with a note at FAC linking back to that discussion).
*Ottava, nominators do not have to implement every suggestion made by the reviewer. If you disagree with the suggestions, state your reason why and then disengage with the reviewer. Again, Sandy and I read through all the comments and we take your comments into consideration as well.
Everyone happy now? ] (]) 20:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Karanacs, this is the third FAC for him to do this. He has just returned to editing so it is not a coincidence. His only edits at FAC are to my pages. He has on his own added 30k to the FAC and he is not done. That is more than double what everyone else has written. This makes it almost impossible for other people to have any ability to comment. This is a clear WP:POINT violation and I would like it dealt with. If FAC does not want to handle it, I would have no choice but to open up an ANI page calling for a ban based on WP:HARASS. Raul made sure that it wouldn't have had to come to this last time. ] (]) 20:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::That is why I am asking Fowler to limit his comments on the FAC page itself (so that others aren't scared off). Other editors have agreed with at least a few of his comments. If you don't like his comments, disengage. This does not currently need to be escalated. ] (]) 20:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Karanacs - his concerns, every single one, show a misunderstanding of grammar and the rest. Look at the above example where there is no possible way to make the claim he does, and yet he does. He does this for -everything-. Either he has such a flawed understanding of every possible grammar rule, or it is done on purpose. Is it a coincidence that the first thing he does on returning to Misplaced Pages is to review this FAC? He never reviews FACs besides mine. There is a clear reason. I would rather not have to bring this to ANI when we can simply solve the matter with a clear prohibition. ] (]) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Fowler knows how to limit his comments, see the ]. The timing of Fowler's return to editing, the length of comments, on the grammar of Ottava's reply, and the trivial nature of some of the points are suspicious. ] (]) 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


== disputing archiving ==
::::Reasoning that we consider unactionable, flawed, or against consensus is ignored during the promotion/archive process. Therefore, if Fowler agrees to limit his text on this FAC page so as not to intimidate other reviewers, he is not causing a detriment to the FAC process nor is he harming the article. If the text is much too long on the FAC page, feel free to wrap it in a show/hide box with a note that the issues are not closed (we can make an exception). For my perspective as an FAC delegate, I don't care how much text a reviewer spews on the page; if the text is garbage, I'm going to ignore it; if the advice is valuable, I'll consider it. Just ignore the requests you disagree with, stop taking the bait, and see if it dies down. ] (]) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (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)
::::There may be a serious issue here, I haven't looked at the review so I don't know, but Ottava's claim that "He {Fowler&fowler] never reviews FACs besides mine" is patently untrue. He gave my nomination of ] a pretty good coshing at FAC as I recall. --] ] 20:41, 17 September 2009 (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)
:::::Perhaps I should clarify - in this manner. . Plus, this followed the fall out from page when he was warned about his actions. Do I need to requote where he attacked every page of mine and stated that he would not stop until he proved that every line was wrong in them? ] (]) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (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)
::Ah, that's fair enough I suppose. To PR! <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== On source reviews for foreign language sources ==
I've just been through some of the other FACs where Fowler has participated. Consider YellowMonkey's , Proteins' , and ErgoSum88's . While these do prove that Fowler edits FACs other than just Ottava's, they also demonstrate that Fowler is quite verbose, and is capable of writing volumes of text about the finest points. In at least one case, he hadn't even read the article (Euclidean algorithm) and was already dominating the page with some issue of syntax or semantics. What is of even more interest to me is the dramatic contrast presented when Fowler participates in FACs involving editors he has had conflicts with. Consider Ottava Rima's , , and Dineshkannambadi's , the last of which was the finale in a long conflict between Fowler and Dineshkannambadi that manifested itself in several FACs and FARs. Dineshkannambadi finally left Misplaced Pages after this last one.


] 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)
I submit that it might be better for Fowler to avoid the FACs of editors he has ongoing conflicts with, and I would love it if he would agree to do so voluntarily. I do understand that the FAC director and delegates can weigh his feedback and act as necessary, but I'm not sure we need to put them through the exercise of wading through all that text trying to determine what is objective feedback and what might be a product of the long-standing dispute between Fowler and the author. --] ] 20:50, 17 September 2009 (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 ==
(ec)My impression from reading the comments in the FAC page is that Fowler makes a number of pertinent points (the 'most enjoyed' is a prime example) and many nit-picky points (but addressing nit-picky points only improves the article). However, he also goes over the top in his comments about Ottava Rima's grammar expertise and my suggestion is that he confine his comments to issues with the articles rather than focusing on the editor. Not only is that bad form, it is also unwarranted when all OttavaRima is trying to do is to make an FA quality article for which he should be commended rather than harassed. May I add that OttavaRima is clearly no pushover (I liked the 'absolutely redundant' comment!), so perhaps Karanacs admonishment is enough. --] <small>(])</small> 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC) (Post ec addition: While I agree with Laser_brain that perhaps F&F might want to voluntarily not participate in FACs where he has had a conflict with other editors, the reality is that he is often right and sometimes conflict is necessary. In the DK case, for example, F&f was right in pointing out that the articles were really almost all synthesized (though he was wrong, IMO, in ascribing motives to DK, who, I think, was just being overly earnest.) In the case of OttavaRima, though (this has gotta be an incorrectly used though!), his comments are more pedantic and the level of acerbity is uncalled for.) --] <small>(])</small> 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks, everyone, especially Karanacs, Malleus, Laser Brain and RegentsPark, for you comments. I've moved the last unresponded part of my critique to the article's talk page. I have to say, the part about the Euclidean Algorithm is funny. I think there was a good reason why the primary authors were being somewhat differential to me. I know the subject somewhat, and I'm guessing my language must have demonstrated that. It is true, I never got around to reading the article ...! ]] 21:28, 17 September 2009 (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)
: I agree with Karanacs, as Ottava knows, I am opposed to banning people from FAC, and I do my best to stay abreast of personal animosities that are carried from other parts of Wiki to FAC and to account for those. FAC works; don't sweat the little stuff. ] (]) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (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)
::Fowler, I think you mean to say "your comments". ;) ''']'''] 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Yes. It has run now. ] ] 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You're right, Ceranthor. That seems like an appropriate end to this episode. I should add, in response to Sandy Georgia's post, I've never interacted with Ottava Rima outside of FAC. I had no awareness of his existence, until he reacted shrilly to my critique of the The Lucy poems earlier this year. He and user:Dinesh Kannambadi, both very thin-skinned and defensive in their responses at FAC, are the only two people I've had such interaction with. The other nominators of Lucy, for example, Ceoil and Kafka Liz, became good Wiki friends, in the aftermath of the FAC. The same with Malleus F (in Manchester Small machine) or the author of the Federal Bridge Formula, I can't say I've had any issues with them. Regards, ]] 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, personally I think it might be wise to think before commenting of Ottava's FACs, or perhaps avoiding them altogether. ''']'''] 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
*Per Andy. ] ] 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Fowler was crucial in taking ] across FAC; an article in which myself and Ottava were co-noms. I have to say, in the end F&f went to great lenghts to help us, went to fine detail, created sub-pages with suggestions, found images and after the first archived (it took 2) FAC, was personalble, took the time to listen, and made such effort that for sure I consider him a wiki friend, professionally -as it were- and personally. However he clashed with Ottava big time during that first FAC-with fault on both sides-, and I cringed, the way you do, through cracked fingers. Dunno- the two are too alike, stubborn, self assured and deeply impatient. Both are great reviwers, and highly capable when it comes to content if they managed to tone it down in heated situations. I know both are in my top5 people I would like to have look after a page I was looking for feedback from. But they are so alike, these guys should just ignore each other - this fight can never be won. ] (]) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::As a somewhat neutral observer, part-timer at FAC my observation is that they are ''both'' brilliant editors, neither should be banned from anything although they might, both be more mindful and respectful of each other; or at least give each other some needed slack...] (]) 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'd like to thank both Ceoil and Modernist for their very generous remarks and helpful suggestions. If congeniality were the overall governing principle of FAC, believe me, I would begin ignoring Ottava Rima with the promptest dispatch. But is anyone willing to go out on a limb and say that the prose in "] is brilliant? If so, could they provide some examples from the article? Or have we abandoned ''that'' principle now? ]] 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::With respect, Fowler, you are ignoring the letter of what was just said. Deny. Its clear there is history and ye two need to be kept apart - let Ottava's FAC's be some one else's problems, no doubt your ability is need on many other pages. Look at the huge backlog. ] (]) 03:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I can't say I entirely agree, but you make a persuasive point. Let me mull over it. ]] 03:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


==Second nom?==
I was asked to ''opine'' (screeeeeeee) here. Only by reading this thread so far and not wanting to get sucked into a problematic FAC, I have two points:
{{@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)
Comments at FAC should be given ''only'' to improve the article. Actions from reviewers should be taken in the spirit of improvement, not impediment. If the article's problems are too complicated to overcome in the time you are willing to spend in assisting, gently encourage the nominator to delist the article to work more on it (then still give helpful advice). FAC is not intended to list every single thing you think is wrong with the article, and if there are issues you can fix that you think can be improved, then do it yourself. If you are not willing to comment in the spirit of helpfulness, then move on to another article.


:Yes, you would. ] (]) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Secondly, there certainly must be better ways to handle the stress of FAC, and particularly problems with a single editor than demanding they be put on FAC topic ban. This seems to be an issue of self-governance and I will be honest in saying, though not limited to the editors at FAC, that it appears that self-governance seems to be at an all-time low lately. The moment an editor brings an article to FAC s/he must be confident in the material and writing, but not so arrogant to think it could not be improved. The community should not have to validate the efforts of an editor by agreeing with him or her in categorically denying the input of another editor. Have some faith in the system--the collective of editors--to be able to realize what should be fixed and what can be compromised. --] (]) 12:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks very much ] - that's great. Cheers - ] (]) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:The first option was only to prohibit him from editing my FACs as they tend to be the problematic ones. And, as Slim Virgin has stated, a few of the problems Fowler had were with her fixes, and I agree that her changes did improve the page. So, there really wasn't anything about me favouring the page (especially when I was responsible for only half of it, and there were many, many copyeditors since my original wording). I respond merely as someone who has taught grammar, rhetoric, and linguistics. ] (]) 14:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::there are many of us here who teach grammar, rhetoric and linguistics. Ottava, please chill on this. I'm reluctant to comment on any of your FACs because your reputation precedes you, and I don't have time for arguing. When I write something I hope it will be useful to someone. My goal is not to show off my erudition, but to provide something usable, intelligible, accurate (verifiably so), and worthwhile for someone to read. I don't want to spend my wiki-time arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. ] (]) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I think you misunderstood the point - I was showing that I was not responding because I am personally attached to the language. I was only responding in regards to my experience with language and how various things are either wrong or are unnecessary. ] (]) 15:02, 18 September 2009 (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)