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 06:50, 3 October 2014 editSNUGGUMS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,240 edits add← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:35, 6 January 2025 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,319 edits →Second nom? 
Line 1: Line 1:
<includeonly></includeonly>{{skip to bottom}}{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}{{FA sidebar|expanded=FAC}}
{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents|style=font-size:88%; width:23em; table-layout:fixed;}}
{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}
{{User:Tony1/FAR urgents|style=font-size:88%; width:23em; table-layout:fixed;}}
{{Template:FCDW/T|style=font-size:88%; width:23em;}}
{{archives {{archives
|collapsed= yes
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em; |style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|auto = no |auto = no
|editbox= no |editbox = no
|search = yes |search = yes
|prefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive |searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive

|bot=MiszaBot II
|age=2
|units=weeks

|1=<div class="nowraplinks"> |1=<div class="nowraplinks">
] ] ] ]
Line 39: Line 32:
] ] ] ] ] ]
] ] <br /> ] ] <br />
] ] ] ] (2013)<br />
] ] ] (2014)<br />
<center>'''Archives by topic:'''<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></div>
}} }}
{{Archive basics
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 61 |counter = 95
|maxsize= 150000
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)2d
}} }}
{{dablink|For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see ] and ].}} {{dablink|Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding ] to ].}}
{{dablink|For a list of foreign-language reviewers see ].}} {{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)
== Image/source check requests ==
{{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
|5.0
|8.0
|1.6
|-
|ZKang123
|4.0
|13.0
|3.2
|}
{{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Science articles are underrepresented ==
<!-- DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE ] 09:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC) -->
*] – another opinion needed, first source review is disputed '''] (] / ])''' 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


For a long time there has hardly been any science articles at FAC. Perhaps someone could remind me of the last successful candidate? But we have ] now which is not garnering much attention, which is a shame. I'm not canvassing for support, despite having given mine, but is there any chance of a few reviews? ] (]) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
==Life without bots==
: 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)
Am I correct that we don't have bots updating article history anymore? Going on that assumption, I tried to teach myself how to do it by following Maralia's instructions at ] but I got lost with {{tl|ArticleHistory}} because I don't know what's supposed to go in those fields - so I reverted what I tried to start. But I'm thinking if we don't have a bot, this is something we should all learn to do so we don't have talk pages with the "please leave comments" still displayed. And if we are now manually updating, maybe we should remove the "don't manually update" message. And … (sorry, being a bother) … if the bots got lost when the everything was moved to the WMF Labs, shouldn't we ask somewhere (Villagepump technical maybe?) to have them make a new bot? The updates are a lot of work, and personally I think featured articles are sufficiently significant for the project that it's something that should be supported somewhere. But if not, as it seems not to be, then we shouldn't expect the delegates to do the work, and we'll have to learn ourselves to close the FAC. Sorry, long post here - short question is what is supposed to go in the articlehistory fields? Please ignore if this makes no sense. ] (]) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (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)
:Hi Victoria, we are still pursuing a couple of possibilities, either repairing the old GimmeBot or creating something similar from scratch. In the meantime, kind souls have been doing the manual closures per Maralia's instructions. I have to admit I thought there was more detail there about article history for the uninitiated, so I might add a footnote shortly on just what to do and them perhaps you could have another go and let me know the result. Cheers, ] (]) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (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).
::If clear criteria for the bot can be spelled out I may be able to produce a bot. ] 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much for that offer, Chillum -- let me just see where we're at with the possibilities already in train first. Cheers, ] (]) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
::::What else is in the works? As chillum notes this is a pretty narrow and potentially well-specified task. Shouldn't be '''too''' much trouble to make a new bot. ] (]) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
:] are quite detailed. They could easily be adapted for FAC if necessary. ] &#124; ] 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
::Heh, great minds, Harry -- I'm just in the process of adapting the article history part of those instructions for the footnote I promised Victoria... ;-) Cheers, ] (]) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Okay, that footnote about article history is now at ] if Victoria (or anyone else) would like to take a look -- happy for improvements if anything can be better expressed, but in the meantime it's way past my bedtime down here... ;-) Cheers, ] (]) 16:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Ian, that's very helpful. ] (]) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


*Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
Sorry to jump in here, I came looking to see if there was a problem with the bot... and am I correct in thinking there is? I'm not entirely clear what's happening, is this a widespread issue or something just effecting Gimme? ] (]) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
*Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (25 Aug)
:I have created a new bot to handle FAC, which I will be testing this weekend. ] (]) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
*Dracunculiasis (22 May)
::Many tks again for that Hawkeye. For everyone's info, Hawkeye implemented a bot to close MilHist Project A-Class Reviews not too long ago, so it occurred to me that his talents could lend themselves to a FAC bot as well (possibly sparked by HJ's comment above). ;-) Cheers, ] (]) 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
*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)
===New Bot===
I have a new Bot. I will now have to go through the procedures to register it. In the meantime I will run it manually as a script each day, checking what happens. I would like the delegates to simply mark articles as passed with <nowiki>{{FACClosed|promoted}}</nowiki>. The bot will move the nomination from the candidate page to the log page. This saves messing around with the end-of-month processing. The Bot will create the new month for you. Some questions:
# Who are the delegates? My preference would be to create a special category for them, like we did for the MilHist coordinators.
# The Bot adds articles to ] by adding the appropriate <nowiki>{{Article history}}</nowiki> but how do I find out what topic the article is under to update ]?
] (]) 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
:Tks mate, we owe you one. Would have to double-check point 2, but re. point 1, a while ago I created {{tl|@FAC}} to ping all FAC coords in one hit -- does that do the trick or would you prefer something else? Cheers, ] (]) 05:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
::BTW, if the bot could also handle <nowiki>{{FACClosed|archived}}</nowiki>, which requires the FAC nom page to be closed and the transclusion to be removed from WP:FAC and added to the ], our joy would be complete... ;-) Cheers, ] (]) 05:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
:::There's a <nowiki>{{FACClosed|withdrawn}}</nowiki> as well, right? —] (]) 17:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
::::We have to be careful because these are the same template where any choice of words can go where I have put the asterisks. <nowiki>{{FACClosed|****}}</nowiki> ] (]) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::I wasn't going to confuse the issue for the moment with the "withdrawn" parameter but we do occasionally use it FTR when a nominator, for whatever reason, asks for the plug to be pulled on the FAC. The actions for the closer (or the bot!) to take in the case of <nowiki>{{FACClosed|withdrawn}}</nowiki> are exactly the same as for <nowiki>{{FACClosed|archived}}</nowiki>. Cheers, ] (]) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (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)
:{{u|Hawkeye7}}, to answer your second question - ] is generated by taking ] and stripping out all of the articles wrapped with <nowiki>{{FA/BeenOnMainPage| }}</nowiki>, just leaving those that have yet to run (or adding "none" where appropriate). But when I say "is", I really mean "was" because the bot that used to do this is offline... Is there any chance that you could add this task to your list? That would be very useful. (The advantage of having WP:FANMP as a clone of WP:FA is that then only one page has to be specifically updated for promotions/demotions/renames, rather than two.) ]] 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
:There is also ]. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and ]. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. ] (]) 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well that is easy to do. I have updated ] page. Now we are back to the original problem of how to correctly update ] ie how to put the articles on the correct categories. For example, when the bot looks at ], it sees that it is a book, a biography and a classical music article. What did you file it under? ] (]) 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::That's the case with many articles, not just science ones. If FAs are maintained, this should not be a problem. Also, many science articles are remarkably static. See ], which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. ] (]) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Great! Many thanks, {{u|Hawkeye7}}. (Two minor issues on the FANMP page - could we have "none" where the sub-category is empty, and could we avoid the initial dot at the start of each list? Compare e.g. ). As for your other point, my understanding was that the coordinators add articles to WP:FA, not the bot. {{@FAC}} is this still the plan? ]] 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Done. As to the second point, my preference would be for the Bot to handle it, so there would be only one manual step. ] (]) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (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)
::::A quick thought, but if the coordinators want the bot to handle adding the page to the list(s), a simple modification so that they could use {{tlx|FACClosed|2=promoted|3=''section''}} to instruct the bot which section to which the newly promoted article should be added. So for example, when ] was promoted a month and a half ago, Ian Rose could have added {{tlx|FACClosed|promoted|Transport}} to the bottom of the nomination with his signature, and the bot could have taken care of the rest. I'm sure the bot could set so that attempts from others to initiate promotion would be ignored, or possibly deleted. Just some food for thought. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">''']&nbsp;]'''</span> 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yes! That would be ideal. ] (]) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (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)
{{od}} Such enthusiasm! Before we go too far, though, the request was to automate Maralia’s instructions, no more at this stage. Having to choose the right category for the promoted article in WP:FA, was one reason the FAC delegates always did that step manually. The other reason for the delegates’ manual work would’ve related to the frequency of the bot, so we should confirm that before automating those items. The idea of adding another parameter to FACClosed to allow the bot to determine where to put the article in WP:FA is elegant, but I for one don’t carry all those categories around in my head so I’d have to go to WP:FA to decide where it goes and what the exact section name is before completing FACClosed, which wouldn't represent a saving in time (] might have a different perspective). FTR, the tasks the delegate performs after adding the FACClosed template to the nomination page are:
:::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)
:If FACClosed = “promoted” then
:I think ] (Aug 8) counts as a science article. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:#Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
:#Add FAC archive page to Featured Log
:#Add article name/link to appropriate section of WP:FA (note/link article name in edit summary) and increment total number at the top
:#Add bulleted article name/link plus date in the form (dd mmm) to FA section of WP:GO
:Else
:#Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
:#Add FAC archive page to Archived Nominations
:As far as I’m concerned, an article is promoted or archived for the purpose of the nominator kicking off another FAC (if promoted) or commencing their two-week waiting period before another (if archived) the moment the FACClosed template is added to the FAC page; the remaining steps however are always actioned ASAP afterwards (at the very least on the same day) to keep dates consistent. I don’t consider the above tasks onerous so unless the bot can handle them very soon after the FACClosed template goes in my first thought is to leave them out of it, particularly adding the article to the appropriate section of WP:FA, which as I say probably wouldn't save any time. Again, I’d like Graham (and ] if available) to offer opinions before we decide on additional work. Cheers, ] (]) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::I agree. Also sometimes we have to italicize the title of the article - or part of it - using a piped linked when adding it to the FA page. I too can't always remember the FA section headers and occasionally deciding on the right section is not straightforward. (I can't think of an example just now). I think it would be best for the bot to complete Maralia's instructions and leave the rest to us. ] (]) 06:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah, good point about the formatting, Graham -- e.g. italics for movies, TV shows, novels or albums, but inverted commas for episodes, short stories or songs, plus mixed formatting for ship names, etc, etc. I think we'd have to add another parameter to FACClosed for pipelink style and, again, in that case we may as well just do it ourselves in WP:FA. As to a category example, well I considered several biographical sections for the recently promoted ] before finally going with my first thought of sport & recreation in light of her mountaineering achievements... Cheers, ] (]) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Okay. I am filing a formal request to create a new Bot. There will be some testing of bits of bot, so do not be alarmed. But do report anything that is wrong in some way. ] (]) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (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)
== Critical reception sections in music articles ==
:Yes I agree, was thinking the same. Just because a hurricane comes about due to scientific phenomena does not make discussion of individual hurricanes scientific per se. We might as well argue ] is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏 &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Just addressing the elephant (hurricane writer) in the room, I kind of agree, that hurricane articles aren't really "science". In fact, as a hurricane writer, I make attempts to make it hurricane articles not appear too scientific, so it is accessible to the average reader. This isn't about a ] or a ] where you talk about years of research and tons of research papers. No, instead we rely on "pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall", all different tools to describe what actually happened, and why a single storm affected so many different people. Sometimes storms can even cause wars and disrupt national economies, but they're such short-lived events, that it's not like they're an ongoing thing worthy of significant research, not when a lot of storms are honestly pretty similar. They all do very similar things, with some slight variations. That's why I find them fascinating, and why I write about them, and I'm not going to stop writing about them since I think the vast majority of tropical cyclone articles are useful and interesting. But they aren't exactly "science", like some kind of hypothesis or idea, and admittedly there should probably be more articles on the study of meteorology. I'm gonna have to do something about that... ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


:Removing my comments for now. Will post again when I've had more time to think about the content. Apologies. ]] 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I just reviewed ]; I don't review many music articles so I took a look at several articles on singles or albums that are FAs. I was surprised to find that the critical reception sections in every one I looked at are essentially listings: "Critic A said this. Critic B said that. Critic C said the other." See ], ], and ] for some examples. I looked at about ten of these and found very little variation. Occasionally there's a little structure: perhaps the first paragraph is positive reviews, and the second is negative; or the sentences are written to embed quotes in statements about the good or bad qualities of the music, rather than simply listing critics, but this isn't the case for most of these.


== Seattle Kraken nom ==
I criticized ''City of Angels'' for having just this structure for the critical reception section, but now I'm wondering if other reviewers agree with me, given the apparent precedents. Does this sort of section really meet criterion 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"?


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)
I looked at some of the classical music articles to see if I could find alternative models, but it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. See ], for example; there's a narrative there, with quotes placed in service of the narrative, but one suspects there are not twenty newspaper quotes available for the article writer to use if they wanted.


:To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. ] (]) 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I've marked my review of ''City of Angels'' "leaning oppose", though not only for this reason; do others think this is a valid reason to oppose? ] (] - ] - ]) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
:I think in this particular case it might be the topic. Popular culture doesn't fare brilliantly for FAC reviewers, and sports are even more niche (in that just liking 'sport' isn't enough, rather the sport itself). The article itself isn't in bad nick as it goes; no major MOS violations jump out, everything's cited, sources all seem OK, if news heavy (but that's probably inevitable for a relatively young team like this). ]'']'' 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::<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>
: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)
::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)
::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)


== RfC at WT:BLP ==
:Thanks for raising this issue Mike. I also find this writing scheme to be trite, and surely not that interesting to the readers. I don't know who/when set this standard, but it definitely fails to get my attention to read the entire article. Nominators usually defend themselves by saying there are other FAs with similar (or identical) stricture, but the point is to please the reader, not bore him.--] (]) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (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 ==
:*(1) For me, what makes a good Reception section is following through on the opinions. It is easy for a critic to say the song was "compelling" (and for WP to report this) but surprisingly few explain why (it is compelling). The critic-by-critic flow of this particular article could be improved with better transition (e.g. 'similarly', 'alternatively') to help guide the reader in comparing/contrasting critic POVs. (2) Quotes need to have a purpose, so "...spins the tale of his decision to move to Los Angeles and his earliest days there" is an unnecessary as a quotation in a Reception section. Also, paragraphs should not be used as arbitrary breaks. (3) Reception sections are inherently going to be opinion-heavy and therefore should be heavy with quotes and be directly attributable. Misplaced Pages should not be re-writing or interpreting critic opinions (e.g. if they said the song was "corny ballad" then they meant corny ballad; not dumb-hokey-cute-unprofessional-mediocre-whatever) - and it was that one critic's opinion. ] (]) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
:*:All good points, but I'm not convinced that this is enough. The critical reception section should summarize for the reader how the song (or album, or whatever it is) was received. The ideal source is an article about the artist that says e.g. "Blowing in the Wind is regarded very well by critics, with many calling it Dylan's finest song". That's a secondary source giving a summary of the overall set of reviews; the article writer can easily produce a summary statement about the song from sources like that. Simple lists of review statements is the same error as listing individual research results in an scientific article instead of stating the current scientific consensus on a topic: it can sometimes be justified, but it should be the exception.
:*:When there are no summary opinions in secondary sources (which is nearly always the case for a typical song) then I think the best option is to pick some of the more respected sources available (national papers, ''Rolling Stone'', etc.) and use those as examples to illustrate the positive and negative reviews. Even simple statements such as "most reviews were positive" are risky: did the writer check every review of the song in every music paper? ] (] - ] - ]) 02:20, 16 September 2014 (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)
== FA was not passed, but why? ==
: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==
After many edits and corrections, ] eventually ended with everything being addressed. Then nothing happened, which is why I posted my (unanswered) question above. Today I noticed that the process had closed with a not-nom, although there is no reason for this given, and I was not informed of this closure. Can someone let me know what's going on here? ] (]) 11:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
:I can't speak for the coordinators, but after two months with no supports I would expect this to be closed and archived. I also can't speak for the reviewers, but I can tell you if I review an article, and everything I list is dealt with, and then I don't support, it's often because I have reservations about the article. The ] last year is an example. I will try to articulate them if I have time, but occasionally that doesn't happen. To put it another way: supporting on a FAC requires the supporter to believe it passes the criteria. Sometimes this is not quite the same as having all one's comments addressed. ] (] - ] - ]) 12:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
::And sometimes it isn't even that; I've had it happen before that the reviewer just kinda forgot about it, so I pinged them and it worked. In my experience, simply not supporting if you don't oppose doesn't hurt an FA nom; the problem is when you don't get at least three supports, period. ] (]) 14:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


== Strikethrough error ==
So, wait, I had to go back and garner support votes in order to close successfully? And no one mentioned this before closing it? Now what do I do, go through the whole process again?! ] (]) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:Pretty much. The description could probably be more explicit about this being necessary, but frustrated nominators might resort to less-than-reputable methods to get their articles the three necessary supports. (Do you want to get socks? This is how we get socks.) I think a solution could be for the coordinators to look over old nominations with fewer than 3 supports but no opposes and, if they support the passing, go ahead and pass it anyway. ] (]) 16:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
::I think we might be on a slippery slope by allowing fewer explicit supports, remembering of course that it's not just a numbers game anyway -- support has to be backed up by comprehensive reviewing and awareness of the FA criteria, as well as resolution of outstanding comments. Maury, I might suggest that as the reviewers, like the coords, are all volunteers, it would be useful to the entire process if you reviewed some other FACs when you nominate one. It's not a requirement of course, and we don't encourage QPQ reviewing per se, but it helps you become better known in the community, which can lead to people keeping an eye out for your noms. Cheers, ] (]) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (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)
== Why so few support/opposes? ==
:]. ] (]) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


==RfC at ]==
My first attempt at FA failed and I learned it was due to too few support/oppose votes - namely zero of either. So I re-listed and the same is happening. I was started to feel depressed until I took a look at the list as a whole.


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)
I started at the bottom, as those would likely have the most fully developed reviews. Scrolling upward, I found that most of the listings are lacking any sort of "vote" one way or the other. ] has three supports yet these took well over a month to gather, ] has a single weak oppose, ] has a single support. These reviews take up ''eight pages'' on my ''very'' large monitor and span a period of months, yet there's a total of five votes, which of course means that most of these articles will fail FA.


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024 ==
Now, of course, the articles that have passed are likely removed from this page relatively quickly, so it's a biased sample. Generally, how many FA's are failing for lack of votes?


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)
] (]) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for November 2024}}
:The coordinators are best placed to answer that question, but the cause is simple, and is a perennial problem: there is a shortage of reviews. It might speed things up if reviewers gave preference to older nominations with less than three supports. I try to do that myself when I review. I'm not saying there's any obligation on reviewers -- they should review whatever they want. And of course getting more reviews would be much more helpful than simply changing the priority of what to review. ] (] - ] - ]) 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable sortable"
::While we do have a shortage of reviewers, I might ask if you've been reviewing other people's articles? Often editors will be willing to review an article by somebody who reviewed one of theirs.--] (]) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
!'''# reviews'''
:::As a radical idea, what if we were to form a list (or category) for users willing to be arsed in the event of a dangerous review famine? I'd join it, because inactivity-failing is incredibly petty to me. ] (]) 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
! colspan="4" |Type of review
::::Wouldn't it be easier just to review some articles? ] ] 00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
|-
:::::If we knew about their urgency, sure. It's not realistic to expect everyone who'd be open to helping out an editor in need to keep a constant eye on the FAC list - some may be rather myopic in their wiki-activities by nature but willing to help if needed. Please, before you call an idea "radically stupid" take a moment to think about the people who might benefit from it. ] (]) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
!Reviewer
::::::Why is it not realistic? I've not infrequently reviewed articles that are about to drop off the end of the list, and I flatter myself sometimes saved them from being archived. How many FAs have you reviewed this week for instance? ] ] 00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
! data-sort-type="number" |Content
:::::::Two. Again, it's not unrealistic not because these people wouldn't be ''willing'' to do them, but because they wouldn't necessarily ''know'' about them. Think about it this way: you'd be willing to buy your friend dinner if he didn't have any cash on him, right? Does that mean you'd call him up every evening to ask if he had his wallet? ] (]) 02:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
! data-sort-type="number" |Source
:::::::I don't think there are any stupid ideas being floated here but there may be some potential reinventing the wheel. Aside from checking out the bottom of the FAC list, there's also the 'FAC urgents' list at the top of this page that I usually update every week or two. Cheers, ] (]) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
! data-sort-type="number" |Image
! data-sort-type="number" |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'''
|
|-
|}
{{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 ==
Apparently most nominations aren't communicated in interested projects (checked a few project talkpages). While some projects use article-alerts, such alerts are easily overlooked, so some people won't even know, when reviews are being needed for a topic of their interest. We (nominators, reviewers, coordinators) really need to do more to "advertise" our activities and bring more people on-board. ''Suggestion'': make talkpage notifications for ''all'' interested projects (see article talkpage) a mandatory step of the nomination. It's a bit more work for nominators - but getting no feedback must be even more frustrating. ] (]) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Many people who might be interested are often not aware, so alerting isa good option - I find folks are often interested and take a look. ] (] '''·''' ]) 20:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Absolutely; ] keeps a very regularly updated list of FACs, GANs, PRs, etc. where we might not naturally keep up with this stuff otherwise. We don't have a whole lot of inactivity failures as a result, and we boast quite a speedy GAN process compared to most content areas: it's rare for a VG article to be awaiting a review for more than a month or so. ] (]) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}


{{@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)
I comment at featured pictures fairly often. I have never commented here because the standards for a featured article are more complex so I have never attempted it. ] 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
:A good way to start is when reading, to think, "how could this be improved?" and go from there - what's it missing and what's hard to read, then going to look at and then check sources etc. ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


== Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article ==
*I just took a look to see if there was a sensible way that I could comment on the article and help move the review, but it is so far outside my areas of interest and expertise that I really don't think I can. Generally the majority of articles that get featured do so because there is a community of editors with similar interests that work conjointly on the articles whether they be hurricanes, battleships or 19th century English literature. I think it would make sense if you went to the wikiprojects that have to do with engineering, physics and naval technology to see if you could recruit reviewers. Some people think this would be "canvassing" but that is only because they already have a network of people they can count on for congenial reviews.] 22:20, 29 September 2014 (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)
There are many comments above, so if you don't mind I'd like to comment on the comments:
*There are a number of comments about a lack of reviews, and/or a lack of reviewers. I do not find this to be the case; in the examples I am looking at there are ''extensive'' reviews, but few or no votes. Sturmvogel 66, your review of my FA went on for page after page and we fine-tooth-combed it to a T. But you '''didn't vote'''.
*Tezero mentions a mechanism for ensuring freshness, which seems like a very good idea. But again, we need ''votes'', not more reviews - personally I think the review process is fine. But this gets me thinking...
Again, I'm going purely on personal experience here, but in my case Sturmvogel 66 performed a superhuman review of the article in question, and I implemented perhaps 95% of his comments. At no time was there any sort of red flag issue, or even general comment to the effect of "this sucks" - it was largely clarity edits, GR and REFs and similar cleanup, the content of the article remained the same throughout. A second review of that depth seems unnecessary, but here I am in a second review, ''with no votes''.
This is not always the case, there are numerous examples of FAs where there are concerns being expressed by the reviewers. But certainly the list maintainers can tell the difference.
So what about a "end of days" process that calls for votes on articles that ''have'' been extensively reviewed and appear to have no problems? Instead of simply archiving them, we have a short list of items that are ready to be voted on ''without'' further major review.
] (]) 13:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
: In my experience (which is admittedly sporadic), there are two big reasons why reviewers might be hesitant to firmly support or object. If you support, you are basically vouching for the article and declaring that you vetted it according to all the criteria. It's much easier to just declare your comments addressed and walk away, because it doesn't leave you responsible for criteria you might not feel qualified to judge. If you object, you are also more likely to attract an undesirable reaction from the nominator than if you just leave "comments". I objected to a recent nomination; the nominator called my judgement and ability into question, then proceeded to go combing through my contributions to see what nominations I had supported so he could point out that I'm a hypocrite for supporting articles he perceived to be inferior to his own. Shortage of reviewers indeed; who really wants to subject themselves to that behaviour? --] (]) 14:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
::I believe you're at the heart of the matter here Spike. And if this is the case, we need to address it head on. ''Perhaps'' the call for votes would address this... bear with me here. What if the FA process had two parts, one being a call for comments, and a second being a call for votes. The first would be essentially identical to what we see today, people leaving comments on how to improve the article. There would be no votes during this period. The second would start when the first concluded, essentially the archive point as it is today. In that second part it would be straight-up votes, no more comments (unless obvious and simple? or even that?). Does that make sense? ] (]) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Just quickly before I hit the sack, the 'call for comments' alone, rather than declarations of support or opposition, is really what Peer Review is for. Cheers, ] (]) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict) I disagree with this suggestion. The established FAC process has served us well for many years and I see no reason to change it because a nominator feels that their article is not attracting enough reviews. FAC is not about votes; it is about reaching a consensus, which is not the same thing. I disregard unqualified "support"s and "oppose"s, especially if they are from inexperienced reviewers as they are not helpful in judging whether a consensus has been achieved. What we need is more reviewers who are willing to take the time to read the FA criteria, read FAs to see the standards required, and contribute good reviews. FACs do not fail "for lack of votes"; they are archived because the coordinators cannot determine if a consensus has been reached or there is well-argued opposition to promotion. Of course, we need to see explicit declarations of support – but please do not regard these as votes. ] (]) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
::::So Graham, are you saying that you ''don't'' count support/oppose? Because that's the opposite of what you told me before, and precisely why I started this thread. ] (]) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::I would like to endorse what Graham has just said – and pay tribute to him and Ian for their continued fair-minded and painstaking management of the FAC process. I don't think a "call for votes" would work—those disinclined to declare would simply ignore the call. Like {{u|Eric Corbett|Eric}}, above, I sometimes watch the latter end of the FAC list, to pick up on nominations that aren't getting much reviewer attention. Looking at the current list, I see most of the noms that have been here for four weeks or more have had lots and lots of attention – some of the reviews are stupendously long. This probably reflects the fact that peer review is not working well – perhaps 40% of peer reviews get no comments at all. Ah, for the days of {{u|Ruhrfisch}} and {{u|Finetooth}}! The only oldish FAC noms with rather sparse attention are ] and ]; I will review one of these – maybe Eric might do the other? (You can have first pick, Eric). ] (]) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::I don't fancy either of those Brian, particularly not Drogba, as I have an aversion to BLPs. Besides, I'm still working on the FA review for '']'', which I'm not ready to support yet. ] ] 15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


== disputing archiving ==
I like numbers. Here are the numbers for every article on the list today:
<br>Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories - 4 pages of review, 2 votes
<br>Luo Yigu - 4.5 pages, 1 vote
<br>Hemmema - 3 pages, 3 votes
<br>Rodent - 16 pages, 2 votes
<br>Amphetamine - 7 pages, 1 vote
<br>Briarcliff Manor, New York - 7 pages, 3 votes
<br>1850 Atlantic hurricane season - 2 pages, 2 votes
<br>Stroma, Scotland - 7 pages, 1 vote
<br>...And Justice for All (album) - 3 pages, 1 vote, 2 conditionals
<br>Caesar Hull - 4 pages, 3 votes
<br>Fez (video game) - 7.5 pages, 1 vote
<br>Murder of Leigh Leigh - 2 pages, 2 votes
<br>Didier Drogba - less than one page, no votes
<br>Xx (album) - 18.5 pages, 3 votes
<br>Ashley Tisdale - nothing
<br>Not My Life - 7 pages, 1 vote
<br>Interstate 69 in Michigan - 9 pages, 3 votes
<br>Chandralekha (1948 film) - 5 pages, 3 votes
<br>Bonshō - 4 pages, no votes
<br>Temperatures Rising - 2 pages, 2 votes?
<br>Turquoise parrot - 3 pages, 1 vote
<br>No. 1 Squadron RAAF - 2 page, 2 votes
<br>American paddlefish - 1 page, no votes
<br>Oxford College of Emory University - 1 page, no votes
<br>Æthelstan A - 1 page, 3 votes
<br>Barn owl - 4 pages, 2 votes
<br>Ontario Highway 403 - nothing really
<br>Master System - 4.5 pages, 1 vote
<br>The Seinfeld Chronicles - less than one page, 2 votes
<br>Acacia pycnantha - less than one page, 1 vote
<br>Carl Hans Lody - 1.5 pages, 1 vote
<br>The Boat Race 1993 - less than one page, 1 vote
<br>Battle of Warsaw (1831) - 3 pages, no votes (1 stricken)
<br>AI Mk. IV radar - 1 page, no votes
<br>The Fifth Element - 3.5 pages, 1 vote
<br>Margaret Bondfield - 3 pages, about 5 votes
<br>Tony Hawk's Underground - 2 pages, no votes
<br>William H. Seward - 2 pages, 1 vote
<br>HMS Formidable (67) - 2 pages, no votes
<br>2003 Sri Lanka cyclone - nothing yet
As one can see, there is no lack of reviews, but there is a lack of votes. If this list is judged according to the criterion on the main page, the vast majority would go to archive. How many? Well there are 40 items on the list, 10 are in for re-review due to lack of consensus on their previous run. '''That's 25% of the entries'''. That of course ignores the ones that never bother to come back, which I suspect is the majority of these examples.<br>
Looking over those noms, it appears that they all failed for the same reason: lack of votes. The Fifth Element is one example, in spite of two votes. In fact, only Didier Drogba appears to have been actually opposed, which implies that the other nine died for no good reason.<br>
So it appears that this is a fail-bad process, and it is being called a surprising number of times. If this doesn't indicate breakage, I don't know what does. ] (]) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry Maury but I think there’s a touch of ] here. Pls re-read for instance Graham’s last post above. The list you’ve made really doesn’t mean anything in terms of judging consensus to promote, or otherwise. As has already been explained, FAC isn’t about ‘votes’. If that was the case then we could get a bot to promote and archive nominations. Cheers, ] (]) 23:34, 30 September 2014 (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)
::I do not review much anymore (or do much on WP, alas). That said, I still occasionally review here. If it is not an article I reviewed before FAC, I am more likely to just comment initially 9neither oppose nor support, though I will try to indicate which way I am leaning). With fewer reviews I am more hesitant to oppose right away if there seems to be some chance of the outstanding issues being resolved. My fear is that I do not want a nom closed just because I opposed based on issues that might have been fixable. Thanks to Brian for the heads up. ] ''']''' 01:35, 1 October 2014 (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)
:::Sure, which is why the coords look at commentary, rather than just supports or opposes. I've left noms open with one or two opposes that looked fixable in a fairly short timeframe, it's when we see fundamental issues that clearly need a lot of time to address that we're more likely to archive. So my message is, don't be afraid to declare an oppose, you can always change to a support, or at least strike the oppose, if and when the issues are addressed. Cheers, ] (]) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (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)
:::::I rarely oppose, which is mostly because I've read the article, or most of it, before starting my review and if is going to be not ready or a ton of work, well, I have only so much time. I won't spend time at FAC with articles not close to the criteria. I'll often PR them or give them a heavy copyedit, but I don't feel that can be done adequately under the time pressure of a FAC. Just my view. I generally PR if asked if I think I can be of help.--] (]) 05:59, 1 October 2014 (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 ==
== Is close paraphrasing acceptable? ==


] 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)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: ]. A ] to that discussion is ] (]) 20:02, 1 October 2014 (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)
: The question of whether limited close paraphrasing is acceptable to Misplaced Pages is interesting. However, it's still not brilliant writing so I think its use would fail 1a anyway. --] (]) 12:30, 2 October 2014 (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)
:: That's a fine point; I agree! Brilliant writing would ''never'' heavily rely on close paraphrasing, but FTR, per ]:


== Archive problem ==
:::Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Misplaced Pages articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.


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)
:: Also, per ]: "Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <nowiki><blockquote></nowiki>, or a similar method."
:Tks, I think I've located so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI {{u|Hawkeye7}}. Cheers, ] (]) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes. It has run now. ] ] 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


==Second nom?==
:: So really, our policies and guidelines already strongly discourage close paraphrasing. ] (]) 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
{{@FAC}} Would I be okay to pop in a second nom? ] has been going for a couple of weeks and has five supports and has cleared image and source reviews, so most of the heavy lifting appears to be done on that. No problems if you'd rather I wait a little longer, obviously. Cheers - ] (]) 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:Yes, you would. ] (]) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Since the use of paraphrasing is disputed at ], it would help to get an additional spotcheck for ] for OR and/or copyvio. Nominator Dan56 is skeptical about Rationalobserver's source review. '''] (] / ])''' 06:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks very much ] - that's great. Cheers - ] (]) 21:35, 6 January 2025 (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)