Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchroCat (talk | contribs) at 10:26, 21 October 2024 (OneClickArchived "Quick coord question" to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive94). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:26, 21 October 2024 by SchroCat (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchived "Quick coord question" to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive94)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Pages, tools and templates for

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.

Question

@FAC coordinators: Is it possible for me to nominate North Yemen civil war as a FAC? Abo Yemen ✉ 08:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you haven't made that many edits to the article, I recommend that you consult the main contributors of the article before nominating it, as per the instructions: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." FrB.TG (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ill try to contact them tho

Also how many edits would I need so that I can promote it without contacting anyone? Abo Yemen ✉ 09:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Abo Yemen, just for future reference, you don't need the permission of the coords to nominate any article for FAC, you can just launch it (as long as you are the one who has worked on it and have all the relevant sources to hand). I would note, however, that the article would (in my eyes) be a quick fail. There are MOS breaches (starting with a seven-para lead, when the MOS has a limit of four), unsupported paragraphs, numbered lists when text paragraphs are preferred and some clunky text in need of a copy edit. Can I suggest you work on the article a little longer and than take it through peer review for a further polish? - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

yeah Ill try to get it peer reviewed first Abo Yemen ✉ 09:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the four-paragraph limit was recently removed from MOS:LEADLENGTH following discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Max length guideline similar to the total length guideline. TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which was something of a mistake. Certainly this article shouldn't need seven paragraphs, and four would be much better than the mess that is currently there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: (but not @you personally), indeed someone raised it a couple of sections above. The project was never informed the discussion was taking place, even though it would be directly—and editorially—affected, and (again, above) it was noted that this was 'passed' by a quorum of a handful of editors. Personally, I suggest far too few to be making a decision that theoretically affects every article yet to be written and also puts many FAs at odds with a now-codified guideline which it is, mind you, meant to obey to the letter. Highly Kafkaesque all around. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

About what I thought when I stumbled across it last week. (Looking for the no longer existing paragraph guidance caused a "Duck's off!" moment.) Time to send the lads round do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, well, if you don't like duck, you're rather stuck. SerialNumber54129 17:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Rock climbing

Following on from re-writing Rock-climbing equipment (which became an FL), I have now done a re-write of Rock climbing. Can I put this forward for FA (is it near standard?), or, do I instead need to put it through GA first? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is, in principle, allowed to nominate an article without taking it through GAN. But make sure that the article is broad in its coverage. I am not an expert on the topic, but at first sight, I noticed the following possible omissions: 1) Health effects (a quick search on Google Scholar returned many hits regarding dust in halls; common injuries; risk in climbing; therapeutical effects; etc.). 2) Climbing organizations and where climbing stands in different parts of the world, legal issues, etc. 3) The history does not start with the different subdisciplines, but much earlier; there are certainly examples of rock climbing in antiquity? 4) A definition section explaining where rock climbing stands in relation to other types of climbing. Not sure if this is strictly needed but placing the topic in its broader context is usually a good idea. Furthermore, the article seems to have a strong bias towards Europe and North America. Does rock climbing not exist in China, for example? All persons listed under "history" seem to be European or US-Americans. Hope this helps for a start. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jens Lallensack. In relation to your comments:

1. "Climbing injuries" are around tendon strains and more recently eating disorders, however, it is not a major feature in the sport.

2. The only organizations are in competition climbing that I have mentioned; outside of that they are mainly mountaineering organisations (of which there are a lot), but are not specific to rock climbing.

3. There is a lot of mountaineering pre 19th-century, but really very little rock climbing outside of sporadic incidents in history that nobody really attributes to the "birth" of the sport of rock climbing (which is c. 1880s per the article).

4. Rock climbing intersects with mountaineering in multi-pitch climbing, alpine climbing (which I have mentioned in the article).

5. (Europe/US point). The article mentions climbing venues in Europe, North America, Australia (Mount Arapiles), Chile/Argentina (via Patagonia) and South Africa (Rocklands). They are definitely the main locations. There are more, although of lesser global notability.

Great comments, and I guess I am trying to keep the article from getting too big, and wanting to keep it focused on the main/most notable global material that would concern a casual reader - but let me think about it. thanks so much! Aszx5000 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: If you are looking for comments about the feasibility of nominating at FAC, I suggest posting the article at WP:PR and asking editors to comment there. This will give editors more space to leave detailed comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Following on from your comments, I have added sections on 'Health' and on 'Governance and organization' which I think are merited. I am up to 160k bytes, so am wary of adding too much more but I do think that I am covering everything that is 'notable' worldwide in rock climbing? If you feel it needs a longer-look, then we can move to WP:PR, or if this will not work out (maybe the topic is too broad for on FA article), then maybe I can try the WP:GA route as a first pass? thanks for your help! Aszx5000 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would try WP:PR; there you can hopefully get opinions from several different people. Taking it to WP:GA before nominating at FAC is preferred, but at the moment it can take a while until someone picks the review up, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that Jens and see how it goes. Thanks again for your input. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Regularly scheduled new nom question

@FAC coordinators: Alright to put up a new FAC? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2024

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

Reviewers for September 2024

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

Supports and opposes for September 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Article that heavily uses one source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second nom?

FAC Co-ords, would it be okay if I put another article up for nomination? My current nom—for Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang—has been going for a while and has five supports and completed source and image reviews. (Obviously there's no problem if you want me to wait a bit longer on this too). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead FrB.TG (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks FrB.TG - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional source reviewers

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