Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SchroCat (talk | contribs) at 10:27, 21 October 2024 (OneClickArchived "Regularly scheduled new nom 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 10:27, 21 October 2024 by SchroCat (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchived "Regularly scheduled new nom 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.

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)