Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Hi-5 (Australian band) Review it now
British National Review it now
1257 Samalas eruption Review it now
National Front (UK) Review it now
Máscara Dorada Review it now
Featured article removal candidates
viewedit
Superman in film Review it now
Tyrannosaurus Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 
2014

Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism

2013

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

2010

Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review
Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3
Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2
Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1
Mar 15: GA Sweeps end
Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards

2009

Nov 2: Inner German border
Oct 12: Sounds
May 11: WP Birds
May 4: Featured lists
Apr 20: Valued pictures
Apr 13: Plagiarism
Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations
Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates
Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds
Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT
Feb 23: 100 FS approaches
Feb 16: How busy was 2008?
Feb 8: April Fools 2009
Jan 31: In the News
Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates
Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders
Jan 10: December themed page
Jan 3: Featured list writers

2008

Nov 24: Featured article writers
Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page
Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest
Oct 13: Latest on featured articles
Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview
Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images
Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch
Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August
Sep 1: Featured topics
Aug 25: Interview with Mav
Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Aug 11: Reviewing free images
Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July
Jul 28: Find reliable sources online
Jul 21: History of the FA process
Jul 14: Rick Block interview
Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June
Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine
Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources
Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale
Jun 9: Main page day
Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May
May 26: Featured sounds
May 19: Good article milestone
May 12: Changes at Featured lists
May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities
May 2 (late): Did You Know
Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes
Apr 14: FA milestone
Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence
Mar 31: Featured content overview
Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter
Mar 17: Changes at peer review
Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration
Mar 3: April Fools mainpage
Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories
Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity
Feb 11: Great saves at FAR
Feb 4: New methods to find FACs
Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

Contents

Image/source check requestsEdit

FAC mentoring: first-time nominatorsEdit

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 reviewsEdit

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

Bot reportEdit

@WP:FAC coordinators: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive2 has not been transcluded on the nomination page. I should automate this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, tks Hawkeye. I don't mind manually transcluding because it gives us a chance to vet them beforehand but if Andy and Sarastro like the idea of automating then it's fine by me... The mere fact that FACbot alerts us is a big help, and is appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

External link checking toolEdit

The external link checker, which appears in the toolbox on each FAC nomination, is currently returning me a 404 messsage saying that the page doesn't exist. Are others getting the same message? Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In fact, all the links in the toolbox are returning 404 messages so there appears to be some systemic fault. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Tks Brian -- I tried it soon after you posted this, and again just now, and still appears to be down. I note that a message has been left on Dispenser's talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The tool seems to be functioning again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

American former astronautEdit

There's a disturbing trend in just the last few years: the rise of machine-written, semi-literate journalism, and it's just now starting to cause massive headaches. There's absolutely no shame (or shouldn't be, anyway) in repeating language in Wikipedia articles that you see or hear elsewhere, and it's not on you guys to fix this problem ... the blame is firmly on the idiots who are trying to save a few bucks with a "no humans in the loop" approach to writing. I'm trying to learn what I can about the problem.

"American former astronaut" is in the class of problematic phrases that have just started to appear. Most of you probably learned in school that in the phrase "some American astronauts", "some" is an adjective, but over the last 20 years linguists have reached a consensus that that's either wrong or it's not the whole story ... "some" doesn't obey the usual rules for adjectives at all, so it's now considered to be a new part of speech called a determiner. Determiners almost never follow adjectives, which is why all of these sound horribly wrong: "the American four astronauts were selected", "American some astronauts landed on the moon", "one of the American later astronauts", etc. "Former" isn't a black-and-white case ... it might not be a determiner, but it's so similar to other words that are determiners that "American former astronaut" sounds as wrong as "American four astronauts" to many listeners. Could we ban this phrase in Featured Articles, please? - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserted: Sorry, "first" was my first example. I should have been more careful ... that's a special case, it's sort of a determiner and sort of not. Either way, before today, I had never heard anyone speak up in favor of "American first astronaut". - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally I see no issue at all with "American former astronaut"; the alternative, "former American astronaut", is ambiguous as it's not clear whether the subject has retired as an astronaut or has renounced American citizenship. To take the "first astronaut" example, Yuri Gagarin was both the Russian first astronaut and the first Russian astronaut, but Alan Shepherd was the first American astronaut but not the American first astronaut. We'd say Armstrong was "the American first astronaut to land on the moon", not "the first American astronaut to land on the moon", because the latter implies a non-American got there first. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you don't like the idiots who are trying to save a few bucks with a "no humans in the loop" approach to writing, you'll probably want to avert your gaze from the WMF's vision of our Wikidata-powered future. ‑ Iridescent 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Love that. We're all going to be machines in a few years, right? So this is just future-proofing, removing "nuance" etc, it's the best thing since sliced bread! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man, in defence of the WMF (not a phrase I generally employ), I believe the intention is that this be used to generate pseudoarticles in obscure languages where there isn't enough of an editor base to manually write any but the most core topics, to prevent articles translated from the big wikis from becoming a sea of redlinks, on "something is better than nothing and at least this will tell you the absolute basics" grounds. They've been piloting a live version of it on Haitian Wikipedia—go over there and type in a topic on which they don't have an article and you'll see something like this (to stick with the astronaut theme). As (unsurprisingly) I don't speak Haitian, I have no idea if this is going down badly or well. ‑ Iridescent 20:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Does that sound right to everyone else, "the American first astronaut to land on the moon"? - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally I'd say "an American who was the first astronaut to land on the moon", but if obliged to use either "the American first astronaut to land on the moon" or "the first American astronaut to land on the moon" I'd unequivocally use the former, as the latter implies that the Russians were there waiting for him as he disembarked. Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister, not the female first prime minister. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
There's a set order for adjectives in English which, apparently, we intuitively follow even if we don't know about it (I didn't know until I read this). It's so intuitive to me that "American first..." is just plain wrong, regardless of how technically correct it might be in some contexts; so wrong, in fact, that I would recast the statement to avoid those contexts rather than get the adjective order wrong. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thirded. Rephrase to avoid the awkwardness (which does itself avoid the ambiguity, but introduces clunk). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
"Rephrase" is my vote too ... "first American astronaut to land ..." is also wrong, for the reason you give, Iri. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The IOC rapped me over the knuckles for describing someone as a "former Olympian". There is no such thing as a "former" Olympian. Off to code the Rambling Man Bot in Lua. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we could also get over our obsession with identifying the nationality of every person in the first sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR accessEdit

I've been out of the loop for a while, and I seem to have lost my JSTOR access – previews are all I'm getting. I wonder if this is general, or whether I've missed something somewhere. Can anyone enlighten? Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It may have expired Brian. If you go to WP:LIBRARY, you'll be able to request a renewal of your account. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for MarchEdit

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers for March 2019
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Image Source Content Total
Nikkimaria 24 3 2 29
Brianboulton 13 2 15
Gog the Mild 2 2 7 11
Tim riley 10 10
SchroCat 1 9 10
Jens Lallensack 1 9 10
Wehwalt 1 8 9
FunkMonk 8 8
Kees08 3 2 3 8
Jo-Jo Eumerus 6 6
Sturmvogel 66 1 2 3 6
Serial Number 54129 6 6
Moisejp 1 1 4 6
Mike Christie 1 5 6
Jimfbleak 6 6
KJP1 6 6
Peacemaker67 6 6
Casliber 5 5
HJ Mitchell 5 5
Ceoil 1 4 5
Brandt Luke Zorn 1 1 2 4
Hawkeye7 1 3 4
CPA-5 4 4
Aoba47 3 3
Lingzhi2 2 1 3
Gerda Arendt 3 3
Mr rnddude 1 2 3
Squeamish Ossifrage 3 3
Parsecboy 1 2 3
EdgeNavidad 2 2
Usernameunique 2 2
Dweller 2 2
Ian Rose 2 2
Nick-D 2 2
Factotem 1 1 2
Sportsfan77777 2 2
TheJoebro64 1 1 2
Johnbod 2 2
Laser brain 2 2
Harrias 2 2
L293D 1 1 2
Aa77zz 1 1
Attar-Aram syria 1 1
TheDoctorWho 1 1
SatDis 1 1
ArturSik 1 1
Sabine's Sunbird 1 1
Kailash29792 1 1
Chiswick Chap 1 1
Mrmoustache14 1 1
Kaiser matias 1 1
Lee Vilenski 1 1
AhmadLX 1 1
Canada Hky 1 1
Dudley Miles 1 1
Dmass 1 1
The ed17 1 1
1 1
Kosack 1 1
Darkwarriorblake 1 1
ImmortalWizard 1 1
Dank 1 1
Ritchie333 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
J Milburn 1 1
Graeme Bartlett 1 1
Lemonade51 1 1
Maxim 1 1
Zawed 1 1
Djsasso 1 1
JennyOz 1 1
Adam Cuerden 1 1
Praemonitus 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
BaldBoris 1 1
Damien Linnane 1 1
Cwmhiraeth 1 1
Tintor2 1 1
Kablammo 1 1
ChrisTheDude 1 1
Midnightblueowl 1 1
Jayron32 1 1
Al ameer son 1 1
Nimbus227 1 1
MONGO 1 1
RetiredDuke 1 1
Samsara 1 1
PericlesOfAthens 1 1
Opabinia regalis 1 1
Zwerg Nase 1 1
Dunkleosteus77 1 1
SecretName101 1 1
Xover 1 1
Lithopsian 1 1
Cinderella157 1 1
Sarastro1 1 1
Grand Total 40 39 203 282
Supports and opposes for March 2019
# declarations Declaration
Editor Oppose Support None Grand Total
Nikkimaria 29 29
Brianboulton 2 13 15
Gog the Mild 7 4 11
Tim riley 10 10
SchroCat 9 1 10
Jens Lallensack 9 1 10
Wehwalt 8 1 9
FunkMonk 8 8
Kees08 1 7 8
Jo-Jo Eumerus 6 6
Sturmvogel 66 3 3 6
Serial Number 54129 3 3 6
Moisejp 3 3 6
Mike Christie 5 1 6
Jimfbleak 6 6
KJP1 4 2 6
Peacemaker67 6 6
Casliber 4 1 5
HJ Mitchell 3 2 5
Ceoil 4 1 5
Brandt Luke Zorn 2 2 4
Hawkeye7 3 1 4
CPA-5 4 4
Aoba47 3 3
Lingzhi2 1 2 3
Gerda Arendt 3 3
Mr rnddude 1 2 3
Squeamish Ossifrage 2 1 3
Parsecboy 1 2 3
EdgeNavidad 2 2
Usernameunique 2 2
Dweller 2 2
Ian Rose 2 2
Nick-D 2 2
Factotem 1 1 2
Sportsfan77777 2 2
TheJoebro64 1 1 2
Johnbod 2 2
Laser brain 1 1 2
Harrias 1 1 2
L293D 1 1 2
Aa77zz 1 1
Attar-Aram syria 1 1
TheDoctorWho 1 1
SatDis 1 1
ArturSik 1 1
Sabine's Sunbird 1 1
Kailash29792 1 1
Chiswick Chap 1 1
Mrmoustache14 1 1
Kaiser matias 1 1
Lee Vilenski 1 1
AhmadLX 1 1
Canada Hky 1 1
Dudley Miles 1 1
Dmass 1 1
The ed17 1 1
1 1
Kosack 1 1
Darkwarriorblake 1 1
ImmortalWizard 1 1
Dank 1 1
Ritchie333 1 1
Cplakidas 1 1
J Milburn 1 1
Graeme Bartlett 1 1
Lemonade51 1 1
Maxim 1 1
Zawed 1 1
Djsasso 1 1
JennyOz 1 1
Adam Cuerden 1 1
Praemonitus 1 1
MaranoFan 1 1
BaldBoris 1 1
Damien Linnane 1 1
Cwmhiraeth 1 1
Tintor2 1 1
Kablammo 1 1
ChrisTheDude 1 1
Midnightblueowl 1 1
Jayron32 1 1
Al ameer son 1 1
Nimbus227 1 1
MONGO 1 1
RetiredDuke 1 1
Samsara 1 1
PericlesOfAthens 1 1
Opabinia regalis 1 1
Zwerg Nase 1 1
Dunkleosteus77 1 1
SecretName101 1 1
Xover 1 1
Lithopsian 1 1
Cinderella157 1 1
Sarastro1 1 1
Grand Total 1 158 123 282

I have just shy of ten years of data now, and when I noticed there is only a single oppose in the tables above, I thought it might be interesting to look at oppose frequency. Not counting image and source reviews, the most frequent opposer by far over the last ten years is Nikkimaria, who has opposed 172 times in 397 reviews -- that's 43% of her content reviews. I think this is because Nikki has long been one of the reviewers who are willing to quickly point out that a new FAC is really not ready and should be withdrawn; Nick-D and Brianboulton, among others, have also often quickly opposed substandard nominations.

Here are the top ten in total opposes (content, not image/source reviews) in the last ten years:

Editor Opposes Reviews % oppose
Nikkimaria 172 397 43%
Laser brain 95 268 35%
Graham Beards 92 342 27%
Brianboulton 79 752 11%
Tony1 71 462 15%
Eric Corbett 70 270 26%
Nick-D 54 271 20%
Giants2008 52 581 9%
Dank 46 952 5%
Indopug 43 207 21%

In terms of percentages, and assuming at least fifty reviews, the only other reviewers who have opposed at least 25% of the time are Squeamish Ossifrage 37/97 - 38%, and Karanacs 27/94 - 29%. Note that none of these numbers include struck opposes.

My own numbers are 30/280 (11%), in case you're curious; I can post the numbers for anyone else who wants to know, though I should repeat that this is only from May 2009 onwards, which is probably less than half the total FAC reviewing data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Depends on language use to. Some people use a polite "comment" when it is pretty clear that some material needs fixing and the article shouldn't be promoted without same. SOme would use an "oppose" from the get-go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cas. I'd rarely type '''Oppose''' unless the FAC was a clear non-starter, but I'd regularly write a long list of problems that needed addressing. To my mind, "oppose" can be off-putting, especially to newcomers to the process, whereas "here's a list of problems, it's up to you whether you fix them or withdraw this nomination" has the same effect but allows the nominator to withdraw with dignity and not end up feeling as if they've been flamed off. ‑ Iridescent 13:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

NoticeEdit

Anyone who pings me to review FACs can expect to be shouted at, after the abuse, the threats, the belittling I received here. Tony (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

...On this talk page, specifically? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It looks like someone pinged him to comment on the National Front (UK) FAC, as he'd commented on the first one; I presume that's the connection. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia novice subject-matter experts as reviewers?Edit

Hi all,

I saw a thread here recently about a shortage of reviewers. I do some work through various programs/events training or otherwise encouraging subject-matter experts to learn to contribute to Wikipedia. Sometimes it's through a weeks-long process, sometimes through edit-a-thons, and sometimes just an informal conversation, etc. As we all know, for better or worse, and for a range of reasons, writing articles on Wikipedia just isn't a good fit for some people. An open question is then in what ways they could contribute to Wikipedia apart from writing? Reviewing articles is a common suggestion, and there have been a number of projects/experiments involving just that, with mixed results. Sometimes they've been quite helpful, leading to article improvements, sometimes it's well-meaning but nobody actually does anything with the review, and sometimes the reviews miss the mark, maybe because of a misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Let's assume that for the sake of my question below, that this last scenario won't be an issue, and that people will have a reasonable sense of the fundamentals (NPOV, RS, V, NOR, etc.).

Here's my question: Is there a place at FAC for people who aren't experienced editors but have subject-matter expertise and want to help?

Obviously they won't be able to help with comments about things like MOS, but they may have a good sense of the body of literature, sources available, weight, prose quality in general, etc. At this point I'm just asking to see if it's a possibility worth looking into more. Of course, if the FAC community doesn't think it would be useful, I wouldn't want to pursue it. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Content-only reviewers would be extremely welcome; we have a high proportion of prose/MOS-only ones as things are, & balance on this would be great. At least here they can expect to have a review responded to, which of course you can by no means count on if you drop one on the average talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod; this is a good place for them, though I think it's likely to be hard to find SMEs that are a fit for most FACs. It might also be worth keeping a list of SMEs and what their expertise is, since knowing that there's an SME available might help someone decide to work on a given article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I fear POV. Some "experts" are very very POV. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
What about a trial run at peer review?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
PR is a good idea. POV is of course relevant for some topics but not others. My point would just be to prepare for that possibiloity by considering ways to handle it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but I don't know how it would be a "trial" - we can't prevent anyone posting on either pages. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to restrict anyone, but peer review is a good place to start. People get touchy about their FAC nominations and expect certain things from reviewers and I'm fearing if we drop the experts in the deep end (FAC), things could go wrong. We've been discussing and hoping for experts to come along for years, so I'd like things to go right.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Will possible POV really be a big problem? Reviewers only make suggestions, an author does not have to implement it. I think the benefits of having experts commenting far outweigh this possible problem. If we just keep the potential POV problem in mind and give it a try? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but I think to get to what Ling is talking about, it might be good to clarify to the expects some of Wikipedia’s core policies from the get-go, both so that they can provide more actionable feedback and also so they understand why the articles might be structured the way they are. For example, there’s a lot of scientists or researchers who don’t really understand that we’re mostly a tertiary source, and that original research is not in our wheelhouse (where it’s a key component of their professions.) Likewise even with WP:WEIGHT issues there’s probably still going to be more time spent to alternate (and frankly wrong) or outdated viewpoints because we’re a summation of a body of knowledge and not (or shouldn’t be) trying to be on the cutting edge of scholarship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, this would be most welcome. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
One potential area in which novice subject expert editors' input might be particularly useful is that of source reviewing. From their subject knowledge they should be able to assess whether the sources used in an article are properly representative of the body of material available on the subject, including the most recent scholarship. It is hard for source reviewers such as myself to do this, hence the frequent use of qualified wording such as "the sources appear to meet the FA criteria". I do wonder, though, how such editors are to be identified and recruited – indeed, what is the evidence that they exist to any significant extent? Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Branching off a bit, assume the reviewer gets inspired and sends a four page review that covers many aspects of the article. Does it get buried on the FAC page, placed on article talk with a " no archive" notice, or placed on its own subpage, like /talk/attribution? I like the latter, edit protected, and subsequent discussion on either article talk or subpage talk. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Second question: Let's assume the reviewer really is an acknowledged expert in the field, but doesn't want all the attention of posting their name on the review, so wants to be an anonymous reviewer. Can FAC coords recv forwarded emails and post a statement vouching for the authority of the reviewer? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured article candidates".