Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Add topic
Active discussions

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.

Charts reliability questionEdit

Posting here because there are probably regulars who can quickly address this. At the FAC for Late Registration I've asked for proof of the reliability of the charts websites published by Hung Medien. They are treated as reliable by WP:CHARTS, but I've been unable to find out the basis for that in the archives. In addition, since these pages are often cited from archive.org, I think we need to know when they became reliable -- they were started as a one-man operation by Steffen Hung, as far as I can tell, so presumably weren't immediately reliable. I have started a thread at WT:CHARTS about this; comments are probably better there than here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

FACs about living people are inherently unstableEdit

Not sure where to post this, but since I just saw Elon Musk was nominated for FAC, and coupled with some recent FACs about child actors and very young athletes, it made me wonder what the point is of even promoting such articles? Especially with young people who are in the early stages of their careers or extremely active people like Musk, the articles are inherently unstable, and would become outdated after only a few years, if not less. So I wonder if the implications of this have ever been discussed? Are there any guidelines for this? FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Whenever this has come up the answer has been that the instability criterion of WP:FACR does not apply; that criterion is meant to disallow articles undergoing edit wars, for example. The result is that this sort of article can be promoted, but is more likely to be taken to WP:FAR as being no longer comprehensive in a very short time. I could see the article on Musk going to FAR within a year or two if it is not diligently kept up to date. But I think FAC has nothing to say about whether the article will be kept up to date; we can only evaluate the article as it is at nomination time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
For almost every topic, updates are necessary. We shouldn't assume that updates won't happen without giving people the chance to make them. For example, a long time ago Barack Obama and John McCain both were TFA together on Election Day, November 4, 2008 (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008). Unsurprisingly, Obama's article had more changes after the election than McCain's, and suffered more instability/edit warring. But it stayed as a FA for over a decade.
I would not wish to discourage people even more from writing FAs on living people / existing cities or countries / current hot topics. Too many FAs are in fairly niche areas (there are often complaints about what gets featured as TFA). People writing FAs about popular living people should be commended, not discouraged. —Kusma (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Mike here, although personally I do think it's a waste of time to try and promote stuff that is going to be rapidly outpaced by events (especially in the case of biographies and the like where critical reappraisal and image are always changing.) Stuff like FA's MoS and prose requirements don't really mesh well with text that is continually being revised and importance of certain details or sections shifts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
While I don't think it should be blanket discouraged in general, I think it could be evaluated on a case by case basis at the beginning of a FAC, as per child actors, very young athletes and Musk. Of course it's possible that a nominator will keep it up to date for years and years, but that would be so unusual as to be unlikely, and all this added material would also be unreviewed, probably constituting more text than what was in the article by the nomination. A child actor/singer/athlete will per definition have an incomplete article by the time it gets nominated, so I think those should actually be discouraged in general due to inevitable lack of comprehensiveness. This is not a subject I dabble in myself, so it's not something I will either try to implement or will be affected by, it has just puzzled me a lot. As stated above, such articles are deemed to go to FAR within a short time after promotion. Imagine if, say, Michael Jackson became a FAC as a child... FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's that unusual for an FA to be well-maintained & updated, plus for actors, politicians, & no doubt Musk, others will do it, though the standard will need checking. Does anyone actually have an example of an FA that badly needs/needed updating for recent developments? Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
A good deal of the articles currently at Wikipedia:Featured article review (as well as past nominations) seem to be there for that very reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
No, they are not. I don't see any BLP's there. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
You just said FA, not specifically BLP, but yes, Sandy pointed some out, and I'm sure many more could be found. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I thought the subject here (chosen by you) was "FACs about living people are inherently unstable". Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the percentage of BLPs represented at FAR is higher than any other category, but unless there's a group of knowledgeable FA people on board, they can get into trouble with real consequences. My guesstimate is that they tend to become more POV as more time goes on (but I have no evidence to back that up other than examples like Obama) because others can't change the current "owners" text. There have been examples of very conscientious maintenance of BLPs, but have a look at the old list at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Unreviewed BLPs on older subjects; there are any number there that have spiraled out of control that just haven't been addressed yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have not looked myself, but others have said that Angelina Jolie is in great shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Roger Waters recent (July 16 de-feature). Without perusing the archives, Barack Obama also comes to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think these articles should still be eligible for FAs, provided that they met the FA criteria. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it stable? Look at the stats history ... who were previously involved editors and have they weighed in? This edit warring disagreement is less than a month ago, and there was also a BLP thread. Too recent for comfort. A BLP of that nature needs extreme stewardship ala J. K. Rowling; is there evidence of that with many experienced FA writers on board ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

PS, for a case like this, it is essential to read the last several talk page archives, to determine how stable the article is and what kind of editor interaction and involvement is seen. The J. K. Rowling comparison is made in talk archives. I'll say right away that JKR had multiple experienced FA writers on board, all sides worked through disagreements, there were a few blocks of one-time editors while it was on the main page, no one was chased off (that I know of), and if any one of the main editors (eg me) died tomorrow, there are multiple editors who are integral at that article and would keep it updated. Can the same be said of Musk? Has anyone looked to determine what past conflicts, edit wars, issues look like ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Unlike children, Rowling also has the benefit of having her most well known work behind her. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I was going to add that, but with three corrections already to my text, I thought I'd let someone else have a chance :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Are there any issues with Emma Watson? —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save AwardsEdit

Please watchlist Wikipedia:Featured article review/FASA to periodically weigh in on discussions of whether to recognize editors who work to restore Featured articles to current standards during a Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2022Edit

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2022. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reviewers for July 2022
# reviews Type of review
Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
Nikkimaria 6 15
Gog the Mild 12
Mike Christie 3 9
Buidhe 2 9
Wehwalt 7
FunkMonk 6
ChrisTheDude 5
Aoba47 5
Tim riley 5
Lee Vilenski 5
CactiStaccingCrane 4
Edwininlondon 3 1
Your Power 2 2
ErnestKrause 4
Gerda Arendt 4
MaranoFan 2 1
Dugan Murphy 3
Dudley Miles 3
WereSpielChequers 3
FrB.TG 3
BennyOnTheLoose 3
Gerald Waldo Luis 1 1 1
Aza24 2
Guerillero 2
Hog Farm 1 1
Indy beetle 2
Pendright 2
AirshipJungleman29 2
Jens Lallensack 2
Sturmvogel 66 2
Iazyges 1
Nick-D 1
Kusma 1
Mirokado 1
Borsoka 1
Vami IV 1
JBchrch 1
Compassionate727 1
BhagyaMani 1
Ovinus 1
Ssilvers 1
BigDom 1
RunningTiger123 1
Balon Greyjoy 1
100cellsman 1
A. Parrot 1
Caeciliusinhorto 1
DMT Biscuit 1
HAL333 1
Epicgenius 1
Therapyisgood 1
Peacemaker67 1
Zmbro 1
Moisejp 1
T8612 1
Mr rnddude 1
Teflon Peter Christ 1
Johnbod 1
Pseud 14 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus 1
Ceoil 1
SnowFire 1
Johan Elisson 1
JennyOz 1
SatDis 1
Aa77zz 1
Magiciandude 1
TheAmazingPeanuts 1
Anarchyte 1
Urve 1
Premeditated Chaos 1
Eem dik doun in toene 1
Graham Beards 1
Hawkeye7 1
Dwaipayanc 1
Casliber 1
Parsecboy 1
GGT 1
Amakuru 1
Jaguar 1
2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E160:3432:925D:975C 1
Indopug 1
SandyGeorgia 1
Totals 142 27 30 0
Supports and opposes for July 2022
# declarations Declaration
Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
Nikkimaria 21 21
Gog the Mild 9 1 2 12
Mike Christie 2 10 12
Buidhe 11 11
Wehwalt 6 1 7
FunkMonk 6 6
ChrisTheDude 4 1 5
Lee Vilenski 5 5
Tim riley 4 1 5
Aoba47 5 5
Edwininlondon 3 1 4
CactiStaccingCrane 3 1 4
Your Power 2 2 4
ErnestKrause 4 4
Gerda Arendt 4 4
WereSpielChequers 1 2 3
Dudley Miles 3 3
Dugan Murphy 3 3
Gerald Waldo Luis 1 2 3
MaranoFan 2 1 3
BennyOnTheLoose 2 1 3
FrB.TG 3 3
Hog Farm 1 1 2
Jens Lallensack 2 2
AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2
Sturmvogel 66 1 1 2
Pendright 2 2
Guerillero 1 1 2
Aza24 2 2
Indy beetle 2 2
Therapyisgood 1 1
Epicgenius 1 1
Kusma 1 1
TheAmazingPeanuts 1 1
HAL333 1 1
Iazyges 1 1
Nick-D 1 1
Magiciandude 1 1
SatDis 1 1
Aa77zz 1 1
DMT Biscuit 1 1
Caeciliusinhorto 1 1
Indopug 1 1
SandyGeorgia 1 1
2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E160:3432:925D:975C 1 1
A. Parrot 1 1
Jaguar 1 1
Amakuru 1 1
JennyOz 1 1
100cellsman 1 1
Balon Greyjoy 1 1
GGT 1 1
SnowFire 1 1
Johan Elisson 1 1
RunningTiger123 1 1
BigDom 1 1
Parsecboy 1 1
Ceoil 1 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1
Ssilvers 1 1
Casliber 1 1
Pseud 14 1 1
Johnbod 1 1
Dwaipayanc 1 1
Hawkeye7 1 1
Teflon Peter Christ 1 1
T8612 1 1
Mr rnddude 1 1
Ovinus 1 1
Compassionate727 1 1
BhagyaMani 1 1
Eem dik doun in toene 1 1
Graham Beards 1 1
Moisejp 1 1
Zmbro 1 1
JBchrch 1 1
Borsoka 1 1
Vami IV 1 1
Urve 1 1
Premeditated Chaos 1 1
Peacemaker67 1 1
Mirokado 1 1
Anarchyte 1 1
Totals 107 1 1 0 7 83 199

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.

Note that I've changed this to cover three months rather than one month, as it was omitting some editors' information, because it often takes more than a month to get a FAC promoted.

Nominators for May-July 2022 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
Nominator Nominations (N) (12 mos) Reviews (R) (12 mos) R/N (12 mos)
Al Ameer son         3.5 2 0.6
Amakuru               7.5 36 4.8
Amir Ghandi           2 0 0.0
Aoba47               10 85 8.5
AryKun               6 18 3.0
AviationFreak         2 6 3.0
Bennyontheloose       7 14 2.0
Buffs                 2 1 0.5
Buidhe               10 289 28.9
CactiStaccingCrane   4 18 4.5
Casliber             2.53333 52 20.5
ChrisTheDude         17.5 73 4.2
Cplakidas             4 6 1.5
DannyMusicEditor     1.5 1 0.7
Darkwarriorblake     6 4 0.7
Dudley Miles         2 32 16.0
Edwininlondon         3 41 13.7
ElijahPepe           2 0 0.0
Epicgenius           8 15 1.9
Ergo Sum             9 5 0.6
FrB.TG               3.5 33 9.4
Gog the Mild         19 104 5.5
Golden               2 0 0.0
GreatLakesShips       3 0 0.0
Hawkeye7             9 46 5.1
HenryCrun15           2 0 0.0
HJ Mitchell           5 25 5.0
Hog Farm             13.5 115 8.5
Horserice             3 0 0.0
Indy beetle           6 11 1.8
Ippantekina           4 5 1.3
Jo-Jo Eumerus         9 61 6.8
Kaiser matias         3 4 1.3
Kavyansh.Singh       4 65 16.3
Kyle Peake           2 4 2.0
Lazman321             3 0 0.0
Lee Vilenski         12 60 5.0
LittleJerry           3.7 0 0.0
MaranoFan             4 13 3.3
Midnightblueowl       2 1 0.5
Mike Christie         6 119 19.8
Pamzeis               5 16 3.2
Peacemaker67         10 15 1.5
Premeditated Chaos   4 6 1.5
Pseud 14             2 9 4.5
Realmaxxver           4 9 2.3
Shooterwalker         8 16 2.0
Steelkamp             2 2 1.0
TheJoebro64           2 4 2.0
Theleekycauldron     3 4 1.3
TheSandDoctor         3 7 2.3
Tim riley             3 60 20.0
Trainsandotherthings 2 6 3.0
Vami IV               6 10 1.7
WA8MTWAYC             2 7 3.5
Wehwalt               12.5 61 4.9
Zmbro                 4 7 1.8

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Well! That change has just trashed my R/N ratio. :-( Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    If everyone had a ratio of over 5, FACs would pass in a couple of weeks, so you're in good shape. Actually the change was not intended to change the numbers at all, just to include more people on the list, but I now realize the way I did it includes 12 months back from May, so it's actually 14 months worth of reviews. I will try to remember to fix that next month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I really appreciate your efforts to keep these statistics! I can see my reviewing numbers are already suffering from activity drop. Oh well, my nominations are going to dry up pretty soon anyway. (t · c) buidhe 02:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)