Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FACs needing feedback
1969 Curaçao uprising Review it now
Payún Matrú Review it now
Trachodon mummy Review it now
Sega Review it now
Featured article removal candidates
Albert Kesselring Review it now
Age of Empires II Review it now
Featured content dispatch workshop 

Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism


Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?


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


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


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


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.

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister projectEdit

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From an FA/GA/PR point of view, this is a complementary system to provide review of existing content by external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications. It also acts as a route for high-quality new articles from people who would not have otherwise contributed to a wikimedia project.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Supported, and I might get involved. Let us know what you need. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Will support later (on mobile atm), but my featured articles would be a good addition. :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any integration or even cooperation with FAC, for the same reasons raised at great length last time this came up. While CC BY-SA means you're free to reuse articles however you see fit, if any kind of formal integration of WikiJournals and FA does go ahead I request that all FAs for which I've been the nominator be delisted; I do not wish to be associated with the WikiJournals project in any way as I consider its values—particularly "the opinions of different editors are of different value" which is hardwired into its "panel of experts" approach—fundamentally and irredeemably incompatible with those of Wikipedia. (Incidentally, I assume it's accidentally slipped your mind that the citable, doi-linked publications you mention were unanimously rejected as being considered reliable sources even by Wikipedia's relatively low standards.) I'm neutral as to whether this continues to be hosted at Wikiversity or as a separate project, as I don't feel it's a project the WMF should be hosting at all; the whole concept of "private pages" and separate logons is completely against our values. ‑ Iridescent 14:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    I have to agree with Iridescent's points. I don't think this project works well within the "anyone can edit" culture of Wikimedia projects and have consequently filed an oppose in the Meta discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Incidentally, buried in the subpages they're talking about spending vast sums of the WMF's money on this proposal "because the funding is around", including hiring their own staff and having their own travel budget (the figure of $1,000,000 is mentioned, apparently not as a joke); this isn't just some handful of hobbyists running a pet project in a quiet corner but a genuine coordinated attack on Wikipedia's and the WMF's core values. ‑ Iridescent 19:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    It might be worth engaging with the suggestion directly so Lane is aware it's being discussed. Is Lane involved in the user group? Richard Nevell (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Other than that WikiJournals can consume content generated on Wikipedia (as anyone is free to do provided they follow the licensing requirements), can someone explain to me what relationship is proposed between WikiJournals and our content assessment processes? I would oppose any system where an external peer review process would attempt to compel revisions on Wikipedia based on authority of the reviewers rather than a consensus-based process. I would also oppose any system where we the FAC community are compelled to accept content as FA/GA/etc solely because it's been peer-reviewed for a WikiJournal. --Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Assuming their proposed model hasn't changed, it was spelled out last year in response to my challenging it last time round: After peer reviewer comments are addressed, the journal article is integrated into Wikipedia so that it is not a particularly forked version. It is treated as an approved version in the same way that there is an approved version of Featured articles. The Wikipedia page continues to evolve after the journal-organised peer review just as any GAs and FAs do. The public facing version in Wikipedia should 100% be the most recent and up to date version. The stable version of record can be used for citation. Their own mission statement is [WikiJournal's] function is to put articles through academic peer review for dual-publication as a stable, citable version in the journal, and as living documents in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, and I see no way to read that other than "WikiJournal's external peer review process is used to amend the article, and the result is used to overwrite the existing Wikipedia article with their version somehow flagged as the 'approved' version in the event of subsequent edits". ‑ Iridescent 22:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The voting so far supports Wikijournal (hopefully without the camel case). Can't we assume that Wikijournalists (?) will start off by overreaching, at least the ones who aren't familiar with GAN, FAC, and other forms of article review on Wikipedia? That's why I'm not paying much attention yet ... I'm pretty sure they won't get everything they might want. But I'd be interested to know what they'd be willing to settle for, and whether it's something that might work for some Wikipedians. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Dank: The Meta discussion is confusing, but WikiJournal (with the camel case) is already up and running and has been for some time; what's being voted on isn't whether they be allowed to continue, but how they continue. They're unhappy with the "anyone can edit" and "anyone can see the history" nature of the existing Wiki model; what's being voted on is whether they be allowed to split off to their own site to allow them in future to conduct their peer reviews and discussions in secret and subsequently present the rewrites as a fait accompli. As they've explained over at the Meta proposal, their model for reconciling "approved version" and "anyone can edit" is that anyone may edit pages, even published ones, but substantial edits to the main text of such articles would be reverted (direct quote). ‑ Iridescent 07:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, it is discouraged to make substantial edits to the finished products, the published articles (these can be made if approved by the author but would require an additional round of peer review). But this is well in accordance with Wikimedia principles: Same is the case in Wikinews and Wikisource. And I don't see any restrictions in viewing the history either. It is an Academic journal, but is as open as such a journal can get. It does not only allow everybody to edit, but everybody to publish and participate in Academia. As they say, taking Wikipedia articles to the journal would remain a minor route that only few editors will take (it thus has no direct relevance for FAC). But it can be a chance to close the gap between Academia and Wikipedia. Remains to be seen if the journal will be well-received by Academia though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • In practice, for the two articles I've published in the WikiJournal of Science, the approach outlined has not been harmful. Perhaps this was because these articles were almost entirely my own work (not to discount the value contributed by the reviewers, of course). There was a point after the journal version was published when the radiocarbon dating article was more or less identical to the journal version because I integrated the peer review changes. I think I have so far neglected to do that with the ice drilling article, though I wouldn't object if someone else did it. This integration is not just harmless, it's beneficial: if peer reviews of journal versions result in improvements I think the authors should feel themselves obliged to transfer those improvements to the Wikipedia articles. If someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia were to write a journal article and then were to be foolish enough to overwrite the Wikipedia article with it with no discussion, I imagine they'd be summarily reverted at any article with active editors, and asked to discuss the improvements on the talk page. I don't think this has happened yet and I think it's unlikely to; anyone that unaware of Wikipedia norms is unlikely to have much interest in contributing to the journal in the first place, and would have even less interest in editing Wikipedia. None of this is to say that the wording quoted could not be improved, but I don't think the reading Iridescent gives is intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I looked at an article in the Wikijournal of the Humanities yesterday and it showed two peer reviewers. However, it did not give any indication of what qualifications they had to act as peers - could be T. C. Mits, for all I know. That confused me, as did the entire proposal until just now when I read Iridescent's explanation above. - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination troubleEdit

I can't get my nomination Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 175/archiveNumber in properly. Could someone help? Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no nomination page to transclude. Follow the instructions in the Nomination procedure section at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Tks DK. Tigerdude9, if you are considering nominating Flight 175 for FAC, pls take note of my comments on the article talk page from last time, i.e. ensure that at the very least, all paragraphs end in citations to reliable sources -- at the moment at least four do not, and there's little point in nominating here until that's dealt with; I'd also strongly recommend taking this article to Peer Review first in any case -- I for one would try and look it over there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Closing a nomination?Edit

Hi, can someone please close this nomination as I haven't figured out how to do so? Thanks. Nehme1499 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do so shortly. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeking mentorEdit


Long-time listener, first-time caller here. There are a couple articles I'd like to explore bringing to FAC and wonder if someone would be interested/available to help as mentor.

The first is Rhode Island banking crisis, when embezzlement triggered the collapse of a private state insurer and a third of the state's population lost access to their bank accounts (for days, weeks, months, or in some cases more than a year). Protests, questions about organized crime and corruption, long manhunt, etc. (I'm trying to sell it a little because on the surface it sounds like a dry topic, I know). It's a GA now. I sent it to PR but it was archived without a review.

The second is Rossa Matilda Richter, who became the first human cannonball at the age of 14. It's sat in the GAN queue since last August, and is currently under review, but I feel like it's a strong contender for FAC. Working on this article was the first time I felt like I should take something to FAC as I realized, in the process of doing an exhaustive search for sources, that our article seems to be the best overall source about her now.

I don't know enough about the FAC mentoring processes to know how much the topic itself matters, but figured I'd detail what my plans are just in case. Anyone interested? :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I'd be happy to help out with one, your call which. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Great! Thanks. I suppose we should start with Rhode Island banking crisis, since the Richter article still has GAN pending. Let me know how you'd like to proceed? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured article candidates".