Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

Add topic
Active discussions
See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination, Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

To the coordsEdit

  The Patience Barnstar
To the FAR coordinators. For showing skill and patience during the sudden uptick in FAR processing - looking at the archives, FAR hasn't been this busy in years. I have to imagine it's a thankless job, but it keeps the process going, and y'all have been doing a good job at balancing allowing time for article improvements and not letting the page get unmanageable due to length. And looking at WP:FARGIVEN, the higher throughput may be coming for awhile yet. Thanks for being patient with a process that's probably a lot busier than anticipated. Hog Farm Talk 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes—second this 100%! (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • They are all awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The five-nom limit. Again.Edit

Template:FAR-instructions says:

  1. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.
  2. Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement

I'm not sure the second point is conveying what it might better convey. Even if they don't engage towards improvements, they should at least be following their nominations.

I am constantly at my five-nom limit because (thankfully) more and more articles are being worked on and staying longer on the page. That trend may increase as a result of WP:FASA and The Signpost this week. And we are letting noms run longer and longer, pushing more of us to the five limit. That leads me to wonder if we should move the limit from five to six.

But then, the second problem: increasingly, as I read through FAR daily, I find that nominators are not returning to their nominations to update progress or lack of progress, or to provide more guidance to other editors who engage. Somehow, we don't seem to have conveyed the message that just parking a nomination here, and not following it, creates more work for everyone else, and that the process needs feedback from the nominators as much as it needs them "to assist in the process of improvement".

My questions are:

  1. Do we benefit from a higher limit for those nominators who do keep up with their nominations, which the Coords would not grant to those who don't keep up?
  2. Do we need to adjust the wording to somehow explain to nominators that some sort of followup on their nominations is desired?

Several editors could well utilize a six-nom limit, but I don't think it is helpful to FAR for nominators who don't follow even one nomination to have any more than that. FAR is not intended to be a page for automatic delisting. How to resolve this? One solution is to just let the nominations from unresponsive nominators ride until they hit their limit and have to start weighing in, but that doesn't seem like an efficient or optimal way to run the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My noms, for example are: 1. William Tecumseh Sherman, open since April 2021, stalled; 2. Arsenal F.C. 29 December 2021, editor willing to improve it, but slow going; 3. Josquin des Prez 4 January 2022, editor working to improve it, but slow going; 4. Titanium 12 January 2022, some work, unclear, stalled; 5. Thoughts on the Education of Daughters 20 January 2022, some work, unclear; 6. History of Minnesota, just nommed (permission for a sixth given above). I suspect someone will engage History of MN, and I will continue to be unable to make a new nom in another week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm starting to think that the Sherman article should just be delisted at this point: issues raised months ago still haven't been addressed. (t · c) buidhe 01:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, if it’s not affecting my nom limit … unlike another recent nomination that drug on forever, in this case, at least the article has been improved, and there remains a chance it will continue to improve. But Pollyanna is my middle name … And that one is partly my fault, as I forgot it was my nom while I was on a long break! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you could give an example of what not "follow[ing] even one nomination" looks like? Besides newcomers, I don't think any of our regulars do this to such an extreme. Although the process would certainly benefit from keeping a closer eye on FARs that are already open, I'm not always sure how to engage. For example, I'm following the Mars article, but haven't posted so much at the FAR because it's being improved slowly but steadily. Other times the original issues cited in the nomination might be addressed, but there are technical content issues that I might not feel competent to weigh in on. (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the problem is not usually related to repeat nominators. George Ho has five on the page now, and could benefit from better guidance from established "regulars" before moving to a higher limit. FARs on the page lacking feedback from the nominator are Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Green (Dartmouth College)/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joel Selwood/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Holden/archive1; some of those nominations were not well grounded in WP:WIAFA, and other reviewers have had to carry the load there. In other words, some nominators could put an increased limit to good use, but I am not sure it would be a wise move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Will be four pages once one FAR closes soon. I don't know what "guideline" one of you wants to give me. I have so much in my mind going on. BTW, telling from the FAR, looks like "The Green (Dartmouth College)" will lose its FA star soon. Also, I really wish I hadn't treated FAR as a precursor to FARC, but it's been treated by others this way. I wonder whether now is the time for me to start treating FAR as a positive way to enhance/strengthen the article's FA status. George Ho (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The Dartmouth nom is a great example of a nom that didn’t engage WP:WIAFA, and was stalled until Hog Farm did the work. The nominator never responded. In other words, an editor like Hog Farm can handle a higher limit, while others maybe should not have a higher limit. Therein lies the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether Bumbubookworm (not pinged yet) should be scolded for one's own (in)activity in FAR. I appreciate your concerns about the stress of overload given to you and possible neglect from others, but there must be an explanation from the user about this, or... was that inexcusable? I gave you a reason, didn't I? George Ho (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, George Ho, iPad typing and I failed to answer your question, because I think you answered it yourself :) That FAR is not just a precursor to FARC, and nominators should engage or at least keep up with progress on their nominations, answer questions, address whether concerns are resolved, etc.
I didn’t see the usefulness in re-pinging Bumbu when they haven’t responded to pings on the FAR pages. I also would not have preferred to personalize this discussion, but I was asked to produce examples. Those I gave are not exhaustive. I’m happy to see your post above regarding your growth as a FAR nominator! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to the first question: because we can't write in the instructions "you can have X noms open if you're an engaged nominator and only Y if you're not", I'd be inclined to not increase the limit in the instructions and consider requests for additional noms case-by-case, as we do now. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I’m more interested in whether we need to fix the wording on the my point 2– that we do expect nominators to engage, not just plop a nom here and expect delisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding editors reviewing work after a nomination: Maybe the instructions can be clearer about nominators expectations, with language like, "FAR nominators should watchlist their nominations and re-review the article if improvements are made during the FAR process." When I started FAR, I did not realize that I was expected to provide feedback if someone worked on the article.
Regarding the five article limit: what if we allowed certain editors to nominate a sixth article without needing to ask the FAR co-ords? These editors could ask for a perpetual six-article allowance on the FAR talk page, and FAR co-ords could decide if they want to grant it or not. The perpetual extension could be granted to editors who are active in FAR reviews and frequently asking for a six-article extension, so that FAR co-ords don't have to keep responding to that editor's request. The allowance could remain as long as the editor is active at FAR, with the expectation that the FAR co-ords can withdraw the perpetual extension at anytime. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I am hoping for something like your first suggestion. I am not suggesting or supporting something like the second, as it sets up a class system (and I had to be reminded by a Coord when I returned from break that Sherman was my nom, so they are paying attention). I just intended to call attention to a problem that I’m unsure how to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I quite like Nikkimaria's suggestion of having an informal allowance of extra noms in cases where the coords deem it appropriate, so that we make the most of people who are dedicated to the process, while not opening the floodgates to large numbers of dump-and-run nominations. Extra noms would be the exception rather than the rule, and when requested the coords would check the existing noms to make sure ongoing engagement was at an appropriate level before granting.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thinking about this overnight, my concern (which could have been better expressed) is simply that the "regulars" here may need to take a more active mentoring/educating role out of concern that FAR not fall into ill repute or become perceived as a place for automatic delisting based on weasly descriptions of deficiencies. Particularly if The Signpost leads to an uptick in activity.

Not everything listed at WP:FARGIVEN must speedily or urgently go to FAR; we can ask ourselves if we would have to hang your head in shame if the article ran on the mainpage, or if we can wait for editors who might engage to have more time. Priorities: as an example, an outdated or inaccurate BLP, or a highly viewed topic with multiple cleanup tags, is of more concern than an outdated pop culture article no one reads anyway (check the pageviews).

I wish we could upgrade our instructions to somehow reflect that engagement is desired and the norm, ala "dump-and-run" is discouraged. But I'm not the wordsmith, and don't know how to state that.

Notifications need to be done, checked and recorded. Followup on nominations is needed. If work is progressing, guidance is needed. Entering a talk page notification that explicitly lists deficiencies, with examples, is preferred (some of the newer notifications aren't up to snuff, and we can educate editors who aren't providing enough information on talk page notifications or enough detail to guide an editor who might engage towards improvements). Awareness of the high number of noms some of Wikipedia's oldest FA writers have, so they won't all be nommed at once and overwhelmed, needs to be emphasized. Over a decade ago, editors poured heart and soul into articles which are now deteriorating, and some consideration of how that feels to them is always good. If a nominator is still active, pinging them or going to their talk page to inquire about their timing is helpful.

Re the five-nom limit, I think what we have is working, but it means I am about to be unable to nominate for a very long while, as most of my noms are being worked on. I guess that's Not Such A Bad Thing, as I can re-allocate my efforts towards "Satisfactory" entries at WP:URFA/2020A. Thanks to all for making FAR such a pleasant place to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think pinging the FAC nominator during the notice phase (step 1) should be encouraged. Some editors may not see the talk page notice on their watchlist. As for the uptick in activity and prioritizing high-traffic articles: I think the best way forward is to have a mix of articles at FAR both in terms of topics, FAC noms, and popularity. If we prioritize high-traffic or popular articles for FAR some editors might feel that we are targetting certain articles. I think instead we should try to prioritize the most-deteriorated articles for FAR. I am happy to answer any questions that someone has. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hot articles" listingEdit

I've set up FAR for a HotArticlesBot listing using Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates. Should be at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hot articles once the bot runs again at around 7:45 UTC; Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Hot articles is an example of what it would look like (but I used a higher limit for what shows red/orange). I figured it would be a useful tool to help keep track of what FARs are being actively worked on, and what are stalling. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Cool - what limit did you set? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Top 10 articles over past seven day. 10 seems to be the standard article count, and FAR sorta runs on a 7 day "cycle". I can tweak the limits if it turns out to be suboptimal. Color scales are set at 15/30 edits for the higher color levels for now. Hog Farm Talk 05:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, based on my reading of the documentation, it looks like we can't really get more than 10 at a time - but it does at least show which are the most active. Hog Farm Talk 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for setting this up! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying to address rather than prolong an issueEdit

Okay guys, clearly there is a problem with how we display information on the nomination process. It is all too common that someone either a) Nominates for FAR without talk page or project notifications (or either!) or b) Doesn't follow the two week rule. Is there a way we can make these instructions clearer? I mean how are people getting to the notification process and still ignoring these steps? Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I suspect they just don't read, and that it won't matter what we write. Could be wrong :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I know I dont read. GamerPro64 01:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Late reply, but we need to drastically reduce the length of instructions if we want people to read them.
There is some wriggle room already to do this without losing vital information. If we ask our technical editors to part of the nominations process (the notifications of editors and WPs after a FAR starts, the listing here, the removal from WP:URFA/2020 and the removal from noticesgiven), we can further shorten the instructions.
Further advantages of getting more people to engage is that we can mentor on content rather than process. A better content/process balance may also attract more people to engage here. Femke (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Solar System/archive2Edit

The page has been stale for 2 months, and I think that the article is now up to FA standard. I've pinged the coords using @FAR a month ago, but it seems that no one listened. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The coords can't really do anything without a consensus of keep/move to farc/delist declarations, which nobody has provided there. And I'd say it's a major enough subject that at least I and probably others who are somewhat "regulars" at FAR don't feel comfortable entering a declaration in a denser area like astronomy without more subject matter experts signing off on it. From a skim it does look better, but I have no way to assess the content. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Ditto; also concerned about the number of solar system FARs on the page, and wondering who will opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm running on fumes and can do basically nothing if there are five different articles all needing attention. Other editors who have some topic-matter knowledge are probably less ragged than I am but may also be facing the same challenge of prioritization. Solar System and Mars are the oldest of the astronomy reviews now open, so getting them resolved would help the logistics. It looks like substantial progress has been made on Planet and Supernova. I haven't had time to evaluate the recent edits to 90377 Sedna. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Your presence, with fumes, is most appreciated. I am barely running at all due to real life issues; it should be stated that having five solar system FARs on the page at one time is extremely demotivating. I am pointing this out in the hopes that BloatedBun, Renerpho and Artem.G will hopefully take care in the future not to nominate so many articles from one topic area at the same time, as that practically assures no one will be able to get to them, and discourages even regulars from working on them. Thanks for whatever you are able to contribute, XOR'easter; your work is valued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Bloated Bun is checkuser blocked, so I don't think we'll be getting any help from them finishing these off. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Lovely :\ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
*headdesk* XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I was not really aware of the FAR process when I've nominated Planet, I was just working on the Asteroid and so read a lot of astronomical articles. I wouldn't nominate more now. Without XOR, Planet (and probably Mars and Solar system too) wouldn't be to the FA standards, now all these articles look solid and decent. I'm overwhelmed with some reallife issues now, and would be either completely off wiki for a month or more, or would just visit sporadically to fix some typos, but will try to read through all mentioned articles. Artem.G (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
No hard feelings, Artem.G; I hope your off-wiki issues resolve well.
If we could get the weight of Mars and Solar System off the list, that would be a good start; someone who is not me should read Planet for issues like excessive/confusing images and tables. Supernova was in better shape than Planet to start with, and is probably of slightly narrower interest (~640K annual views versus ~700K), so it makes sense to triage them so that we tackle Planet first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I will try (specific instructions for how to prioritize are very helpful !!!), but real life is not cooperating for me either, and it may be at least a week before I can bring full focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
PS, I also have to get through this weekend's TFA of J. K. Rowling, where lots of help (eg, delivering discretionary sanction notices, and reverting non-consensual changes) would be most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I just watchlisted Rowling and will try to help keep an eye on that there. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, Mars has been kept, and Solar System is still waiting for evaluation. I have now gone over 90377 Sedna and (I think) fixed the issues raised in the review, as well as some points I noticed that called out for immediate repair. I believe the best use of our time is to get Solar System out of the way so we can better focus attention, and then read over Planet as mentioned above. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Where are we now? Solar System has passed. My guess is that Planet has the widest readership of the astronomy articles remaining up for review. If we are prioritizing by pageviews (crude, but why not?), then Planet has ~691K over the July 2021–June 2022 year, Supernova a little less at ~624K, and 90377 Sedna much lower at ~205K [2]. I think each can be saved. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thanks for that ... most helpful as I try to catch up sans attention span due to IRL stuff (have been dabbling in mindless start-class editing, hoping the muse returns :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I went through and ... well ... the Astronomy FA situation is as depressing as the Medicine FA situation. Not fun. Too much deterioration, and we can't just push 'em back through here ... they need to be brought to standard before we send 'em off. Supernova is not in as bad shape as 90377 Sedna, but lots of work is needed, and there are many more astronomy Noticed right behind them. Similar to Medicine, and depressing. Is it realistic to try to save all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's possible, if we can get WP:ASTRONOMY to chip in. I personally have saved Uranus and the Sun, so at least I've done something :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I think we're going to need a bigger boat of people who know astronomy. I've never had much luck recruiting either students or fellow faculty to become regular Wikipedia editors, but maybe with a focused goal, and the promise of a fairly collegial editing environment, we can bring in contributors who stay around long enough to make a difference. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR overloadEdit

There should be a means to meter the topics brought to FAR based on the topic. Right now, the following astronomy topics are up for FAR: Supernova, 90377 Sedna, Planet, and Solar System. For a small WikiProject (WP:AST), this can be a significant overload and I don't think each review can necessarily get the dedicated TLC that is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the third thread on the same topic; perhaps you'll move your comments to one of the threads about solar system already on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 2Q 2022 summaryEdit

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing very old (VO) and old (O) featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards.

Progress

Monthly progress is recorded at this page. Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:

  • 280 FAs were Delisted at FAR (255 VO and 25 O).
  • 202 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (133 VO and 69 O).
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 66%, with 89% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.

URFA/2020 reached a milestone when there were less than 100 articles promoted from 2004-–2006 that needed reviews. Thank you to all the editors who helped with this task. The group is focusing our efforts into finishing this list by the end of the year, and would appreciate it if reviewers could evaluate these articles.

How to help

If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:

  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed.

Older reports

The year-end 2021 report is here.
Other quarterly reports are here.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2Q2022. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Apply for mass message senderEdit

It makes doing the FAR notifications so much easier! (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah ha! So that's why the notifications didn't show in your contribs ... I was checking why Putnam hadn't been transcluded and thought you were still working :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

No I just got interrupted twice and forgot which parts I'd already done (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Old FARs, possibly an area of focusEdit

We've got a distressingly large number of FARs that are stalling; I would recommend trying to focus on making sure that these are progressing towards being in actually proper shape to close. The ones over two months old (nominated before 6.12.2022), from oldest to newest, are:

  • Joan of Arc (4 September 2021) kept 4 September
  • Joel Selwood (18 November 2021) delisted 20 August
  • Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (20 December 2021) delisted 1 October
  • Josquin des Prez (4 January) kept 15 October
  • Yellowstone fires of 1988 (26 January) delisted 19 November
  • Green children of Woolpit (28 January)
  • H.D. (28 March) kept 15 October
  • Californication (album) (28 March) delisted 27 August
  • USS Missouri (BB-63) (9 April)
  • Larrys Creek (22 April) delisted 20 August
  • Planet (1 May) kept 19 November
  • 90377 Sedna (3 May)
  • Supernova (5 May)
  • Dmitri Shostakovich (16 May) delisted 3 September

Several of these are in places where the wait is for continuing work to finish, but several are in places where they honestly need more reviewers as the priority at the moment. I for one don't plan on nominating more until we can get the backlog down a bit. Organizing our efforts could be useful - I think Joan is nearing the endgame, and so are a few others. Anyone have any thoughts on how best to handle this? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am finishing up at Joan, so please (others) hold off for one more week; we are close to done.
I have zero intention of continuing to engage either RFK Assassination or Green children (sorry Coords, hopeless in my view, and don't know what to do next, so have unwatched).
Once I finish Joan, I can take a look at whether I can finish off the straggling bits at Yellowstone or Larry's Creek.
I have been waiting for the better part of the year for Aza24 to finish up des Prez, and that FAR has prevented me at times for a new nomination. I Would Be Very Happy if Aza Would Finish :) :) :)
I've lodged my opinion about Selwood.
I will revisit astronomy when the experts there say they are satisfied.
So although these FARs appear to be "ignored", that's where I stand on them :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Yellowstone is up next for me
I'll look at Joan once Sandy thinks it's ready
I've declared at Selwood and the creek
I've noticed pagination issues at RFK and don't intend to continue throwing time into that one until I get a good assurance that those issues have been addressed
I've left sourcing comments at planet and those are getting worked through
I am in the same spot as Sandy with the green children
willing to pitch in on any of the others as needed. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
I will try to do so soon Sandy... thankful as always for your patience :) Aza24 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 3Q 2022 summaryEdit

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing very old (VO) and old (O) featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards.

Progress

Monthly progress is recorded at this page. Through the end of the third quarter 2022, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:

  • 324 FAs were Delisted at FAR (289 VO and 35 O).
  • 210 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (140 VO and 70 O).
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 65%, with 88% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.

URFA/2020 reached a milestone with less than 4,000 articles needing review. Thanks to all of the editors who have helped with this task.

Year-end goals

  • Focus on finishing up reviews of 2004–2006 FA: The number of the very oldest FAs needing review has been reduced from 225 to 77; finishing these up by year-end is a goal.
  • Focus on reviewing 2007 FAs: The number of the 2007 FAs needing review has been reduced from 659 to 487; please review an article from that group towards a goal of reducing it to 450 by year-end.

How to help

If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:

  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

Older reports

The year-end 2021 report is here.
Other quarterly reports are here.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/3Q2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Alfred Russel WallaceEdit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for H.D.Edit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/H.D./archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Josquin des PrezEdit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for PlanetEdit

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)