Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

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

WP:URFA/2020 revisitedEdit

(Posting here rather than WT:URFA/2020 for visibility reasons and the overlap in regular editors between the two project pages) Well, progress with URFA is coming along pretty well under the leadership of SandyGeorgia, who's been informally heading the project. One thing that's been noticed through the project that I think ought to be introduced is a change as to how we've been doing the noticing system. The goal of this project is to get interest in bringing older and abandoned FAs back up to standard, with delisting as really a last-choice option for when the article has major issues and nobody is stepping up to work on it. Currently, what generally happens is that the article does not meet the criteria, and a notice is left on the talk page stating that if identified issues are not met, FAR is coming. This is likely to discourage or scare off editors who might want to work on the article. An idea is that maybe references to FAR should be left out of the talk page notice identifying issues, and then FAR only mentioned and the article added to the list of notices after some time if no work is being done to address the issues. In exceptional cases, it's probably perfectly fine to drop the notice early: for instance when there's only a single main contributor who has been indeffed for years or has stated that they can't or don't plan on bringing it back up to standard. Additionally, if there develops consensus that the article is hopeless in its current state for whatever reason, that'd also be a sign to go ahead and notice.
Additionally, this is an effort that needs some more help. We let featured article maintenance get backed up by about 10 years, so there's a lot of attention that needs to be given here, especially with the oldest entries. One thing that could be done easily is for editors considering nominating articles at FAR to give precedence to nominating the articles closest to the top at the URFA list, although it should be kept in mind that some of those noticed are not good FAR candidates as they were only recently noticed, and someone may still step in to fix the issues. Hog Farm Bacon 02:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that if a featured article needs to be rewritten to retain its status, then it should be delisted and go through a new FAC. Several FAs promoted in 2006-2008 have not gone through a proper FA review, and I think that asking editors to upgrade them in the background is not the proper way to go. I repeat my suggestion to have a "speedy delist" process for FAs that need to be rewritten. I've seen FAs that wouldn't pass a GAN. T8612 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
So have I. The extreme cases should probably go the more accelerated route. Examples include Webley Revolver which was delisted a few months back, or Battle of Tippecanoe, which has serious source-text integrity concerns. But stuff like Shadow of the Colossus, which has definite issues but is not systematically broken, should get some more time to try to get engagement. I support not giving extra time to the hopeless cases, but the fixable ones I think should get a little extra time. There's a bunch of hopeless cases out there now, but as URFA works into the period with less time to degrade and stricter original standards, there will be more fixable ones coming up. Hog Farm Bacon 04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Not so much "my leadership" as URFA/2020 has been an amazing collaboration of many editors. The only thing I've done is try to set the tone and process, taking lessons from the old WP:URFA, knowing what some of the pitfalls can be down the road.
T8612, I like to think there is also a middle ground. Remember that a FAR is a new FAC. (See Climate change. No, strike that; these days, FAR is better than a new FAC, because FAC has fallen into a problem where any nomination is lucky if it can get three reviewers, and once it does, the review often stops-- you get more reviewers at FAR. We don't allow subheadings here. FAC has fallen into a pattern of allowing subheadings, including an indication of support, so that once reviewers see three segmented sub-heads where others have reviewed and supported, they say fine, I don't need to look-- this is a Very Bad Thing, that affects article quality, and is not happening at FAR. And when people see an article's status is challenged via a FAR they are more likely to weigh in and review. I do not think Climate change would get the grilling at FAC that it is getting at FAR.)
So when an article is many years separate from its original FAC, and considerably changed (I'm looking not only at Climate change, but also at Bob Dylan, where editors have engaged on my talk to ask for feedback), my suggestion is a three-step process: 1) involved editors who are notified on article talk that there are issues work for a few months to bring the article closer to standard; 2) once they've done that, URFA/FAR reviewers give them further guidance towards improvement; 3) then an article with that many changes is submitted to FAR for a check, as is happening with Climate change.
Ultimately, we have to keep two goals in mind-- article improvement, and engaging more editors toward same. If we are only here to strip stars from articles, or even perceived that way, FAR will fall into decline again.
All that aside, I agree that we need to move the hopeless cases through quickly, and conserve resources for where there is hope, or at least, for article improvement even if the star can't be saved. It's hard to know where to draw that line, but the Coords here do a very good job at sorting that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I think you all have a dialogue to finish. I came here to ask a question and found this thread that's kinda sorta getting at what I wanted to ask about. My understanding is that saving a FAR used to outweigh a quick and simple delist, but I've been away for ages and stuff changes. Above Hog Farm mentions the Battle of Tippecanoe as unfixable which he reiterated on the nomination page last night. Whatever the goal - delist, rewrite and go back to FAC, or something else entirely - it needs to be clear so that we don't have volunteers stepping up unnecessarily and wasting time and energy. For now I'll cease on Tippecanoe until coords and all are clear re goals. Let me know on that talk page or on mine what to do or not to do once it's clear to all. FWIW, as an uninvolved seldom-around participant my view is that saving an article is always preferable to delisting. But ymmv and all that. Victoria (tk) 15:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, I don't think Hog Farm said it was unfixable, just expressed skepticism that it could be fixed as part of the process. Improving articles is the main goal. (t · c) buidhe 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for clarifying what I was having trouble articulating. Do we delist & then rewrite, or rewrite & keep the star. What is the process? Asking @FAR & SandyGeorgia. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If it is possible to rewrite and keep the star, that would be ideal (excepting odd cases like article merges and splits). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, what the boss said above me. But in this case, since you are the one interested in and capable of doing the work, it is also a matter of how you are most comfortable working. Meaning, I would want others on the page to understand that health issues make it best to let you work at your own pace. It can be done at FAR. But alternately, you are also capable of bringing it back to FAC (but that takes longer than a FAR these days). So it is almost up to you to decide how you prefer to work, and how your time is structured these days, and whether you will feel pressured working at FAR. You should know that the Coords are amenable to as much time as needed. And I also agree with you that saving the star the first time through is preferable (FAR is not in the business of stripping stars unnecessarily) ... but only if you are comfortable working that way, in this case. I am just thrilled that such a competent editor has taken an interest in this particular article, and know it will be better no matter how you work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki and Sandy. The point I'm trying to make and not doing it well, is there needs to be a general and clear policy so that anyone who shows up at FAR is aware of the goal. For the Tippecanoe FAR, I'm getting two vibes - one is "yeah, great, go for it, no pressure, thanks for showing up", the second is more along the lines that it's more work than should be done at FAR. I know how to navigate this place to seek guidance, but for the newbie it might be confusing. That's why I've tacked on to the discussion above.
As far as my personal circumstances, yes I need to pace myself, and no, I don't want to go to FAC. I've decided to crank it out to avoid aggro, but do we want to impose pressure on anyone, especially newbies, who show up to pitch in?
URFA2020 shouldn't just be an exercise in delisting imo, rather an exercise in salvage & then if that doesn't work, delist.
Of course there has to be incentive to salvage. Obviously delisting and then rewriting for FAC gets someone a star whereas a straight rewrite doesn't. Dunno what the solution is for that. Anyway thanks for indulging me. Victoria (tk) 00:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, Another option is that the coords can also place a review on hold if the work to improve it will take awhile. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So would that be a general policy that applies to everyone? My point is that people need to know what to expect. I'm getting the impression that it'll take too long, or something. It's a 3000 word article & after 4 days I'm a third of the way through, which includes a literature review and a fair amount of reading. I'll try to finish by the end of the week. Victoria (tk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's general; as the Coords will re-iterate, at FAR they are willing to leave pages open for months, or put them on hold, whatever it takes as long as it takes, but if involved editors indicate they can't save it, then the Coords will also shut it down if you request that. See the FARs at the bottom of the page now. This is how FAR works-- nothing out of the norm :) And there are FARs on hold now. Someone should go back and see what the record is, but I am pretty sure it approaches three months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The goal should always be saving the star. We are now prioritising the review of the oldest articles (pre-2009) on our list; those are the ones that tend to have more issues and require more effort to keep the star (for several reasons). When we open a nomination on an FA that has never been reviewed since it's promotion more than a decade ago, it's difficult to find someone willing to put in the considerable work to update the article - hence the high number of delistings at this stage. From what I gather, Tippecanoe's FAR seemed to go that way too. But when someone expresses an interest in improving the article, the process halts. That was the case in Earth's FAR, for instance, and the article was kept. I see no issue giving Victoria (or others) the time she needs; the review is kept on hold in the meantime. It's nice to have people engaging, FAR seemed like a ghost town for the longest time. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric ChopinEdit

Due to a somewhat fractious RfC (see Talk:Frédéric_Chopin) the article, which I was active in promoting to FA status, has become seriously debased. The tumult has subsided somewhat, but we are still awaiting closure of the RfC which would enable issues to be resolved. In the meantime the article has become seriously degraded in places, and attempts to restore order are met by vociferous reversion by some eidtors. The article at present, I believe, is in content, references and layout no way acceptable as an FA, and therefore demeans WP standards. I would like to suggest that FA status be suspended until closure of the RfC, and that a reconstituted article, following the decision(s) at the RfC, then be resubmitted for FA evaluation. What is the best way to do this - or do editors have any other suggestions? --Smerus (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, You have to file a FAR in order for the article to be delisted from FA status. I would encourage you to do so if you think that the article has degraded from the standard, as not infrequently FAR leads editors to improve the article and bring it back to standard. (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this Buidhe - but I rather fear that moving an FAR at this point would inflame the various parties to the RfC which we have been waiting for several weeks to be closed, especially as I have been a party to the exchange of views.. I think that when it is closed there could be no objection to moving for an FA review - the problem is that whilst awaiting closure (which could be a while as a consequence of the vehemence of some opinions), this frequently-viewed article (>1m/year) is listed as an FA when it certainly doesn't (in its present state) meet that standard. If there is no alternative to an FAR, then I will consider this further.--Smerus (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no mechanism by which featured status can be suspended, other than by submitting the article to FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Buidhe, now that the editing of Chopin has quietened down somewhat, I have restated my query on FA review below.--Smerus (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

Request for extension of 5 nominations limitEdit

Hi @WP:FAR coordinators: , I was going to nominate an article for FAR, but I realised I already have 5 articles posted at FAR/FARC. Can I add a sixth nomination? The list of articles I have nominated, and their status, is below:

  1. 2021-01-27: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Extratropical cyclone/archive1 (FAR, on hold until Tropical cyclone FAR is complete)
  2. 2021-02-17: Wikipedia:Featured article review/St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery/archive1 (FARC)
  3. 2021-03-03: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Amchitka/archive1 (FARC)
  4. 2021-03-10: Wikipedia:Featured article review/War of the Fifth Coalition/archive1 (FAR)
  5. 2021-03-17: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chinua Achebe/archive1 (FAR)

Thanks for considering my request. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You and RetiredDuke seem to have a penchant for nominating articles that then end up in the "ongoing improvements underway" category, causing you to reach your limit. I endorse extension of your limit while any one of these is in the "being improved" queue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah happy for another to be nominated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Me, tooEdit

We just got news of another week delay on Menstrual cycle for an external expert peer review (which is actually pretty exciting news), so it looks like I may be needing an extension this week as well, depending on Greek mythology progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Me, too, tooEdit

Two of 'mine' are being improved by editors with limited time / a lot of work (Geology of the Death Valley area and Tropical cyclone), so hitting my 5 limit for the first time this week. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Me fourEdit

Several of mine are undergoing improvements, can I go to 6? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I understand if the coords don't view this as a good idea, as the current process isn't broken, but with limits frequently being hit and WP:FARGIVEN having grown to almost 150 articles, it may be useful to consider a temporary loosening of the limits, as there's a very substantial backlog. Just spitballing, though; not suggesting the current thing needs change, as FAR seems to be working well. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy for you to go to 6 - have been closing some a day early too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Me, againEdit

I'm scheduled to nominate another FAR tomorrow but I am at my 5 limit again. Can I have another extension? Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
One of my nominated FARs was closed recently, so I am back at 5 FARs in the queue. I haven't nominated one this week, so can I get an extension to nominate a sixth article? The articles I have at FAR are:
  • Chinua Achebe (March 17)
  • Extratropical cyclone (Feb 24)
  • British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War (March 24)
  • Order of St Patrick (March 31)
  • Paul Stastny (April 7)
Thanks for your consideration. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: in case they missed my new request above. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another extensionEdit

@WP:FAR coordinators: It's been two weeks since my last nomination, and one of my noms has closed. Since I'm still at my 5 limit, can I have another extension? My noms at FAR are:

  • Chinua Achebe (March 17)
  • Extratropical cyclone (Feb 24)
  • Order of St Patrick (March 31)
  • Paul Stastny (April 7)
  • Nigel Kneale (April 21)

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And meEdit

I'm scheduled for a nomination in a couple days but I'm currently at 5. Would it be possible for me to get a waiver to have 6? Currently have open:

  • War Against Nabis, FARC, March 20
  • Fauna of Puerto Rico, FARC, March 27
  • Sviatoslav I, FARC, April 2
  • Mount St. Helens, FAR, March 13
  • Ecclesiastical heraldry, FAR, April 10

Thought I'd ask a little bit ahead. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nabis just got closed, so this is now moot. Hog Farm Talk 02:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RevisitedEdit

Due for my next nomination today, but I'm currently at 5:

  • Sviatoslav I, FARC, April 2
  • Ecclesiastical heraldry, FARC, April 10
  • Mount St. Helens, FAR, March 13
  • Doctor Who missing episodes, FAR, April 17
  • Theramenes, FAR, April 24

@WP:FAR coordinators: - may I have a dispensation for a sixth nomination? Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Back againEdit

Hate to ask again, @WP:FAR coordinators: , but may I have permission for a 6th nom again this week? I currently have:

  • Ecclesiastical heraldry, FARC, April 10
  • Doctor Who missing episodes, FARC, April 17
  • Theramenes, FARC, April 24
  • Mount St. Helens, FAR, March 13
  • Toronto Raptors, FAR, May 1

It looks like Mount St. Helens will be a longer FAR, so this could become a recurring theme. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem/go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
May 15

Now at:

  • Ecclesiastical heraldry, FARC, April 10
  • Theramenes, FARC, April 24,
  • Mount St. Helens, FAR, March 13
  • Toronto Raptors, FAR, May 1
  • Great Lakes Storm of 1913, FAR, May 8

@WP:FAR coordinators: - Normally I wouldn't like to ask for a dispensation for a 6th one three weeks in a row, but given the significant URFA/2020 backlog, I'd like to ask for permission for #6. If y'all would like me to wait until after I get down below 5 again, I understand. Hog Farm Talk 04:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
May 29

@WP:FAR coordinators: - Still at 5. It's been two weeks since my last nom (didn't request exemption last week). With Ecclesiastical heraldry stalled out and Mount St. Helens, Toronto Raptors, and Great Lakes Storm of 1913 in extended improvements periods, it looks like I might be at 5 for some time. Requesting an exemption for a new nom this week, although I'm perfectly willing to wait if there's thought to be too many currently open. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR transcluded to FACEdit

Perhaps it is time to revisit the viability of transcluding the FAR page to FAC. Depending on where FAR regulars stand on this issue, we might make a recommendation at WT:FAC. FAR is functioning. Nicely! Coords are responsive. FAC is not functioning; it is stagnant. Do we have any indication that readers of FAC are looking at the list of FARs and using that list to come here to weigh in? Did anyone who regularly contributes at FAR come here because they saw an article listed at FAC? How are people coming to FAR? With the FAC page as out of control as it now is, I have a hard time imagining anyone even being able to scroll to the bottom of the list, and am beginning to wonder why we are there. The FAC page is too large to load, and FACs are too long to read, and no one will monitor them as we do here. Please, thoughts, no !votes ... depending on our thoughts here, we can propose something over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed, it would shorten the FAC page somewhat and make it easier to load. (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Buidhe, do you recall what brought you to FAR? Was it a Project notification, an article notification, an article you were already involved with, seeing it at FAC? It would be helpful to talk about how FAR participants found their way here. For me, it was the horror of seeing a massively POV Hugo Chavez as a Featured article in 2006-- that is, I came to FAR because of a specific article in my topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Same: I found my way here after it was suggested this would be a good venue to further improve climate change. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Two reasons I came to FAR. 1) I was completing edit requests from COI editors and would recommend FA articles as templates. It took me dozens of articles to find an FA article I could recommend as a template, which frustrated me. 2) I followed the WP:URFA/2020 link from somewhere (I think it was from an FAC page), saw that there was an effort to check older FAs, and wanted to help. I started by nominating the articles I could not recommend in the COI process.
I don't mind removing FAR from the FAC page. I felt no need to help out because I saw the FARs underneath the FAC. From what I see, most FAR reviewers are here because they have the FAR'ed article watchlisted or the Wikiproject notification. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I came to FAR because of Battle of Shiloh, which was a badly decayed older one. Stuck around because I saw how bad the issue was; will be here to stay. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do know I came to FAR because of FAC. I made some (very sporadic) FAC comments here and there back in 2017 and I noticed FAR at the bottom. Back then FAR was virtually dead and it would take months to get people to commit one way or another, even to get a single declaration. Eventually I grew tired of seeing Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/West_Bengal/archive1 there, so I left a comment. Then I started nom'ing some articles, too. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well ... that's one (at least) very valuable FAR participant who found us via the FAC transclusion. Are there others? What do the rest of you say about the possibility of missing a future RetiredDuke if we drop FAR from FAC, not because of FAR issues, but because of FAC problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think removing FAR from FAC does anything good for FAR, and it would only be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at FAC (the problems there are not caused by the inclusion of FAR), so I personally would support keeping this with FAC. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well, if I'm being honest I don't know if I would engage if it were today; I can't remember the last time I managed to scroll down halfway through FAC. But I do think the 2 processes are best kept together. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not the solution we deserve, but the amount of articles at FAC right now is getting kind of ridiculous, and anything would help. It makes sense, practically in my mind, both are largely independent projects—different coords, different participants, articles, general culture etc.—and the connection doesn't seem direct enough to warrant its transclusion on FAC. I would speculate that the new editors who (like Retired Duke above) discover FAR through FAC, could be led there still if we replace the transclusion with a little blurb about FAR and a link to the page (similar to what is there right now, just without the articles). This would actually make a lot of sense; we already have a (in big text) "New reviewers should read the full FAR-instructions before reviewing, or nominating an article for review."—so we want new reviewers to go the main FAR page to see the instructions anyways, why are we transcluding the articles below then if they can be accessed in the main review page (which is where the new reviewers would end up going to read the instructions)? Also, its not as if this is the only action we're going to take to help with long FACs/transclusion limits—which is why I disagree with HF's titanic sentiment above. If we were rearranging the chairs and then leaving the ship, that would be a problem, but there's no one saying that we're doing this and then calling it a day—we can certainly look at other (additional) solution, such as the many suggestions about adopting a PR like transclusion system at FAC talk. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree, the FAC page should only display nominators' introductions. T8612 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Can't that be accomplished by simply adding noinclude tags to the bottom and top of every FAC? That would solve the load time and transclusion limits, but do absolutely nothing to address the fact the FAC is no longer FAC, rather peer review, and would leave each FAC still unreadable. Anyway, can we stay focused here on the FAR issue? Is there a benefit to having FARs transcluded? Do reviewers come to FAR because they see articles of interest at the end of the FAC page. And Aza24, historically FYI, it was one page, one process; of course they are related. They are not different participants; the processes are intrinsically linked via WP:WIAFA and WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know if that's something we can reliably determine, we could doing a big poll, but that still seems dubious. Is there a way to perhaps display the links to the nominations, for FAR but not trasclude the reviews? Maybe that could both help with transclusion limits and also not erase the possibility of attracting reviewers by displaying the articles below. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know the answer to that, but I'd wager that DrKay does! And ... I think that's a brilliant solution ... we stay transcluded, but add little to the page load :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'd support that solution - cuts a good compromise. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    This seems to have gone in limbo, @DrKay: do you know if this is possible? Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    It should be possible, but I haven't found a way of doing it. I think we need a better coder than me to look at that. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activityEdit

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
    • List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
    • Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs
  • WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.
  • Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.
  • Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Limit of five nominations at FAREdit

There is currently a limit at FAR for: "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." I went through the FAR and FAC talk page archives but could not find the discussion of why and when this rule was first implemented. I also couldn't find instances of FAR coordinators rejecting an extension request. Two weeks ago, four editors asked for this extension, and it's likely that next week I will ask for an extension to seven articles. What is the rationale behind this rule, and should we revisit this limitation? Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I've understood, there are two reasons why this limitation exists. The first is to avoid overloading the FAR process. If everyone had 10 nominations on there, it would be much more difficult to keep track of. The other is that we don't want to have so many up at one time that it overloads editors who want to try to improve the articles and save the star, much like why it's discouraged to have multiple similar articles at FAR concurrently. What the overwhelming numbers currently are, I do not know. FAR has also gone through a lot of different climates. Many years ago, way before I started editing, it looks like it was a happening place. When I started into FAR last year, it was a graveyard. Everything was slow and few people were involved. And now things are picking up again. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It was actually an allowance of only one nom at a time for years - it was boosted for URFA noms initially in 2015 and then for all noms just in 2020, I believe. I'm not inclined to boost it further at this point. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/archive_9#Concerns has some relevant discussion. In addition to the rationales listed by Hog Farm, the other consideration is that ideally nominators would be actively engaged in identifying issues, even addressing them themselves when possible. Obviously that doesn't happen on every nom, but it's more possible when the nomination numbers are limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion where we loosened the number to five is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 13#Pickup up the pace at FAR. For all the reasons mentioned by Hog Farm and Nikkimaria, I feel like we are at about the right pace now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep the current limitation in place, as the queue is getting a bit too long. The idea is that every nom gets its opportunity to be attended to. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, we have to stop somewhere (for practical reasons—this isn't a delisting process), and the current seems more than enough. Aza24 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that if we automate some of the process (f.i. notification, updating the URFA/2020), it may open up editor time to keep even better track of listed FARs and help get quicker keeps, and we could increase up to 6. As it stands, 5 seems appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin againEdit

I want to ask opinion about FA review for this article. It was the subject of substantial controversy over the past 6 months and much of it has been rewritten. I would like to feel confident that it still meets FA criteria. In one area it seems to me to be clearly deficient. That area was the source of controversy.

All modern accounts of the life of Chopin raise the matter of his correspondence at the age of 19 or 20 with Tytus Woyciechowski. In this correspondence Chopin uses language which can, and has been, interpreted by biographers as having possible homosexual implications. Most authorities conclude that the evidence is equivocal or may represent a passing phase. Some WP editors claimed (although there is no clear evidence) that Chopin was clearly homosexual. A number (including myself) felt that the article should, citing the aprorpriate authorities, mention this correspondence and note that it was equivocal. Others felt that, although the matter was mentioned by all modern authorities, no reference should be made to it; they gave no reason except that they considered it WP:UNDUE. It is not appropriate here to speculate on their motives; but my personal feeling is that it is wrong to 'censor' Wikipedia from reporting opinions that some editors may dislike, even when these are opinions of respected authorities.

Now that the furore has subsised I have restored to the article a paragraph on Chopin and Woyciechowski, citing the various relevant authorities. I hope this will prove acceptable to editors, but some of them may yet object further.

If this article is effectively censored as a consequence of the objections of a few editors, I am doubtful that it can reasonably continue to hold featured status. This issue of course raises general questions about de facto censorship of WP beyond this particular article. I should be very interested to learn of other editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, I only speak for myself, and this opinion is based on my short time here and how I assess articles at FAR. Currently, British Empire is at FAR and there is a disagreement on what content to include in the article. That FAR started in October and the discussion is still ongoing. If Chopin is brought to FAR, there's a possibility that the same thing will happen; Chopin's sexuality dispute spills into FAR and the article languishes in FAR purgatory because editors can't come to a resolution. I don't think that is what anyone wants.
I suggest bringing the article to dispute resolution; perhaps some RfCs on proposed text, or WP:DRN to help untangle the UNDUE concerns. If this is brought to dispute resolution, editors should be prepared to "lose" or not have their preferred perspective included in the article. I would be happy to reevaluate its FAR suitability after dispute resolution has been attempted since I can look at how a more formal process unfolded and get a better understanding of the dispute. I am also willing to help bring this article to DR; although I won't mediate the dispute, I will help determine which route everyone wants to take, help get the process started and submit information to the appropriate place, if necessary. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. Let's see how the reaction goes to the edits I have just made in the article. One of the most contentious editors last time has just been indefinitely blocked from WP (for actions in other articles) so it just may be easier to get an acceptable consensus now.....--Smerus (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Z1720. FAR is not a good mechanism for sorting out contentious content inclusion/exclusion. The article will just sit in purgatory for months and nobody will be happy in the end. Hog Farm Talk 21:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
OK so far (touch wood) so good, so I will drop FAR unless things change. Thank you all for your opinions.--Smerus (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured article review".