Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,821: Line 1,821:
::That's been done. My question wasn't so much about sharing the workload and more about recruiting people who are familiar with these kinds of sources. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's been done. My question wasn't so much about sharing the workload and more about recruiting people who are familiar with these kinds of sources. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Since I've written my fair share of FAs on popular culture, I suppose I could do some but I'd rather not recuse that often so I might do it if nobody else turns up. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 23:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Since I've written my fair share of FAs on popular culture, I suppose I could do some but I'd rather not recuse that often so I might do it if nobody else turns up. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 23:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::I am currently on a wiki break, but I could do some source reviews for some of the more pop culture/entertainment FACs. I will likely not be able to do too much, but I want to help out where and when I can as I know that are a lot of nominations and work involved with the FAC process in general. [[User:Aoba47|Aoba47]] ([[User talk:Aoba47|talk]]) 02:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:06, 24 October 2024

    Image/source check requests

    FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

    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)[reply]

    FAC source reviews

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

    FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2024

    Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2024. 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 new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    Reviewers for September 2024
    # reviews Type of review
    Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
    Nikkimaria 1 1 20
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 11 5
    SchroCat 15 1
    UndercoverClassicist 9
    Gog the Mild 8
    750h+ 6
    Mike Christie 6
    Alavense 5
    Hog Farm 5
    Tim riley 5
    AirshipJungleman29 4
    Ceoil 4
    ChrisTheDude 4
    Matarisvan 2 2
    Premeditated Chaos 3 1
    Edwininlondon 2 1
    Generalissima 1 2
    John 3
    Shushugah 3
    Steelkamp 3
    Vacant0 3
    BennyOnTheLoose 1 1
    Choliamb 2
    Crisco 1492 2
    Draken Bowser 2
    Dudley Miles 2
    Eem dik doun in toene 2
    FunkMonk 2
    MaranoFan 1 1
    MSincccc 2
    Nineteen Ninety-Four guy 2
    Penitentes 2
    Phlsph7 2
    RoySmith 1 1
    Sawyer777 2
    Serial Number 54129 2
    Wehwalt 2
    AryKun 1
    Aza24 1
    Boneless Pizza! 1
    BorgQueen 1
    Borsoka 1
    Casliber 1
    CosXZ 1
    DanCherek 1
    Drmies 1
    Dylan620 1
    Epicgenius 1
    Femke 1
    Graeme Bartlett 1
    Graham Beards 1
    Guerillero 1
    HAL333 1
    Hawkeye7 1
    HJ Mitchell 1
    Hurricanehink 1
    Ian Rose 1
    Ippantekina 1
    Jens Lallensack 1
    Joeyquism 1
    Jonesey95 1
    Joy 1
    KJP1 1
    Llewee 1
    LunaEclipse 1
    Moisejp 1
    NegativeMP1 1
    Neutralhomer 1
    Nick-D 1
    NordNordWest 1
    Noswall59 1
    Paleface Jack 1
    Pendright 1
    QRep2020 1
    Reidgreg 1
    Rjjiii 1
    Skyshifter 1
    SnowFire 1
    Sohom Datta 1
    Ssilvers 1
    TechnoSquirrel69 1
    ThaesOfereode 1
    The ed17 1
    Tomobe03 1
    TompaDompa 1
    Unlimitedlead 1
    Vigilantcosmicpenguin 1
    Voorts 1
    Wolverine XI 1
    Wtfiv 1
    Wuju Daisuki 1
    Totals 167 27 28
    Supports and opposes for September 2024
    # declarations Declaration
    Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
    Nikkimaria 1 1 20 22
    SchroCat 13 1 2 16
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 16 16
    UndercoverClassicist 5 4 9
    Gog the Mild 7 1 8
    Mike Christie 5 1 6
    750h+ 4 2 6
    Alavense 5 5
    Hog Farm 5 5
    Tim riley 5 5
    Matarisvan 2 2 4
    AirshipJungleman29 2 1 1 4
    ChrisTheDude 3 1 4
    Ceoil 3 1 4
    Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4
    Vacant0 2 1 3
    Edwininlondon 1 2 3
    Steelkamp 3 3
    John 2 1 3
    Generalissima 1 2 3
    Shushugah 3 3
    Draken Bowser 1 1 2
    Nineteen Ninety-Four guy 1 1 2
    Serial Number 54129 1 1 2
    MaranoFan 2 2
    BennyOnTheLoose 2 2
    Dudley Miles 2 2
    Wehwalt 2 2
    RoySmith 1 1 2
    Phlsph7 2 2
    Penitentes 2 2
    FunkMonk 2 2
    MSincccc 2 2
    Choliamb 1 1 2
    Sawyer777 2 2
    Eem dik doun in toene 2 2
    Crisco 1492 2 2
    Dylan620 1 1
    Drmies 1 1
    ThaesOfereode 1 1
    NordNordWest 1 1
    Ian Rose 1 1
    Jens Lallensack 1 1
    Graham Beards 1 1
    QRep2020 1 1
    Borsoka 1 1
    Llewee 1 1
    HAL333 1 1
    Tomobe03 1 1
    Graeme Bartlett 1 1
    The ed17 1 1
    Pendright 1 1
    Boneless Pizza! 1 1
    Vigilantcosmicpenguin 1 1
    Hawkeye7 1 1
    Nick-D 1 1
    Paleface Jack 1 1
    Casliber 1 1
    LunaEclipse 1 1
    Unlimitedlead 1 1
    NegativeMP1 1 1
    SnowFire 1 1
    Ssilvers 1 1
    KJP1 1 1
    Epicgenius 1 1
    Neutralhomer 1 1
    Reidgreg 1 1
    Wolverine XI 1 1
    Hurricanehink 1 1
    Wtfiv 1 1
    DanCherek 1 1
    Noswall59 1 1
    Rjjiii 1 1
    Moisejp 1 1
    Wuju Daisuki 1 1
    AryKun 1 1
    Guerillero 1 1
    Skyshifter 1 1
    Joeyquism 1 1
    CosXZ 1 1
    Aza24 1 1
    Femke 1 1
    Voorts 1 1
    Joy 1 1
    BorgQueen 1 1
    Jonesey95 1 1
    TompaDompa 1 1
    Sohom Datta 1 1
    TechnoSquirrel69 1 1
    HJ Mitchell 1 1
    Ippantekina 1 1
    Totals 122 1 1 10 88 222

    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. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    Nominators for July 2024 to September 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
    Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos)
    750h+ 5.0 41.0 8.2
    AirshipJungleman29 6.0 40.0 6.7
    Aoba47 4.0 45.0 11.2
    BennyOnTheLoose 4.5 10.0 2.2
    Borsoka 3.0 10.0 3.3
    ChrisTheDude 11.0 73.0 6.6
    Darkwarriorblake 5.0 4.0 0.8
    Dudley Miles 5.0 31.0 6.2
    Dugan Murphy 3.0 10.0 3.3
    Eem dik doun in toene 2.0 9.0 4.5
    Epicgenius 7.5 18.0 2.4
    FunkMonk 3.8 27.0 7.0
    Ganesha811 2.0 None 0.0
    Generalissima 8.0 43.0 5.4
    HAL333 2.0 10.0 5.0
    Hawkeye7 6.0 14.0 2.3
    Heartfox 6.0 27.0 4.5
    Hog Farm 5.0 33.0 6.6
    Hurricanehink 1.5 14.0 9.3
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 207.0 34.5
    Joeyquism 2.0 15.0 7.5
    Kung Fu Man 2.0 None 0.0
    Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0
    Kyle Peake 3.0 None 0.0
    Lee Vilenski 4.0 2.0 0.5
    LittleJerry 1.5 2.0 1.3
    MaranoFan 5.0 18.0 3.6
    Matarisvan 4.0 32.0 8.0
    Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0
    Mike Christie 6.0 60.0 10.0
    NegativeMP1 2.0 10.0 5.0
    Nick-D 3.0 14.0 4.7
    Noorullah21 3.0 None 0.0
    Paleface Jack 3.0 1.0 0.3
    PCN02WPS 2.0 19.0 9.5
    Peacemaker67 7.0 3.0 0.4
    Phlsph7 6.0 13.0 2.2
    Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 5.0 2.5
    Premeditated Chaos 9.3 33.0 3.5
    PSA 2.0 4.0 2.0
    RoySmith 4.0 45.0 11.2
    SafariScribe 2.0 3.0 1.5
    Sammi Brie 2.5 15.0 6.0
    SchroCat 15.0 139.0 9.3
    Serial Number 54129 3.0 46.0 15.3
    Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5
    SounderBruce 4.0 3.0 0.8
    The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5
    The Green Star Collector 2.0 None 0.0
    Thebiguglyalien 4.0 9.0 2.2
    Therapyisgood 2.3 6.0 2.6
    Tim riley 5.0 50.0 10.0
    TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 1.0 0.3
    Turini2 2.0 None 0.0
    UndercoverClassicist 6.0 95.0 15.8
    V.B.Speranza 2.0 None 0.0
    Volcanoguy 3.0 7.0 2.3
    Voorts 6.5 19.0 2.9
    WeatherWriter 2.0 None 0.0
    Wehwalt 8.5 33.0 3.9
    Wolverine XI 5.0 8.0 1.6
    ZKang123 5.0 15.0 3.0
    Zmbro 2.0 1.0 0.5

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Article that heavily uses one source

    I'm considering Maria Stromberger for FAC, and I believe I've found all of the significant sources on this person. The problem is that one of them is much longer than the others. A few article-length sources have been written about her, but there's also one comprehensive book, a biography written by a historian who was given personal access to all of her records and documents. As a result, this one source dominates the article. I've highlighted the parts sourced to it at Special:PermaLink/1250335874, which is the majority of the article. Is this an issue in terms of the FA criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see that it necessarily would be: criterion 1c is the most obviously relevant here, and that requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. If this really is a representative survey of the relevant literature (and "it's the only book-length work on her and was published within the last five years" seems like a good reason to believe that this is true) then I can't see what else in WP:WIAFA that would violate. That said, I can't immediately think of an example of an FA which is quite so reliant on a single source – Aspasia comes to mind as a subject with a single monograph which dominates the scholarship, but it was published in 1995 and there have been several relevant articles and book chapters since, so Henry accounts for only about half of the references. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Herman the Archdeacon is up there as well. Hog Farm Talk 20:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a better example – looks like the only comment about sourcing which came up at FAC was Heavy reliance on Licence, but it looks like that's the main source that exists. So looks like it's not a dealbreaker (though that review had pretty light participation, so I guess mileage may vary depending on how thoroughly individual reviewers grill you about justifying it?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it should be fine as long as the major facts are supported by other sources and any opinions are attributed. It's only a problem if one source is being used at the expense of all others. It's not uncommon, especially with biographies, to have one full-length book on a subject and lots of not-so-detailed sources. Those articles should still be able to become FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other possibility I'd suggest checking is whether there are relevant non-English sources not currently used. Those can be difficult to track in languages you don't know. (Not specific to this article, which I recognize does include non-English sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone! I went over all of the other sources one more time and nominated the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional source reviewers

    If there are any folks willing to process Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests it would be very much appreciated. Especially folks familiar with videogames and popular culture topics (e.g Feather (song)) - I review these too but I am always a bit uncertain on the quality of the sources vis-a-vis the FA criterium "high-quality reliable source", as I am more familiar with academic subjects than these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you could sign off your SR at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tesla and unions/archive1, which has been hanging for ten days now. SerialNumber54129 18:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a bit more politeness for someone who has done 123 source reviews at FAC this year alone hurt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What impoliteness have you identified. SerialNumber54129 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's been done. My question wasn't so much about sharing the workload and more about recruiting people who are familiar with these kinds of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I've written my fair share of FAs on popular culture, I suppose I could do some but I'd rather not recuse that often so I might do it if nobody else turns up. FrB.TG (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently on a wiki break, but I could do some source reviews for some of the more pop culture/entertainment FACs. I will likely not be able to do too much, but I want to help out where and when I can as I know that are a lot of nominations and work involved with the FAC process in general. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy