Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive93

Use of 'archiveN' as subpage name for active, non-archival page

I followed a link to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 and got very confused, when I found what appears to be active, ongoing discussion on a page that is clearly not part of the Talk page archival process. I would have performed an immediate page move, but I discovered that this appears to be standard practice, with 111 subpages here with names of the form Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/<Article name>/archiveN. Can someone explain this practice? Why can't discussion take place exclusively on the parent page, and then let a bot move it to the archive if desired, after it's been dormant for some time, such as, say, at WP:RSN? Mathglot (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Give me a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

First, there should not be 111 active FAC pages; there should be more or less 45, plus any recently promoted or archived that have not yet been closed by FACbot. We could look into why there are 111, but I suspect it's because we had a period of several years in which, if nominators voluntarily removed a FAC that was unlikely to succeed (essentially, drive-bys or other out-of-process), they were not closed as archives. So that's one thing that would take some investigation-- adding those to archives would be a timesink for little benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, I could manually close those if we identify them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Second, I'm unsure what you mean by "take place exclusively at the parent page", but if it means what I think it means, that's a nightmare (no tranclusions of individual FACs, rather than one page with 30 to 60 individual discussions going on at a time). Before GimmeBot/Gimmetrow came up with the current system (sometime around 2007), there was no naming convention for FAC pages, and there were infrequent repeat FACs, so someone (generally, me) had to go through and clean up all the pages pointing to and at times overwriting previous FACs. This effort took three people months of cleanup work. Gimmetrow came up with the idea to simply place the next N fac at archiveN, so they would be pre-named and avoid the kinds of messes we had. If there is a better suggestion today for how to do that, I caution you that changing this system now is likely to make all kinds of messes in all kinds of places-- archives, scripts, bots, articlehistory, etc. The same system exists at WP:FAR by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Third, I don't recommend using a bot to clean up whichever errors there may be relative to the 111 number; there are many different scenarios, requiring manual intervention, to make sure everything lands in the right place per FAC archives, articlehistory, and Mike Christie's FAC stats tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Thanks. I don't actually know how many of these are active, I suspect not a lot. Is the philosophy page a unique exception, perhaps? What is supposed to happen, with respect to where active discussion is supposed to be held, and is there a convention about archiving them by bot or otherwise? Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

By 'parent page', I meant the page with the same name, except for the /archiveN suffix. Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Philosophy page is doing just what it's supposed to be doing; it's an active FAC, still listed at WP:FAC (FACs can take up to four months to close these days). Give me a minute to find some sample exceptions in the 111 list for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So, by parent page, I think you mean article name/archiveN? That is essentially the system used at GAN, and it creates ENORMOUS messes in articlehistory-- long discussed between Mike Christie and me, and too hard to explain, except that when pages move, history is mangled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The parent page of is the part *without* '/archiveN' at the end. Lots of noticeboards do bot-archiving from the main page (RSN, ANI, COI, etc.) and it's pro forma, not a nightmare. Others do it from project subpages to archives of project subpages; I think maybe TFD or SPI might be examples of those, but I'd have to go check. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, old dog, new tricks, I would need a concrete example of exactly what you're suggesting, in Dummy101 Form, and even if that is done, I suspect the work to adjust FACbot processing, FAC archives, Mike Christie fAC stats, and articlehistory would not be worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Skimming through these, a lot of them are from 2005/2006 (ignore the 2023 dates on this list - most are bot actions that hide the fact that most of these are ancient). - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's good news; so those really *are* archive pages. So maybe the question should be, why is there discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1? Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Philosophy is an active FAC; see WP:FAC. Gimmetrow designed them to pick up the next N open archive number, so the bot that closes FACs would not have to move them. All FACs and FARs are placed by the Subst script that initiates them at the next open archiveN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't fully understand that, but if that means that there is some convention or process here that generates pagenames with '/archiveN' as the last part of the name that are open for active discussion by editors, then I think that is non-standard and problematic. Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that has been the standard for almost two decades, and changing it now will be a ton of work and zap resources we don't have. I've provided an alternate suggestion below (add a note on the header of active FACs, have FACBot strip it out when closing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. So, don't change it then. I think your suggestion about a note and stripping it out later is sufficient. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify. When I see '/archiveN' at the end of a page name, I assume that it is an archive page, and no more discussion is allowed there. Its only purpose is as a repository for stale discussions on some page higher up in the hierarchy. That doesn't seem to be the case here, and it's confusing what is an active page I may edit, and what is an archive page that I should not edit. Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Correct; all active FACs and FARs are placed automatically by the subst FAC or FAR at the next open archive, where they stay. To avoid moving them afterwards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 is an exception in being still open and active? Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the norm. There are 45 open and active FACs now at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been very confusing, but I think I finally understand the intended processing now. The add-note-and-later-strip idea mentioned elsewhere will likely go a long way towards short-circuiting a lot of confusion among other editors like me who drop by here as "FA newbies". Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not the first to raise this, so yes, we should fix it. When Gimmetrow came up with this idea to solve huge messes we had around 2007, it was genius at the time. It may seem outdated today, but too much work to change now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that naming current discussions "archive" is confusing, and I'd rather that the system didn't work that way.

If people wanted to change it, then this sounds like something that folks at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia:Requested moves could help with (by which I mean "mostly do for you"), so it need not take much, if any, resources away from the FAC folks. A mass page move from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 to something like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/1 would be easy for a bot. Moving it to something like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/2023 would probably be feasible (and provide additional information about how old the page is).

Please think about what you'd like to have, in an ideal world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of moving thousands of pages. The moves will also affect article history, FAC/FAR templates, scripts, stats etc. - it will be a mess. I think Sandy's suggestion of implementing the hatnote is much more elegant and clears up any confusion a newbie might have. FrB.TG (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And there's still the matter of cleaning up the original list of exceptions (111? No longer 111? The list wasn't working right? Almost all from 2005. Make sure they're all in archives and articlehistory? Get them moved to the right archive and manually closed). They'd foil any bot, and I'm still concerned that I may need to review every one of those with Mike Christie to see how they affect his stats tool. I've got weeks of work on pre-2006 FAC archives, manual by necessity, without adding a new page naming system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Some samples

1. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/archive2, a 2006 FAC, that is added to archives and articlehistory, and was dealt with by Mike Christie and me. We could simply manually add the closing header to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Zappa/Archive 1, a 2005 FAC, that was added to FAC archives and was added to articlehistory, but pre-dates when FAC pages were closed by bot. We could simply manually add the closing headers to that page.
3. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkey/Archive 1 ... ditto, you go to what links here, see that it was added to FAC archives, and is added to article talk (articlehistory), just needs closing headers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan/archive1, 2007, is a different example; it made it into archives, but never was added to articlehistory, so additional manual intervention would be needed here. There will be many other examples like this, pre-2008 (or late 2007, I forget), when Gimmetrow, Maralia and I built articlehistory on every extant FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Still working, will find a different example, but you get the picture. These are very old FACs that pre-date bot closings, which added headers. What is the best way to address ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as User:SchroCat also mentioned. If all of those pages are really archives, then that's good and nothing needs to be done. Maybe it was just my bad luck that I hit the one page named as 'archive1' that isn't an archive but an active one, and there's no generalized issue here. If that is the case, then either that page should be renamed to some non-archive name, or all the discussions on it should be move from the /archive1 page to its parent. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding a line to the initial FAC, FAR, to be stripped out on closing

To rename active FACs to a different naming scheme means redoing everything about how FAC and FAR work-- Mike Christie stats, FACbot, articlehistory, FAC archives ... yada yada. Perhaps the {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}} scripts could instead add to the header a note about active FACs, which then FACbot could remove when closing. If there is a need to add headers/footers on all the old pages, it would be wonderful if some script genius could do that if I provide a list for it to operate on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And perhaps someone good with Petscan can sort out which of those 111 are inactive, by comparing to the WP:FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, you've been very responsive, thank you. I'm not pushing for making a lot of changes in how things are done here if the regulars are happy with it, and I'm just an occasional lurker, so no need to cater to me. If the current scheme is to use pages with 'archiveN' in them for active discussion and you want to keep it that way, maybe to help the uninformed (like me) a hatnote could be added at the top of every one as part of the creation process, saying something like, "This page is open for active discussion as of <CURRENTTIMESTAMP>. It will be archived when <condition for archiving>" or similar. Thanks again, you don't need to delve deeper into ancient history of those pages; I think you've explained as much as is needed. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Great; then we are on the same page. But how to accomplish this is over my head. There are two subst scripts that intiate FACs and FARs. Those scripts need to be adapted to add a line to the header when a FAC or FAR starts, and then that has to be stripped out when Hawkeye7's bot closes FACs and FARs (he already strips out and replaces some header stuff, so this will not be hard). Cleaning up the older non-closed archives, though, requires some help; I need someone to generate a list of just the old ones, and if someone could then write a script to add the headers and footers (after I've checked them all for other sorts of issues) that would be grand. And finally, since we're going in to Arb elections and the holidays, it would be grand to put all of this off to the New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The bit about adding a note and stripping it out later should do it, but that's certainly not urgent. If anything else needs doing, I'll leave all that up to you and others here familiar with the project. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Awesome; now who knows how to alter {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}}, we need consensus wording, and we need to bring in Hawkeye7 on removing the new content when closing. In the New Year, I'd very much like to find a way to close out all the old ones; anyone who can assist, please ping my talk, and we can take it off this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I added a hatnote to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philosophy/archive1 as a possible model of what might be helpful; see what you think. It's no-included, so will be visible on that page, but not on any page that transcludes it. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That gets us started on wording. You added:

• As of 7 November 2023, 20:16 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. It will be archived later, when conditions are met.

I would change that to:

• As of 7 November 2023, 20:16 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAC Coordinator will close this nomination when consensus is reached.

Then we need to have Hawkeye7 see if it's added to the part where he doesn't have to alter FACbot code to strip it. And have someone add this to the subst scripts that initiate FACs and FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

PS, in FA-land, "archived" means closed without promotion, hence the change to "close" versus "archive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Adjusted the hatnote per your suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

See my adjustment (pending Hawkeye7 intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

DrKay are you able to work on {{subst:FAC}} and {{subst:FAR}} to add in this bit ? (Assuming Hawkeye7 is on board ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Such a silly minor thing, but can we drop the capital "C" from coordinator. It isn't used on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is done this way, then I don't have to do anything. The FACBot alrerady has instructions to remove everything between the <noinclude> tags. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Great, thx, Hawkeye7. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional banner to be added on top of the closed nomination

Sandy, Just noticed this. Once that hatnote is moved below the ToC, it no longer has any utility for people like me who are not so familiar with the FAC page-naming system, as I will never see it. A page named Something/archiveN is a non-editable page to me, and I'll just move on, without ever scrolling down past the ToC. If we are to use a hatnote of that nature, it has to be at the very top of the page, or not at all.

An additional convention that might be useful to reviewers and especially newer participants like me, is that when something finally is archive/closed or whatever the right term is, then maybe a nice, fat banner at the top would help. You're probably used to seeing the {{Aan}} banner at the top of archived Talk pages, such as the one at the top of Talk:Communication/Archive 2; it would be easy to create a similar one that could clearly indicate the page status, once the nom is closed. I've drafted one, which you can view in context at Frank Zappa/Archive 1. Do you think that something like that would be okay? It would require a change to current procedures, which I gather from this discussion, Hawkeye7 has a hand in. Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The example referred to. The caption at the top reads "The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page."

Hi Mathglot, archived nominations have a banner at the top for that purpose, see examples here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. Thanks, but I don't see a banner at the top of that page; did you mean a different page? I notice the subpage name '/Archived nominations' is different than in the still-active Philosophy page, where the subpage is '/archive1'. I understand now that there's a long backstory about how things ended up this way, and that it's not easy to change, but it is terribly confusing for someone trying to on-board. Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, if you scroll down, you'll see that the /Archived nominations page, as you might expect, is a log of archived nominations, each with their own archived banner. The reason you might not find the banner on older nominations like Frank Zappa is simply that no one had thought of it at the time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ian, thanks again. We might be having a terminology problem. To me, that's not a banner, but a discussion closure hatnote; a banner is what you see at the very top of the Zappa archive. I think I'm starting to connect some of the dots, and I think it may go back to old procedures and meanings of terms. The template used to close a discussion is called {{Archive top}}, and it closes it (boxes it up, optionally adds a closure hatnote), but doesn't archive it; archiving happens later, by a bot like Lowercase Sigmabot, which removes it from the page, and adds it to another page (usually) with the subpagename /Archive_N. To me, the former operation is closure, and the latter is archival, and the name of the {{Archive top}} template doesn't help. Maybe when FAC procedures were first created, they took after this old meaning of "archival", but it's not understood that way now. Whatever one wishes to call it, a banner (that is to say, a bordered, shaded rectangular box with text inside) at the top ("top" = nothing above it in the wikicode) of closed nomination pages would help. (Post-ec note to AJ29: yes, I finally did, but as mentioned earlier, I'll never get that far if there's no banner above the ToC.) Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

...but there are banners above the ToC—see any of the examples from that page Mathglot. the Jupiter nomination, for instance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The whole discussion is in ‘a bordered, shaded rectangular box with text inside’, with instructions (in bold red text) instructing that no further edits should be made. Is there an advantage to having a second bordered, shaded rectangular box with text inside above the current one? Has the current set up led to an archived page being edited? - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am arriving late to the party, so may be missing something, but I am struggling to see the utility of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The only utility I can see, is for on-boarding potential new FAC reviewers, for whom the current setup may be confusing. I've been looking into it pretty intensely for a couple of days, and I think I'm maybe 40-60% there. The learning curve might be a deal-breaker for some potential new volunteers, but if not it should be dropped. Mathglot (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The current archived page seems quite clear. I’m not sure I see a need, advantage or a desire for an additional box. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It's to avoid recurring problems like the one Mathglot had when first encountering the Philosophy FAC, and for example, this same problem at the J. K. Rowling FAR. Pages labeled as archives are typically closed discussions; we may be losing participants who wander in to a FAC or FAR page, and think it's a closed discussion because it's on a page with archive in the title. It's one line, whose aim is to help new participants engage, hence worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've split this off as this is another thread that is going off at a tangent and confusing people (most likely me, possibly others).

Sandy, I think this part is a different part to the main thread. This has now moved on to adding a separate banner onto nominations that have closed, rather than a change that will avoid the examples you've given (or at least as far as I have read it). Taking this as an example, it already contains the header text "The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.". Adding a second header above this is redundant. - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion immediately above is about a closed nom. Schro, Airship, Gog and I have pointed out that closed noms are clearly marked as such now and that needs no change. I think what you're talking about is the new note to say an open FAC really is open despite the archiveN nomenclature. No-one is arguing against that and it's in fact being implemented. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and concur-- we already have a close banner, and I don't see the need for more on that score. Thx, Ian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been struggling to point out what I see as the problem, and I can see that I have not succeeded. I believe the root of the problem is the difference in how FAC and some other projects handle closure and archival, and that this difference may complicate on-boarding of new volunteers at this project for editors who are familiar with other projects. I'm going to use RSN (Reliable sources noticeboard) as an example of a project that uses those terms differently, and handles closure and archival differently.

Discussions at RSN may be closed at some point, and all discussions are archived at some point, closed or not.

• Closure: A closed discussion at the RSN noticeboard may no longer be edited, and carries a "closed discussion" hatnote at the top of the discussion, but all the other discussions are still editable. Not all discussions are closed. Any neutral, experienced editor may close a discussion.
• Archival: All discussions at RSN are archived when they become stale, generally by bot. Archiving a discussion means removing it from the main RSN page, and moving it to an RSN subpage ending in "/Archive_nnn". Archived discussions may be open or closed at the time they are archived; that is, an archived page typically consists of a mix of discussions that were closed prior to archival, and discussions that were never closed. Archive pages always contain an archive banner at the top (i.e., a shaded, rectangular box appearing above the Table of Contents) identifying the page as an archive page that may not be edited.

An upshot of this, is that an RSN archive page which happens to have closed discussions on it, will have both an archival banner at the top, as well as closed discussion hatnotes at the top of closed discussions, because they mean two different things at RSN (and other projects). To the extent that there is no real difference between the two concepts at FAC, this may be troublesome for new volunteers here.

Let's look at a concrete example of the distinction between "closure" and "archival" at RSN:

• Consider this snapshot of the main RSN page as of 23:41, 6 July 2023. This is the main RSN page, and remains editable (at that timepoint). The top discussion is "#Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?", and happens to be a closed discussion bearing the closure hatnote, "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it", and therefore could no longer be modified as of that date. This discussion is closed but not archived. However, other discussions on the page were still editable; notice that the #2 discussion immediately below it on that page (about "FossForce.com") was still open and editable, while "Healthline", the #1 discussion, was not. However, both were still on the open, modifiable, RSN noticeboard page, and neither was archived until later (and not to the same archive page, as it happened, because they went stale at different times).
• In contrast, consider RSN archive page 409, which, as an RSN archival page, carries the banner, "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page" at the top of the page. On 15 July, the #Healthline discussion at the main RSN page became stale, and was moved to Archive 409 (diff), along with four other discussions. The #Healthline discussion on that page is both closed, and archived. But note the immediately following discussion, § For history articles: this discussion is archived but not closed. It is not modifiable, because nothing on the page is modifiable, but it was never closed.

Because of this distinction between closure and archival, archive pages at RSN will typically have both an archival banner as well as some discussion closure notifications, and both are necessary. Users at this, and some other projects, are used to this distinction and way of doing things. I can see that users here are used to the FAC way of doing things, which is fine, and for historical reasons it may be difficult to change, not to mention being disruptive to the regulars if it were changed.

Nevertheless, this difference may make it confusing for new users unfamiliar with the FAC way of doing things, and may negatively impact outreach to new volunteers here. I believe this difficulty can be mitigated by an instruction page here aimed at on-boarding new users, with a focus on the differences in meaning and procedures involved in closure and archival. If you've ever seen one of those cross-learning books like, "Portuguese, for Speakers of Spanish", or "C# for Java Programmers" you'll know what I'm talking about.

This is about as clear as I can be on this topic, and now, I'll leave it with you, as I ride into the sunset. Hi-yo, Silver, Away!... Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We understand that bit; the reason (historically) we called them promoted and archived is we didn't want to call them fails. An archived FAC should not be viewed as a bad thing, rather a different route to a hopefully faster promotion. Maybe we just need a thesaurus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No judgment on meaning or pro○edure; just trying to make it easier to get new volunteers, and point out the pain points. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I get it; but to change away from archiving non-promotions, while avoiding pass/fail, we would need new terminology. The GAN process fails nominations; we send them away with suggestions of things to work on, hoping they'll be back soon. So the terminology is a problem, and we've never found anything that works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The difference is that FAC and RN (and others) work in very different ways, so you're comparing apples and traffic cones. An RN archive page contains multiple threads some of which, as you point out, may be closed, while others are not. FAC has one page for each nomination. When it passes or is "archived" (ie. fails), it remains as a standalone page, at the top of which is the text

"The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.".

There are no additional threads on that page - just the closed off review. The meaning and intent is quite clear, therefore, and the addition of a redundant message at the top repeating that is superfluous. Unlike RN, ANI or some other processes, there isn't a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archive1 with a long list of separate closed nominations. And in the 20 odd years of FAC no-one has introduced one because it's not needed and would require major restructuring for zero advantage (and many disadvantages). (It is also, I believe, the same process followed by GAN, although their page naming is different from ours (and SG has given the explanation and background on that).

I really don't think that adding a redundant banner that repeats the closure message will "make it easier to get new volunteers" in any way. The page name (if you ignore the word "archive") is clear that the single nomination page is about a specific article (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pierre Boulez/archive1 is obviously about the Featured article candidate for Pierre Boulez; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benty Grange hanging bowl/archive1 is the same for the Benty Grange hanging bowl article. I take your point on the naming of pages (in terms of the use of the word "archive"), but I am not commenting on that. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, except that comparing apples and traffic cones is the key point. The apples coming here are not going to understand how the cones work unless it is explained to them, hopefully in a new, cross-learning info page. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to clear up one point of confusion: the FACBot neither archives nor closes the nominations. This is done by the coordinators. The coordinators mark the review as closed, and move the transclusion to the appropriate archive page. The Bot then performs all the housekeeping work, including adding the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} templates. The FACBot could perform the archiving, but the coordinators preferred to do it themselves. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Install ?

We still have no one stepping forward who knows how to insert the proposed wording into the FAC and FAR templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, I believe these can be done at Wikipedia:Featured article preload and Wikipedia:Featured article review preload. Let me know once we have consensus for the proposed wording and I'll make the changes. :) FrB.TG (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So that's where it's hiding! I once knew that, and had forgotten. Thanks, FrB.TG; I just want to get this moving so we can move some sections from this page to archive to focus on substance. So this thread has so far Mathglot, me, Schrocat and Hawkeye7 participating, with no one else participating, but so far no one opposing. Which isn't enough to go on vis-a-vis consensus, and another problem that so few people engage WT:FAC anymore. With no opposes, and no further feedback, we might just need to install it after sufficient time has elapsed. Thank you again for being the Coord who engages :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

We've moved past this bit now

"another problem that so few people engage WT:FAC anymore". Speaking just for myself here, at the moment I just can't keep up with everything! I honestly think we'd do better to try and slow down a little bit right now, and either go down a wide-ranging top-to-bottom FAC RFC, as has been mentioned at other places on the page, or freeze most of the discussions and work through things one at a time. Either is likely to improve engagement, as the sheer number of different discussions at the moment is overwhelming. I appreciate that as you've said, some of the issues are long-standing and that me suggesting we "slow down" might be frustrating, but I do think it would be more productive. The WP:FA/AA page that Czar created is great, and I think there are a few issues we could quite quickly get consensus on. But between multiple discussions that are turning into walls of text, and some quite scathing comments aimed towards the current coordinators, I think that willingness to engage and discuss the issues is waning. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC) As someone who has WT:FAC on my watchlist, I recently unwatched it due to this conversation. There are a lot of very rapid posts, most of which reiterate the themes that make me afraid to interact with or review at FAC (the fear that no matter what I do I'll either be told I'm driveby supporting people or pulling through bad articles). I don't feel like it's possible for anyone to get a word in, and I'm terrified to speak. Vaticidalprophet 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Apologies Vaticidalprophet, I posted straight past your concerns. I think it has been getting to me too. So far as the coordinators are concerned, your reviews have been bang on the money. Personally I have particularly liked your link to Azerbaijani Wikisource and your frequent references to policy and procedure. The nominators of the articles you have commented on seem to have found your input helpful too. Please keep it up, just how you have been doing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC) I can only agree with Gog regarding your reviewing skills, Vaticidalprophet, especially after seeing your well-reasoned oppose here. We need more reviewers like you so do indeed keep it up. FrB.TG (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Indeed. At one point 78 of the previous 100 posts were by a single editor. WP:BLUDGEON came to my mind: "where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments" Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC) I just noticed this comment. Gog, to be honest this is long thread (I didn't read it until just now), it's to do with how the transclusions are set up, someone is querying, someone else is answering the queries, but honestly, in my view, a current coord should have jumped in at some point. Victoria (tk) 03:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Yes, some very rapid-fire comments going on here. The editor-in-question is of course acting in good faith, but Christ has my watchlist been jumping. Advise people to just sit back, twiddle their thumbs for a day or two and then come back with fewer, content-richer comments. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Czar as no one has opposed, would you be interested in going ahead and installing the proposed single line at the pre-loads for FAC and FAR?

Separately, on other matters throughout WT:FAC, my response and conversation with Vaticidalprophet and others can be viewed here and responded to at the talk page of User:SandyGeorgia/FAC history and culture. While 60% of my posts over the last week were related to answering Mathglot's queries in this section, and other housekeeping, deferred maintenance regarding missing archives, getting article alerts moving, alerting participants here to relevant discussions elsewhere, and encouraging top content contributors for ACE2023, I do apologize to all for the stridency and volume in the other 40% of my comments, and hope that we can all be united in a desire to see the FA process flourish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy -- I'm sure we can all agree with your last sentiment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I offered to help here, I have taken the liberty of adding it here (I'll add it to FAR preload as well). The result looks like this. Let me know if any change is required. FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Well done FrB. I'm not entirely sure about the wording "when consensus is reached" as this relates more to promotion than archiving, so what do we think of something more general like "A FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, yes you're right about it. (I thought to myself maybe no consensus is also a consensus :D)

Also, a rather small point: I wonder if it should be an FAC coordinator. FAC is an acronym so each letter is pronounced individually and the first letter here is a vowel sound (eff). FrB.TG (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete search

What I don't understand is why that search didn't pick up more than 111 articles. Why, to pick my own active nomination, did Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891/archive1 not get picked up by the search. Same question for all of the thousands of previously closed ones. I feel I must be missing something obvious, but I'm damned if I can tell what it is. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. That's why I'm thinking in steps (now vs. next year, when we'll all have more time). Now, get the note added to headers only on active FACs (which means accurately identifying the active FACs-- and FARs by the way). Next year, get a good list of the old ones, no longer active, and get them closed with header/footer. Some clever person who knows PetScan can get us a good list. User:Novem Linguae? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. What's your current search (link), and what's an example of something it's missing (link)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae here is the search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=250&offset=0&ns4=1&search=intitle%3A%22Featured+article+candidates%2F%22+intitle%3A%22%2Farchive%22 and missing is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

From that search, we want to be able to sort out active FACs, from old FACs (which I think requires a PetScan using categories). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @Novem Linguae: Example: this search shows 111 subpage names of the form Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/<Article name>/archiveN but doesn't show Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2 (or these others). Put another way, why does this search turn up nothing? Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know offhand. Consider posting to WP:VPT. Someone who is really good at mw:CirrusSearch will likely see it and give you a better answer :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias, I generated that search only to provide some examples for the concern I was having, and have a general idea of the scope of the problem (if it was a problem). That search link was never intended to be exhaustive. Use a Special:Prefixindex search, if you want to see everything. Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC) On further reflection, even if not exhaustive, your Somerset page should have turned up, and I don't know why it didn't, either. Worth raising at WP:VPT; please ping me if you do. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias probably worth pursuing, lest this also means it isn't showing on WP article alerts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

i am guessing that the search engine treats "archive" and "archive1" as two different terms. i think this search will also include pages using "archivex" in the title, although it's rather inclusive and will also catch pages such as "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not archived" and "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2017". dying (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, can also do regex search with intitle:/archive/ to get alll the results. Galobtter (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to revisit this section, after the Install is complete, to go back and manually close the remainder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Harriet Tubman

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Should title case be used for book titles, article titles, chapter titles, and section titles?

So far, I've tried to ensure that all book titles and article titles use title case for the sake of consistency. Should title case also be applied to chapter titles and section titles even if they are printed differently in the work? For example, should it be

1. Janaway, C. (2005). "aesthetics, history of". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. (this is how it is printed)
2. Janaway, C. (2005). "Aesthetics, History of". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. (changed to title case)

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The key is consistency. If you opt for one, you should use it everywhere, even if sources titles are stylized differently. FrB.TG (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:TITLECAPS. The relevant section:

In titles (including subtitles, if any) that are the English-language titles of works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized. This is known as title case. Capitalization of non-English titles varies by language (see below). Wikipedia normally follows these conventions when referring to such works, whether in the name of an article or within the text. // WP:Citing sources § Citation style permits the use of pre-defined, off-Wikipedia citation styles within Wikipedia, and some of these expect sentence case for certain titles (usually article and chapter titles). Title case should not be imposed on such titles under such a citation style when that style is the one consistently used in an article.

As such, your approach sounds about right. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think that applying sentence case to your suggested example would give

• Janaway, C. (2005). "Aesthetics, history of". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. (changed to title case)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Aesthetics, History of ——Serial 18:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC-nominating tool

Since a newbie recently expressed difficulty in initiating and transcluding a new FAC, I thought I'd point everyone to the script FAC-helper (source), which is a one-click way to nominate an article for FA. Super convenient also for regulars. FrB.TG (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no documentation; what does it do? (That is, what steps does it save an experienced user ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It works similarly to the DYK and GAN-creating tools. What you have to do is fill out a one-field form (i.e. the motivation text) available in the "More" dropdown menu when viewing the article page. After you click on submit, it automates creation of the nomination page, transclusion of the nomination at WP:FAC and the addition of talk page notice template. In other words, it converts three steps into one. FrB.TG (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Fr ... won't work for me at FAR (not how I process a FAR submission, which has considerably more steps re notification that requires manual examination of past contributors and listing of notifications), but I can see how it might have helped in the situation above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The FAR script has an additional parameter where you can list the pages/users notified but yes, it doesn't help with the rest of the steps you mentioned. FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead size

There is a discussion about lead size at the talk page of WP:SIZE. User:SandyGeorgia 22:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mentor/Peer review

Hi all,

I'm wanting to get Anna Burke to Featured Article status. I was wondering whether anyone would be interested in mentoring me through this process and/or providing some feedback on the article? It's currently listed at Peer Review here. It recently became a Good Article, for context. GraziePrego (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

GraziePrego, I would advise trying to source more from high-quality RS such as books and academic articles, rather than online news articles. Sourcing from the latter makes it difficult to tell if the article is truly a balanced, comprehensive view of the subject. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I will look into finding some. GraziePrego (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

New editor

Hi, I'm a newer (and not very smart) editor, but I'd like to nominate this article for FA. Unfortunately, however, even after reading everything I can find on it, so far I've only managed to paste {{subst:FAC}} on the article's talk page, and am a bit lost as to how to fill out some of the more technical fields on the form that popped up in the editing window after clicking the nomintion initiation link from the FAC template. Can someone please help me with this? Thank you in advance. Brian B. Smith (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brian B. Smith All you need to do is click on the red text "initiate a nomination" that you see on the talk page (Talk:Lydia Canaan) where you pasted the FAC template. You can just save the page. Then copy that page's title (like so: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lydia Canaan/archive1}} ) onto Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi and thank you. I did that, but I still don't know what to put in those fields that pop up. Don't I need to type some text in there? Brian B. Smith (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Brian B. Smith, all first-time editors to FAC have to pass a source check on the article. A large number of the sources at Lydia Canaan are not available online; do you have access to the hard copies that you can email to the reviewer who does the spot check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to any of these magazines or books at this time. Does this mean that the article isn't eligible for nomination yet? Brian B. Smith (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It would mean you would have a very hard time defending the article at FAC; a nominator is expected to have access to the sources and be able to defend them. A first-time nominator also has to undergo a spotcheck for copyright compliance and source-to-text integrity; doing that requires having access to a good number of the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In such cases, I ask the nominator to email me copies of the sources (the pertinent pages, that is), or ask at WP:RX. If even the nominator doesn't have access to the sources, then it becomes hard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of them are published in Beirut. And there's a lot of Youtube sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for informing me. Brian B. Smith (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

What Sandy said. And if the past is any indication, nominators who don't fully read the sources of the article, end up with unsuccessful nominations (not just FAC but also GAN). FrB.TG (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That's important to know, thank you. Brian B. Smith (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brian B. Smith. Thanks for the improvements you’ve done to that article, and kudos to you for developing work with an FA goal in mind. I’ll be blunt about the article, but please take this in the spirit in which is it given, which is to help you get the article to be the best version it can be. At the moment it would be a quick fail at FAC. Just a skim through shows a number of problems (aside from the sourcing hurdles identified above). Too many citations in the lead (use for quotes only, but aim to have no quotes in the lead), too many peacock quotes (“She rocked the establishment" shouldn’t be in an encyclopaedia, neither should “singing her teenage heart out”), too much peacock text (“last performer to grace its stage“, “international critical acclaim, the buzz culminating”, etc) and too many MOS fails.

Before launching your FAC, you would be best to do a stack of research though high quality reliable sources, look at other FA biographies of singers (pick from these ones) and critically compare the standards between them and the Canaan article. Then rewrite much of the article to the same standard as the FAs you’ve read. Then chuck it into peer review to get outside eyes to polish up any bits you’ve missed before bringing it back.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, negative and disheartening, but it is a lot less disheartening hearing it now rather than having a few people completely shred the article line by line in the glare of a full review! If you’re struggling with getting good sources, wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is your friend! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for kindly taking your time to give me such a thorough explanation of what is expected and what to expect, and for informing me of the nuances of the process and policies. I've taken your sage advice to heart, and will begin working towards the goals you've outlined. Cheers! Brian B. Smith (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, "international critical acclaim" is fair game if that's a NPOV + accurate summation of the sources. "The buzz" perhaps less so. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Great point, thank you. Brian B. Smith (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

FA article alerts up and running

In case it was lost in the long discussions above,

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/Article alerts

... is up and running. If FA-process regulars watchlist that page for a daily update, they'll see notices of things like new RFCs, move requests, etc impacting Featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ezra Pound RFC

There is an RFC at Talk:Ezra Pound. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing to have a lot of FACs for a single article

I'm the author of William Utermohlen. I started going through the article again about two weeks ago in preparation to bring this article back to FAC... and I just keep thinking about how many FACs this article has. 4 FACs. The article milestones for this page look like Nonmetal (7 FACs) or SpaceX Starship (3 FACs and 2 failed GANs) to me and I'm personally worried about my article going down that same route. That was one of the reasons why I quit improving the article back in July 2022. I don't want this fifth FAC to fail and have to go for a sixth FAC. As my first potential FA (if it gets promoted), I want to know if this is a bad thing for the article. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but you should take time to make sure you have addressed all the concerns raised in previous FACs before re-nominating. I'd suggest reaching out to some of the previous reviewers to ask if they would take a look and offer some feedback beforehand. Working to resolve some concerns before nomination will ensure the article is at least not quick failed. There is no limit, per se on number of times one article can be nominated, but if you keep nominating it and not resolving the issues, it becomes a waste of everyone's time (not saying that is what you have done here). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say the ideal FAC is already pretty much there before nomination and just needs a quick check before promotion. That said, most don't live up to this ideal. there is no limit to the number of FACs as long as the comments are addressed each round before the next nomination. (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Each article is taken on its current merits. Doom (1993 video game) has been promoted at FAC three times, and demoted at FAR twice. It went through a fairly straight forward FAC last month despite its odd history. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The main thing is not the history per se but to prepare the article as well as possible for a new nomination. Don't just go through and resolve to your satisfaction critical comments from previous FACs, seek the latest views of the participants. You could start a new PR since the last one that garnered comments was two years ago, and ping earlier FAC reviewers. You'd also be eligible to give FAC mentoring a go. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Realmaxxver ... It can be a bad thing, if it indicates you're not taking on board the recommendations given. As the main opposer, that hasn't happened yet. I indicated years ago that the Laino article is where the article can be expanded to be comprehensive. And yet, I don't see Laino cited at all. And then when I try to understand why it's not kicking off a HarvRef error, I see it's cited as "Neurology Today", whereas other sources use last name (so this is a separate citation consistency matter). But much more relevant is that the article has still not been expanded to encompass Laino, so if it came back to FAC today, it would qualify as a "quick fail" for not yet having addressed prior concerns that I raised in an earlier FAC.

The other problem before was that too much content that required independent sourcing was instead cited to his wife, so if/when it comes back to FAC, a thorough source-to-text integrity with an eye to appropriateness is needed. Similarly, it needs checking for tone/puffery issues; Utermohlen is just not that well known in AZ literature, so care has to be taken that the article isn't an over-reflection of his wife's appreciation of him. It's also important to take care with attribution, since we can't definitely know what was an AZ symptom, and what was not: (The change in Utermohlen's art style were caused by the "deterioration in the ability to process perceptual and spatial information",[74]). And grammatical issues can still be found (Sharma suggests that they depict anosognosia, a condition that results both loss of self-recognition and object-recognition.).

I'm sorry I can't offer more help on this article, as I just don't have the time, but you need to collaborate with an experienced medical (neurology) editor on this; it's a very tricky article to write, and you've made great progress, but a bit more is still needed before it's FAC ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest a medical and experienced FA collaborator/mentor; I wonder if Premeditated Chaos or Vaticidalprophet might have an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the vote of confidence from you Sandy, I'm not a medical editor and wouldn't feel comfortable trying to mentor someone at a FAC level in that subject area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thx, PMC; we could also pester the established medical FA writers (@Ajpolino, Colin, and Graham Beards:) but I fear they're all too busy, and knowledge of AZ will be helpful. If others are able to pitch in, I can scan afterwards for any problematic content relative to my knowledge of AZ, which is pretty deep, but not a physician. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Or Casliber who is also pretty busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, I was reading through this article a few days ago. It's an interesting story, and I think it's in good shape, but I also understand why the previous FACs were opposed. I'll try to take a more serious/"reading with the FACs open" look-through. Vaticidalprophet 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That quote came from the 2001 Lancet case report. ([74]) It is a good idea to credit them for things like that. Done. Realmaxxver (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As a reviewer on one of the earlier FACs, who would be delighted to see it improved to FAC status, and given its the nominators first attempt at achieving status, am very pleased to see Realmaxxver readressing. But would advise to make sure all of Sandy's concerns on talk (which am following) are met before the next go. Also, it might be no harm to read through the current work and discussions on the somewhat related Parkinson's disease article, to get an idea of the standards expected for medical related articles. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Etika Mentor Request

Hello, I would like to request a mentor for guidance on bringing Etika to Featured Article Status. Here's the peer review for leaving feedback. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Second nom?

@ FAC co-ords, I currently have one FAC open as a joint nom - it's been open three weeks with no outstanding comments (that I can see). Are you OK if I launch a second nom (this as a solo)? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Schro, tks for checking but as your only open nom is joint, you can launch another (solo or joint) at any time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry! That's great - cheers Ian. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point: does that mean that, as long as all noms are joint noms, somebody could nominate as many articles as they wanted to at once? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No. "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." Gog the Mild (talk)

Ah. Facepalm. Thanks Gog. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I have tweaked the language of that, as the "may" suggests that this is not an automatic right and may be what caused SC to query. It now reads "... but two nominations are allowed if ..." which is what is intended. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. The "may" was exactly why I made the request. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Why archive?

Hello coords, I see that David Fuchs has just archived the John B. Creeden nom. I'm a bit perplexed at this. The nom received a favorable spot check, image check, source review, and received thorough supports. I don't understand why this would fail. Yes, it was open for a while. Surely, though, after all that work, if it needed perhaps one more vote, one could be solicited before closing the nom. Ergo Sum 21:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a co-ord, but (IMHO) two supports after nearly two months isn't enough. That's not to say that there's a hard number needed, but that there's not enough for the co-ords to judge a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add, Ergo Sum, that I don't see any reviews by you on any articles running, or any reviews undertaken this year (although apologies if I am reading the stats incorrectly). I have noted that people who make an active effort to review other people's work don't seem to want to reviewers of their own nominations. - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. Admittedly, though, I've never been much of a fan of QPQ policies across WP, since I think they do not jive well with the specialization that editors tend to undertake and the efficiencies that come from that. I'm always happy to lend a hand when asked by editors. Ergo Sum 14:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: There is no QPQ requirement at FAC; to my understanding, the only major project to mandate it officially is 'Did You Know'. ——Serial 14:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I very much don't like review-begging and the like at FAC too, since I think it generally leads to worse reviews. But in my own capacity as a nominator and reviewer, "do I know this nominator from other reviewers" is something that affects what articles I choose to review, the same as stuff like how many reviews it's already received or if it's a subject I'm interested in learning about. Think of it less as direct QPQ and more cultivating good karma, I suppose. As for your nomination, there wasn't a lot of coordinator commentary, so I apologize for closing without leaving a more descriptive note. I would recommend working on the article to address the comments in the cooldown period and waiting until after the holidays before renominating, and pinging the previous participants at that point, to give it a better chance of attracting more eyes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, to add to SchroCat's comment, I had a look at your nomination and was considering reviewing it -- I've reviewed your articles before and I think you do excellent work. But I am busy off-wiki this month and decided to cap the reviews I did after a certain number. I'm not saying the fact that you don't review much was the only reason I didn't review your nomination -- I do review articles by nominators who don't review much, and I'll probably review your articles again in the future regardless of whether you review more. But it was definitely one of the reasons why I picked other nominations to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

QPQ is more like "you review my article, I'll review yours", or, "your nomination can't pass unless you review". FAC functions more like, "I review lots of articles, and lots of other editors review mine, because we all recognize that, without reviews, there aren't FAs", with no expectation that you will review someone's FAC just because they reviewed yours. (I don't see why Coords have to leave a closing note; it has become expected, but what should be more expected is that FACs will be routinely closed if they don't have sufficient support after a lengthy period.). And hooray-- the page size is down to where it now loads !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. Just wait the two weeks, use that time to polish up the article if needed, and re-nom when you're ready to see if anyone else wants to take a stab. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand the frustration but there does need to be a point where a FAC getting insufficient attention has to be archived, and I think roughly two months is definitely that point or past it. I agree with the archival, although I personally would have left a brief rationale given the situation. Hog Farm _Talk 21:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

While coords take many measures to increase reviewers, it's not their responsibility to attract more attention for a specific nomination to avoid archival. If my nomination is stagnant, I should be taking steps to attract more reviewers, whether that means reviewing other FACs or soliciting the input of editors who may be interested in the subject matter. (t · c) buidhe 15:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume it to be. I just meant that if a nom is at risk of archival due to lack of votes, then a note to that effect can let the nominator solicit other reviews. Ergo Sum 17:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

But that is the very problem ... these notes then result (at times) in sub-optimal or premature supports, simply to keep the nomination open, which then stalls the page. Much better and more natural is the suggested approach of becoming a regular reviewer at FAC and then others will more often be inclined to also review your articles. These "warnings, go out and drum up a support of your FAC will be archived" have been backfiring for a long time, and is not a good approach. Stalled noms should automatically be archived after a set time, as the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it probably gives the wrong message to the nominator, i.e. "go find a reviewer who can support your nomination and it might be promoted". And with all due respect, Ergo Sum, someone who has as many FAs as you shouldn't need a prior warning to know that a stalled FAC is at the risk of getting archived. FrB.TG (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That is implicitly prohibited by the requirement that the nominator must wait two weeks before nominating another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 2023. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for November 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 6 26 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 10 2 Gog the Mild 11 Mike Christie 8 3 ChrisTheDude 9 Guerillero 6 3 UndercoverClassicist 9 Harrias 6 2 SchroCat 7 1 Eddie891 6 1 AirshipJungleman29 6 Gerald Waldo Luis 3 3 MyCatIsAChonk 5 1 Serial Number 54129 5 1 Aoba47 5 Mujinga 5 In actu 4 Kavyansh.Singh 4 Pamzeis 4 Premeditated Chaos 4 Pseud 14 3 1 SandyGeorgia 4 SilverTiger12 4 AryKun 3 Buidhe 2 1 Czar 1 1 1 Esculenta 3 Heartfox 2 1 JennyOz 3 PCN02WPS 1 2 RoySmith 3 Sturmvogel 66 1 2 TompaDompa 3 Vaticidalprophet 2 1 Wehwalt 3 BennyOnTheLoose 2 Dudley Miles 2 Epicgenius 2 FrB.TG 1 1 Fritzmann2002 2 Hawkeye7 1 1 Jens Lallensack 2 MaranoFan 2 Sammi Brie 2 TheUzbek 2 AstonishingTunesAdmirer 1 Caeciliusinhorto 1 Ceoil 1 Cerebellum 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 Choliamb 1 Chompy Ace 1 Corachow 1 DannyMusicEditor 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 Dugan Murphy 1 Dwaipayanc 1 Elli 1 Famous Hobo 1 FunkMonk 1 Generalissima 1 Gerda Arendt 1 Graham Beards 1 Grnrchst 1 Hammersoft 1 Hdog1996 1 Ian Rose 1 Iazyges 1 J Milburn 1 Jonesey95 1 Khascall 1 Kusma 1 Michalis Vazaios 1 MSG17 1 MusicforthePeople 1 Noswall59 1 Nyxaros 1 PatrickJWelsh 1 Phlsph7 1 Piotrus 1 Rjjiii 1 RL0919 1 Schminnte 1 Shapeyness 1 Sportsfan77777 1 The Corvette ZR1 1 The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 TheJoebro64 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 Tkbrett 1 Tomobe03 1 Victoriaearle 1 Volcanoguy 1 Voorts 1 Wingwatchers 1 Zmbro 1 Totals 214 37 36

Supports and opposes for November 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 32 32 Jo-Jo Eumerus 13 13 Gog the Mild 8 1 2 11 Mike Christie 7 1 3 11 UndercoverClassicist 4 1 4 9 Guerillero 9 9 ChrisTheDude 9 9 Harrias 2 1 5 8 SchroCat 3 3 2 8 Eddie891 3 1 3 7 MyCatIsAChonk 5 1 6 Gerald Waldo Luis 3 3 6 Serial Number 54129 1 5 6 AirshipJungleman29 4 2 6 Mujinga 4 1 5 Aoba47 3 1 1 5 SandyGeorgia 4 4 SilverTiger12 4 4 Pamzeis 2 1 1 4 Kavyansh.Singh 1 1 2 4 Premeditated Chaos 2 2 4 In actu 4 4 Pseud 14 3 1 4 JennyOz 3 3 Heartfox 2 1 3 Vaticidalprophet 2 1 3 TompaDompa 1 2 3 PCN02WPS 1 2 3 RoySmith 2 1 3 Buidhe 3 3 AryKun 2 1 3 Esculenta 1 2 3 Sturmvogel 66 3 3 Czar 1 2 3 Wehwalt 3 3 Fritzmann2002 1 1 2 FrB.TG 1 1 2 Epicgenius 2 2 Hawkeye7 2 2 TheUzbek 2 2 Dudley Miles 1 1 2 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 2 Jens Lallensack 2 2 Sammi Brie 2 2 MaranoFan 2 2 Kusma 1 1 Phlsph7 1 1 AstonishingTunesAdmirer 1 1 J Milburn 1 1 Tkbrett 1 1 Sportsfan77777 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Elli 1 1 Choliamb 1 1 Piotrus 1 1 Volcanoguy 1 1 Michalis Vazaios 1 1 Dugan Murphy 1 1 Voorts 1 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 Tomobe03 1 1 Noswall59 1 1 MusicforthePeople 1 1 Hammersoft 1 1 Chompy Ace 1 1 Famous Hobo 1 1 Generalissima 1 1 Zmbro 1 1 Rjjiii 1 1 Iazyges 1 1 Dwaipayanc 1 1 Cerebellum 1 1 Caeciliusinhorto 1 1 TheJoebro64 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 Khascall 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Victoriaearle 1 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 1 The Squirrel Conspiracy 1 1 Wingwatchers 1 1 Nyxaros 1 1 DannyMusicEditor 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 The Corvette ZR1 1 1 RL0919 1 1 Jonesey95 1 1 Grnrchst 1 1 PatrickJWelsh 1 1 MSG17 1 1 Hdog1996 1 1 Corachow 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Schminnte 1 1 Totals 114 5 20 148 287

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) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for September 2023 to November 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 6.0 33.0 5.5 Aoba47 4.0 64.0 16.0 AryKun 3.0 3.0 1.0 BennyOnTheLoose 6.0 18.0 3.0 Bneu2013 4.0 8.0 2.0 Borsoka 3.0 19.0 6.3 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 11.0 127.0 11.5 Cplakidas 6.0 13.0 2.2 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 Dugan Murphy 2.0 5.0 2.5 Eddie891 2.0 16.0 8.0 Epicgenius 7.0 22.0 3.1 FrB.TG 3.5 31.0 8.9 FunkMonk 3.0 29.0 9.7 HAL333 3.5 34.0 9.7 Hawkeye7 8.5 56.0 6.6 Heartfox 6.0 33.0 5.5 Hog Farm 4.0 21.0 5.2 Iamawesomeautomatic 2.0 None 0.0 Ian Rose 6.0 32.0 5.3 Iazyges 6.8 17.0 2.5 Ippantekina 5.0 7.0 1.4 Jo-Jo Eumerus 3.0 85.0 28.3 John M Wolfson 7.0 8.0 1.1 Lazman321 2.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 5.0 12.0 2.4 LittleJerry 4.0 1.0 0.2 LunaEatsTuna 3.0 1.0 0.3 MaranoFan 10.0 46.0 4.6 Mike Christie 7.0 90.0 12.9 MyCatIsAChonk 8.0 44.0 5.5 Nick-D 2.0 10.0 5.0 Pamzeis 2.0 9.0 4.5 PCN02WPS 4.0 22.0 5.5 Peacemaker67 5.0 2.0 0.4 Phlsph7 3.0 9.0 3.0 Premeditated Chaos 8.0 20.0 2.5 PresN 2.0 None 0.0 RecycledPixels 2.0 None 0.0 Sammi Brie 2.5 12.0 4.8 Sandbh 2.0 4.0 2.0 SchroCat 15.0 117.0 7.8 SounderBruce 2.0 4.0 2.0 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 11.0 2.8 Therapyisgood 2.0 4.0 2.0 TompaDompa 2.5 9.0 3.6 UndercoverClassicist 3.0 39.0 13.0 Unlimitedlead 7.3 52.0 7.1 Vaticidalprophet 3.0 19.0 6.3 Voorts 3.0 14.0 4.7 Wehwalt 8.5 42.0 4.9 Wingwatchers 3.0 1.0 0.3 Your Power 6.0 6.0 1.0 ZKang123 5.0 8.0 1.6 Zmbro 3.0 1.0 0.3

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie apologies in advance for being dense, but should I be on this last list? ——Serial 15:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping in, and I'm sure that Mike will have a proper answer, but from what I can see, you didn't have an FA nomination close between September and November, which is the criteria for this list? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't look at the query to be sure it's working correctly, but yes, Harrias is exactly right -- that's the intention, Serial. Since you have no noms closed in those months, you're not included on this list. The reason for this list is to show the reviewing activity of recent nominators. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah right, thank you both! I must've overlooked that (rather important) criterion. D'oh! Cheers, ——Serial 16:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Process to confirm new coordinators

It seemed to me that when the most recent group of coordinators was presented and confirmed, there was some desire for a more formal process to nominate and confirm co-ords. Is that correct? If so, it may be a good time to come up with a procedure before it happens again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you hold off on this for a short while? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I can hold off 'till whenever. In fact, I'm not particularly interested in being the one leading any sort of push. Can I ask what we're waiting for, though? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Opening a can of worms like this with no structure just leads to another free-for-all which will end with heat and hot air but without anything concrete. I'm working on something that will bring some structure to the question, but it'll probably be a few weeks until it's ready. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I see. In that case, pretend I didn't say anything Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of vitamin C

I am not sure if I completed the nomination process properly. David notMD (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Mentor request – Fountain Fire

Hello! I'm working towards a featured article candidacy for the Fountain Fire article, which is currently up for peer review. Any comments would be deeply appreciated. Cheers,

Penitentes (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Prose needs work, example: "At a suppression cost more than $22 million it was then also the most expensive fire to contain in recorded California history, but it has since been surpassed in that respect also more recent fires have exceeded that cost." (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Two RFCs relating to the FAC process

There has been a lot of comment on this page recently, with several new threads and a lot of commentary. Many of these discussions have become intertwined with other topics and suggestions, which means they are unlikely to be settled. These RFCs are about trying to hone the FAC process and allowing nominators the ability to manage the FAC process as effectively as possible.

Please keep comments and responses within the Discussion sections where possible, and please keep all comments limited to the point of each RFC in question. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a month since this has opened, so I'll left a request at WP:RFCL for a neutral party to judge the consensus on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A. Re: Ability of coordinators to close unprepared nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, Template:FAC-instructions, appears at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It states that there are four grounds on which a nomination can be archived by the coordinators:

A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Per this discussion, there are two options to alter this that found traction. (We also have a 2010 RFC that states "Allow FAC delegates to quick fail unprepared articles" which passed 44-0). It is, of course, possible to !vote for both of the first two options if you think it would be advantageous, and to reject all three proposals if you think a fourth option would be better.

Option 1. Amend the wording to the fourth bullet point from "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn" to

"a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has opposed it, and/or suggested it be withdrawn.";

Option 2. Add the wording "a nomination is too unprepared for FAC review" as a fifth bullet point; or

Support Option A1

1. Opposition and the suggestion of withdrawal are effectively the same, and this wording codifies that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Seems reasonable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Would prefer option A2, as I trust the coordinators to act with discretion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Support per my earlier comments. Vaticidalprophet 18:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Heartfox (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
6. I've been reading the discussions above and not commenting, this option seems good to me Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
7. As others have noted, opposing and suggesting withdrawal are very similar things: it's strange that we have this shibboleth "I suggest withdrawal" which can free up so much action, but is only likely to be used by people who happen to have read the instructions in detail. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
8. No strong preference between the two options, but it should not be necessary for a reviewer to suggest withdrawal, specifically, for an unprepared nomination to be archived. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
9. Makes the existing rule clearer. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
10. I would support A1 as well, as it would clarify that an article could be archived if a reviewer opposes a clearly unprepared nomination without necessarily suggesting withdrawal. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
11. Equal preference --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Option A2

1. Preferred option. I trust the coordinators to act with discretion. If a 2010 discussion found consensus for something that was never really implemented in instructions or guidelines SandyGeorgia, it seems appropriate to explicitly recodify it 13 years later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Supported this one before. In my mind the two things are separate ("coords judge for themselves" rather than the normal "coords looking at what reviewers have said"), so shouldn't be in the same "bit". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3. I've been reading the discussions above and not commenting, this option seems good to me Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
4. I am far happier with this option. I don't know about others, but I sometimes nominate controversial Balkans articles, and I have had FACs opposed by a single POV pusher on several occasions, and each time the FAC coords have used their discretion and either decided on balance to continue the nomination or nudge me if they felt some comments might be legit and need to be addressed. Each time (IMHO) they got it right. Option A1 is far too easily gamed by POV pushers. I trust the coords to use their discretion appropriately and reasonably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
5. It does not need a speech. This will codify the 2010 result. ——Serial 20:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
6. No strong preference between the two options, but it should not be necessary for a reviewer to suggest withdrawal, specifically, for an unprepared nomination to be archived. TompaDompa (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
7. This wording seems to explicitly codify the 44-0 result from 2010. I suggest if this is adopted, then the 4th bullet becomes moot and can be removed. YBG (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
8. I would support A2 in conjunction with A1. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
9. Equal preference --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both (A)

If you are minded to oppose the above suggestions, you are invited to leave a reason in the discussion section, although you are under no compulsion to do so.

1. I am forced to land here because the confusing format of this RFC leaves me no other option; there is no place to oppose, and suggesting new wording will lead to an intractible RFC. I've laid out my reasoning at #General discussion and #Discussion (A), which is that Coords have always had and should always have discretion to remove ill-prepared noms. I don't know what "status quo" is intended to mean in this RFC. I don't think reviewers should have to use the words "withdraw" (which came from a different time, when "withdrawals" were handled differently from "archives"). I don't think adding yet another bullet point to the instructions will make them any more likely to be followed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Sandy. I don't really have an opinion whether coords should close without an explicit withdraw/oppose but I strongly feel that the instructions need to be pared down and simplified not added to. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

   WP:SOFIXIT. If you want to par down the options, go ahead. This is only my take on the discussion above, so if you think it different, feel free to remove something. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

   Well I tried to do it and developed a shorter version but Sandy told me that it couldn't be shortened that way for historical reasons, which didn't make a lot of sense to me. (t · c) buidhe 18:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

   OK, well I've trimmed off one of the options, so there's now a choice of support one of two changes, of oppose them both (meaning the status quo is retained). Again, this is within the spirit of the discussion above. As there have been no additional suggestions to add, we can run with just these two. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

3. Per Sandy. Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (A)

What is the difference between support for Option A3 and an oppose? In which case, why do we need A3? Might that not split votes that are really in agreement with each other?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That is for if you oppose the status quo and the three suggestions, but have an alternative solution. - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That's now deleted, so it's two options for change or opposition for both. - Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

If the 2010 RFC found, "Allow FAC delegates to quick fail unprepared articles" which passed 44-0)

1. Why aren't they doing that?
2. Why is any change needed to the wording?
3. How is "status quo" considering they have that discretion not the option I should choose?

That is, why are we re-litigating a 44–0 finding, which gave the Coords discretion they aren't currently using? I can't understand the purpose of this proposal: is it for reviewers to have to use more explicit wording ? Or to take away the discretion we already gave the Coords years ago? I am and remain confused; please pass me a cluestick before I enter a declaration. If a Coord looks at the previous FAC or GAN or PR and sees that something was raised but was not actioned, they can "quickfail" it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think they are doing this for clear cut cases (certainly Ian did so yesterday, for example). Either way, that was thirteen years ago, and we are where we are with the practices and processes, so the RFC is to push on for the future. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, so we are ratifying support for an old RFC here then? IF that's the case, then "retain the status quo" needs to be much better spelled out, as we don't know what people are !voting to retain, and there is a considerable difference between what long-timers and newer participants might consider "status quo". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think they are two separate, if related, matters. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, I've now looked at the example you give above (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federal Bureau of Investigation/archive3) and it's unrelated to this proposal. Ian could have archived that FAC even if no reviewer had entered any commentary; it was a procedural close where the nominator wasn't a significant contributor to the article (where a reviewer happened by before Ian and also noted the cn tags). I hope we aren't now setting up a situation where Coords have to wait for a reviewer to speak up before they can remove out-of-process noms ? And, it's an example of an ill-prepared nom that a Coord should be able to remove even if no reviewer says anything. Another reason why I no longer know what is meant by "status quo" at FAC; status quo is that Ian can remove that nom even without reviewer feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B. Re: Moving comments to the nomination talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The question of whether co-ords should be able to move threads from a nomination page to a talk page has been raised periodically, but never really settled. Over the last few years this has been raised at least seven times on this page:

• in November 2023
• May 2022
• December 2021
• November 2021
• November 2021
• March 2021
• January 2021

There are two suggested options to alter the status quo. It is, of course, possible to !vote for both of the first two options if you think it would be advantageous, and to reject all three proposals if you think a fourth option would be better.

Option 1. "Coordinators are allowed to move lengthy threads of resolved comments to the nomination talk page, leaving the "support" or "oppose" in place on the nomination page and a note that comments have been moved.";
Option 2. "Coordinators are allowed to enclose resolved comments within {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}."

Support Option B1

1. I can support this because the wording is "allowed"; I don't like it when this is done but I would like the coordinators to have discretion to do so if they see fit. I would oppose any wording that implied it was required to do this for lengthy commentary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Mike. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Shortens WP:FAC, shortens the individual FAC page itself and means coords have less to wade through when closing. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
4. I've been reading the discussions above and not commenting, this option seems good to me Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
5. Supporting B1 per Mike. The key word here is "allowed" - by no means does this require coordinators to move lengthy threads to the talk page. However, this option would improve page performance on WP:FAC and would enable the coordinators to calculate consensus more easily without getting sidetracked by lengthy asides. Epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Option B2

1. I can support this because the wording is "allowed"; I don't like it when this is done but I would like the coordinators to have discretion to do so if they see fit. I would oppose any wording that implied it was required to do this for lengthy commentary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

   Mike, this option would add two templates to a nomination page. Would that have adverse effects? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

   If you mean would it affect the automated FAC statistics, no. It works by looking at the contribution history so I think it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

2. Per Mike. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3. In the sense that Mike does. I oppose B1, because as someone who reads a lot of long-archived FACs, comments being moved to talk makes them significantly more difficult to contextualize within the FAC. When I read a complex or contentious FAC that had comments moved to talk, it's very difficult to cross-reference them with the discussion on the FAC itself simultaneously, and in particular difficult to understand e.g. how and why someone's vote changed. Scrolling past long "please change all 18 of these commas" commentary also makes FACs difficult to follow, but this particular one is resolvable through collapse templates. Vaticidalprophet 18:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
4. As someone who has had long oppose comments by a POV pusher enclosed on a FAC of a controversial Balkans subject, I think it is best to keep them on the nom page so they can be read by other reviewers. Moving them lacks transparency IMHO. I trust the coords to only do this when they consider it necessary. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
5. This seems sensible to me (given that the rest of us sometimes do it), though I'd propose "may" rather than "are allowed to" for simple brevity. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
6. Per Vaticidalprophet. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
7. A good way to make FAC's size more managable while simultaneously keeping the comments in one place,something a lot of people prefer. FrB.TG (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
8. Supporting B2 per Mike. The key word here is "allowed" - by no means does this require coordinators to collapse lengthy threads. However, this option would enable the coordinators to calculate consensus more easily without getting sidetracked by lengthy asides. Epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both (B)

If you are minded to oppose the above suggestions, you are invited to leave a reason in the discussion section, although you are under no compulsion to do so.

1. I am forced to land here because the confusing format of this RFC leaves me no other option; there is no place to oppose, and suggesting new wording will lead to an intractible RFC. I've laid out my reasoning at #General discussion and #Discussion (B), which is that both Coords, and reviewers/nominators in agreement, have always had and should always have discretion to move clearly resolved commentary to talk. I don't know what "status quo" is intended to mean in this RFC. We should broaden our selection process for Coords, and then trust them with the discretion they have always had. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
2. If commentary is so lengthy as to need it moved to the talk page then perhaps the FAC wasn't ready. I don't think anything should be collapsed or moved to the talk page by any editor unless it is off-topic. Heartfox (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Heartfox. ——Serial 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Sandy. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
5. I don't see clear benefits to this (while I understand the arguments in favour, I am not persuaded by them), but I do see negatives in the form of making following the discussion less straightforward—both when the discussion is ongoing and when it has been closed (whether the article has been promoted or not). If we have to do one of the two, I think collapsing would be the lesser of two evils. If the outcome of this discussion is that comments can be moved to the talk page, I would strongly suggest that we add a requirement that the comments be moved back once the nomination has been closed (whether the article has been promoted or not). TompaDompa (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
6. I think it's helpful to see the comments that have already been made and resolved so that one doesn't need to switch back and forth to the talk page. I would support a rule allowing coords to collapse lengthy digressions (e.g., conversations that relate to FA more broadly). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
7. per Heartfox --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (B)

• Similar question to that I made above. Isn't support for B3 and an oppose really the same thing? So why do we need B3?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• That is for if you oppose the status quo and the three suggestions, but have an alternative solution. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Confused again; why would I not Oppose all three, and I can't figure out where to enter my feedback.

1. On Option B1, the problem is missing wording. Either a Coord can remove comments, or if nominator and reviewer find themselves in agreement to do so, they too can remove comments to talk. Where do I enter my Support in theory, but Oppose on the specific wording with suggestion to expand?
2. On Option B2, I outright oppose (collapsing does not solve the page load problems), but there's no option on the page for me to oppose that one alone.
3. On Option B3, Coords have always had discretion to remove off-topic or resolved commentary to talk, yet aren't using it, so it is completely unclear what Option B3 is.

Again, I need a cluestick before I can enter a declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• You can suggest alternative wording here (or add it as option B4, if you wish) - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  That will become a mess; we don't know how different !voters are interpreting "status quo" and spreading new options reduces the ability to understand which have consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General discussion

SchroCat, I know you're worked hard towards advancing resolution of festering problems, and I commend your effort. But past RFCs that worked best were first floated to the entire community for feedback, to make sure we had the wrinkles ironed out, and to avoid GIGO. As I find myself confused on both questions, I just want to encourage that future RFCs here are first workshopped in draft to the entire community before bringing them forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to clarify any questions you have. The wording has been in my userspace for the last week, where you were commenting on various parts of both, so I presumed you were broadly happy with the wording. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm one person; I think it better to float drafts to the entire community. I stopped paying attention because I got busy elsewhere, and assumed that would be done, and that your userspace was only a very rough first draft.

Here's my process concern: we shouldn't be floating piecemeal RFCs, when a broad look is needed.

All of the options have some lack of clarity, and none of them caption where I would stand on a broad RFC, which is: a) re-empower the Coords to fully use the discretion we entrusted them with when we chose them, while simultaneously, b) empowering the community to have a broader say in how Coords are selected, via a more transparent process (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11). Give us a stronger way to appoint Coords we trust, and then simultaneously give them the full discretion to use that trust.

I don't think a piecemeal RFC is the way to go here. It looks like two of the first three opiners have had some difficulty, and I'm wondering if you might withdraw the RFC and fully workshop a broader one ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as piecemeal: it focuses on two points - but that is all it is designed to. If things are small and focused, they stand a chance of progressing. If you want to open a much, much wider discussion and RFC that brings in sweeping changes, then this won't stop that happening in the future, but at least if these pass, we will have enabled our co-ords to take definite action in two areas. Broader RFCs turn into massive timesinks, huge walls of text and nothing happening at the end.

I don't think I'll withdraw this at the moment: people have begun !voting, so I'm minded to let it run for the moment and try and get some positive steps in place. If the proposals are rejected, or a wall of 'I'm confused' comments appear, then I'm happy to allow you or absolutely anyone else to withdraw this as they see fit: it's not "my" RFC or "my" proposal: it's a reflection of the discussions above. If I've misread those discussions or mangled up the approach to it, then I'm sure people will say so. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

While these proposals were clearly made in good faith, I don't see the advantage in adding extra rules to bind the coordinators: one of the nice things about the FAC process is the flexibility the coordinators have, and they use this sensibly. I agree with Sandy that this RfC is rather confusing, especially due to the number of issues and options it covers. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing here that "binds" anyone. Both RFCs allow coords to take steps; neither of them "binds" anyone to do anything. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Alt text

FA doesn't appear to require alt texts. Looking over reviews, I see a lot of "suggest you add alt text" but that's as far as it goes. Some image reviews don't even go that far. WP:GVF says, A featured article ... follows the entire Manual of Style (with emphasis on entire). And including alt texts is part of the MOS per MOS:ACCIM, yet we seem to carve that out as a part of the MOS we don't enforce. Why is this? RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is an RfC on the question from 2019; I thought there had been a more recent one but I don't immediately see it. I would be opposed; see this failed attempt on my part to get some clarification on WP:ALT. If the guidelines made sense to me I would be willing to support adding ALT to the FA requirements, but the linked discussion gives me no confidence there's consensus on a useful and understandable version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, I can see this is a battle not worth fighting, so I'll let it rest. It's sad that FAC cares more about which flavor of dash you use in a reference than making the encyclopedia accessible to all people. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others who opposed, but for myself I agree it's important. I would oppose because I think the guideline is a mess and should be improved before we require compliance with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure that's either fair or true (and I say that as the person who opened the last RfC on the subject). While I would prefer to see the guideline being more prominently adhered to and pushed, I am saddened by the lack of encouragement (or reminders) FA writers are given when it is missing. I often forget to include alts and am happy when Nikkimaria, in particular, reminds me to add them. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do usually comment on ALT text when doing image reviews. I also keep forgetting it on my own articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

On the rare occasions that I complete image reviews, I request it, but Mike Christie is right that it is a poorly understood and often misused tool. But the original point is a fair one, in that there is an element of "pick and choose" about which bits of the MOS are enforced, and which aren't. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If we find a handful of people who can write good alt text, critique other people's alt text and teach others how to write good alt text, I think we should start requiring alt text at FAC. At the moment, FAC usually merely checks for the presence of alt text, and I can't remember seeing the quality of the alt text being discussed. I don't want us to require the presence of alt text if we don't have any quality control on it (and I'm not feeling confident in either my own alt texts or my ability to critique those of others). Would be happy to learn from good teachers. —Kusma (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If we're thinking about how to make our guidance better, a few pages that might help:

• From the UK government's design team on the subject.
• From Harvard -- slightly less comprehensive but does have a few additional use cases.

It strikes me that we have a lot of us here who (at least try to) write alt text, but I'm not sure how many people we have or know who use it and would be able to stick an oar in from that perspective? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly what scuppered the situation many years ago (long before 2019), when it was often insisted on at FAC. Various of us were busy writing how-to pages, when an actual visually impaired editor came along & said we were getting it all wrong (without exactly saying how to do it right). Some of the keenest promoters gave up at that point. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It was an accessibility expert (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images/Archive 5, I think). As a blind person, it's hard for me to evaluate alt text because I don't really know what I'm missing. I don't like thinking about it that much on here because of the acrimony it's caused (I've been around for most of it), but I do appreciate efforts to add it. We're in quite an unusual situation because images also have a caption which can serve as alt text, and we must have links in almost all images for attribution purposes which makes them more likely to be read out by screen readers. This is a round-about way of saying ... I for one am OK with the status quo for now. Graham87 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the ALT text is supposed to be an alternative to the image. So for an image of a volcano in the volcano's article, the ALT text would physically describe what the mountain looks like. And that the same image can need different ALT text depending on which article it is on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article status of Military History articles

At Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Featured Article status of Military History articles there is a discussion on whether WikiProject Military history articles are eligible for Featured Article status. All are encouraged and welcome to put their views. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a misrepresentation of the discussion, which is simply about the merging of redundant talk page banners. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the above situation is going to be resolved; bot error. Hog Farm _Talk 22:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC regulars' input on "one of the greatest", etc. wording

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY. We're curious under what sourcing circumstances would the Featured Article reviewers accept a claim like "considered one of the greatest [occupational speciality here]", "widely regarded as one of the best [whatever] of their generation", etc. There's actually some disagreement in the thread about whether such claims are permissible at all in WP's own voice even when there are a lot of sources, countered by a view that it's necessary when the sourcing is going there, and people in the middle suggesting that it should be included but only as specifically attributed quotations, or specifically attributed pharaphrases, and others saying it should be a case-by-case basis kind of thing. It really seems that we don't actually have a solid standard about this kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, other than that it is exceptional. There does seem to be a general feeling that WP in its own voice saying something like "was one of the greatest [foo]" is not okay; there has to be some indication of some sort that this is an opinion found in sources, not a statement of cold hard fact by Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the POV issues, in order to not be NOR the source must say something like "widely considered one of the greatest". We can't combine multiple sources that say in effect "I think he was one of the greatest" to get to "considered one of the greatest", unless specifically attributed to the source. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Subject to what Buidhe has (entirely correctly) said above, I think it's perfectly fine and indeed often correct to say "is widely considered among the greatest..." where necessary: WP:DUEWEIGHT means that we should faithfully report an opinion that is widely held in good sources, and report it as such an opinion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This sort of thing often comes up with slightly narrower claims in articles on art, both as regards artists and artworks. I've just been doing touches on Peter Paul Rubens, where our claim that "He is considered the most influential artist of the Flemish Baroque tradition", the only evaluation of this type in the lead, strikes me as understated to the edge of being misleading. This is not uncommon on WP. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There are some editors that regard such expressions as "one of the greatest", etc., as unencyclopedic. My view is that they are mistaken and that encyclopedias aren't the World Almanac (possibly dating myself there) and contain well-supported opinions to give the reader as complete a picture as we can.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to some members of this project. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Mentor Request - Resolute desk

while I have a fair number of good articles and featured lists under my belt, I have never brought an article to the featured article process myself. Looking for a mentor to show me through the process for Resolute desk with general advise and possibly help pointing out Manual of Style issues. Found5dollar (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Second nom?

@FAC coordinators: , Am I OK to put up a second nom? My current nom has been going for five weeks and the last comment was on 19 December 2023‎. There are no outstanding comments and it's passed source and image reviews. There's no problems if you say no - I'll happily sit and wait a little longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead, Schro. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers Ian - much obliged to you. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content assessment has an RfC

Wikipedia:Content assessment has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Archives

Can someone see if they can figure out how to fix the archiving here? /archive91, /archive92 and /archive93 seem to be running simultaneously. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There were two sets of archive instructions with different numbers, so bot archiving and 'click' archiving were working on different instructions. I’ve taken out one of them and shortly I will jiggle the contents around to be chronological and see how that works. - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, all done. I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Would these pass a source review?

I'm not asking for a full review here, but there is one thing I'd like checked before I start working on bringing this article to FA. I've rewritten Iron Man so it mostly uses academic sources, but there are also two types of sources that I don't know where they stand. First, there are comic book news sites like Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant, which are typically reliable for this sort of thing, but I couldn't tell you where they fall in relation to the "high quality" threshold. Second, it uses a few of the official Marvel Comics handbooks to fill in some of the gaps on the character's history; while this is preferable to citing the comics themselves, I'm wondering whether that's fine at FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Off hand and non-binding the latter seem high quality to me for what you propose to use them for. I offer no opinion on the former. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant are not high-quality sources, no. The latter in particular is to a large extent a listicle content farm. I would never use them for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. They are WP:Reliable enough for WP:Verification of straightforward statements of fact, though it should only rarely be necessary to use them for that purpose since there should be higher-quality sources that can be used. TompaDompa (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I second what TompaDompa says. I don't believe I know of them to be wrong as such, but they are content farms in the sense of reworking in-universe plot or setting into numerous ostensibly different articles. I wouldn't use them for any sort of analytical claim, and I would hope that better sources are available for factual material. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say that I have used one of these sources for a WP:Featured article once, but it turns out I misremembered as it was in fact Anime News Network. However, since that is a similar kind of source I think it illustrates fairly well how using these sources can in rare cases be appropriate. The article in question is Venus in fiction, and the ANN source is used to supplement another (high-quality) source by providing additional plot details that I could not find explicitly stated by any higher-quality source. That is to say, the low-quality (but reliable) source is not used for establishing WP:Due weight (which is instead done by a high-quality one) but only for WP:Verification of non-controversial material which could not be verified by better sources (at least not that I could find). This should of course be a fairly rare occurrence. TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Screen Rant is marked "marginally reliable" at WP:RSP; while it may be reliable for entertainment-related information, it is certainly not high-quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I go back and forth on Screen Rant. Some of its listicles are cheap churnalism I would never use. Other times it's crystal clear that the article writer is a legitimately huge fan of the work they are writing about, and the accuracy and understanding of details is much higher than, say, a review in The Guardian (RSP entry). I can see use of the articles for uncontroversial in-universe information occasionally being necessary for comprehensiveness (1(b)). You can also make a strong case if the journalist has worked for other more esteemed publications. FA reviewers would do well to remember a source can only ever be reliable or unreliable for a particular fact. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

On Comic Book Resources I would probably question mostly because of the staff turmoil thing. Regarding Screen Rant, I think I saw it on one of my FAC reviews but I don't remember where. I think in both cases the question would be what it is used for. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

My source reviews have dropped off in the past year, but I would call both out for a reasoned explanation as to why they are high quality RSes and what they are used to back up -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Early image reivew for Dorothy Olsen?

I'm thinking of getting Dorothy Olsen into shape for FAC next. There was a claim (see Talk:Dorothy Olsen#Request edit on 24 September 2020 from a family member that some of the images used were not PD. Before I go too far on this, I'd appreciate if somebody could take a look to see if there would be any problems at a FAC image review? RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Bit hard to say since they don't make it clear which image(s) this is about. I figure the issue isn't about the copyright but more about ethical concerns of selling an image made by someone else is a-OK when that someone else can't claim copyright for contractual/legal reasons. I am kinda doubtful on File:Dorothy Olsen on P-38 Lightning.jpg when its source says "courtesy photo" - that's often a word I've seen when the US government displays photos created by someone else, and thus don't fall under PD-USGov rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Of the three images in the article, the first and third are clearly PD. The second is PD iff we can trust the source site. I'm not familiar with it so can't speak to its credibility, and like JJE I'm a bit concerned about the 'courtesy' language. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I've removed the image from the article, and nominated it for deletion from commons. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on NOFORCELINK

I have started a discussion about MOS:NOFORCELINK that editors here may wish to participate in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2023. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for December 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 7 2 Nikkimaria 7 SchroCat 7 Gog the Mild 5 1 Serial Number 54129 4 1 ChrisTheDude 3 1 Dudley Miles 4 Wehwalt 4 Ceoil 2 1 J Milburn 2 1 Mike Christie 3 Tim O'Doherty 3 TompaDompa 3 AryKun 2 Caeciliusinhorto 2 Dugan Murphy 1 1 Eddie891 2 Harrias 1 1 Jens Lallensack 2 Johnbod 2 MaranoFan 1 1 Pseud 14 1 1 SandyGeorgia 2 UndercoverClassicist 2 A455bcd9 1 Aa77zz 1 Aoba47 1 Borsoka 1 Buidhe 1 Caeciliusinhorto-public 1 Casliber 1 David Fuchs 1 Esculenta 1 Freedom4U 1 Fritzmann2002 1 FunkMonk 1 Graham Beards 1 Guerillero 1 HAL333 1 Hawkeye7 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 Hurricanehink 1 Ian Rose 1 JennyOz 1 Jimfbleak 1 MeegsC 1 Mirokado 1 Noswall59 1 Pawnkingthree 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 Realmaxxver 1 SMcCandlish 1 Tim riley 1 Usernameunique 1 Voorts 1 Wingwatchers 1 ZKang123 1 Totals 86 15 15

Supports and opposes for December 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 9 9 SchroCat 4 3 7 Nikkimaria 7 7 Gog the Mild 4 2 6 Serial Number 54129 2 3 5 ChrisTheDude 4 4 Dudley Miles 3 1 4 Wehwalt 4 4 J Milburn 1 2 3 TompaDompa 2 1 3 Tim O'Doherty 1 1 1 3 Ceoil 1 2 3 Mike Christie 2 1 3 Jens Lallensack 2 2 UndercoverClassicist 1 1 2 Eddie891 2 2 Harrias 1 1 2 Dugan Murphy 1 1 2 Caeciliusinhorto 1 1 2 Johnbod 2 2 Pseud 14 1 1 2 SandyGeorgia 2 2 AryKun 2 2 MaranoFan 1 1 2 MeegsC 1 1 Pawnkingthree 1 1 HAL333 1 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 1 Aoba47 1 1 Freedom4U 1 1 Voorts 1 1 Mirokado 1 1 Caeciliusinhorto-public 1 1 Borsoka 1 1 Fritzmann2002 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 Noswall59 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Wingwatchers 1 1 Usernameunique 1 1 Jimfbleak 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 Casliber 1 1 A455bcd9 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 SMcCandlish 1 1 Tim riley 1 1 Realmaxxver 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 Buidhe 1 1 Esculenta 1 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Totals 54 1 1 3 57 116

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) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for October 2023 to December 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 6.0 31.0 5.2 Aoba47 4.0 60.0 15.0 AryKun 2.0 5.0 2.5 BennyOnTheLoose 6.5 18.0 2.8 Bneu2013 4.0 8.0 2.0 Borsoka 3.0 18.0 6.0 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 11.0 123.0 11.2 Cplakidas 5.0 12.0 2.4 Cyclonebiskit 2.0 2.0 1.0 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 Dugan Murphy 2.0 7.0 3.5 Eddie891 2.0 15.0 7.5 Epicgenius 8.0 21.0 2.6 Ergo Sum 2.0 None 0.0 FunkMonk 3.0 29.0 9.7 HAL333 3.5 33.0 9.4 Harrias 3.0 40.0 13.3 Hawkeye7 8.0 52.0 6.5 Heartfox 7.0 32.0 4.6 Horserice 2.0 1.0 0.5 Iamawesomeautomatic 2.0 None 0.0 Iazyges 6.8 15.0 2.2 Ippantekina 5.0 7.0 1.4 Jens Lallensack 2.0 17.0 8.5 Jo-Jo Eumerus 3.0 93.0 31.0 John M Wolfson 6.0 8.0 1.3 Lazman321 2.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 5.0 12.0 2.4 LunaEatsTuna 3.0 1.0 0.3 MaranoFan 10.0 47.0 4.7 Mike Christie 7.0 73.0 10.4 MyCatIsAChonk 7.0 44.0 6.3 Peacemaker67 4.0 2.0 0.5 Phlsph7 3.0 8.0 2.7 Premeditated Chaos 8.0 21.0 2.6 PresN 2.0 None 0.0 Sammi Brie 2.5 10.0 4.0 Sandbh 2.0 4.0 2.0 SchroCat 15.5 124.0 8.0 Serial Number 54129 3.0 49.0 16.3 SounderBruce 2.0 3.0 1.5 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 11.0 2.8 Therapyisgood 2.0 4.0 2.0 Tim riley 2.5 53.0 21.2 UndercoverClassicist 3.0 41.0 13.7 Unlimitedlead 7.3 50.0 6.8 Usernameunique 2.0 2.0 1.0 Vaticidalprophet 4.0 19.0 4.8 Voorts 3.0 15.0 5.0 Wehwalt 7.5 42.0 5.6 Wingwatchers 3.0 2.0 0.7 Your Power 6.0 4.0 0.7 ZKang123 5.0 9.0 1.8 Zmbro 3.0 1.0 0.3

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Corrections to the FAC statistics database

The FAC stats database that I maintain and report on here monthly is built in three steps: 1) a bot makes a guess at the stats; 2) a human corrects the bot's guess; 3) a bot loads the results into the database. Hog Farm has kindly agreed to be my backup for step 2, and to get familiar with the process he checked the stats I reported on for December. He found several mistakes, which I've just fixed in the database. In several cases reviewers had left placeholders indicating they planned to review, but had not actually reviewed; I'd neglected to remove a few of those from the database. I also missed a couple of reviews. The net effect is that the following editors' total review counts have changed: AryKun -1; Gog the Mild +1 and also +1 image review; Serial Number 54129 -1; Mirokado +1 source review; SandyGeorgia +1 source review; SchroCat -2; ZKang123 +1 source review.

This is a higher error rate than I like, so I'm going to go back through a couple of months from last year to see if it was just a bad month for me, and I will make further corrections as needed, though I won't clutter up this page by posting them here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The bot stole two of my reviews and gave them to that rascal SchroCat! I hope that it receives a severe telling off at its next performance review. Seriously, I for one use the stats you generate quite a bit, and appreciate your both catching the occasional error and being transparent about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I like the bot version better... - SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I just checked my own query on the tool and it attributed two more reviews to me incorrectly: Papuan mountain pigeon and snowy plover. The first is my own nomination, and I only left a short comment at the second. AryKun (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll fix the first one in the database. The second is deliberate -- the stats don't take into account the length of the comment as it becomes impossible to decide what the boundary is between "include" and "ignore". Instead any comments intended to help the article pass or help the coordinator decide are counted. A comment such as "You haven't closed the PR" or "Coords should be aware there's an open CCI" doesn't get included, but those are about the only exceptions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Shortened footnote without date

How do you use the shortened footnote format to cite different works by the same author if none of them has a date? For example, the article I'm currently working on has the following sources:

• Weisstein, Eric W. "Ring". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
• Weisstein, Eric W. "Field". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.

They provide no publication date and have the same author. Citing them simply as "Weisstein" does not distinguish between them and produces an error. I cited them as "Weisstein Ring" and "Weisstein Field" to avoid the error but I do not know if this is standard practice. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a hack for this, but I'm unsure if it's MOS-compliant. Using the |ref= parameter in the citation template lets you override the anchor that it generates with essentially whatever you want. If you use |ref={{harvid|Weisstein a}}, you'll be able to introduce a short footnote like {{sfn|Weisstein a}}, which disambiguates the citation that the footnote is pointing to. You can see it in action on the current revision of Princess Mononoke. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I wouldn't use the title of the source in the footnotes as it makes it look like it's part of the authors' names. I use the lettered citations as it's closer to the YYYYz style that {{sfn}} already uses for dates. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: Thanks for the explanation! I see the article Princess Mononoke uses it for "Nausicaa.net", i.e. "Nausicaa.net a" and "Nausicaa.net b". Using letters is probably a better idea than using the title of the source since people are less likely to mistake a letter for the author's name. I used the template "SfnRef" instead of "harvid" for the ref-parameter but I don't know if there is a difference. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess the code works, but there is no "a", "b", or "c" written out in the full bibliographic entries; a reader (using a printed out version/PDF/rehost without Wikipedia's anchoring abilities) can assume the three undated Weisstein bibliographic entries are listed in order a through c, but I don't really see an issue using with (Weisstein, "Field") to link to

• Weisstein, Eric W. "Field". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.

You could also just treat the "Last Updated: Tue Jan 23 2024" as a date for all of them and have the |date= be 2024a, 2024b, 2024c for all of them, as in (Weisstein 2024a) to link to:

• Weisstein, Eric W. (2024a). "Field". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.

Or even have an explicit "n.d." (="no date"): (Weisstein n.d.a), (Weisstein n.d.b), (Weisstein n.d.c) to link to:

• Weisstein, Eric W. (n.d.a). "Field". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
• Weisstein, Eric W. (n.d.b). "Field Axioms". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.
• Weisstein, Eric W. (n.d.c). "Ring". Wolfram MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 12 January 2024.

This last one I think is a bit confusing as a reader; but it technically works with the wiki code; it's a shame the only way to have an undated date in |date= is n.d. and that is confusing with disambiguating letters. Umimmak (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the standard approach, but I would definitely treat the "last updated" date as the date of publication. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I missed the "last updated" information all the way at the bottom. This is probably the way to go. I also like the explicit "n.d."-style but I've never seen it used so chances are that readers have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Even though I know what this thread is about, (n.d.a) (n.d.b) (n.d.c) are utterly confusing; without context, I think it would be even worse, and lead to an endless string of questions on the talk page or people trying to edit the sources to put in something more understandable. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with that — the letter appended to the end of the n.d. looks like it's part of the initialism when it's not. I think we already expect readers to understand that the letters in the footnotes represent the order of the sources in the references list. As I mentioned above, {{sfn}} already does that, and it's not like we change the dates in the citations to match the footnotes in that case. My personal preference remains the method that I described, but Umimmak's idea of putting the title of the source in quotes also makes sense, as there's no longer the possible confusion of reading the title as the author's name. I wouldn't recommend it for sources with titles any longer than that, though, or the shortened footnotes are going to stop being very short. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you write I think we already expect readers to understand that the letters in the footnotes represent the order of the sources in the references list. As I mentioned above, {{sfn}} already does that, and it's not like we change the dates in the citations to match the footnotes in that case. when it is standard to explicitly include the disambiguation letter in the citation next to the year as well, see from the {{sfn}} documentation:

Where there is a need to cite more than one work by the same author published in the same year, the standard way to disambiguate such works is to add a letter suffix after the year element of the {{sfn}} template (e.g. {{sfn|Smith|2006a}} and {{sfn|Smith|2006b}}). Make sure to add the disambiguation letter to the matching full citation, (e.g. {{cite book|...|last=Smith|date=2006b}}).

and from H:SFN:

If an author has multiple works in the same year, regardless of whether it is a full date or only a year, then duplicate anchors will be generated. To resolve this, you can suffix the year with a lowercase letter. For example:

• {{cite book |last=Elk |first=Anne |title=Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses |date=November 16, 1972a}}
• {{cite book |last=Elk |first=Anne |title=Anne Elk's Further Theory on Brontosauruses |date=December 20, 1972b}}

Having the disambiguation letter be part of the full citation is standard -- both on Wikipedia and in any other citation style. Umimmak (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Never mind me then, lol. That's good to know, I'll keep it in mind for the future! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Review on PR and then on FAC?

If I've reviewed an article when it was on WP:PR, is it fair game for me to review/support it when it shows up on FAC? RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No reason you can't do that (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

By all means. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You'll want to show that your support is not a drive-by but based on a thorough review of the article so you might want to lonk to your comments at the PR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Is photo credit required in caption?

I'm looking at Valhalla train crash for @Daniel Case. There's a photo used from the MTA's flickr page, which says If you would like to use a photo from our account, you should provide the proper credit from the caption or just say "Photo: Metropolitan Transportation Authority." Does the the sourcing information on the commons page satisfy that, or do you need to put "Photo: Metropolitan Transportation Authority." in the image caption on the article itself? RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

As it's in the public domain, we don't have to have any credit showing here or follow any requests, so the Commons page is sufficient. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe conventional Wikipedian wisdom is that being able to click through to the description page is sufficient to satisfy any licencing conditions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely not public domain. It's CC BY 2.0 DEED. RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:CREDITS "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page." Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the image in the IB? If so, from the current licence on Commons: “As a work of the U.S. federal government, all NTSB images are in the public domain in the United States.” - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be mysterious. I was talking about File:Passengers boarding Metro-North shuttle bus after Valhalla train crash.jpg RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for January 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for January 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for January 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 16 8 SchroCat 13 1 Nikkimaria 1 10 ChrisTheDude 9 Gog the Mild 7 1 AirshipJungleman29 7 UndercoverClassicist 6 1 Aoba47 4 1 1 Pseud 14 3 3 Tim riley 5 Vami IV 2 3 Anarchyte 4 Harrias 4 Hog Farm 4 RoySmith 4 Serial Number 54129 3 1 Wehwalt 4 Buidhe 3 Eddie891 3 Generalissima 2 1 MaranoFan 2 1 Nick-D 1 2 Ajpolino 2 Cassianto 2 Ceoil 2 FunkMonk 2 Heartfox 2 Hurricane Noah 1 1 Hurricanehink 2 Ippantekina 2 JennyOz 2 Mike Christie 2 NegativeMP1 2 The Night Watch 1 1 Tim O'Doherty 2 Voorts 1 1 20 upper 1 Aa77zz 1 Amakuru 1 Asilvering 1 Aterbiou 1 Aza24 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 Colonies Chris 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 David Fuchs 1 Dmass 1 Dudley Miles 1 Edge3 1 Emiya Mulzomdao 1 Epicgenius 1 FrB.TG 1 Frostly 1 GagaNutella 1 Gerda Arendt 1 Guerillero 1 GuineaPigC77 1 Harper J. Cole 1 Hawkeye7 1 Ian Rose 1 Igordebraga 1 J Milburn 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Johnbod 1 Just Another Cringy Username 1 KJP1 1 Mujinga 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 NatwonTSG2 1 Nfutvol 1 Panini! 1 PCN02WPS 1 Peacemaker67 1 Phlsph7 1 Piotrus 1 Queen of Hearts 1 Rodney Baggins 1 Sawyer-mcdonell 1 Sdkb 1 Shooterwalker 1 SouthernNights 1 SusunW 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 TonyTheTiger 1 Unlimitedlead 1 Wretchskull 1 Z1720 1 ZKang123 1 Totals 162 30 30

Supports and opposes for January 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 24 24 SchroCat 10 2 2 14 Nikkimaria 1 10 11 ChrisTheDude 9 9 Gog the Mild 3 1 4 8 AirshipJungleman29 2 5 7 UndercoverClassicist 2 2 3 7 Aoba47 4 2 6 Pseud 14 3 3 6 Tim riley 5 5 Vami IV 2 3 5 RoySmith 2 2 4 Hog Farm 4 4 Serial Number 54129 1 3 4 Harrias 2 2 4 Anarchyte 3 1 4 Wehwalt 4 4 Buidhe 3 3 MaranoFan 2 1 3 Generalissima 1 1 1 3 Eddie891 3 3 Nick-D 2 1 3 Mike Christie 2 2 Hurricanehink 2 2 Ajpolino 1 1 2 JennyOz 2 2 Ceoil 1 1 2 Ippantekina 2 2 Voorts 1 1 2 NegativeMP1 2 2 Cassianto 1 1 2 Heartfox 2 2 Hurricane Noah 1 1 2 FunkMonk 1 1 2 Tim O'Doherty 2 2 The Night Watch 1 1 2 GuineaPigC77 1 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 1 Frostly 1 1 SusunW 1 1 Nfutvol 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 Aza24 1 1 KJP1 1 1 TonyTheTiger 1 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 Rodney Baggins 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 Piotrus 1 1 Harper J. Cole 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Sdkb 1 1 Aterbiou 1 1 PCN02WPS 1 1 Z1720 1 1 Sawyer-mcdonell 1 1 Mujinga 1 1 Peacemaker67 1 1 Dmass 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 Emiya Mulzomdao 1 1 20 upper 1 1 Igordebraga 1 1 Panini! 1 1 Dudley Miles 1 1 NatwonTSG2 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 1 SouthernNights 1 1 Wretchskull 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Colonies Chris 1 1 Edge3 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Asilvering 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 Queen of Hearts 1 1 J Milburn 1 1 Unlimitedlead 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 GagaNutella 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 Just Another Cringy Username 1 1 Phlsph7 1 1 Amakuru 1 1 Totals 108 1 16 97 222

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) 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for November 2023 to January 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 6.0 36.0 6.0 Aoba47 4.0 64.0 16.0 AryKun 2.0 4.0 2.0 BennyOnTheLoose 6.5 18.0 2.8 Bneu2013 4.0 8.0 2.0 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 11.0 121.0 11.0 Cplakidas 5.0 11.0 2.2 Cyclonebiskit 2.0 2.0 1.0 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 Dudley Miles 2.0 27.0 13.5 Dugan Murphy 2.0 7.0 3.5 Elias Ziade 1.5 1.0 0.7 Epicgenius 7.0 18.0 2.6 Ergo Sum 2.0 None 0.0 FrB.TG 4.0 24.0 6.0 Generalissima 2.0 4.0 2.0 Harrias 3.0 44.0 14.7 Hawkeye7 6.0 48.0 8.0 Heartfox 7.0 34.0 4.9 Hog Farm 4.0 18.0 4.5 Horserice 2.0 1.0 0.5 Ippantekina 5.0 9.0 1.8 Jens Lallensack 2.0 18.0 9.0 Jo-Jo Eumerus 4.0 117.0 29.2 John M Wolfson 6.0 6.0 1.0 Lee Vilenski 5.5 9.0 1.6 LittleJerry 4.0 None 0.0 LunaEatsTuna 3.0 1.0 0.3 MaranoFan 11.0 48.0 4.4 Mike Christie 7.0 64.0 9.1 MyCatIsAChonk 7.0 45.0 6.4 Peacemaker67 5.0 3.0 0.6 Phlsph7 4.0 9.0 2.2 Premeditated Chaos 9.0 21.0 2.3 Pseud 14 5.0 43.0 8.6 RoySmith 2.0 14.0 7.0 Sammi Brie 2.5 10.0 4.0 SchroCat 15.5 124.0 8.0 Serial Number 54129 3.0 52.0 17.3 Sportzeditz 2.0 None 0.0 Tim riley 2.5 55.0 22.0 TompaDompa 3.5 12.0 3.4 Usernameunique 2.0 2.0 1.0 Vaticidalprophet 4.0 19.0 4.8 Voorts 4.0 17.0 4.2 Wehwalt 7.5 37.0 4.9 Wingwatchers 3.0 2.0 0.7 Your Power 6.0 4.0 0.7 ZKang123 5.0 11.0 2.2

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

GA reviewer of an article abstaining from support at FAC

I noticed that an experienced FAC reviewer has decided to abstain from supporting a nomination, because they were the GA reviewer. I don't think I've seen this happen before, and perhaps the reviewer had specific reasons for their abstention, but I thought I'd ask here: is this necessary in general? I wouldn't have thought so. I have certainly supported FACs where I was the GA reviewer and I don't see that there's a conflict of interest. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking personally I don't think they need to abstain, but it's a good thing to bring up since I would potentially weigh it differently than a reviewer coming in with fresh eyes, depending on how the candidacy goes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I know my first FA nom got a support from the GA reviewer, and I'm sure I've seen similar in other FACs I've reviewed – I can't see why in general a GA reviewer would need to recus IME people who have reviewed an article previously at GA or PR generally note it in their FAC comments. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with DWF, especially re disclosure. That said, a close pre-FAC knowledge of an article is not a reason to decline to support or oppose. Of course, any and all opinions are most welcome and there is no reason why they have to linked to a support or an oppose, but it is helpful if they are. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've often reviewed at FAC -- and generally wound up supporting -- articles I've reviewed at GAN (or MilHist ACR) but then I think I've always mentioned the earlier reviews/passes/supports in my FAC commentary. Of course it's up to the individual but I see no reason one shouldn't support at FAC if they passed an article at GAN -- remembering of course that the FA criteria are that much higher. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just tag me, Mike, as the reviewer. FAC Stats claims I have supported based on my review in only 10 of my 70 reviews. Zero of them since 2022. The abstention is my baseline due to my reviewing philosophy at FAC being close to Nikkimaria's: "I rarely support on the basis of a source or image review, although I may oppose on the basis of either." That being said, I like giving new reviewers a bite at the apple. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 08:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Tatannuaq

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tatannuaq/archive1 has just sorta been sitting idle for a week with no outstanding issues. It's had an image review, source review, and a fair number of prose reviews, so I think it's ready for FA promotion? I don't wanna seem impatient, but the wikicup's ongoing and I wanted to see if there was anything else it needed prior to promotion. Generalissima (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Vami IV

Tragic news everyone: FAC-regular Vami IV has just died. See his talk page. ——Serial 17:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope that a few other people join me in watchlisting his FAs to make sure they stay up to FA standards for years to come -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

He had one FAC open, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boundary Fire (2017)/archive1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

He also had Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Felix M. Warburg House/archive1 but Epiggenius has already offered to steward it. If someone else thinks they can jump in on Boundary Fire, we can leave it open, otherwise I'm inclined given the progress on the nom thus far to archive. To Guerillo's point, his FAs should people be interested in watchlisting them are Doom (2016 video game), Tinder Fire, Goodwin Fire, Frye Fire, Sawmill Fire (2017), Saline Valley salt tram, Harry F. Sinclair House, Fort Concho and Ludwigsburg Palace. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Guerillero and I are willing to take on Boundary Fire to see that it gets promoted. @FAC coordinators: , how would you prefer to see that done? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, I'm fine with that. Although it's in early stages, it would be nice to see the nomination reach consensus for promotion. It would be a nice way to honor Vami. FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've put our names down on it as shepherds rather than replace Vami as nominator. Hope that's okay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly Vami's name shouldn't be removed -- I think probably simpler if you just put your names down after Vami's, as co-noms in effect. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If this is allowed and a proper date can be found, I want to try and get Doom (2016 video game) onto the front page this year in his honor, as it was the last successful FA he had before passing. I think the best date is going to be it's eighth anniversary of release, but that may be a trivial anniversary and not permitted. λ NegativeMP1 19:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: I believe WP:TFA (or WP:TFA/REQ to be more specific) is the more appropriate venue to discuss that. FrB.TG (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requests for that month are not open at this point in time. I was simply making a comment related to the topic, as I plan on maintaining the article as well. λ NegativeMP1 19:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the fort and will keep an eye on that one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll do the same for the palace. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll also watch the palace which is on my watchlist since 2018. I'm shocked, - a teribble loss for all of us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the Sinclair House and will continue to do so. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Newbie in dire need of help

Twenty days ago, I nominated Narwhal for FA. I've addressed all of the reviewer's concerns, but I still haven't received any support. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Can someone help me? I'm on the verge of giving up. 20 upper (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

You aren't doing anything wrong. FAC often takes a long time, in part because it depends on the willing attention of particularly dedicated volunteers. I don't just want to say "be patient", but that's at least part of my advice. Remsense诉 06:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that reviewers feel that the article simply is not there yet. Be aware that the expectations at FAC are really high, and if it is your first one, it is difficult. Note that the FAC introduction advises newbies to 1) list the article at peer review and 2) seek the involvement of a mentor before nominating. Should this nomination fail, don't be disappointed; try to improve the article further, list it at Peer Review, and after that, nominate again. If can review your FAC if you want me to, but I will certainly have a longer list of comments too. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack Yes, please do. Regardless of the length of the list, it will be completed promptly. And when I complete your list, please don't mind supporting the nomination. 20 upper (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@20 upper: Also to bear in mind is that a reviewer may draw up a list of things that they feel are representative of more fundamental flaws. Look for phrases such as "including but not limited to", "for example", and "among other things". This would indicate to you that merely resolving the points raised is insufficient and that there are (sometimes many) further similar things for you to find and resolve for yourself. If the nominator is unable to find these unspoken issues, then, per Rule, the candidate is liable to be archived: the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Best of luck with your nom! ——Serial 14:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, one way to get extra input (which may not be always supports, though; see the comments by Jens and Serial) is to review other people's nominations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

^Of course, absolutely fundamental. A timely reminder to all! ——Serial 13:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FLC § List or article

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FLC § List or article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SEASON

There currently is disagreement on how to apply MOS:SEASON to the Oyster dress article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oyster dress/archive1#Edge3. Additional opinions are welcome and encouraged. Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Pinging for awareness. Edge3 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted SPSs, BDP & IAR in FA

The FA criteria strictly requires that an article's content must consist of high quality, reliable, and mainly secondary sources. However, I've seen instances of FAs that use self-published primary sources for uncontroversial information, especially for info about the subject itself. The article I'm discussing, Etika, consists primarily of 80 reliable HQ sources per WP:RSPSS & WP:VG/S, but also uses 4 clips of him as primary sources. They're mostly in the Early Life section for fairly uncontroversial yet non-trivial info, such as his education and occupations, in sparse proportion to HQ sources.

In most cases YouTube clips would be unacceptable for BLPs, let alone FAs. However, this is a unique case for two reasons. First, the subject qualifies as a BDP. Second and most importantly, a significant aspect of the subject's story is that several of his YouTube channels were terminated, rendering the only existing videos of his as archived reuploads. As a consequence, the 4 videos of his that would've been acceptable as SPSs and primary sources for his early life reaches gray territory. I do have backup sources in advance, but some of them are already included in the page, and there isn't much left beyond those that cover his background in further detail. In light of this, I would like to ask if small use of these reuploads would still be permissible without affecting FA status. How much leeway could be given for a situation like this, especially considering BDP and even IAR? If they're not permitted, would trimming the info hurt the comprehensive criteria? Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA requires high-quality reliable sources; self-published primary sources can sometimes meet that criterium. It depends on what they are used to source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Are they being used for anything that could reasonably be challenged or be considered controversial? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Peacemaker67: Two of the videos were stories he told about his education where he claims he attended Shell Bank and Urban Assembly. Another source was about his father which is supported with a secondary source, and the same with his modeling career. I don't believe they should be controversial, and his education claims haven't been challenged before, but I just want to make sure it's acceptable for FA. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use anything in a video from the point where he appeared to go off the rails, but for the information you specify above, I would think they are ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think so too, but if there is a better source out there that covers this info, I'll replace it as soon as possible. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A potentially questionable source to cover low level education? Is it important to know his high school? If it’s not in mainstream sources, you should start questioning whether it’s too trivial to cover in an encyclopaedia entry. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I considered omitting it earlier, but hesitated because of 1b. FA bios often cover their education before their career, and I assumed reviewers would question why that info's not included. I'm still searching, but if I can't find a better source on his education, I hope it can be trimmed without much hassle. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's not in the reliable sources, 1b won't matter. I've written biogs that don't cover decades in people's lives because the information isn't there in a reliable place. I had a v quick look at the social media feeds of Urban Assembly for the period of his death and there is no mention of the death of an alumni. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In that case, if there isn't any existing source for it then I won't feel too bad about its omission. Also, I appreciate you for checking for me; thank you so much! PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Advice on three interrelated nominations?

Hello! There are three articles I'm hoping to take through FAC at some point soon; Nadezhda Stasova, Anna Filosofova, and Maria Trubnikova. All three were 19th-century Russian feminists. They were contemporaries and close friends, frequently working together, and were known as the "triumvirate." Sources often discuss them in tandem, or describe their actions collectively, and so the three articles naturally share much of their sourcing. I've summarized the sourcing in the table below, though they are even more connected than this makes them seem, since the bulk of cites in every article are to one of the first six, shared sources:

Sources (top 6 are by far the most used)	Anna Filosofova	Nadezhda Stasova	Maria Trubnikova
Biographical Dictionary of Women's Movements and Feminisms	Y	Y	Y
Ruthchild 2009 (Human Tradition)	Y	Y	Y
Ruthchild 2010 (Equality and Revolution)	Y	Y	Y
Rappaport 2001	Y	Y	Y
Engel 2000	Y	Y	Y
Johanson 1987	Y	Y	Y
Stites 1977	Y	Y	Y
Pashova 2019	Y	Y	Y
Kaufman 2022	N	Y	Y
Johanson 1979	Y	N	N
Dudgeon 1982	Y	N	N
Uglow 2005	N	Y	N
Zelnik 1965	N	Y	N
Ruthchild 2008 (Oxford)	N	Y	N
Hilton 2009	N	Y	N

I know that the FAC rules limit nominators to one article at a time. Are there exceptions? It seems silly to me to ask reviewers to go through the three articles as though they are wholly independent, when understanding and checking the sources for one of them gets you 90% of the way there on the other two. I have also used similar or identical passages in several sections of all three articles, describing the work of the triumvirate collectively. I would appreciate advice from FAC veterans and the coordinators. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Many of my war memorial articles had nearly identical sourcing and shared passages. There are FAs on ships that are almost identical and had only slightly different careers. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. As long as each of the articles is comprehensive and places the subject in context in its own right you should be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've run into the same issue at least once or twice; I recall for Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories I think I reused most of a paragraph verbatim, and I asked on talk here about it before nominating. I think the best approach in your case would be to nominate one, and mention that the two others will follow and that anyone interested in reviewing any one of them may want to review all three. I can see why you'd like to nominate two or three at a time, but I actually think that could cause you problems -- for example if there are debates about wording or interpretation of a source it would be best to get those resolved in one and then any fixes implemented in the others before nominating those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice from both of you, that seems like a sensible course. Once the GA backlog drive is over I'll pick one and nominate it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Input needed: FGTC Reforms – Part 1

Hi all! Input would be appreciated at FGTC Reforms – Part 1. Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawal of FAC and two week exemption request

I would like to withdraw my FAC for Tatannuaq and request leave for an exemption from the typical two week wait period from the coordinators as per the guidelines. Generalissima (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, the coords can action the withdrawal request but exemptions to the two-week break are generally only given when the withdrawn/archived nom has had little commentary -- that isn't the case with Tatannuaq. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Capped to re-focus on withdrawal and the two-week hiatus guideline

I was under the impression, more generally, that the two-week break was to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first. On the specific FAC here, though, it is a little disingenuous of Generalissima not to state that the reason for the withdrawal is because it currently faces two actionable opposes which the nominator obviously doesn't want to attend to. It is not cool to try and swerve volunteer reviewers who have devoted their time and efforts to helping you get your article promoted—especially two reviewers of SchroCat's or Sandbh's calibre—and then casually skip the queue to the next nomination. Emoji required: *facepalm*  !!! ——Serial 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC) I am currently in the hospital and unable to respond to those (valid) opposes in a timely matter. Id really appreciate a bit more of an assumption of good faith here. Generalissima (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC) I am looking forward to take a look at that article when renominated; it seems to be excellent work. Hope you get well soon! Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Get well soon Generalissima. I don't know what the purpose of the two-week break is, but it is not "to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first". We know this, because it forbids a nominator from nominating any article for two weeks. The purpose seems to be to ensure that fewer articles are nominated for featured status. It discourages nominating an article when you might have another ready soon. The penalty for withdrawing also results fewer in articles being withdrawn by the nominator when there are few reviews or many issues or to make way for another article, so it makes the FAC queues are longer, which also results in fewer featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) "to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first" — User:Hawkeye7 20:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @Hawkeye7:, I agree that what I suggested might be not what be, in reality,the purpose is; but it's the only valid purpose of the haitus that I can see. I agree with the rest of your post. For me, the haitus means that, if one nominates an article, and then realises they can't support the candidature—maybe no longer having the sources to hand, or whatever—one might assume, logic permitting, one would be allowed to withdraw it, and effectively replace the nom, with no prejudice, with another, for which one does have access to sources. But then, Wikipedia; when does logic permit. ——Serial 21:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Check. I think, if one is hospitalised, one would not be overly worrying about another FAC nom, but, mileage, etc... ——Serial 21:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Would you please stop attacking other editors, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Please desist from casting aspersions, or file at WP:AN/I. Cheers! ——Serial 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC) If you are seriously arguing that these are not ad hominem attacks per WP:No personal attacks, please have another look at that page. End of discussion for me. Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Jeez, good luck with the current, well-advertised attempt to attract more female Wikipedia editors. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC) ??? what does wanting more women editors have to do with a FAC closure ? This is a complete non-sequitur that I honestly would not expect here, from an admin no less ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 00:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) I'm not a Wikipedia admin, and what I'm referring to is the overly hostile replies to a first-time FAC nominator and one of the few female nominators around, which I'm sure isn't ideal for either attracting or retaining editors. Frankly, overly hostile regardless of gender, seems WP:assume good faith was forgotten. We want to give an impression of there being good vibes around here and that newcomers are welcome, right? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Oh come on, Serial, that's rude and unwarranted. I assure you that I have access to large amounts of time to sit around and ponder what I'm able and not able to do when waiting through a psych evaluation. It's not like I'm bedridden over here, I just got a lot on my plate and intermittent internet access. Generalissima (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) Well I already said get well soon, which I meant. I literally meant. I didn't exactly call down a ritual of Set, Dennis Wheatley stylez, upon you, where the immediate intervention of the Lords of Light is soul-saving necessity to evade the clutches of the dvil Mocata etc. ——Serial 22:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Summarising some points raised regarding withdrawal and two-week break protocols:

• "the two-week break was to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first"
  • That's the rationale, determined by RFC in 2010.
• "I don't know what the purpose of the two-week break is, but it is not "to ensure that FACs weren't renominated without previously-identified issues being resolved first". We know this, because it forbids a nominator from nominating any article for two weeks."
  • Re. first sentence, see above. Re. second sentence, correct -- the RFC determined the guideline should apply to any article by the same nominator.
• "the hiatus means that, if one nominates an article, and then realises they can't support the candidature—maybe no longer having the sources to hand, or whatever—one might assume, logic permitting, one would be allowed to withdraw it, and effectively replace the nom, with no prejudice, with another, for which one does have access to sources."
  • Coords can grant exemptions. The above could be grounds for such. More commonly, exemptions are granted when the archived/withdrawn nomination received very little commentary.
  • I don't believe either of these two possibilities applies to the article that started this discussion. The nom has received a fair bit of commentary, and issues have been identified that probably should be addressed away from FAC, before this or another article is nominated. My fellow @FAC coordinators: might have a different opinion.

If anyone wants to discuss this summary, or the two-week break protocol in general, pls feel free -- but let's AGF and keep personalities out of it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In brief I entirely agree with what Ian says above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. The coords have discretion precisely for the edge cases suggested above and if anyone feels they have a good reason for an exception to the two-week rule they can ask. If someone else feels the request is disingenuous they can point out the facts they see them (or assume that the cooords know what's going on well enough to decide for themselves) but there's no need to get into a lengthy interpersonal back and forth. That's energy that could be better spent writing or reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for February 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for February 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 13 5 Nikkimaria 1 1 13 SchroCat 15 Gog the Mild 6 2 Mike Christie 7 UndercoverClassicist 7 ChrisTheDude 6 JennyOz 6 Vami IV 3 2 Dudley Miles 4 Hog Farm 2 1 J Milburn 3 TompaDompa 3 Voorts 2 1 AirshipJungleman29 2 Aoba47 1 1 Borsoka 2 Buidhe 2 Casliber 2 Eddie891 2 Edge3 2 Eem dik doun in toene 2 Heartfox 1 1 Jens Lallensack 2 Mujinga 1 1 Nick-D 2 Serial Number 54129 2 Teratix 2 Thebiguglyalien 2 Tim riley 2 Ajpolino 1 AryKun 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 Ceoil 1 Czar 1 David Fuchs 1 Dcdiehardfan 1 Elli 1 Epicgenius 1 Esculenta 1 Femke 1 Ffranc 1 Firefangledfeathers 1 Firsfron 1 Folly Mox 1 FrB.TG 1 FunkMonk 1 Grnrchst 1 Grungaloo 1 HAL333 1 Harrias 1 HJ Mitchell 1 Igordebraga 1 Indy beetle 1 Johnbod 1 Kusma 1 LittleJerry 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 NegativeMP1 1 NikosGouliaros 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 Richard Nevell 1 RoySmith 1 Sammi Brie 1 Sandbh 1 Shapeyness 1 SnowFire 1 SounderBruce 1 Steelkamp 1 Stevie fae Scotland 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 The Night Watch 1 Wehwalt 1 Wolverine XI 1 Your Power 1 ZKang123 1 ZooBlazer 1 Totals 137 20 26

Supports and opposes for February 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 19 19 SchroCat 10 5 15 Nikkimaria 1 14 15 Gog the Mild 4 4 8 Mike Christie 3 4 7 UndercoverClassicist 1 2 4 7 ChrisTheDude 5 1 6 JennyOz 6 6 Vami IV 2 3 5 Dudley Miles 3 1 4 Voorts 2 1 3 TompaDompa 1 2 3 Hog Farm 2 1 3 J Milburn 2 1 3 Jens Lallensack 2 2 Edge3 1 1 2 Serial Number 54129 1 1 2 AirshipJungleman29 2 2 Borsoka 2 2 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 2 Casliber 1 1 2 Nick-D 1 1 2 Teratix 1 1 2 Mujinga 1 1 2 Tim riley 2 2 Heartfox 1 1 2 Buidhe 2 2 Eem dik doun in toene 2 2 Aoba47 2 2 Eddie891 1 1 2 Shapeyness 1 1 HAL333 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Your Power 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 RoySmith 1 1 AryKun 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 1 Grnrchst 1 1 Igordebraga 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 Firefangledfeathers 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Harrias 1 1 Dcdiehardfan 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 Firsfron 1 1 Sandbh 1 1 Wolverine XI 1 1 LittleJerry 1 1 Kusma 1 1 Femke 1 1 Ajpolino 1 1 Czar 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 HJ Mitchell 1 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 Stevie fae Scotland 1 1 The Night Watch 1 1 Elli 1 1 Esculenta 1 1 Folly Mox 1 1 Grungaloo 1 1 Sammi Brie 1 1 Wehwalt 1 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 1 NikosGouliaros 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 ZooBlazer 1 1 Ffranc 1 1 Indy beetle 1 1 SounderBruce 1 1 Totals 76 21 86 183

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) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for December 2023 to February 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 8.0 35.0 4.4 Aoba47 4.0 65.0 16.2 BennyOnTheLoose 6.5 17.0 2.6 ChrisTheDude 10.0 115.0 11.5 Cyclonebiskit 2.0 2.0 1.0 Darkwarriorblake 4.0 3.0 0.8 Dudley Miles 3.0 28.0 9.3 Edge3 2.0 3.0 1.5 Elias Ziade 1.5 1.0 0.7 Epicgenius 7.5 18.0 2.4 Ergo Sum 2.0 None 0.0 FrB.TG 4.0 24.0 6.0 FunkMonk 3.3 28.0 8.4 Generalissima 2.0 4.0 2.0 Harrias 3.0 40.0 13.3 Heartfox 7.0 36.0 5.1 Hog Farm 4.0 19.0 4.8 Horserice 2.0 1.0 0.5 Ippantekina 6.0 9.0 1.5 Jens Lallensack 2.3 20.0 8.6 Jo-Jo Eumerus 4.0 134.0 33.5 Lee Vilenski 6.0 9.0 1.5 LittleJerry 3.0 1.0 0.3 MaranoFan 11.0 48.0 4.4 Mattximus 2.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 7.0 69.0 9.9 Nick-D 2.0 11.0 5.5 Peacemaker67 6.0 3.0 0.5 Phlsph7 4.0 7.0 1.8 Premeditated Chaos 9.0 21.0 2.3 Pseud 14 5.0 43.0 8.6 RoySmith 2.0 15.0 7.5 SchroCat 15.5 122.0 7.9 Serial Number 54129 3.0 49.0 16.3 SounderBruce 2.0 4.0 2.0 Sportzeditz 2.0 None 0.0 Therapyisgood 2.3 4.0 1.7 Tim riley 1.5 54.0 36.0 TompaDompa 3.5 14.0 4.0 Usernameunique 3.0 2.0 0.7 Vami IV 3.5 13.0 3.7 Vaticidalprophet 4.0 19.0 4.8 Voorts 4.0 20.0 5.0 Wehwalt 8.5 35.0 4.1 Your Power 6.0 5.0 0.8 ZKang123 5.0 12.0 2.4

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Section headers allowed or not

Template:Featured article candidates/editintro says that the FACses should not be split by headers. However, plenty of FACses have headers, some of them added by coordinators, and Template:FAC-instructions doesn't mention such a rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE clarifies the point: "a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition". There's more details around when to use and not in that section, but it should not be an automatic starting point. Practice seems to have drifted from this text for some editors, while others stick to the old ways. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I insert a level-4-header to avoid edit conflicts, and see no disadvantage for that practise. I have been tempted in lengthy reviews to also add level-5headers to ease dialogues but have not done so yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JJE is quite correct, as is SC. Although I wouldn't say so much that 'practice seems to have drifted' rather than some editors have deliberately chosen to do it differently in spite of the instructions. ——Serial Number 54129 11:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone object if we removed that statement from the editintro and from FACSUPPORTOPPOSE? I don't know why it was added and can't think of a reason why anyone would object. SchroCat, you seem to think the rule is a good idea; what do you see as the benefit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the rationale for removing the FACSUPPORTOPPOSE version? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No more than that it's harmless to create sections for short statements of support or opposition. It's not that it would be required, just that there would no longer be an instruction regarding it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It also says Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.. ——Serial Number 54129 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - even if we think subsections for a sentence are harmless, there's more to this wording than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Mos discussion of note

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes that would affect numerous FAs. Input from all sides is welcomed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Core Contest Returns!

Hi all—The core contest returns! Leaving this here:

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Restoring older featured articles to standard: year-end 2023 summary

Introduction

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Statistics

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023:

• 83 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
• 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
• The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%

Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Topics and Wikiprojects

There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Physics and astronomy
• Biology
• Mathematics
• Warfare
• Engineering and technology
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Literature and theatre
• Royalty and nobility
• Geology and geophysics

Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2023 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2023 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.56) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 14 8 22 0.36 15 Biology 16 45 61 2.81 62 Business, economics and finance 11 1 12 0.09 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 6 1 7 0.17 6 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 15 1 16 0.07 7 Education 25 1 26 0.04 2 Engineering and technology 5 6 11 1.20 3 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 47 6 53 0.13 17 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 9 4 13 0.44 4 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 30 16 46 0.53 36 Language and linguistics 4 0 4 0.00 3 Law 15 1 16 0.07 1 Literature and theatre 17 16 33 0.94 20 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 22 11 33 0.50 36 Meteorology 20 6 26 0.30 27 Music 30 9 39 0.30 52 Philosophy and psychology 3 1 4 0.33 0 Physics and astronomy 3 10 13 3.33 22 Politics and government 24 4 28 0.17 7 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 9 19 0.90 44 Sport and recreation 40 12 52 0.30 38 Transport 9 3 12 0.33 9 Video gaming 5 6 11 1.20 21 Warfare 31 51 82 1.65 27 Total 446 Note A 248 Note B 694 0.56 482 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

We need your help!

Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity at WP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following the featured article criteria.

Here's how any editor can help:

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the 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 who 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 who would otherwise not look at it.

Feedback and commentary

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

How to assess comprehensiveness of wide-scope articles

In my last nominations (Education and Knowledge), I was struggling with the comprehensiveness criterion (the article neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context). To prepare better for future nominations, I was hoping to learn how to best assess the comprehensiveness of articles on very wide topics for which it is not possible to consider every source mentioning the topic or include every single aspect, view, or example somehow related to it. This problem was also shared by several reviewers who did not vote because they did not feel confident about assessing comprehensiveness.

Based on high-quality reliable sources, how do you determine whether an article of this type is comprehensive? If an article does not cover a specific aspect, view, or example, how do you assess whether it requires a sentence, a paragraph, or a top-level section to cover that aspect, view, or example? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For the broad articles I worked on like Armenian genocide, the article's coverage was weighted largely based on coverage in sources that provided an overview of the topic (like the books cited whose stated topic is "Armenian genocide"). All of the main topics were in their own subsection and often summary style for other Wikipedia articles. Details were filled in based on the criteria of how much it is covered in the sources and my intuition about "does the reader need to know this to understand the topic", which helped both ensure comprehensiveness and control length. Without any overview sources it would be a lot harder to determine the appropriate article structure and which information to include. However, I think any article that is at a reasonable length and has the topics correctly weighted can be considered comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say a lot depends on how many sources exist on a topic. My volcano articles often have only a few sources (even if "a few" numbers in the thousands) so including everything that isn't utterly trivial or unreliably sourced or contested is how I work. For your topics, naturally we can't include every passing source. Here one way to go about it would be to look for overview sources and see what they consider worth mentioning. Or as Buidhe said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the helpful and practical explanation. Relying on overview sources to decide what the main topics are and how they should be weighted has also been my approach so far. More specific sources can be used to fill in details and for some details it may be optional whether to include them or not.

Personally, I often find myself in a situation where a reviewer requests the addition of a topic that is somehow relevant but not discussed in any of the overview sources. I'm not sure how to best handle this type of request and I would be interested to hear how you react in such cases. Unless there is a good reason otherwise, I usually try to find a place within the existing structure to add anything from a footnote to a paragraph (depending on the circumstances) without making any drastic changes to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it really depends. Overview sources are not perfect but they are probably the best thing we have to go on, so if it's not mentioned there I may be inclined to push back on the request and suggest inclusion in a sub-article instead. I can remember cases where there is an aspect that is clearly one of the things the topic is known for, but not mentioned in overviews, but I've only seen it with narrower topics. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that you probably need to follow the advice above, have an objective(ish) breakdown of what should go into the article in what proportions, and argue WP:UNDUE at reviewers who want to add interesting bits and pieces. At worst they should end up saying that it is a fine article but opposing promotion on the narrow grounds of it not including X, or not enough of X. Which will punt the final decision to the coordinators; who aren't enthusiastic about overriding opposes, but can do and have done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I probably have to work on better communicating these points to reviewers who may not be familiar with the overview sources, for example, by clarifying why a suggestion is WP:UNDUE. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I, at least, would much prefer hashing things out on the backside of Wikipedia over getting just a footnote or a sentence in response to something I have claimed deserves a section. Please take as just a friendly note! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you are right that taking a stricter stance on this is preferable. I sometimes find myself implementing suggestions for which it is not directly clear that they constitute improvements.

It's a good point about overview sources being our best guess. There may be exceptions in specific cases but the burden of proof is on who wants to go against the overview sources, especially if that would involve considerable changes to the article. One danger looming here is the reliance on personal opinions and original research about the prominence of certain topics. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this emphasises the importance of peer review before FAC, especially for big-picture topics. PR is really the place these questions should be nutted out. I know you use PR, for instance re. the Knowledge article, but don't always gain a great deal of input. Perhaps more active pinging of relevant projects and some of our experienced reviewers could help. This is also a reminder for our regular FAC reviewers that there's no need to wait for something to appear at FAC before having a look, keep an eye on PR too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar is an excellent tool to keep an eye on FAC wannabe articles. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that while PR may not be a magic pill, it can be quite useful for identifying potential difficulties. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Phlsph7,

I appreciate your diplomatically not naming names, but I am guessing my critical comments and eventual opposition to the promotion of knowledge is no small part of what motivated this query.

I most readily name myself, however, and I welcome feedback here or on my talk page—should anyone here actually have the patience to read through all the comments and have any advice to share. I'm new to the process, and I genuinely welcome it.

To get to the general point: Is it correct that the burden of proof is on the reviewer to provide alternative tertiary sources, rather than upon the nominator to defend the comprehensiveness of the overview sources upon which the article relies (in the event this is called into question)? Because the comprehensiveness of overview sources emerged as an explicit point of disagreement in the discussion about this nomination, and this went nowhere productive. Obviously a great deal will vary on a case-by-case basis, but is there a rule of thumb?

I took myself to establish the non-comprehensiveness of these sources with reference to large fields of study with large literatures that I took to be (and was ready to defend in elaboration) quite obviously and directly concerned with the declared topic of the article in a way not covered by the governing overview sources. Although I can see the other side of the issue, I would submit that reviewers should not be expected to go out and review university press handbooks/companions/encyclopedias/glossaries/whatever to legitimize a content-based objection with a supporting secondary literature.

Please, please, please, I must be clear that I am not interested in further litigating this nomination. (And to whatever extent I am further justifying a call I did not want to make, this is in spite of myself.) As I said in both my first post and the penultimate post in which I opposed nomination, I have no problem whatsoever being overruled by a coordinator if I've misunderstood "comprehensiveness". This stands.

For such a general topic as knowledge, however, I continue to believe that reference to disputed tertiary sources will tend mostly to just displace the alleged problem. And, I must add, tend also to exasperate and discourage well-meaning editors trying to contribute at the level of content coverage. No one is going to participate in this process if it requires reading the most cited sources from a very long bibliography and, further, researching additional sources situated at a just-so level of generality.

In short, I echo the frustration of the OP. For issues as general as knowledge (or, coming up, existence—and so @Gog the Mild, not merely a rhetorical question, I do not think!), the current guidelines seem to sometimes leave editors involved at an unfortunate impasse. The closest thing I have to a solution is well stated by another reviewer of this nomination, @Shapeyness: with a topic as massive as knowledge, it is also pretty much impossible to even cover every area of study in the literature, never mind assess weight in the totality of high-quality reliable sources. For that reason, I think that the coverage of the article is (more than most other Wikipedia articles) a matter of editorial judgement and editor agreement. This too, however, is hardly without problems.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I may also be one of those editors because I questioned the comprehensiveness of education on a global scale. My interpretation of global topics is that we cannot use narrow definitions to describe systems that are alien to most of the world. My measuring stick would be that as the EU/US systems represent only 14% of the world population the bulk of the article should describe how systems work elsewhere, how they are interpreted/valued elsewhere, etc. Likewise, since women/girls make up 1/2 of the world's population and ethnic minorities make up around 20% of the population, I would expect that as there are differences in how systems treat those large segments of the population that they be given sufficient weight in the discussion. While I grant that it may be harder and there may be language barriers which impact finding sourcing on say Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, or the Pacific than it is to find examples from the EU/US, every effort should be made to do so, or the article isn't really, for example a general article on "Education", but instead an article on "Western" education. I am never one to impose my views on anyone, I offer it merely for perspective and consideration. SusunW (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus here so far appears to be that comprehensiveness and weight are to be determined by overview sources and the weight they give to the subtopics. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to imply that we don't need to come up ourselves with complex personal arguments based on things like historical considerations or population statistics. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are distorting what I said. If we know that the majority of people do not live in the EU/US, we should be looking for sources elsewhere to create that overview and weight of topics. What do Chinese sources, Indian sources, AU sources indicate that the important aspects and topics are? Are they the same as in the Western world, or different? It's about balance and NPOV. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What is at issue, it seems to me, is how to respond to questions about the adequacy of an overview provided by any given source (or cluster of related sources, i.e., those all written from a perspective of dubious universality). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say that is the case. I would agree with Susun that in some cases the overview can be biased and the education article cannot be considered comprehensive if it doesn't have adequate coverage of the entire world. For example, in the torture article cases regarding the United States, armed conflicts and political prisoners are greatly overrrepresented in the sources. That does not excuse me for writing an article that covers the forms of torture that are most prevalent in the world, even if they are less studied... (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if I misconstrued the original explanation as an argument about using population statistics to infer weight. I'm in no way opposed to the idea that we have to be careful about which sources to pick and should rely on high-quality overview sources since biased sources are likely to have biased weights. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a relative newcomer to WP:FAC, but my approach has been to oblige such reviewers when I deem the requests to fall within a reasonable interpretation of WP:Balancing aspects, and to tell them that it would be undue based on the overall coverage in the sources in the remaining cases. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 is a case in point. TompaDompa (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Another point that might be good to clarify: is it impossible for articles on broad topics like these ones to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion? I guess the answer is already contained in the responses above but I'm asking because some reviewers explicitly used this idea as an argument against promotion. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that you have recently successfully nominated logic, philosophy and communication, I assume the question is rhetorical. Just ensure that such reviewers are clear that this is their only objection. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Appologies for the trivial question. I fear that this point may also come up in future nominations so it's good to have a consensus to point to in case I have trouble convincing the other party. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

While in my own experience I've never (luckily) had a reviewer make "demands" that I didn't think would improve the article, but have seen plenty of instances where the nominator should let an oppose stand, after giving refuting rational. Speaking generally here, but aware of the poisoning of the well effect, and FAC shouldn't require the support of 100% of the reviewers who give a vote. I know the co-ords know and practice this but re-stating anyway. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

One difficulty here is that the FA process gives more weight to opposes than supports. It's true that there are also certain guidelines for disregarding objections without merit, but in some cases, a lot of background knowledge on the topic and its sources is required to assess the merit of an objection and it's probably not feasible to expect the coordinators to aquire this type of knowledge before making their assessment. In other words, if someone opposes based on misguided but difficult-to-assess reasons, this constitutes a significant obstacle to promotion. But then again, the FA process should be demanding, so I'm not sure that there is a good alternative to avoid this problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Might this to some extent be a problem of too few reviewers knowledgeable about the topics of nominated articles? Or of reviewers shying away from commenting more frequently and directly on one another's suggestions? For instance, it was important to me in deciding to oppose that two other editors who work in the area expressed similar reservations, at least at the general level. If it weren't for this, I probably would have remained officially neutral (albeit with a sizable record of objections—not sure how, or if, that is taken into account). Or, if other reviewers had expressed concern that I was being unreasonable, I would have probably withdrawn the oppose. That is to say we could all have proceeded more-or-less according to the normal policies on consensus; and in a limited way we did, but a few more people engaging a little bit more directly with one another would likely, at least in this instance, have resulted in a smoother process and a more timely decision. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, I'm not sure that its a matter of "too few reviewers knowledgeable about the topic"; in this instance the issue was that you/others and Phlsph7 disagreed on the locus of the article. I did follow the review closely, and while, for this article, tended towards the nominators POV, the difficulty of establishing the correct balance is significant, and one of the contributing factor why the majority of FA candidates tend towards smaller scale topics; an opposite is The Core Contest which has yielded some incredible results over the last 5 years. I have a lot of thoughts but no answers for FAC off the top of my head, but do welcome this discussion and am very glad Phlsph7 has opened it here...I'm worrying about a similar fate for Tomb effigy, which is primarily an art-historical page about 11th and 12th c. innovations in France and England, but could be face accusations of not giving equal balance and separate sections to every country where these innovations spread through (see also how the contagion section of Black_Monday_(1987) was met here). Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ceoil, you correctly identify the decisive point of contention. My suggestion above is just that this might have been resolved much earlier in the process had there been a few more people competent and willing to take a strong stand (how ever provisional) when it first came up. That would not necessarily be the outcome, but it would have been a stronger possibility. Also, secondarily, and speaking just for myself: when one person disagrees with a position I've taken, my instinct is to assume that I just need to explain myself better, which can lead to lengthy and unproductive exchanges; when multiple people disagree with my position, however, I am more likely to drop the issue without very much additional discussion in acknowledgement of the consensus (whatever I might continue to think myself). Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To be more clear, my worry is that, opposes, whether carrying underlying weight or nor, may be given more weight than supports, because of a lack of expertise by others. I have to admit finding your unusually happy to pour doubt on many other article talk pages, in what might be seen as a "know some but not a lot" type ego trip. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I take issue with "unusually happy", but otherwise thank you for your candidness. I will try to be more aware of knowing what I don't know, inasmuch as I am able. Otherwise, however, I don't see how taking a strong stand on a talk page is a problem—so long as civility and other relevant policies are observed. If there is something in particular to which you would like to call to my attention, perhaps follow up on my talk page? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've struck that bit; sorry but surely any stand on talk pages or FAC noms should be measured on substance rather than civility. I notice you are very verbose, circular, and tend not to make actionable points. Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. And I agree completely about the priority of substance. (Had it been Phlsph7's editorial conduct under assessment, I would've supported with enthusiasm!) Although there's probably not much that can be done about my long-windedness, please do not be shy about speaking up if I appear to be engaging in circular reasoning or pressing an unactionable point. Unless it pertains to the general FAC issue under discussion, however, I again suggest moving this to my talk page or some other more appropriate venue. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

When I've worked on high level articles (Australian Defence Force, Air raids on Japan and a few others), my test for comprehensiveness was whether the article covered everything noted in other high level overviews of the topic, such as short books and magazine articles. I also consulted all the major book length works on the topic to ensure that the articles covered the main issues they covered, as well as to ensure that they reflected the views of the authors. I also consulted the recent academic and 'grey' literature to ensure that the articles reflected the topics modern experts consider worth covering. There isn't an exact science here though - the key principle to keep in mind that these are encyclopedia articles, so should provide a high level overview of the topic without needing to cover absolutely everything about it. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Its completely different. Your articles have the words Australian and Japan in their titles, narrowing scope. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I had this problem with History of military logistics. While it would easily meet your test of comprehensiveness, there were concerns about whether the individual sections accurately reflected what child articles would have said if they existed. This was not a case like PatrickJWelsh describes where there were too few knowledgeable reviewers per se; rather reviewers were knowledgeable in a particular subtopic. Unlike Air raids on Japan, books on the parent are few, although the literature on the field is massive. Wikipedia:Summary style posits writing articles top down, with the high-level article being written first and child articles created from it. We all know that seldom happens because of the difficulty of writing the high-level articles. The alternative is bottom up, where the parent article aggregates the children. Which would be straightforward, if the children actually exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where to add this comment, but since I was pinged up above, here are some thoughts. Generally I would agree that overview sources are a really good way of establishing due weight within an article. But there are a few things (I think) that should also be considered.

One is: is that overview source looking at the topic from a particular point of view? I'll take an example from an article I've worked on. There are quite a few overview sources used in Quine–Putnam indispensability argument - most of them (understandably) are concerned almost solely with the substance of the argument. They give very little room to its history, development, or legacy. But they are specialist overviews, not a general encyclopedia. There is a growing field of Quine scholarship tracing the development of Quine's thought. Should we ignore all of it because most of the overviews on indispensability arguments have a more narrow focus? My view is that weight in the overall literature should be assessed where possible, hence our indispensability argument article going into more depth on the history than many of the specialist overviews it cites.

Obviously this approach is not possible for Knowledge - how would one assess the totality of sources on such a broad topic! Nonetheless, my worry for the article when reviewing was that it was over-focused on philosophy simply because philosophers tend to write overviews specifically on that topic, even if it is important to other fields. But I don't really have any expertise outside philosophy (except some knowledge of physics) so it's possible that I'm completely mis-judging the situation, and I'm not 100% sure how to address the worry. Ideally I think the article needs a lot of different eyes on it from people with different areas of expertise, but I get that's not necessarily practical. Insofar as the article is concerned with philosophy, it seems comprehensive to me as someone with a little bit of knowledge in the area. But I wasn't confident to support without knowing if there was broader support for such a focus. And most of the overviews used in the article have a narrow philosophical focus, so they also didn't make me feel as confident as I would have liked either.

Hopefully that makes some sense and expands on my comments from the review in a way that is useful. Shapeyness (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I think, ideally, one should not base the weight on a single overview source but consult several ones. Many topics are somehow relevant to several fields but it's often the case that one field is the main field studying this topic. My take is that, in such cases, it makes sense to reflect this in the article instead of giving equal weight to each minor field. There are encyclopedias of many different fields, not just philosophy. Examples from our article are an entry on knowledge management from an encyclopedia of communication and an entry on knowledge representation from an encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Their articles should be fine to use as overview sources for certain subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)