![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Yes, you can oppose on the basis of missing page numbers. They should be there to enable easy verifiability, and look-up-ability. Sandbh ( talk) 23:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There's the related issue that most e-book formats don't have page numbers, you can only cite down to the chapter. I wouldn't oppose over that either.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
On the more general issue of page numbers, I'm firmly in the camp that if a page number, section number, paragraph number etc exists it should always be included in the reference. Citations on Wikipedia serve a different purpose to citations in academic literature, and it's a disservice to our readers to force them to read an entire paper if they want to verify the accuracy of one fact, which may only be mentioned tangentially in that paper. (With my cynical hat on, forcing "each page number gets a separate reference", would have the added bonus of making it obvious from a quick glance at the reference section if anyone is pulling the all-too-common stunt of ripping off a single work top-to-bottom, and spicing the reference section with a couple of references to passing mentions in other works to try to mask the fact.) ‑ Iridescent 07:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
( ←) I call bullshit. If a fact isn't verifiable/verified to the reader of no expertise but high intelligence then it simply isn't verified. An intelligent layman can usually (not always) verify a fact in a different field if you give that person the very specific page. No page number, it's unverifiable/unverified. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
( ←) Quite frankly, I think the onus is on you to prove that it is. Remember, we are not (or should not be) playing by the rules of the specific field. That is the problem between us: You think we can follow the rules of the field. I think we are not in the field, and we are not even professional, so we need to be held to a higher standard than the field holds itself to. You and I are operating under different paradigms. You are operating under a professional paradigm. I am not, and I say we cannot. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Lingzhi opposed per 1(c) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amargasaurus/archive1, because the article uses large page ranges for journals and books (e.g. for books, 15–49, 259–322, 430–453. WP:CHALLENGE, part of V, says: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)."
The article was promoted anyway. Any thoughts? Pinging Sarastro1 and Ealdgyth from the discussion at User talk:Sarastro1, and the nominator, Jens Lallensack. SarahSV (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
To repeat what I've said elsewhere, and to clarify my thinking: First, I closed the FAC because there was no clear consensus over whether the oppose was an accurate reflection of WP:V. This is not to say that it wasn't, but that there was no clear agreement either there or in this discussion. I have my own opinion, but I think in this case I am better remaining neutral. Some users say that policy requires one thing, others that it requires another. Neither side has any divine right to be correct, it requires more discussion. Secondly, I think it was unfair to have the discussion on that FAC, which was fairly arbitrarily chosen for an oppose. There are plenty of FAs which use that model, for better or worse, and I think we need a central agreement before we weigh into individual articles. Otherwise, every article, every FAC becomes a battleground.
On the other issues, I have been accused of "dodging behind the flimsy pretense of lack of WP:CONSENSUS"; I don't think any such consensus exists and before I start imposing new rules I want to be doubly sure. I have been told "Because that's a policy issue, one oppose on that basis is enough"; in all my years at FAC, I have never seen a coordinator decide arbitrarily on policy, at least since Raul was around. The reviewers, or the FAC community, decide on how policy is reflected. And in all these discussions, there was no consensus on the requirements of policy. Also, Sarah suggested "arguably the coordinator could archive even without an oppose if the text isn't verifiable". Again, I've never seen that before, it is not my understanding of this role and I suspect it is the view of few. We do not decide what is a FA, and if one of us has major concerns we always recuse and weigh into the FAC. I do not have, and do not want, a supervote. Above, Sarah raises the issue "that an oppose on the grounds of a policy violation isn't acted upon." I respectfully disagree that there is consensus that there has been a "policy violation". Maybe there has been, maybe not; I have my view but there needs to be consensus.
Neither side is automatically correct, and the varying practice in many FAs shows that there is disagreement. I think a good starting point would be more discussion, less insisting. Finally, the coordinators can only act on reviews given; we can request more views or recuse and weigh in, but it is unrealistic and unfair to expect us to pass or fail every article personally based on our own reading of WIAFA. Sarastro1 ( talk) 11:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Right folks, I am setting this up to run May 15 to June 30 again...with the usual Amazon vouchers up for grabs. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedian editing community has effectively lost the ability to determine what readers see on the first screen of many articles when viewed on mobile devices. In this discussion, this image was offered as both the reality and the hope of how many articles already appear and will appear on mobile view, with many of the infobox fields filled in from Wikidata. How we got to this place is complicated, and it's not what I want to talk about, I want to talk about what I plan to do about it. As a rationale for why readers would rather see an infobox than text from the lead, the WMF reading team said it's "for people who feel overwhelmed while scrolling through the often dense and opaque lead sentences." Actually ... they have a point, particularly for longer articles (like FAs) with 4 lead paragraphs. When I'm reading or reviewing, I sometimes don't know why the subject of the article is important, what the main point is, even after I've read the first 2.5 paragraphs; I have to wade through at least two more long paragraphs before I find out. That's not the only reason our text is getting pushed below the Wikidata infobox, but it's part of the reason. I'm guessing there will eventually be some on-wiki fighting over this issue, and before that happens, I'd like to have a strong argument available that Wikipedians are on top of this issue and already have some ideas. So when I do prose reviews at FAC from now on, I'm going to be making some edits and some suggestions about moving the "payoff" information into the first 2.5 paragraphs in the lead, and making those paragraphs tighter. This is probably something that would have been a good idea all along, but IMO the stakes are higher now. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
(I was emailed by Dank). On mobile, to avoid the infobox obscuring what the article is about, the WMF added to the top a very short description, taken from Wikidata. This has now been disabled (or will soon be disabled, I haven't checked the current status) because taking this from Wikidata had some problems (vandalism, no easy way to change it or track it, ...). The same description is also used for other things like short descriptions in search boxes, related articles, ... At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Blockers to having short description on mobile this is now being discussed (the section right above it is the RfC that lead to the disabling of this feature). Possible solutions could be re-enabling the Wikidata descriptions but with some added functionality, creating a "short description" template on enwiki (in every article) which takes over this functionality, not bothering with such descriptions, or for mobile displaying the lead or the first sentence above the infobox instead of below (not an exhaustive list, just some ideas). This is of course not FA specific. Fram ( talk) 06:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject isis just common sense, but with many—perhaps most—articles, whatever the topic, it's not possible to explain notability and significance in a single sentence. One can say "Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch post-impressionist painter", or even stretch it out to the current "Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter who is among the most famous and influential figures in the history of Western art", but "Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter who spent his entire working career in France, who was unsuccessful throughout his lifetime and his ideas were largely rejected, but in the 20th century the advent of Fauvism led to a generation of art students viewing him as an important figure for the first time, while as the cult of the outsider and the notion of the tortured genius became a trope of western culture the book and film Lust for Life popularized him among audiences who traditionally had little interest in painting, and consequently he is one of the few 19th-century artists with whom general audiences are familiar"—which is as condensed as I can make that—is a ridiculously long sentence. There's a reason TFA blurbs are 1200 characters, not 120; while it's easy to summarize what something is in a single sentence, it's a lot harder to summarize why something is notable which is what Wikipedia is all about.
Thanks for bringing this up, Dan. I have deep experience with mobile UX and the foundation's efforts can be generously described as inept. They fail, by a wide margin, to understand what questions users are asking as they arrive on a page. The question "Who is Vincent Van Gogh?" is answered in the Google search results before they even tap the link to proceed to Wikipedia. So, including the Wikidata description in the mobile article view was stupid to begin with. Tapping the Wikipedia link in the Google search results takes the reader to a giant text rendition of the subject's name, a redirect notice, and the self-portrait. Even on my generous 6" mobile screen, that's all I get before I have to start scrolling. I have to scroll through several more screens-full of infobox and images before I even get to prose. The type of question I'm probably actually seeking at this point (something like, "Did Van Gogh paint Starry Night Over the Rhone"?) is buried under headings that are collapsed by default for no known reason and that are difficult to navigate and ignore several basic heuristics of mobile UX. There's a point in here somewhere... I believe FAC, GAN, and ACR should be places where we're encouraging editors to emphasize context and notability in addition to "what the subject is". I'm reminded of the "best known for" troll. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the bottom line for me: the Foundation has made a major mistake in pushing all article text down below the (sometimes Wikidata-filled) infoboxes on small mobile screens, because most readers don't get past the first few screens of most of the articles they click on. For those readers who were expecting to read an article in Wikipedia, they're not getting that (without knowing that they're not getting that), they're getting something that most of us aren't involved in and that doesn't measure up to our standards. Those readers will judge us, and judge Wikipedia, accordingly. The catch is that I don't think it's a good idea to even discuss the problem widely until more Wikipedians have the knowledge that Featured Article and Good Article writers generally have on the subject. Otherwise, we're just going to knock heads with people at the Foundation who claim that they had to do what they did because (translating) leads don't get to the point fast enough, leads are hard to read, and Wikipedians don't understand the issues. So: there's a serious problem, and the only solution involves educating Wikipedians about prose. That's maybe my least favorite job, and I'm not even sure how to get started. I think for now I'll just start keeping a log at User:Dank/Leads of the relevant discussions I see at FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's going to take me a little while to gear up for this fight, because I spend most of my time on well-developed articles. I'm rusty on what leads look like in general, and how easy they are to fix, but I think it's an important first step to do what we can before we confront the Foundation people who were involved with this change. In the meantime, if anyone runs across people who are offended by what's happened on mobile screens, please let them know it's probably temporary; I don't want us to lose any Wikipedians over this. Also ... I hesitate to bring this up, but I don't see a way around it. I've never recommended that Wikipedians read up on the science or practice of writing ... that can lead to a lot of arguments for not much gain. Most of the writing we see at FAC is already pretty good, and for the stuff that isn't good, studying up probably wouldn't make a lot of difference. But now we're faced with a problem that comes down to this: the people who made this decision apparently lack some basic knowledge about effective writing, and it's probably not going to work to say "This looks better to us"; we need something to back that up. I can highly recommend the short book The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker (except for parts of Chapter I, which are great but not particularly relevant to Wikipedia). It's a quick survey of the consensus of cognitive scientists and linguists on what makes text easy or hard to read, written in a very non-technical style, with copious footnotes. If people want to talk about other texts, that's fine too. If anyone wants to start a relevant discussion group, please let me know. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
However, the means by which people access material has changed radically in the last couple of years. While there will always be some people following links (here or elsewhere) and arriving at articles with no background knowledge, and thus we still need to write leads on the assumption that we're writing for Giano's hypothetical "bright 14-year-old with no prior knowledge of the topic but who's eager to learn", most readers are either coming from links within other Wikipedia articles (which, if they're written correctly, should have already given the reader enough context to have a rough idea what the link they've clicked on will tell them about), or from Google searches which may only give one sentence summaries but that one sentence can often be enough. (To take one example just because it's fresh in my head,
Selina Rushbrook has a decent claim to be the most obscure article on Wikipedia, and the lead was written on the assumption that no reader will have the slightest idea as to who she was. However, aside from people clicking "random article", most readers will either be coming from a Google search—in which case they'll have already seen Selina Jenkins Rushbrook, née Selina Ann Jenkins, was a petty criminal, prostitute and brothel keeper from Swansea, Wales
or from the incoming links from
Prostitution in the United Kingdom and
Swansea Docks in which case they already know she was a 19th-century dockside prostitute from Swansea. Thus, while the lead still needs to cover "where was she from, when did she live, what did she do?" for the benefit of readers who have arrived at the article by other means, the priority is more focused on "here is a brief synopsis of her life so you can decide whether the full article is something in which you'd be interested in reading".
By the nature of Wikipedia, at FA-related pages it's easy not to notice this change in how traffic is generated, since everyone here is used to viewing articles from the editor and reviewer perspective, where we're reading large numbers of articles on topics about which we know nothing. But Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors; most of our readers are wanting to find out more about topics which already interest them. The real discussion to be had is "what information are readers likely to be looking for, and how is it best provided?", and there isn't an easy answer to that. For straightforward "where is Vincent van Gogh buried?" queries, increasing prominence for the infobox or one-line summaries is a positive, but that's a trade-off with increased inconvenience for "why is Vincent van Gogh considered important?", since every line added at the top means more gubbins that reader has to scroll through before they get to the text.
TLDR summary—as with virtually every discussion containing the word "infobox", the only correct answer is "decide what's included on a case-by-case basis since any attempt to mandate a solution will lead to either inappropriate simplification of complicated information, or inappropriate complication of basic information". The difference now is that readers may be looking for a different style of information now, and we need to be receptive to comments if and when people start saying that the existing format for leads is oversimplified. ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of March (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
One reviewer did eight reviews; one did seven; three did six; four did five; four did four reviews. 97 editors provided a total of 222 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
One reviewer did five reviews; one reviewer did four; and two did three. A total of 26 reviewers provided a total of 77 reviews. Special mentions: Ian Rose and Casliber, who both did ten reviews divided between the two types of review; and Syek88, who just began reviewing and who posted six reviews.
I should also mention that with 34 FAs promoted in March we have promoted more than we used up at TFA for the first time since October 2015; the last time before that was August 2014. I'd like to think that the discussions here over the last couple of months have encouraged more people to review. Let's hope this is the start of a trend.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:TFA about scheduling featured articles for the main page without the consent of the primary author(s) that readers of this page may be interested in. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Folks, there are some requests that could do with more eyes and more discussion. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to hit 5K FAs anywhere in next week...- The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 17:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not directly related, but can someone explain what Category:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal is for and why it is a subcategory of Category:Featured articles? There are 44 articles in it; some are FAs and also in the main category; others are not FAs (the category name notwithstanding). -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I've left a quick note on the Signpost suggestions page. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The ongoing FAC reviews of Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve are not being transcluded to the article's talk page. I thought I had followed all the installation instructions, but I'm a bit rusty and must have goofed up. When I try to install the FAC template again on the talk page and look at what I've done in preview mode, the template seems eager to create archive 2. This would create an even bigger problem, I fear. I'm flummoxed. Can anyone sort this out for me? I would appreciate it. Finetooth ( talk) 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As I think a few people are aware, Laser brain has retired from Wikipedia. He also requested to be removed as a FAC coordinator. I would like to place on record my thanks for all that he has done over the years at FAC, and hopefully we will see him again in future. Meanwhile, Ian Rose and I feel that the current workload at FAC is manageable and neither of us feel that we need to appoint another coordinator at the moment. Sarastro1 ( talk) 12:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of April (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Two reviewers did seven reviews; two each did six and five reviews; four did four; eleven did three; twelve did two, and fifty editors did a single review. 86 editors provided a total of 205 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
Two reviewers did three reviews; two reviewers did two reviews; and twenty-one reviewers did a single source or image review. A total of 31 reviewers provided a total of 70 reviews.
Special mentions: Cas Liber, who appears on both lists; and Aoba47, who did three image reviews and six regular reviews but didn't quite make either list. I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I highly recommend that all FACs without archive links have the nominator run the article through
iabot (Internet Archive bot), which will |archiveurl=
s to all its reference templates with a single click (
for example).
czar
20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no choice but to post here. There simply is no forum on Wikipedia that is equipped to handle Bengal famine of 1943. The FAC coordinator said wait months. Wait months... for what? For whom? All the editors who are likely to go to the article's talk are pushing different POVs. Look at the article's talk page. I am currently fighting off "Churchill is Satan" with one hand and "Hail Britannia" with the other. The FAC coordinator's suggestion amounts to this: "Dear Lingzhi, please do spend the next nine months trying desperately to fight off non-serious editors (but serious POV warriors)."
Does that sound like a meaningful way to handle an article? Or does it perhaps sound frightfully demotivating instead?
No, the answer is FAC. In FAC everyone has to try their best to hide their POV. In FAC we have the best reviewers in Wikipedia (including those pulling double duty from other content review forums).
I am very content to let the article sit in FAC for 3 or 4 months, if that is what it takes. But no other forum is equipped to handle this. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A heads up that the Wikipedia:The Core Contest will start on May 15. We now have a panel of judges – Casliber ( talk · contribs), Megalibrarygirl ( talk · contribs) and Katherine (WMF) ( talk · contribs). Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this edit twice, to ensure appropriate closure, but I'll leave alone and let others here take care of procedural matters. This editor's recent behavior is concerning, IMO. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There is only one explanation for reverting Ceoil's edits there. Please stop harassing Ceoil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.216 ( talk) 20:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of all this drama, but should the FAC withdrawal be noted on the article's talk page? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, I come to you with a special request - the CMLL World Lightweight Championship FAC is currently sitting as the oldest of the FACs. I believe it has sufficient support and has passed the image review, but it is in need of a source review. Some of the sources are in Spanish and that may be what is putting people off reviewing it? I am hoping someone could do me a huge solid and do the source review. I also want to note that Laser Brain did an excellent source review on my successful CMLL World Heavyweight Championship FAC and I have incorporated every comment he made into the sources for the Lightweight article as well to hopefully help make a source review easier to undertake for someone. MPJ -DK 02:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Could a co-ordinator look at the nomination of Cher, which has apppeared at the bottom of the nominations list, with an intro dated January 2017? Is this simply a matter of getting the procedure right, or is there more afoot? Brianboulton ( talk) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
So this is in regards to an ongoing discussion I am having with Siuenti who is a first time source reviewer, basically taking on the task of verifying that the sources support the claims in the article, specifically the CMLL World Lightweight Championship FAC. It is my contention that it is a generally acceptable practice to Assume Good Faith on printed sources and accepts that they cover what the article claims. Siuenti seems to disagree, discounting printed sources as failing Verifiability since the user cannot verify the books and magazines cited in the article. Oh and for some reasons WP:BEANS was brought up, which I'm not sure how it applies as well as WP:COMMONSENSE, which seems to tell me that I need to ignore WP:V, but again not sure?? Anyway for anyone already thinking TL;DNR - Do we accept printed sources on Good Faith for FAC? MPJ -DK 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Funny that, the policy page has a section specifically allowing offline sources. So in terms of policy these are fine, even if harder to verify. As to how to perform a source review in these circumstances, I'd probably try to hunt down free versions and if that doesn't work, ask whether anybody can access them. AGF as a last resort. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Participants in this discussion (and other page watchers) may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Encouraging_accessibility. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few FACs in the lower part of the list that have quite a lot of review but not quite enough to push them over the line one way or the other. There are also a few which would benefit from others chipping in on other reviewers' comments. I'd be grateful if anyone with a spare moment or two could have a look at these articles. And as usual, we have a few articles which are being held up as they need image and source reviews. Any help with that would be equally gratefully received. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of May (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Three reviewers did five reviews; two did four; four did three; 75 editors provided a total of 140 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
A total of 17 reviewers provided a total of 50 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to get some non-pop-culture source reviews done tomorrow. Still catching up on things after the birth of the stepdaughter's baby Friday... (I'll spare you all the baby pictures..) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that today's main-page featured article, Menacer, uses unconverted British Empire units in the main text. Doesn't anyone check for this obvious disservice to the huge majority of readers who are not Americans? I've inserted ugly, obstructuve "convert" notes in two cases. Fortunately the display on the main page contains no such glitches. Tony (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Something's wrong with the list of nominations:
1.15 The Getaway (1972 film)
1.16 Comments by Panagiotis Zois
I tried to fix it but had no luck.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This arises from this SIgnpost piece.
This was discussed on this talk page in this thread ("First 2.5 paragraphs of the lead") back in April, which was in turn a response to this RfC at Village Pump, which was in turn spurred by this ANI thread. This is important - we should not have clutter in the first 2.5 paragraphs - we have a responsibility to keep these sentences focused on content that summarizes the article. Jytdog ( talk) 14:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of June (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
One reviewer did seven reviews; one did six; one did five; four did four; six did three. 66 editors provided a total of 153 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
A total of 19 reviewers provided a total of 62 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Posting here mostly because I don't want to muck up a nomination that could potentially waste a lot of folk's time. This article just passed GA, and I was considering nominating for FA. I've never really messed around with FA, either as a nominator or a reviewer, so if anyone wants to give it a quick look see and offer any feedback or give a quick gauge of it chances of success, it would be much appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Can an FAC person please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sylvia Plath/archive1 and have the bot or someone add the closed history template stuff at the article talk page ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
An account that just started editing today put up this up. It smells like a banned user to me, perhaps User:ItsLassieTime. I have no expertise in dealing with banned users, I just don't want anyone to waste time on the FAC if I'm right. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. (song)/archive1 was started by someone who didn't consult me (a major contributor) or anyone else who heavily worked on the page. Is it best to close as unsuccessful or delete when reviewing comments have already been left? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to request a mentor to help with the nomination of Rotating locomotion in living systems, which will be my first FA nomination. The article has had a recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rotating locomotion in living systems/archive2. Would anyone be willing to take on this mentoring task? I'd like to nominate the article on August 1 or later, when I will have availability to address comments. Thanks! — swpb T 16:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
In a couple of recent FACs, there has been an issue with using older sources in history articles. This was the most recent one, this was another. The main concern has been that a relatively obscure topic has only apparently received coverage in very old sources, written by non-professional historians. On the other hand, modern sources do not seem to exist. Do we discount these sources as lacking the required quality, or use them as there are no alternatives? It might be helpful to know what others think of this issue so that there is a way forward if the issue arises again. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Yes, you can oppose on the basis of missing page numbers. They should be there to enable easy verifiability, and look-up-ability. Sandbh ( talk) 23:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
There's the related issue that most e-book formats don't have page numbers, you can only cite down to the chapter. I wouldn't oppose over that either.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
On the more general issue of page numbers, I'm firmly in the camp that if a page number, section number, paragraph number etc exists it should always be included in the reference. Citations on Wikipedia serve a different purpose to citations in academic literature, and it's a disservice to our readers to force them to read an entire paper if they want to verify the accuracy of one fact, which may only be mentioned tangentially in that paper. (With my cynical hat on, forcing "each page number gets a separate reference", would have the added bonus of making it obvious from a quick glance at the reference section if anyone is pulling the all-too-common stunt of ripping off a single work top-to-bottom, and spicing the reference section with a couple of references to passing mentions in other works to try to mask the fact.) ‑ Iridescent 07:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
( ←) I call bullshit. If a fact isn't verifiable/verified to the reader of no expertise but high intelligence then it simply isn't verified. An intelligent layman can usually (not always) verify a fact in a different field if you give that person the very specific page. No page number, it's unverifiable/unverified. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
( ←) Quite frankly, I think the onus is on you to prove that it is. Remember, we are not (or should not be) playing by the rules of the specific field. That is the problem between us: You think we can follow the rules of the field. I think we are not in the field, and we are not even professional, so we need to be held to a higher standard than the field holds itself to. You and I are operating under different paradigms. You are operating under a professional paradigm. I am not, and I say we cannot. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Lingzhi opposed per 1(c) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amargasaurus/archive1, because the article uses large page ranges for journals and books (e.g. for books, 15–49, 259–322, 430–453. WP:CHALLENGE, part of V, says: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)."
The article was promoted anyway. Any thoughts? Pinging Sarastro1 and Ealdgyth from the discussion at User talk:Sarastro1, and the nominator, Jens Lallensack. SarahSV (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
To repeat what I've said elsewhere, and to clarify my thinking: First, I closed the FAC because there was no clear consensus over whether the oppose was an accurate reflection of WP:V. This is not to say that it wasn't, but that there was no clear agreement either there or in this discussion. I have my own opinion, but I think in this case I am better remaining neutral. Some users say that policy requires one thing, others that it requires another. Neither side has any divine right to be correct, it requires more discussion. Secondly, I think it was unfair to have the discussion on that FAC, which was fairly arbitrarily chosen for an oppose. There are plenty of FAs which use that model, for better or worse, and I think we need a central agreement before we weigh into individual articles. Otherwise, every article, every FAC becomes a battleground.
On the other issues, I have been accused of "dodging behind the flimsy pretense of lack of WP:CONSENSUS"; I don't think any such consensus exists and before I start imposing new rules I want to be doubly sure. I have been told "Because that's a policy issue, one oppose on that basis is enough"; in all my years at FAC, I have never seen a coordinator decide arbitrarily on policy, at least since Raul was around. The reviewers, or the FAC community, decide on how policy is reflected. And in all these discussions, there was no consensus on the requirements of policy. Also, Sarah suggested "arguably the coordinator could archive even without an oppose if the text isn't verifiable". Again, I've never seen that before, it is not my understanding of this role and I suspect it is the view of few. We do not decide what is a FA, and if one of us has major concerns we always recuse and weigh into the FAC. I do not have, and do not want, a supervote. Above, Sarah raises the issue "that an oppose on the grounds of a policy violation isn't acted upon." I respectfully disagree that there is consensus that there has been a "policy violation". Maybe there has been, maybe not; I have my view but there needs to be consensus.
Neither side is automatically correct, and the varying practice in many FAs shows that there is disagreement. I think a good starting point would be more discussion, less insisting. Finally, the coordinators can only act on reviews given; we can request more views or recuse and weigh in, but it is unrealistic and unfair to expect us to pass or fail every article personally based on our own reading of WIAFA. Sarastro1 ( talk) 11:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Right folks, I am setting this up to run May 15 to June 30 again...with the usual Amazon vouchers up for grabs. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedian editing community has effectively lost the ability to determine what readers see on the first screen of many articles when viewed on mobile devices. In this discussion, this image was offered as both the reality and the hope of how many articles already appear and will appear on mobile view, with many of the infobox fields filled in from Wikidata. How we got to this place is complicated, and it's not what I want to talk about, I want to talk about what I plan to do about it. As a rationale for why readers would rather see an infobox than text from the lead, the WMF reading team said it's "for people who feel overwhelmed while scrolling through the often dense and opaque lead sentences." Actually ... they have a point, particularly for longer articles (like FAs) with 4 lead paragraphs. When I'm reading or reviewing, I sometimes don't know why the subject of the article is important, what the main point is, even after I've read the first 2.5 paragraphs; I have to wade through at least two more long paragraphs before I find out. That's not the only reason our text is getting pushed below the Wikidata infobox, but it's part of the reason. I'm guessing there will eventually be some on-wiki fighting over this issue, and before that happens, I'd like to have a strong argument available that Wikipedians are on top of this issue and already have some ideas. So when I do prose reviews at FAC from now on, I'm going to be making some edits and some suggestions about moving the "payoff" information into the first 2.5 paragraphs in the lead, and making those paragraphs tighter. This is probably something that would have been a good idea all along, but IMO the stakes are higher now. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
(I was emailed by Dank). On mobile, to avoid the infobox obscuring what the article is about, the WMF added to the top a very short description, taken from Wikidata. This has now been disabled (or will soon be disabled, I haven't checked the current status) because taking this from Wikidata had some problems (vandalism, no easy way to change it or track it, ...). The same description is also used for other things like short descriptions in search boxes, related articles, ... At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Blockers to having short description on mobile this is now being discussed (the section right above it is the RfC that lead to the disabling of this feature). Possible solutions could be re-enabling the Wikidata descriptions but with some added functionality, creating a "short description" template on enwiki (in every article) which takes over this functionality, not bothering with such descriptions, or for mobile displaying the lead or the first sentence above the infobox instead of below (not an exhaustive list, just some ideas). This is of course not FA specific. Fram ( talk) 06:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject isis just common sense, but with many—perhaps most—articles, whatever the topic, it's not possible to explain notability and significance in a single sentence. One can say "Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch post-impressionist painter", or even stretch it out to the current "Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter who is among the most famous and influential figures in the history of Western art", but "Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter who spent his entire working career in France, who was unsuccessful throughout his lifetime and his ideas were largely rejected, but in the 20th century the advent of Fauvism led to a generation of art students viewing him as an important figure for the first time, while as the cult of the outsider and the notion of the tortured genius became a trope of western culture the book and film Lust for Life popularized him among audiences who traditionally had little interest in painting, and consequently he is one of the few 19th-century artists with whom general audiences are familiar"—which is as condensed as I can make that—is a ridiculously long sentence. There's a reason TFA blurbs are 1200 characters, not 120; while it's easy to summarize what something is in a single sentence, it's a lot harder to summarize why something is notable which is what Wikipedia is all about.
Thanks for bringing this up, Dan. I have deep experience with mobile UX and the foundation's efforts can be generously described as inept. They fail, by a wide margin, to understand what questions users are asking as they arrive on a page. The question "Who is Vincent Van Gogh?" is answered in the Google search results before they even tap the link to proceed to Wikipedia. So, including the Wikidata description in the mobile article view was stupid to begin with. Tapping the Wikipedia link in the Google search results takes the reader to a giant text rendition of the subject's name, a redirect notice, and the self-portrait. Even on my generous 6" mobile screen, that's all I get before I have to start scrolling. I have to scroll through several more screens-full of infobox and images before I even get to prose. The type of question I'm probably actually seeking at this point (something like, "Did Van Gogh paint Starry Night Over the Rhone"?) is buried under headings that are collapsed by default for no known reason and that are difficult to navigate and ignore several basic heuristics of mobile UX. There's a point in here somewhere... I believe FAC, GAN, and ACR should be places where we're encouraging editors to emphasize context and notability in addition to "what the subject is". I'm reminded of the "best known for" troll. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the bottom line for me: the Foundation has made a major mistake in pushing all article text down below the (sometimes Wikidata-filled) infoboxes on small mobile screens, because most readers don't get past the first few screens of most of the articles they click on. For those readers who were expecting to read an article in Wikipedia, they're not getting that (without knowing that they're not getting that), they're getting something that most of us aren't involved in and that doesn't measure up to our standards. Those readers will judge us, and judge Wikipedia, accordingly. The catch is that I don't think it's a good idea to even discuss the problem widely until more Wikipedians have the knowledge that Featured Article and Good Article writers generally have on the subject. Otherwise, we're just going to knock heads with people at the Foundation who claim that they had to do what they did because (translating) leads don't get to the point fast enough, leads are hard to read, and Wikipedians don't understand the issues. So: there's a serious problem, and the only solution involves educating Wikipedians about prose. That's maybe my least favorite job, and I'm not even sure how to get started. I think for now I'll just start keeping a log at User:Dank/Leads of the relevant discussions I see at FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's going to take me a little while to gear up for this fight, because I spend most of my time on well-developed articles. I'm rusty on what leads look like in general, and how easy they are to fix, but I think it's an important first step to do what we can before we confront the Foundation people who were involved with this change. In the meantime, if anyone runs across people who are offended by what's happened on mobile screens, please let them know it's probably temporary; I don't want us to lose any Wikipedians over this. Also ... I hesitate to bring this up, but I don't see a way around it. I've never recommended that Wikipedians read up on the science or practice of writing ... that can lead to a lot of arguments for not much gain. Most of the writing we see at FAC is already pretty good, and for the stuff that isn't good, studying up probably wouldn't make a lot of difference. But now we're faced with a problem that comes down to this: the people who made this decision apparently lack some basic knowledge about effective writing, and it's probably not going to work to say "This looks better to us"; we need something to back that up. I can highly recommend the short book The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker (except for parts of Chapter I, which are great but not particularly relevant to Wikipedia). It's a quick survey of the consensus of cognitive scientists and linguists on what makes text easy or hard to read, written in a very non-technical style, with copious footnotes. If people want to talk about other texts, that's fine too. If anyone wants to start a relevant discussion group, please let me know. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
However, the means by which people access material has changed radically in the last couple of years. While there will always be some people following links (here or elsewhere) and arriving at articles with no background knowledge, and thus we still need to write leads on the assumption that we're writing for Giano's hypothetical "bright 14-year-old with no prior knowledge of the topic but who's eager to learn", most readers are either coming from links within other Wikipedia articles (which, if they're written correctly, should have already given the reader enough context to have a rough idea what the link they've clicked on will tell them about), or from Google searches which may only give one sentence summaries but that one sentence can often be enough. (To take one example just because it's fresh in my head,
Selina Rushbrook has a decent claim to be the most obscure article on Wikipedia, and the lead was written on the assumption that no reader will have the slightest idea as to who she was. However, aside from people clicking "random article", most readers will either be coming from a Google search—in which case they'll have already seen Selina Jenkins Rushbrook, née Selina Ann Jenkins, was a petty criminal, prostitute and brothel keeper from Swansea, Wales
or from the incoming links from
Prostitution in the United Kingdom and
Swansea Docks in which case they already know she was a 19th-century dockside prostitute from Swansea. Thus, while the lead still needs to cover "where was she from, when did she live, what did she do?" for the benefit of readers who have arrived at the article by other means, the priority is more focused on "here is a brief synopsis of her life so you can decide whether the full article is something in which you'd be interested in reading".
By the nature of Wikipedia, at FA-related pages it's easy not to notice this change in how traffic is generated, since everyone here is used to viewing articles from the editor and reviewer perspective, where we're reading large numbers of articles on topics about which we know nothing. But Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors; most of our readers are wanting to find out more about topics which already interest them. The real discussion to be had is "what information are readers likely to be looking for, and how is it best provided?", and there isn't an easy answer to that. For straightforward "where is Vincent van Gogh buried?" queries, increasing prominence for the infobox or one-line summaries is a positive, but that's a trade-off with increased inconvenience for "why is Vincent van Gogh considered important?", since every line added at the top means more gubbins that reader has to scroll through before they get to the text.
TLDR summary—as with virtually every discussion containing the word "infobox", the only correct answer is "decide what's included on a case-by-case basis since any attempt to mandate a solution will lead to either inappropriate simplification of complicated information, or inappropriate complication of basic information". The difference now is that readers may be looking for a different style of information now, and we need to be receptive to comments if and when people start saying that the existing format for leads is oversimplified. ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of March (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
One reviewer did eight reviews; one did seven; three did six; four did five; four did four reviews. 97 editors provided a total of 222 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
One reviewer did five reviews; one reviewer did four; and two did three. A total of 26 reviewers provided a total of 77 reviews. Special mentions: Ian Rose and Casliber, who both did ten reviews divided between the two types of review; and Syek88, who just began reviewing and who posted six reviews.
I should also mention that with 34 FAs promoted in March we have promoted more than we used up at TFA for the first time since October 2015; the last time before that was August 2014. I'd like to think that the discussions here over the last couple of months have encouraged more people to review. Let's hope this is the start of a trend.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:TFA about scheduling featured articles for the main page without the consent of the primary author(s) that readers of this page may be interested in. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Folks, there are some requests that could do with more eyes and more discussion. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to hit 5K FAs anywhere in next week...- The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 17:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not directly related, but can someone explain what Category:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal is for and why it is a subcategory of Category:Featured articles? There are 44 articles in it; some are FAs and also in the main category; others are not FAs (the category name notwithstanding). -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I've left a quick note on the Signpost suggestions page. Josh Milburn ( talk) 16:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The ongoing FAC reviews of Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve are not being transcluded to the article's talk page. I thought I had followed all the installation instructions, but I'm a bit rusty and must have goofed up. When I try to install the FAC template again on the talk page and look at what I've done in preview mode, the template seems eager to create archive 2. This would create an even bigger problem, I fear. I'm flummoxed. Can anyone sort this out for me? I would appreciate it. Finetooth ( talk) 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As I think a few people are aware, Laser brain has retired from Wikipedia. He also requested to be removed as a FAC coordinator. I would like to place on record my thanks for all that he has done over the years at FAC, and hopefully we will see him again in future. Meanwhile, Ian Rose and I feel that the current workload at FAC is manageable and neither of us feel that we need to appoint another coordinator at the moment. Sarastro1 ( talk) 12:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of April (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Two reviewers did seven reviews; two each did six and five reviews; four did four; eleven did three; twelve did two, and fifty editors did a single review. 86 editors provided a total of 205 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
Two reviewers did three reviews; two reviewers did two reviews; and twenty-one reviewers did a single source or image review. A total of 31 reviewers provided a total of 70 reviews.
Special mentions: Cas Liber, who appears on both lists; and Aoba47, who did three image reviews and six regular reviews but didn't quite make either list. I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I highly recommend that all FACs without archive links have the nominator run the article through
iabot (Internet Archive bot), which will |archiveurl=
s to all its reference templates with a single click (
for example).
czar
20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no choice but to post here. There simply is no forum on Wikipedia that is equipped to handle Bengal famine of 1943. The FAC coordinator said wait months. Wait months... for what? For whom? All the editors who are likely to go to the article's talk are pushing different POVs. Look at the article's talk page. I am currently fighting off "Churchill is Satan" with one hand and "Hail Britannia" with the other. The FAC coordinator's suggestion amounts to this: "Dear Lingzhi, please do spend the next nine months trying desperately to fight off non-serious editors (but serious POV warriors)."
Does that sound like a meaningful way to handle an article? Or does it perhaps sound frightfully demotivating instead?
No, the answer is FAC. In FAC everyone has to try their best to hide their POV. In FAC we have the best reviewers in Wikipedia (including those pulling double duty from other content review forums).
I am very content to let the article sit in FAC for 3 or 4 months, if that is what it takes. But no other forum is equipped to handle this. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A heads up that the Wikipedia:The Core Contest will start on May 15. We now have a panel of judges – Casliber ( talk · contribs), Megalibrarygirl ( talk · contribs) and Katherine (WMF) ( talk · contribs). Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this edit twice, to ensure appropriate closure, but I'll leave alone and let others here take care of procedural matters. This editor's recent behavior is concerning, IMO. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There is only one explanation for reverting Ceoil's edits there. Please stop harassing Ceoil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.216 ( talk) 20:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what to make of all this drama, but should the FAC withdrawal be noted on the article's talk page? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, I come to you with a special request - the CMLL World Lightweight Championship FAC is currently sitting as the oldest of the FACs. I believe it has sufficient support and has passed the image review, but it is in need of a source review. Some of the sources are in Spanish and that may be what is putting people off reviewing it? I am hoping someone could do me a huge solid and do the source review. I also want to note that Laser Brain did an excellent source review on my successful CMLL World Heavyweight Championship FAC and I have incorporated every comment he made into the sources for the Lightweight article as well to hopefully help make a source review easier to undertake for someone. MPJ -DK 02:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Could a co-ordinator look at the nomination of Cher, which has apppeared at the bottom of the nominations list, with an intro dated January 2017? Is this simply a matter of getting the procedure right, or is there more afoot? Brianboulton ( talk) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
So this is in regards to an ongoing discussion I am having with Siuenti who is a first time source reviewer, basically taking on the task of verifying that the sources support the claims in the article, specifically the CMLL World Lightweight Championship FAC. It is my contention that it is a generally acceptable practice to Assume Good Faith on printed sources and accepts that they cover what the article claims. Siuenti seems to disagree, discounting printed sources as failing Verifiability since the user cannot verify the books and magazines cited in the article. Oh and for some reasons WP:BEANS was brought up, which I'm not sure how it applies as well as WP:COMMONSENSE, which seems to tell me that I need to ignore WP:V, but again not sure?? Anyway for anyone already thinking TL;DNR - Do we accept printed sources on Good Faith for FAC? MPJ -DK 23:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Funny that, the policy page has a section specifically allowing offline sources. So in terms of policy these are fine, even if harder to verify. As to how to perform a source review in these circumstances, I'd probably try to hunt down free versions and if that doesn't work, ask whether anybody can access them. AGF as a last resort. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Participants in this discussion (and other page watchers) may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Encouraging_accessibility. Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few FACs in the lower part of the list that have quite a lot of review but not quite enough to push them over the line one way or the other. There are also a few which would benefit from others chipping in on other reviewers' comments. I'd be grateful if anyone with a spare moment or two could have a look at these articles. And as usual, we have a few articles which are being held up as they need image and source reviews. Any help with that would be equally gratefully received. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of May (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Three reviewers did five reviews; two did four; four did three; 75 editors provided a total of 140 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
A total of 17 reviewers provided a total of 50 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to get some non-pop-culture source reviews done tomorrow. Still catching up on things after the birth of the stepdaughter's baby Friday... (I'll spare you all the baby pictures..) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that today's main-page featured article, Menacer, uses unconverted British Empire units in the main text. Doesn't anyone check for this obvious disservice to the huge majority of readers who are not Americans? I've inserted ugly, obstructuve "convert" notes in two cases. Fortunately the display on the main page contains no such glitches. Tony (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Something's wrong with the list of nominations:
1.15 The Getaway (1972 film)
1.16 Comments by Panagiotis Zois
I tried to fix it but had no luck.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 09:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This arises from this SIgnpost piece.
This was discussed on this talk page in this thread ("First 2.5 paragraphs of the lead") back in April, which was in turn a response to this RfC at Village Pump, which was in turn spurred by this ANI thread. This is important - we should not have clutter in the first 2.5 paragraphs - we have a responsibility to keep these sentences focused on content that summarizes the article. Jytdog ( talk) 14:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of June (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
One reviewer did seven reviews; one did six; one did five; four did four; six did three. 66 editors provided a total of 153 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
A total of 19 reviewers provided a total of 62 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Posting here mostly because I don't want to muck up a nomination that could potentially waste a lot of folk's time. This article just passed GA, and I was considering nominating for FA. I've never really messed around with FA, either as a nominator or a reviewer, so if anyone wants to give it a quick look see and offer any feedback or give a quick gauge of it chances of success, it would be much appreciated. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Can an FAC person please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sylvia Plath/archive1 and have the bot or someone add the closed history template stuff at the article talk page ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
An account that just started editing today put up this up. It smells like a banned user to me, perhaps User:ItsLassieTime. I have no expertise in dealing with banned users, I just don't want anyone to waste time on the FAC if I'm right. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. (song)/archive1 was started by someone who didn't consult me (a major contributor) or anyone else who heavily worked on the page. Is it best to close as unsuccessful or delete when reviewing comments have already been left? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to request a mentor to help with the nomination of Rotating locomotion in living systems, which will be my first FA nomination. The article has had a recent peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rotating locomotion in living systems/archive2. Would anyone be willing to take on this mentoring task? I'd like to nominate the article on August 1 or later, when I will have availability to address comments. Thanks! — swpb T 16:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
In a couple of recent FACs, there has been an issue with using older sources in history articles. This was the most recent one, this was another. The main concern has been that a relatively obscure topic has only apparently received coverage in very old sources, written by non-professional historians. On the other hand, modern sources do not seem to exist. Do we discount these sources as lacking the required quality, or use them as there are no alternatives? It might be helpful to know what others think of this issue so that there is a way forward if the issue arises again. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)