![]() | 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. |
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of July (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
One reviewer did eight reviews; five did five; three did four; eleven did three. 86 editors provided a total of 195 reviews.
Image and source reviews
A total of 25 reviewers provided a total of 74 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. As I now have a full year of this data, I will see if I can come up with some interesting annual summary graphs or tables and will post them here. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's everyone who did at least three reviews in July. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Reviews | ||||
Editor | Image | Source | Prose | Grand Total |
Nikkimaria | 17 | 1 | 18 | |
Dank | 16 | 16 | ||
Ealdgyth | 16 | 16 | ||
Aoba47 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 14 |
Casliber | 1 | 12 | 13 | |
Jo-Jo Eumerus | 10 | 10 | ||
Wehwalt | 1 | 8 | 9 | |
Parcly Taxel | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
Ian Rose | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
FunkMonk | 3 | 3 | 6 | |
Johnbod | 5 | 5 | ||
Finetooth | 5 | 5 | ||
Jimfbleak | 5 | 5 | ||
Moisejp | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
Tintor2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
J Milburn | 5 | 5 | ||
Brianboulton | 4 | 4 | ||
Ceranthor | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
Edwininlondon | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
Adityavagarwal | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
Numerounovedant | 3 | 3 | ||
Hawkeye7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Ceoil | 3 | 3 | ||
1989 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Hchc2009 | 3 | 3 | ||
Auntieruth55 | 3 | 3 | ||
Peacemaker67 | 3 | 3 | ||
Graeme Bartlett | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
JennyOz | 3 | 3 |
More statistics are available for those interested. At User:Mike Christie/Sandbox9 you will find a table with a row for every single review done in the 12 months ending July 2017 (by month of archival/promotion, not by date of review). This is useful if you want to look at specific activity, but has no summary statistics.
At User:Mike Christie/Sandbox10 there is a summarized version, showing one row per editor, and giving counts for nominations and for reviews received and given. Note that conominations are weighted less; you only get half credit for a conom, and only count half a review if your conomination is reviewed. The last two columns show how many reviews you did for each one you received, and how many reviews you gave for each article you nominated. "Infinity" in these columns means you didn't receive any reviews or nominate any articles.
On request I will remove any names of editors who don't wish to be listed in this table, and will keep track so they will not be included in this version. Unlike last year I have included sorting columns; I am doing this because I haven't seen any evidence this data is being used to shame people, and because of the option to remove names. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
These are the altruists -- editors who are reviewing without expecting a review in return, just because they want to. We owe all of these editors a great deal. There are 221 editors in this category, and you can see them all in the tables linked above, but below is a list of those who did seven or more reviews without nominating at FAC over the last year.
Editor | Reviews |
---|---|
Nikkimaria | 187 |
Dank | 150 |
Jo-Jo Eumerus | 63 |
Giants2008 | 23 |
GermanJoe | 21 |
Laser brain | 18 |
Johnbod | 17 |
Tony1 | 15 |
Hchc2009 | 13 |
Graham Beards | 12 |
Sagaciousphil | 12 |
Praemonitus | 10 |
Parcly Taxel | 9 |
SlimVirgin | 9 |
Caeciliusinhorto | 8 |
Dough4872 | 8 |
Indopug | 8 |
Nergaal | 8 |
The ed17 | 8 |
Graeme Bartlett | 7 |
JennyOz | 7 |
Ssven2 | 7 |
This is a list of every editor who reviewed two or more articles for every review they received. As above, these editors are critical to the success of FAC.
Editor | Noms | Received | Gave | G/R |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ealdgyth | 0.5 | 3.5 | 52 | 14.9 |
Sarastro1 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 42 | 10.5 |
John | 0.3 | 3.0 | 22 | 7.3 |
Tim riley | 0.3 | 1.0 | 7 | 7.0 |
Moisejp | 1.0 | 7.0 | 46 | 6.6 |
Aa77zz | 0.5 | 3.5 | 19 | 5.4 |
Brianboulton | 1.0 | 7.0 | 27 | 3.9 |
Iazyges | 1.0 | 2.0 | 7 | 3.5 |
Syek88 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 27 | 3.4 |
Dudley Miles | 1.0 | 6.0 | 19 | 3.2 |
Lingzhi | 1.0 | 5.0 | 13 | 2.6 |
Finetooth | 2.0 | 13.0 | 31 | 2.4 |
J Milburn | 1.5 | 13.0 | 31 | 2.4 |
Coemgenus | 3.0 | 16.0 | 33 | 2.1 |
Edwininlondon | 2.0 | 11.0 | 22 | 2.0 |
Snuggums | 0.5 | 5.5 | 11 | 2.0 |
TheSandDoctor | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2 | 2.0 |
Jimfbleak | 5.5 | 36.5 | 72 | 2.0 |
There's a table from last year that I don't have enough information to redo this year: the one showing likelihood of promotion for nominators with different levels of FAC experience.
Note: This is Jan-Jul 2016 data, not current data.
Nominator stars | Archived | Promoted | Total | Success rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 50 | 9 | 59 | 15.2% |
1 | 12 | 9 | 21 | 42.9% |
2-10 | 9 | 24 | 33 | 72.7% |
11-30 | 4 | 22 | 26 | 84.6% |
31+ | 0 | 24 | 24 | 100% |
total | 75 | 88 | 163 | 54.0% |
I would love to be able to produce this table regularly, as I think it's one of the more important things we discussed last year. If anyone is handy with bots and would like to hoover up the data for me, it's fairly straightforward: I need to know how many stars each editor listed at WP:WBFAN had on different dates throughout the year. A copy on the first of each month would be good enough for most purposes; a weekly copy would be more than sufficient. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
There has been a run of nominations in the last few days, which is great to see, but which has pushed the number of open FACs to 50. If anyone could turn their attention to the bottom of the FAC list, where some reviews have been lingering for a very long time, or to the source/image review request and "urgent" sections at the top of this page, that would be greatly appreciated and might reduce the length of the list a little. Thanks, Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
First I'd like to acknowledge the editors who have contributed the most reviews over the past year.
Overall champions, counting all types of review:
Ian's total is particularly remarkable given his role as a FAC coordinator; Sarastro1, the other coordinator, was not too far behind, with 42 reviews, in 13th place.
The top ten reviewers of prose reviews include some of the above, plus:
The top ten image, source, and accessibility reviewers also include:
Here's a table showing everyone who did at least ten reviews over the last twelve months. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Reviews | ||||
Editor | Image | Source | Prose | Grand Total |
Nikkimaria | 160 | 20 | 7 | 187 |
Dank | 150 | 150 | ||
Casliber | 7 | 36 | 86 | 129 |
Jimfbleak | 2 | 4 | 66 | 72 |
FunkMonk | 23 | 46 | 69 | |
Aoba47 | 8 | 1 | 58 | 67 |
Jo-Jo Eumerus | 63 | 63 | ||
Wehwalt | 2 | 9 | 48 | 59 |
Ian Rose | 2 | 18 | 35 | 55 |
Ealdgyth | 51 | 1 | 52 | |
Moisejp | 2 | 6 | 38 | 46 |
Tintor2 | 1 | 9 | 33 | 43 |
Sarastro1 | 10 | 32 | 42 | |
Coemgenus | 20 | 13 | 33 | |
J Milburn | 4 | 4 | 23 | 31 |
Finetooth | 1 | 30 | 31 | |
Syek88 | 1 | 26 | 27 | |
Brianboulton | 3 | 24 | 27 | |
Giants2008 | 5 | 18 | 23 | |
Jaguar | 4 | 19 | 23 | |
Gerda Arendt | 22 | 22 | ||
John | 22 | 22 | ||
Edwininlondon | 4 | 18 | 22 | |
GermanJoe | 14 | 5 | 2 | 21 |
Peacemaker67 | 1 | 2 | 18 | 21 |
HJ Mitchell | 2 | 2 | 16 | 20 |
Sturmvogel 66 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 20 |
Sabine's Sunbird | 19 | 19 | ||
Dudley Miles | 19 | 19 | ||
Aa77zz | 4 | 15 | 19 | |
Nick-D | 19 | 19 | ||
Laser brain | 2 | 11 | 5 | 18 |
Ceoil | 1 | 17 | 18 | |
Midnightblueowl | 1 | 17 | 18 | |
Hawkeye7 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 18 |
Johnbod | 17 | 17 | ||
RileyBugz | 17 | 17 | ||
Tony1 | 15 | 15 | ||
The Bounder | 13 | 13 | ||
Lingzhi | 13 | 13 | ||
Auntieruth55 | 1 | 12 | 13 | |
Carbrera | 13 | 13 | ||
Hchc2009 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 13 |
FrB.TG | 2 | 4 | 7 | 13 |
Graham Beards | 1 | 11 | 12 | |
Sagaciousphil | 12 | 12 | ||
Juliancolton | 1 | 10 | 11 | |
Snuggums | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
Numerounovedant | 1 | 10 | 11 | |
RL0919 | 11 | 11 | ||
Praemonitus | 10 | 10 | ||
Bruce1ee | 10 | 10 | ||
Imzadi1979 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 |
Over the last twelve months there were 437 nominations, of which 308 were promoted (70%) and 129 archived. This includes a few drive-by nominations, but does not include any FAC for which the FAC page was simply deleted and not archived. 2017 has been a much more productive year for both nominations and promotions; the increase seems to have started in January, with a significant jump from December. The last five months of 2016 averaged 31 nominations and 21 promotions; the first seven months of 2017 averaged 41 nominations and 29 promotions -- almost replacement rate for TFA usage. We only promoted more than one FA a day in one month: March, when there were 47 nominations, and 34 promotions.
FAC has also sped up, which has long been a goal; it's not fast yet, but it's moving in the right direction. From August 2016 to January 2017, the average time to promote was 51 days; from February to July 2017, the average was 33 days, which is a huge improvement. I'd like to think this is because we're all reviewing more than we used to. Archiving hasn't changed much in that time -- 36 days for the first half of the past year, and 38 days for the second half.
I'll work on putting together an updated version of the big table of nominators I did a few months ago, and will post here again if I can get that done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's been suggested that a source review and review for close paraphrasing be requested for this article. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Many Wikipedians err by shouting "Primary source"! and deleting. WP:NOR actually allows quite a bit of primary source use. Having sad that, I have a question: Is a government report about a major historical event, made a year or so after that event, automatically a primary source? I ask because I have at least 106 cites solely to such a source (and a very large number of cites that are backed up by secondary sources. I don't want to waste days or weeks adding secondary sources to those 106 if I don't need to. [Many and probably almost all of the events thus cited fit under the WP:NOR description of not being an interpretation of events, but instead "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
( ←) Right out of hand? With exactly zero attempt to engage you brain? That seems..... "arbitrary" would be a very nice word. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of August (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Eight reviewers did three reviews; seventeen did two reviews; thirty-three reviewers did one review. 68 editors provided a total of 153 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
21 editors provided a total of 70 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list, and will also give one to Wehwalt, who didn't quite make the top three on either list, but did 12 reviews in total -- more than anyone except Ealdgyth. Thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see WT:TFA#Reruns. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the delay that can occur between the entering of comments on an individual FAC page, and the appearance of these comments on the main WP:FAC page. I think I know why this happens, but the situation is unsatisfactory. At present, the main FAC page doesn't reliably record the up-to-date state of individual nominations – I recently spent a lot of time doing a source review which looked to be necessary, only to find that it had already been done by someone else, though it had not yet appeared. Like many others I like to scroll down WP:FAC to see what needs attention, but this becomes tiresome and difficult if one has to check into each individual page as well. Surely the problem is fixable in some way? Brianboulton ( talk) 09:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Could I please get some additional comments on my current FAC? It's been a few days since the last comment, and I don't want it to get stalled like the first one. ~ TheJoebro64 ( talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion for {{ Cite_Q}} which editors who watch this page may be interested in. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of September (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Seven reviewers did three reviews; eleven did two reviews; thirty-five reviewers did one review. 67 editors provided a total of 170 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
23 editors provided a total of 66 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been working through the FAC list to bring source reviews up to date, but I can't do video game articles. Someone with better knowledge of this area than I have is required. Perhaps the nominators of such articles could help each other? Brianboulton ( talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed my last nomination, Rodrigues rail [1], is listed here as having 3 supports, though it only had 2. Is this because Adityavagarwal listed a support twice? In that case, there are still only two, so I'm wondering whether supports are listed there automatically or manually? FunkMonk ( talk) 13:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have recently commented on an FAC for SMS Brandenburg and am genuinely baffled by the response to my concerns.
In this particular instance, I observed that the article on Brandenburg lacks any sort of background to the ship’s construction. Essentially, there is no information about how or why Germany chose to build this ship – the first modern battleship it ever constructed (it's worth noting that the ship was part of a rapid expansion of the German Imperial Navy that ultimately precipitated an arms race with Britain). The nominator, Parsecboy, acknowledges this lack of information, but believes that it does not belong in this article; “That kind of background information is better suited to the Brandenburg-class battleship article - in general, class articles should cover the design history, strategic rationale, etc. while individual ship articles should focus on the service history.” The rationale for the article being structured in this way is an agreement “between a couple of other editors and I, [who have] written around 150 FAs based on this format over the last 8 or 10 years”. This has then been sanctioned by FA reviewers who have “participated in those 150 or so FACs” and not questioned it.
Personally, I fundamentally disagree that pertinent background information should be left out of articles at FA level (even a GA to be honest). Criteria 1B clearly states that an FA should be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Criteria 4 also states that that articles should follow Summary Style. WP:SS is clear that “Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit” and that articles linking to other articles contain “enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.” In this case the ship article links to the class article and should contain a summary of it.
This has been rejected by Parsecboy as “a little absurd” and that “since one must draw the line somewhere, I and others have chosen to draw it where we have.” This line involves summarising the particulars of the ship class (tonnage, dimensions, firepower etc…), but nothing else (Parescboy acknowledges that design history and strategic rationale would go in a class article, but does not believe that information should be summarised in the ship article). This would appear to be in complete opposition to the FA criteria outlined above.
This informal agreement between editors concerns me. Parsecboy believes the fact that this issue has not come up in previous FACs indicates a broad consensus, but it appears that this format for warship articles has not been written down, presented to the community or actually agreed as a model for article structure or FA criteria anywhere. It surprises me that important contextual information can be deliberately left out of an article based on this model, which essentially creates a situation where the context required by 2b is satisfied by another article that may not have even been written.
It is true that there are a great many warship FAs and that most do follow this model. However, I don’t see that as a reason to continue this format without question. At the moment, many of these warship FAs are little more than a summary of the ship’s particulars and a service history. FA criteria evolve (at this very moment the FA for Western Front is up for review with the observation that it’s 11 years old and falls short of modern FA standards) and to my mind a ten year old informal consensus that dictates the quality of FAs deserves review.
I’d like to add that I am not deliberately being pedantic, nor do I wish to question the integrity of anyone involved in these FAs. I’ve read and enjoyed many articles by the editors who create these articles and I do not believe anything malicious or ill intended is going on. However, I do think a certain complacency may have crept into warship articles at FAC and that they are not meeting agreed FA standards. Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 09:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that we can define a demarcation between content in the article for a class of ship, and the articles for individual members that class. I think that the class article should be comprehensive on design features, while the individual articles need not be comprehensive. For example, compare the design section for Comus-class corvettes with that for a member of that class, HMS Calliope, which has a summary and a link to the class article. (The FAC for Calliope also addressed the issue.) Ultimately the matter is a judgment call, and I agree with how Parsecboy handled it. Kablammo ( talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're right, in my opinion, HMS Warrior is too much, SMS Brandenburg is not enough. We need a definitive MOS:Ships so articles will have a better basis of what's expected and needed for the different types of articles. Pennsy22 ( talk) 09:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it ironic as hell that Pennsy22 brought up my article on HMS Warrior as it had a very contentious FAC four(!) years ago between RangerSteve and myself regarding this very issue. Looking it over now, I'd definitely trim some of the technical details that I regarded so fondly back then as I as well as some of the background material as better suited for the class article, which, BTW, is linked in the lede so no explicit link in the design/background section is necessary.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
When closing FACs that are ready for promotion, both Ian and I usually do a last few checks. It might speed the process up a little if other reviewers did a check for these issues, which are not major and do not involve delaying promotion. Namely, these are: checking for duplinks, checking for alt text (some image reviewers check for this, others don't. It isn't an explicit requirement, but perhaps should be), checking for disambiguation links, and checking external links (some reviewers do this as part of the source review). Apart from the duplinks (for which this tool does the job nicely), all these checks can be done by using the links in the box on the right hand side of every FAC page. If anyone does check an article for these, it would be good if they could indicate this on the FAC page; that way it means that nobody is duplicating what someone else has already done. (I'm not sure if I've missed anything here.)
I also notice that there is an increasing habit for nominators to give every reviewer on their FAC their own section with a level 4 heading; unless the comments of that reviewer are long enough to make editing the page a nuisance, I think this is best avoided where possible as it results in a cumbersomely long table of contents on the review page, and adds very little to the readability of the review page. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: for those worried about the TOC,
this script may be very useful to you. :-) Add importScript('User:Gary King/nominations viewer.js'); // [[Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer]]
to your /vector.js page, then go to WP:FAC and see what's changed!
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
00:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have one section at the top for reviewers making relatively brief comments and then reviewers with more extensive comments can create subsections below? Lots of headers for relatively short reviews just creates clutter, but with several reviewers offering loner lists of comments, it can sometimes be difficult to see what's been addressed and what hasn't, or to find one particular comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It's long been the unspoken rule that the subpage for requesting image and source reviews ( Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests) should be used when a nomination is getting close to promotion on supports, and is missing either a source review or image review or both. Occasionally someone will post a request for an article much earlier in the process. I can't blame them, because there are no instructions, but I think it's better to keep the request page down to just the articles that really need it -- often an article will attract an image or source review anyway, and the request page is very helpful to nominations that have stalled near promotion.
I suggest adding "Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted at least two supports. Requests for nominations with less than two supports can be removed by any editor." to the top of the subpage. Any objections? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of October (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Eight reviewers did three reviews; eleven did two reviews; fifty-three reviewers did one review. 84 editors provided a total of 182 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
Eleven editors did one review. 21 editors provided a total of 84 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) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I find I can now access ODNB entries without using my library code or other entry particulars. Are other users finding the same? I may have missed some announcement or other, but if ODNB have indeed opened themselves up to everyone, ought we to start deleting those tiresome (subscription required) tags? Brianboulton ( talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:FAR is moving at a glacial place - I have updated three into User:Tony1/FAR urgents. All should be fairly straightforward to check and see if keep or delist. If folks could please please check one (or more), that'd enable me to clear the decks over there a bit. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend at FAC in which "opposers" (usually on merits of prose) are expected to enumerate, in great detail, every change that would be necessary to satisfy their concerns—the idea being that every nomination has surmountable prose concerns, given enough time and patience from reviewers. As a result, reviewers (myself included) oftentimes don't participate when opposition presents an onerous commitment than that required of "supports". And accordingly, some candidates are rubber-stamped without their major issues aired.
I imagine this stems, at least in part, from the 1b criterion's change from "even brilliant" prose to the teethless engaging/professional standard, as it's harder to make a case that prose is "not engaging" than it is to contend that prose is "not brilliant". I'm also mindful of the social element, in which it is quite demoralizing to have a nom opposed and quite spiriting to view most prose issues as surmountable rather than malignant. But I've learned hard lessons from opposition in my noms and newer editors are robbed of those opportunities when they attribute their nom's closure to a simple "lack of participation" instead of withheld criticism. And from the other end, it's hard to maintain status as a quality benchmark when comparatively few are willing to draw the line. If others agree that this norm exists, perhaps we can undo it. czar 19:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I've learned hard lessons from opposition in my noms and newer editors are robbed of those opportunities when they attribute their nom's closure to a simple "lack of participation" instead of withheld criticism. I have sometimes refrained from reviewing something because it looks like too much work. (I do quickly oppose when I think it's hopeless, but it doesn't happen that often.) Good writing is hard, and I don't mind using a FAC review to try and teach whatever it is I might know about it (and it's sometimes been a rewarding experience), but Czar is right that this engagement is less likely if reviewers are unwilling to oppose. On the other hand I don't think a nominator who has doubts about their writing skills should expect FAC to be where they learn how to write well.
Hi all, any chance an admin or someone with superuser powers could delete the Real Madrid candidacy? I've left a notice on the nominator's talk page about the nom process and the article is nowhere near FA standard for the time being. A quick fail would be meaningless. Lemonade51 ( talk) 10:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
An IP has edited Kingdom of Northumbria at [3] from saying the Book of Kells was probably written at Iona to "whose writing may have started at Iona". This looks like valid correction, but badly worded. The sourced wording in the Book of Kells article is that a widely accepted theory is that it was probably written at Iona and the illustrations added in Ireland. I am inclined to revise the Northumberland article accordingly, but I am doubtful about copying the citation as I do not have access to the source and I might be copying an error. If I amend the Northumberland article unsourced, anyone interested can go to the Book of Kells article for the source. How would others deal with this? Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of November (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
64 editors provided a total of 139 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
7 editors provided a total of 56 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) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, all. I noticed that January 13 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the recording of Johnny Cash's At Folsom Prison and I wanted to bring that to the attention of the appropriate Wikpedians in the hope that it might become that day's TFA. Currently, it's not a featured article but it is a good article; perhaps it can be edited into a featured article in time? Thanks in advance for your replies. Dyspeptic skeptic ( talk) 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been concerned about the quality of "Reception" sections for some time (e.g. here and here), and with Czar's help I wrote an essay, Copyediting reception sections, which I'm glad to see is starting to get cited. The essay applies mostly to film, TV, and video game articles. To me the standard of writing the essay describes ought to be the minimum for a FAC to qualify for promotion under 1a. I think this standard is rarely met, and so far (maybe five or six instances) when I've pointed this out, the editor involved has either been unable to fix the issues, or has not really understood them. Czar and I have done substantial work on several articles to bring them up to standard (and it's a lot of work; see here for an example), and I've no objection to doing this occasionally when I feel motivated, but I can't put in the time for every video game/TV/film article that comes through FAC. I am inclined to simply oppose, and cite WP:RECEPTION as the justification. I don't think this will make me popular, particularly as it is common practice now at FAC to ask reviewers for specifics. This is not a simple copyediting issue, and specifics are not easy to provide without doing the work of rewriting. If I just say "Oppose; doesn't meet the writing standard described at WP:RECEPTION", is that acceptable? Will it be helpful, or just disruptive?
TL; DR: if I oppose on WP:RECEPTION, without giving specifics, is that helpful or disruptive? And what else can or should be done? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for an FA mentor to aid in an FA nomination. This is a first time dabble at an FA for both ManKnowsInfinity and myself who are looking to joint-nominate Alfred Hitchcock for FA. The article was an old FA in January 2004 but was demoted in December 2004 and failed GA in 2010 and has just regained its GA status. ManKnowsInfinity is handling the content details and I am looking at the MOS/consistency side of things. Hopefully someone can step-up to the plate to point us in the right direction on any things that need doing before nominating. Keith D ( talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"By the end of the 1950s, Hitchcock had directed all four of his canonical films including Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959) and Psycho (1960) .... If this is the complete list of his canonical films, then what's the "including" doing there? I'm not an FA mentor by the way, although I am credited with 51 FAs, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Eric Corbett 16:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"By 1939, Hitchcock's reputation as a filmmaker became recognised as being of international rank in merit and importance."Was it really his reputaion that become recognised as such? Was it not rather Hitchcock himself? Eric Corbett 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
As an update I have opened the Peer review suggested as a first step. If anyone wants to add their 2-pence worth on this one feel free. Keith D ( talk) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Megalodon was promoted 4 days ago, and the article still hasn't been updated yet. I checked WP:FAC/ar and it said the delay's around 24 hours, so I feel like I'm missing something here User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that was fast, but this time it's on a positive note. The positively heroic Brianboulton has agreed to take on the Herculean task of trimming (potentially) thousands of words. He feels this would best be done while it's not in FAC. Of course I would've been ready to do this myself, but my grubby hands may not be the most presentable to all involved or potentially involved parties. So, huge thanks to Brian. And please close the FAC. Thank you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Can one of the FAC coordinators please close/delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Spiegelman/archive1? The nominator hasn't edited the article at all or consulted anybody who did work on it. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've drafted a guide to passing an image review, targeted to nominators - amendments and comments welcome. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I hardly like to mention it in this august community, but this is to let you know that the 2018 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. Participants can score through achieving DYKs, GAs, GA reviews, FAs and by other means. At the time of writing, only twenty-five users have signed up to take part in the competition. Interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of December (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
78 editors provided a total of 173 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
12 editors provided a total of 60 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) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Could someone delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive2? They've been created by a nominator who didn't consult major contributions to the article. JOE BRO 64 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't want anyone to think I am dead in a ditch or that I have departed from FAC in a huff. I've got a health problem that's made it increasingly painful to use a keyboard and mouse. The time has come to seek remedies, if any there be. I don't know if or when I'll be able to return to serious editing. Stay well if you can and carry on. Finetooth ( talk) 23:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on the Big Bang article for a couple of years now. It was listed as a GA article in 2010, and I feel like it has improved. I would like to nominate it for FA but this would be my first time & I would love to have a mentor to guide me through this process. Thank you. AhnSoonKyung ( talk) 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Fellow user Nikkimaria started an image review in this review. I tried fixing the issues and ping him, but I still haven't heard responses. Could it be that I still failed to fix it? I reworked one nonfree and replaced a free image with another from wikicommons that seems to be more suitable as it was an "own work". I'm not too skilled with free images so I'm kind of lost. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on a script for source reviews, maybe 95% done, as described at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck. It currently flags 12 types of errors (still thinking about inconsistent date ranges as a 13th). The documentation is still a bit underdeveloped; it'll improve. If anyone would like to try it out and look for false positives etc., that would be very appreciated. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) Thank you for all these comments. Perhaps I should have asked this question differently from the beginning: assume you were gonna write a script to help with checking notes, refs, etc. and display various kinds of warnings, errors or even suggestions. When that script looked at pubdate, accessdate and archiving, how many different warnings would you want, under what circumstances?Certainly you'd warn if all three were missing; any other cases? And does consistency matter at all, or not? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) I've given this some thought, and while I totaaly subscribe to Hawkeye's stance, I think for the purposes of this script underreporting is better than overreporting. First, because that would seem to comply with WWP:CITE. Second, because you can CTRL-F or just eyeball it to see if there are no access dates, but a script should point out which refs are naughty and which are nice according to a conservative view.... I am still open to other ways tho. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of January (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
83 editors provided a total of 165 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
8 editors provided a total of 56 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) 18:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Lecen claims that references are not required for Ancestry sections when considering a biographical article about a member of the nobility for FA status. As I am not someone who participates in FAC/FAR discussions, I would like to confirm this statement. IMHO WP:V still governs them, but I would like to hear from the panel here. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This should also be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, because the issue is whether ancestry sections should be exempt from that policy. Surtsicna ( talk) 07:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I have posted File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg on commons and added it to Emily Ratajkowski. I am not sure whether anything in the photograph is protectable beyond my photographer copyright and would like some advice.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Could someone please do a media review for Amarte Es un Placer (album)? Thanks! Erick ( talk) 17:00, 13 February 2018 (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. |
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of July (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
One reviewer did eight reviews; five did five; three did four; eleven did three. 86 editors provided a total of 195 reviews.
Image and source reviews
A total of 25 reviewers provided a total of 74 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. As I now have a full year of this data, I will see if I can come up with some interesting annual summary graphs or tables and will post them here. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's everyone who did at least three reviews in July. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Reviews | ||||
Editor | Image | Source | Prose | Grand Total |
Nikkimaria | 17 | 1 | 18 | |
Dank | 16 | 16 | ||
Ealdgyth | 16 | 16 | ||
Aoba47 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 14 |
Casliber | 1 | 12 | 13 | |
Jo-Jo Eumerus | 10 | 10 | ||
Wehwalt | 1 | 8 | 9 | |
Parcly Taxel | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
Ian Rose | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
FunkMonk | 3 | 3 | 6 | |
Johnbod | 5 | 5 | ||
Finetooth | 5 | 5 | ||
Jimfbleak | 5 | 5 | ||
Moisejp | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
Tintor2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
J Milburn | 5 | 5 | ||
Brianboulton | 4 | 4 | ||
Ceranthor | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
Edwininlondon | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
Adityavagarwal | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
Numerounovedant | 3 | 3 | ||
Hawkeye7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Ceoil | 3 | 3 | ||
1989 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Hchc2009 | 3 | 3 | ||
Auntieruth55 | 3 | 3 | ||
Peacemaker67 | 3 | 3 | ||
Graeme Bartlett | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
JennyOz | 3 | 3 |
More statistics are available for those interested. At User:Mike Christie/Sandbox9 you will find a table with a row for every single review done in the 12 months ending July 2017 (by month of archival/promotion, not by date of review). This is useful if you want to look at specific activity, but has no summary statistics.
At User:Mike Christie/Sandbox10 there is a summarized version, showing one row per editor, and giving counts for nominations and for reviews received and given. Note that conominations are weighted less; you only get half credit for a conom, and only count half a review if your conomination is reviewed. The last two columns show how many reviews you did for each one you received, and how many reviews you gave for each article you nominated. "Infinity" in these columns means you didn't receive any reviews or nominate any articles.
On request I will remove any names of editors who don't wish to be listed in this table, and will keep track so they will not be included in this version. Unlike last year I have included sorting columns; I am doing this because I haven't seen any evidence this data is being used to shame people, and because of the option to remove names. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
These are the altruists -- editors who are reviewing without expecting a review in return, just because they want to. We owe all of these editors a great deal. There are 221 editors in this category, and you can see them all in the tables linked above, but below is a list of those who did seven or more reviews without nominating at FAC over the last year.
Editor | Reviews |
---|---|
Nikkimaria | 187 |
Dank | 150 |
Jo-Jo Eumerus | 63 |
Giants2008 | 23 |
GermanJoe | 21 |
Laser brain | 18 |
Johnbod | 17 |
Tony1 | 15 |
Hchc2009 | 13 |
Graham Beards | 12 |
Sagaciousphil | 12 |
Praemonitus | 10 |
Parcly Taxel | 9 |
SlimVirgin | 9 |
Caeciliusinhorto | 8 |
Dough4872 | 8 |
Indopug | 8 |
Nergaal | 8 |
The ed17 | 8 |
Graeme Bartlett | 7 |
JennyOz | 7 |
Ssven2 | 7 |
This is a list of every editor who reviewed two or more articles for every review they received. As above, these editors are critical to the success of FAC.
Editor | Noms | Received | Gave | G/R |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ealdgyth | 0.5 | 3.5 | 52 | 14.9 |
Sarastro1 | 0.5 | 4.0 | 42 | 10.5 |
John | 0.3 | 3.0 | 22 | 7.3 |
Tim riley | 0.3 | 1.0 | 7 | 7.0 |
Moisejp | 1.0 | 7.0 | 46 | 6.6 |
Aa77zz | 0.5 | 3.5 | 19 | 5.4 |
Brianboulton | 1.0 | 7.0 | 27 | 3.9 |
Iazyges | 1.0 | 2.0 | 7 | 3.5 |
Syek88 | 1.0 | 8.0 | 27 | 3.4 |
Dudley Miles | 1.0 | 6.0 | 19 | 3.2 |
Lingzhi | 1.0 | 5.0 | 13 | 2.6 |
Finetooth | 2.0 | 13.0 | 31 | 2.4 |
J Milburn | 1.5 | 13.0 | 31 | 2.4 |
Coemgenus | 3.0 | 16.0 | 33 | 2.1 |
Edwininlondon | 2.0 | 11.0 | 22 | 2.0 |
Snuggums | 0.5 | 5.5 | 11 | 2.0 |
TheSandDoctor | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2 | 2.0 |
Jimfbleak | 5.5 | 36.5 | 72 | 2.0 |
There's a table from last year that I don't have enough information to redo this year: the one showing likelihood of promotion for nominators with different levels of FAC experience.
Note: This is Jan-Jul 2016 data, not current data.
Nominator stars | Archived | Promoted | Total | Success rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 50 | 9 | 59 | 15.2% |
1 | 12 | 9 | 21 | 42.9% |
2-10 | 9 | 24 | 33 | 72.7% |
11-30 | 4 | 22 | 26 | 84.6% |
31+ | 0 | 24 | 24 | 100% |
total | 75 | 88 | 163 | 54.0% |
I would love to be able to produce this table regularly, as I think it's one of the more important things we discussed last year. If anyone is handy with bots and would like to hoover up the data for me, it's fairly straightforward: I need to know how many stars each editor listed at WP:WBFAN had on different dates throughout the year. A copy on the first of each month would be good enough for most purposes; a weekly copy would be more than sufficient. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
There has been a run of nominations in the last few days, which is great to see, but which has pushed the number of open FACs to 50. If anyone could turn their attention to the bottom of the FAC list, where some reviews have been lingering for a very long time, or to the source/image review request and "urgent" sections at the top of this page, that would be greatly appreciated and might reduce the length of the list a little. Thanks, Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
First I'd like to acknowledge the editors who have contributed the most reviews over the past year.
Overall champions, counting all types of review:
Ian's total is particularly remarkable given his role as a FAC coordinator; Sarastro1, the other coordinator, was not too far behind, with 42 reviews, in 13th place.
The top ten reviewers of prose reviews include some of the above, plus:
The top ten image, source, and accessibility reviewers also include:
Here's a table showing everyone who did at least ten reviews over the last twelve months. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Reviews | ||||
Editor | Image | Source | Prose | Grand Total |
Nikkimaria | 160 | 20 | 7 | 187 |
Dank | 150 | 150 | ||
Casliber | 7 | 36 | 86 | 129 |
Jimfbleak | 2 | 4 | 66 | 72 |
FunkMonk | 23 | 46 | 69 | |
Aoba47 | 8 | 1 | 58 | 67 |
Jo-Jo Eumerus | 63 | 63 | ||
Wehwalt | 2 | 9 | 48 | 59 |
Ian Rose | 2 | 18 | 35 | 55 |
Ealdgyth | 51 | 1 | 52 | |
Moisejp | 2 | 6 | 38 | 46 |
Tintor2 | 1 | 9 | 33 | 43 |
Sarastro1 | 10 | 32 | 42 | |
Coemgenus | 20 | 13 | 33 | |
J Milburn | 4 | 4 | 23 | 31 |
Finetooth | 1 | 30 | 31 | |
Syek88 | 1 | 26 | 27 | |
Brianboulton | 3 | 24 | 27 | |
Giants2008 | 5 | 18 | 23 | |
Jaguar | 4 | 19 | 23 | |
Gerda Arendt | 22 | 22 | ||
John | 22 | 22 | ||
Edwininlondon | 4 | 18 | 22 | |
GermanJoe | 14 | 5 | 2 | 21 |
Peacemaker67 | 1 | 2 | 18 | 21 |
HJ Mitchell | 2 | 2 | 16 | 20 |
Sturmvogel 66 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 20 |
Sabine's Sunbird | 19 | 19 | ||
Dudley Miles | 19 | 19 | ||
Aa77zz | 4 | 15 | 19 | |
Nick-D | 19 | 19 | ||
Laser brain | 2 | 11 | 5 | 18 |
Ceoil | 1 | 17 | 18 | |
Midnightblueowl | 1 | 17 | 18 | |
Hawkeye7 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 18 |
Johnbod | 17 | 17 | ||
RileyBugz | 17 | 17 | ||
Tony1 | 15 | 15 | ||
The Bounder | 13 | 13 | ||
Lingzhi | 13 | 13 | ||
Auntieruth55 | 1 | 12 | 13 | |
Carbrera | 13 | 13 | ||
Hchc2009 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 13 |
FrB.TG | 2 | 4 | 7 | 13 |
Graham Beards | 1 | 11 | 12 | |
Sagaciousphil | 12 | 12 | ||
Juliancolton | 1 | 10 | 11 | |
Snuggums | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
Numerounovedant | 1 | 10 | 11 | |
RL0919 | 11 | 11 | ||
Praemonitus | 10 | 10 | ||
Bruce1ee | 10 | 10 | ||
Imzadi1979 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 |
Over the last twelve months there were 437 nominations, of which 308 were promoted (70%) and 129 archived. This includes a few drive-by nominations, but does not include any FAC for which the FAC page was simply deleted and not archived. 2017 has been a much more productive year for both nominations and promotions; the increase seems to have started in January, with a significant jump from December. The last five months of 2016 averaged 31 nominations and 21 promotions; the first seven months of 2017 averaged 41 nominations and 29 promotions -- almost replacement rate for TFA usage. We only promoted more than one FA a day in one month: March, when there were 47 nominations, and 34 promotions.
FAC has also sped up, which has long been a goal; it's not fast yet, but it's moving in the right direction. From August 2016 to January 2017, the average time to promote was 51 days; from February to July 2017, the average was 33 days, which is a huge improvement. I'd like to think this is because we're all reviewing more than we used to. Archiving hasn't changed much in that time -- 36 days for the first half of the past year, and 38 days for the second half.
I'll work on putting together an updated version of the big table of nominators I did a few months ago, and will post here again if I can get that done. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's been suggested that a source review and review for close paraphrasing be requested for this article. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Many Wikipedians err by shouting "Primary source"! and deleting. WP:NOR actually allows quite a bit of primary source use. Having sad that, I have a question: Is a government report about a major historical event, made a year or so after that event, automatically a primary source? I ask because I have at least 106 cites solely to such a source (and a very large number of cites that are backed up by secondary sources. I don't want to waste days or weeks adding secondary sources to those 106 if I don't need to. [Many and probably almost all of the events thus cited fit under the WP:NOR description of not being an interpretation of events, but instead "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
( ←) Right out of hand? With exactly zero attempt to engage you brain? That seems..... "arbitrary" would be a very nice word. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of August (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Eight reviewers did three reviews; seventeen did two reviews; thirty-three reviewers did one review. 68 editors provided a total of 153 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
21 editors provided a total of 70 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list, and will also give one to Wehwalt, who didn't quite make the top three on either list, but did 12 reviews in total -- more than anyone except Ealdgyth. Thanks to all. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see WT:TFA#Reruns. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the delay that can occur between the entering of comments on an individual FAC page, and the appearance of these comments on the main WP:FAC page. I think I know why this happens, but the situation is unsatisfactory. At present, the main FAC page doesn't reliably record the up-to-date state of individual nominations – I recently spent a lot of time doing a source review which looked to be necessary, only to find that it had already been done by someone else, though it had not yet appeared. Like many others I like to scroll down WP:FAC to see what needs attention, but this becomes tiresome and difficult if one has to check into each individual page as well. Surely the problem is fixable in some way? Brianboulton ( talk) 09:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Could I please get some additional comments on my current FAC? It's been a few days since the last comment, and I don't want it to get stalled like the first one. ~ TheJoebro64 ( talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion for {{ Cite_Q}} which editors who watch this page may be interested in. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of September (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Seven reviewers did three reviews; eleven did two reviews; thirty-five reviewers did one review. 67 editors provided a total of 170 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
23 editors provided a total of 66 reviews.
I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been working through the FAC list to bring source reviews up to date, but I can't do video game articles. Someone with better knowledge of this area than I have is required. Perhaps the nominators of such articles could help each other? Brianboulton ( talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed my last nomination, Rodrigues rail [1], is listed here as having 3 supports, though it only had 2. Is this because Adityavagarwal listed a support twice? In that case, there are still only two, so I'm wondering whether supports are listed there automatically or manually? FunkMonk ( talk) 13:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have recently commented on an FAC for SMS Brandenburg and am genuinely baffled by the response to my concerns.
In this particular instance, I observed that the article on Brandenburg lacks any sort of background to the ship’s construction. Essentially, there is no information about how or why Germany chose to build this ship – the first modern battleship it ever constructed (it's worth noting that the ship was part of a rapid expansion of the German Imperial Navy that ultimately precipitated an arms race with Britain). The nominator, Parsecboy, acknowledges this lack of information, but believes that it does not belong in this article; “That kind of background information is better suited to the Brandenburg-class battleship article - in general, class articles should cover the design history, strategic rationale, etc. while individual ship articles should focus on the service history.” The rationale for the article being structured in this way is an agreement “between a couple of other editors and I, [who have] written around 150 FAs based on this format over the last 8 or 10 years”. This has then been sanctioned by FA reviewers who have “participated in those 150 or so FACs” and not questioned it.
Personally, I fundamentally disagree that pertinent background information should be left out of articles at FA level (even a GA to be honest). Criteria 1B clearly states that an FA should be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Criteria 4 also states that that articles should follow Summary Style. WP:SS is clear that “Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit” and that articles linking to other articles contain “enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.” In this case the ship article links to the class article and should contain a summary of it.
This has been rejected by Parsecboy as “a little absurd” and that “since one must draw the line somewhere, I and others have chosen to draw it where we have.” This line involves summarising the particulars of the ship class (tonnage, dimensions, firepower etc…), but nothing else (Parescboy acknowledges that design history and strategic rationale would go in a class article, but does not believe that information should be summarised in the ship article). This would appear to be in complete opposition to the FA criteria outlined above.
This informal agreement between editors concerns me. Parsecboy believes the fact that this issue has not come up in previous FACs indicates a broad consensus, but it appears that this format for warship articles has not been written down, presented to the community or actually agreed as a model for article structure or FA criteria anywhere. It surprises me that important contextual information can be deliberately left out of an article based on this model, which essentially creates a situation where the context required by 2b is satisfied by another article that may not have even been written.
It is true that there are a great many warship FAs and that most do follow this model. However, I don’t see that as a reason to continue this format without question. At the moment, many of these warship FAs are little more than a summary of the ship’s particulars and a service history. FA criteria evolve (at this very moment the FA for Western Front is up for review with the observation that it’s 11 years old and falls short of modern FA standards) and to my mind a ten year old informal consensus that dictates the quality of FAs deserves review.
I’d like to add that I am not deliberately being pedantic, nor do I wish to question the integrity of anyone involved in these FAs. I’ve read and enjoyed many articles by the editors who create these articles and I do not believe anything malicious or ill intended is going on. However, I do think a certain complacency may have crept into warship articles at FAC and that they are not meeting agreed FA standards. Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 09:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know that we can define a demarcation between content in the article for a class of ship, and the articles for individual members that class. I think that the class article should be comprehensive on design features, while the individual articles need not be comprehensive. For example, compare the design section for Comus-class corvettes with that for a member of that class, HMS Calliope, which has a summary and a link to the class article. (The FAC for Calliope also addressed the issue.) Ultimately the matter is a judgment call, and I agree with how Parsecboy handled it. Kablammo ( talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're right, in my opinion, HMS Warrior is too much, SMS Brandenburg is not enough. We need a definitive MOS:Ships so articles will have a better basis of what's expected and needed for the different types of articles. Pennsy22 ( talk) 09:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I find it ironic as hell that Pennsy22 brought up my article on HMS Warrior as it had a very contentious FAC four(!) years ago between RangerSteve and myself regarding this very issue. Looking it over now, I'd definitely trim some of the technical details that I regarded so fondly back then as I as well as some of the background material as better suited for the class article, which, BTW, is linked in the lede so no explicit link in the design/background section is necessary.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
When closing FACs that are ready for promotion, both Ian and I usually do a last few checks. It might speed the process up a little if other reviewers did a check for these issues, which are not major and do not involve delaying promotion. Namely, these are: checking for duplinks, checking for alt text (some image reviewers check for this, others don't. It isn't an explicit requirement, but perhaps should be), checking for disambiguation links, and checking external links (some reviewers do this as part of the source review). Apart from the duplinks (for which this tool does the job nicely), all these checks can be done by using the links in the box on the right hand side of every FAC page. If anyone does check an article for these, it would be good if they could indicate this on the FAC page; that way it means that nobody is duplicating what someone else has already done. (I'm not sure if I've missed anything here.)
I also notice that there is an increasing habit for nominators to give every reviewer on their FAC their own section with a level 4 heading; unless the comments of that reviewer are long enough to make editing the page a nuisance, I think this is best avoided where possible as it results in a cumbersomely long table of contents on the review page, and adds very little to the readability of the review page. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: for those worried about the TOC,
this script may be very useful to you. :-) Add importScript('User:Gary King/nominations viewer.js'); // [[Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer]]
to your /vector.js page, then go to WP:FAC and see what's changed!
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
00:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have one section at the top for reviewers making relatively brief comments and then reviewers with more extensive comments can create subsections below? Lots of headers for relatively short reviews just creates clutter, but with several reviewers offering loner lists of comments, it can sometimes be difficult to see what's been addressed and what hasn't, or to find one particular comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It's long been the unspoken rule that the subpage for requesting image and source reviews ( Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests) should be used when a nomination is getting close to promotion on supports, and is missing either a source review or image review or both. Occasionally someone will post a request for an article much earlier in the process. I can't blame them, because there are no instructions, but I think it's better to keep the request page down to just the articles that really need it -- often an article will attract an image or source review anyway, and the request page is very helpful to nominations that have stalled near promotion.
I suggest adding "Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted at least two supports. Requests for nominations with less than two supports can be removed by any editor." to the top of the subpage. Any objections? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of October (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
Eight reviewers did three reviews; eleven did two reviews; fifty-three reviewers did one review. 84 editors provided a total of 182 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
Eleven editors did one review. 21 editors provided a total of 84 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) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I find I can now access ODNB entries without using my library code or other entry particulars. Are other users finding the same? I may have missed some announcement or other, but if ODNB have indeed opened themselves up to everyone, ought we to start deleting those tiresome (subscription required) tags? Brianboulton ( talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:FAR is moving at a glacial place - I have updated three into User:Tony1/FAR urgents. All should be fairly straightforward to check and see if keep or delist. If folks could please please check one (or more), that'd enable me to clear the decks over there a bit. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend at FAC in which "opposers" (usually on merits of prose) are expected to enumerate, in great detail, every change that would be necessary to satisfy their concerns—the idea being that every nomination has surmountable prose concerns, given enough time and patience from reviewers. As a result, reviewers (myself included) oftentimes don't participate when opposition presents an onerous commitment than that required of "supports". And accordingly, some candidates are rubber-stamped without their major issues aired.
I imagine this stems, at least in part, from the 1b criterion's change from "even brilliant" prose to the teethless engaging/professional standard, as it's harder to make a case that prose is "not engaging" than it is to contend that prose is "not brilliant". I'm also mindful of the social element, in which it is quite demoralizing to have a nom opposed and quite spiriting to view most prose issues as surmountable rather than malignant. But I've learned hard lessons from opposition in my noms and newer editors are robbed of those opportunities when they attribute their nom's closure to a simple "lack of participation" instead of withheld criticism. And from the other end, it's hard to maintain status as a quality benchmark when comparatively few are willing to draw the line. If others agree that this norm exists, perhaps we can undo it. czar 19:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I've learned hard lessons from opposition in my noms and newer editors are robbed of those opportunities when they attribute their nom's closure to a simple "lack of participation" instead of withheld criticism. I have sometimes refrained from reviewing something because it looks like too much work. (I do quickly oppose when I think it's hopeless, but it doesn't happen that often.) Good writing is hard, and I don't mind using a FAC review to try and teach whatever it is I might know about it (and it's sometimes been a rewarding experience), but Czar is right that this engagement is less likely if reviewers are unwilling to oppose. On the other hand I don't think a nominator who has doubts about their writing skills should expect FAC to be where they learn how to write well.
Hi all, any chance an admin or someone with superuser powers could delete the Real Madrid candidacy? I've left a notice on the nominator's talk page about the nom process and the article is nowhere near FA standard for the time being. A quick fail would be meaningless. Lemonade51 ( talk) 10:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
An IP has edited Kingdom of Northumbria at [3] from saying the Book of Kells was probably written at Iona to "whose writing may have started at Iona". This looks like valid correction, but badly worded. The sourced wording in the Book of Kells article is that a widely accepted theory is that it was probably written at Iona and the illustrations added in Ireland. I am inclined to revise the Northumberland article accordingly, but I am doubtful about copying the citation as I do not have access to the source and I might be copying an error. If I amend the Northumberland article unsourced, anyone interested can go to the Book of Kells article for the source. How would others deal with this? Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of November (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
64 editors provided a total of 139 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
7 editors provided a total of 56 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) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, all. I noticed that January 13 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the recording of Johnny Cash's At Folsom Prison and I wanted to bring that to the attention of the appropriate Wikpedians in the hope that it might become that day's TFA. Currently, it's not a featured article but it is a good article; perhaps it can be edited into a featured article in time? Thanks in advance for your replies. Dyspeptic skeptic ( talk) 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've been concerned about the quality of "Reception" sections for some time (e.g. here and here), and with Czar's help I wrote an essay, Copyediting reception sections, which I'm glad to see is starting to get cited. The essay applies mostly to film, TV, and video game articles. To me the standard of writing the essay describes ought to be the minimum for a FAC to qualify for promotion under 1a. I think this standard is rarely met, and so far (maybe five or six instances) when I've pointed this out, the editor involved has either been unable to fix the issues, or has not really understood them. Czar and I have done substantial work on several articles to bring them up to standard (and it's a lot of work; see here for an example), and I've no objection to doing this occasionally when I feel motivated, but I can't put in the time for every video game/TV/film article that comes through FAC. I am inclined to simply oppose, and cite WP:RECEPTION as the justification. I don't think this will make me popular, particularly as it is common practice now at FAC to ask reviewers for specifics. This is not a simple copyediting issue, and specifics are not easy to provide without doing the work of rewriting. If I just say "Oppose; doesn't meet the writing standard described at WP:RECEPTION", is that acceptable? Will it be helpful, or just disruptive?
TL; DR: if I oppose on WP:RECEPTION, without giving specifics, is that helpful or disruptive? And what else can or should be done? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for an FA mentor to aid in an FA nomination. This is a first time dabble at an FA for both ManKnowsInfinity and myself who are looking to joint-nominate Alfred Hitchcock for FA. The article was an old FA in January 2004 but was demoted in December 2004 and failed GA in 2010 and has just regained its GA status. ManKnowsInfinity is handling the content details and I am looking at the MOS/consistency side of things. Hopefully someone can step-up to the plate to point us in the right direction on any things that need doing before nominating. Keith D ( talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"By the end of the 1950s, Hitchcock had directed all four of his canonical films including Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959) and Psycho (1960) .... If this is the complete list of his canonical films, then what's the "including" doing there? I'm not an FA mentor by the way, although I am credited with 51 FAs, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Eric Corbett 16:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"By 1939, Hitchcock's reputation as a filmmaker became recognised as being of international rank in merit and importance."Was it really his reputaion that become recognised as such? Was it not rather Hitchcock himself? Eric Corbett 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
As an update I have opened the Peer review suggested as a first step. If anyone wants to add their 2-pence worth on this one feel free. Keith D ( talk) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Megalodon was promoted 4 days ago, and the article still hasn't been updated yet. I checked WP:FAC/ar and it said the delay's around 24 hours, so I feel like I'm missing something here User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that was fast, but this time it's on a positive note. The positively heroic Brianboulton has agreed to take on the Herculean task of trimming (potentially) thousands of words. He feels this would best be done while it's not in FAC. Of course I would've been ready to do this myself, but my grubby hands may not be the most presentable to all involved or potentially involved parties. So, huge thanks to Brian. And please close the FAC. Thank you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Can one of the FAC coordinators please close/delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Spiegelman/archive1? The nominator hasn't edited the article at all or consulted anybody who did work on it. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I've drafted a guide to passing an image review, targeted to nominators - amendments and comments welcome. Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I hardly like to mention it in this august community, but this is to let you know that the 2018 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. Participants can score through achieving DYKs, GAs, GA reviews, FAs and by other means. At the time of writing, only twenty-five users have signed up to take part in the competition. Interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of December (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
78 editors provided a total of 173 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
12 editors provided a total of 60 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) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Could someone delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive2? They've been created by a nominator who didn't consult major contributions to the article. JOE BRO 64 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't want anyone to think I am dead in a ditch or that I have departed from FAC in a huff. I've got a health problem that's made it increasingly painful to use a keyboard and mouse. The time has come to seek remedies, if any there be. I don't know if or when I'll be able to return to serious editing. Stay well if you can and carry on. Finetooth ( talk) 23:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on the Big Bang article for a couple of years now. It was listed as a GA article in 2010, and I feel like it has improved. I would like to nominate it for FA but this would be my first time & I would love to have a mentor to guide me through this process. Thank you. AhnSoonKyung ( talk) 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Fellow user Nikkimaria started an image review in this review. I tried fixing the issues and ping him, but I still haven't heard responses. Could it be that I still failed to fix it? I reworked one nonfree and replaced a free image with another from wikicommons that seems to be more suitable as it was an "own work". I'm not too skilled with free images so I'm kind of lost. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on a script for source reviews, maybe 95% done, as described at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck. It currently flags 12 types of errors (still thinking about inconsistent date ranges as a 13th). The documentation is still a bit underdeveloped; it'll improve. If anyone would like to try it out and look for false positives etc., that would be very appreciated. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) Thank you for all these comments. Perhaps I should have asked this question differently from the beginning: assume you were gonna write a script to help with checking notes, refs, etc. and display various kinds of warnings, errors or even suggestions. When that script looked at pubdate, accessdate and archiving, how many different warnings would you want, under what circumstances?Certainly you'd warn if all three were missing; any other cases? And does consistency matter at all, or not? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
( ←) I've given this some thought, and while I totaaly subscribe to Hawkeye's stance, I think for the purposes of this script underreporting is better than overreporting. First, because that would seem to comply with WWP:CITE. Second, because you can CTRL-F or just eyeball it to see if there are no access dates, but a script should point out which refs are naughty and which are nice according to a conservative view.... I am still open to other ways tho. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are the lead reviewers for the month of January (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).
Reviews
83 editors provided a total of 165 reviews.
Image, source, and accessibility reviews
8 editors provided a total of 56 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) 18:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Lecen claims that references are not required for Ancestry sections when considering a biographical article about a member of the nobility for FA status. As I am not someone who participates in FAC/FAR discussions, I would like to confirm this statement. IMHO WP:V still governs them, but I would like to hear from the panel here. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This should also be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, because the issue is whether ancestry sections should be exempt from that policy. Surtsicna ( talk) 07:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I have posted File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg on commons and added it to Emily Ratajkowski. I am not sure whether anything in the photograph is protectable beyond my photographer copyright and would like some advice.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Could someone please do a media review for Amarte Es un Placer (album)? Thanks! Erick ( talk) 17:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)