Putting this here should we need it again: [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
... of the page should stay on, either submit to FAR, or move to FAR not needed. If we start filling up the page with commentary about the quality of the article (which belongs on talk), we will end up with an unwieldy mess. Diffs only please, either identify deficiencies, or enter an opinion that the article is satisfactory. If we get this page off on the right foot, it hopefully won't become an unwieldy mess full of random commentary about the quality of the article, which is better reserved for article talk or the actual FAR. The page is huge, we have a lot of work to do, so we have to keep commentary here brief and focused on yea or nay, any expanded commentary on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I added a global appeal at the Tropical cyclone WikiProject talk page. Perhaps we can see how that goes before deciding on other global appeals. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
An exciting opportunity to get four off the list at once, and run an exciting and topical TFA: see TFA discussion here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I was about to add this:
'''FAs needing review: {{table row counter|id=count1}}''' {| class="wikitable sortable" id="count1" style="overflow-wrap: anywhere;"
to the table as to make the row counting automatic, but I see it's "undergoing a major edit" now or whatever and I don't want to cause an edit conflict. Although, when I tested the counter, it was counting one less than the current number, do we know if the code or the current count is wrong? If need be we can do
{{#expr:{{table row counter|id=count1}}+1}}
... Aza24 ( talk) 22:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose and Hog Farm: making sure you see the change; the tally is now automated by row count, so we don't have to adjust tally, and we no longer have the extra column that was only a tally. Hooray, thanks Aza24. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
In case I forget, so others will watch: [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
URFA 2020 is a very large list and there are lots of editors who have multiple FAs. Should we invite FA nominators to review "their" articles? I was thinking of a personalised invitation on their talk page, starting with editors who have lots of FAs and are still active on Wikipedia. Suggested wording is below:
Hi, you are receiving this message because you successfully nominated one or more featured articles. A task force is reviewing all featured articles promoted before 2015, with the goal of improving them to featured article criteria. The list of these featured articles is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. Can you review your articles and let us know if they still meet the criteria? Thanks.
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 18:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Per Wehwalt's list at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#March 2021 tentative lineup, the following older FAs are being considered in the March 2021 lineup. It would be good to prioritize these for review.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Brownhills has been reworked (thanks, Femkemilene and ChrisTheDude). Because it has not yet run TFA, could others give it close scrutiny with an eye towards mainpage criticisms? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I got them all but I may have missed a couple. If I did, I have ALL my nominations watchlisted and keep them up to snuff. Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Because this work can be so depressing, I wanted to give a shout out to User:Aboutmovies for the 2009 Hillsboro, Oregon, which looks to be the rare city/state/country geography article that has been properly maintained! It's nice to come across a geography article that isn't a wreck :) So, now that I have hopefully enticed them to this page, perhaps Aboutmovies will do some reviews of some of our oldest FAs here :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Month/Year | FAR | Unchecked | Total |
---|---|---|---|
2004 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
2005 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Jan. 2006 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Feb. 2006 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Mar. 2006 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Apr. 2006 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
May 2006 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
June 2006 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
July 2006 | 2 | 7 | 11 |
Aug. 2006 | 1 | 15 | 28 |
Sep. 2006 | 4 | 8 | 19 |
Oct. 2006 | 1 | 19 | 30 |
Nov. 2006 | 5 | 19 | 34 |
Dec. 2006 | 0 | 22 | 28 |
Here's a progress report of where we stand on the ones before 2007. Unchecked refers to ones with no comment of any form into the URFA table. Looks like we've made pretty good progress for before August 2006, and it's coming along for the later months. We shouldn't try to rush along articles - like FAR something somebody's working on, or send like 4 hurricanes to FAR or something like that, but IMO it would be nice to make a concerted push to give attention to the 2006 ones. My hope is to see us well into the 2007s by the end of the year, and we're already a good way into 2006. Hog Farm Talk 00:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Beside the articles listed here, editors are invited to post "Notes", "Noticed", "FAR" and "Satisfactory". I suggest adding another suggestion, called "Working". Editors would post this when work is ongoing to improve the article. This tag should not be used for articles at FAR. Suggested wording to add to the intro is below:
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 20:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Jimfbleak could you please sign this entry? When editors are entering a diff, we don’t need to chunk up the page with sigs, but when entering a Satisfactory opinion, we do need to know who entered that. Thanks for looking! I will tweak the instructions a bit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
TomStar81 if you don't mind, could you please put these comments on article talk, with only a diff back to here? [3] The idea of this page is to sort which articles are Satisfactory, being worked on, noticed for FAR, need to go to FAR, or are at FAR. If everyone puts every list of every minor thing needed for every article on this page, it will become unmanageable. If you scroll down the page, you'll get the idea of what sorts of things are put on here; the idea is to be able to submit the truly deficient to FAR, know what has been checked, and keep track of what is OK or improving. (And from your comments, I am left with no idea if the article is still at status or not.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a WP:TFARP to run this on April 21. It was a TFA on the same date in 2006, so it's eligible for rerun. It's obviously had some updating, is it enough for it to still be good enough for TFA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:
With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.
The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.
The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old ( last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old ( last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.
With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.
Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.
The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).
While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.
You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.
Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.
If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@ A. Parrot, AustralianRupert, Choess, Heartfox, and Nick-D: thanks for joining in the URFA effort! It's exciting to be able to mark more articles "Satisfactory" and move them off the list, and your reviews are most appreciated.
I did want to call to your attention some of the limitations caused by the (enormous) size of the page, and the conventions we have taken on to try to address that. We need to accomplish all of the following (and more :)
In that vein,
Gog the Mild has a planned schedule at User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs for May 2021. Could reviewers here glance through the very old FAs:
Also, old FA:
Also, Menstrual cycle from 2004 which is about to wrap up at FAR, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Some updates above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to save bytes to remove the exact times for the satis/kept at FAR list? And just keep the date, like is done with the delisted ones? Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm considering re-running one of the 9/11 articles that are FA (the individual flights, I believe) on the 20th anniversary in September. Do any of them remain in decent shape?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't edit the page. I think it's because of the plethora of links. It just locks up in edit mode. Graham Beards ( talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the tentative TFA schedule for September 2021. It is subject to further TFA nominations or other needful changes:
1. Level Mountain (Volcanoguy) 2021 Geography
2. Indian roller (BhagyaMani , LittleJerry, Aa77zz, Shyamal & Cas Liber) 2021 Biology
3. Battle of Dunbar (1650) (Girth Summit; Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare TFA/R.
4. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Al Ameer) 2019. Royalty.
5. Abberton Reservoir (Jimfbleak) 2021. Geography.
6. Katie Joplin (Aoba47) 2021 TV TFA/R
7. Battle of Babylon Hill (Harrias) 2020. Warfare.
8. Can't Get You Out of My Head (Tomica) 2021. Music. TFA/R
9. Huey Long (HAL333) History. 2021. TFA/R/P
10. Giovanni Antonio Grassi (Ergo Sum) Education 2021 TFA/R
11. United Airlines Flight 93 (Veggies, retired) 2008. History. Rerun of September 11, 2008.
12. Mr. Dooley (Wehwalt) 2015. Literature. Rerun of August 31, 2016.
13. Chandler's Ford shooting (HJ Mitchell) 2021. History.
14. Keechaka Vadham (Ssven2) 2018. Film.
15. Raymond Pace Alexander (Coemgenus) 2020. Law.
16. Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) 2020. Gog the Mild. History/Warfare
17. Hurricane Humberto (2019) 2020 (Juliancolton).Weather.
18. Acamptonectes (2021) FunkMonk Lythronaxargestes , Slate Weasell, Jens Lallensack Biology
19. M-1 (Michigan highway) (2017) Imzadi 1979. Roads.
20. Lettuce (2012) Dana boomer. Food & Drink. Rerun of September 26, 2012
21. Banksia sceptrum (Casliber) 2017. Biology.
22. The Triumph of Cleopatra (Iridescent) 2015 Art.
23. Turf Moor ( WA8MTWAYC ) 2021. Sports.
24. Sonic X-treme (Red Phoenix, Popcornfud) 2018 TFA/R Video Games
25. Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots (Jimfbleak) 2021 Birds
26. British nuclear tests at Maralinga (Hawkeye7) 2020. History/Warfare
27. Transandinomys (Ucucha) 2010. Biology.
28. Cleveland Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt) 2016. Numismatics
29. U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary) (White Shadows) 2018. Warfare.
30. Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah (SarahSV, deceased) 2010. Anniversary. History
Hey all, It may be useful to split up the list into smaller sections, as any time I try to make an edit it takes my computer about a minute to process what I'm typing and put it through. Perhaps sorting it into sections by year, or even years and months may be helpful in reducing this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The November schedule for TFA has been posted. Of note to URFA/2020:
Can editors please review these articles to ensure they are still up to FA standards? Thanks. Z1720 ( talk) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I am going to ever so slowly starting pinging in some top nominators, eg Mike Christie and David Fuchs. I don't want to ping in Wehwalt, Cas, Sturm, Hawkeye, Parsecboy yet lest we overwhelm bio and milhist editors all at once. Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 are already in. On Hurricanehink, I pinged the entire Tropical cyclone project, and he responded there and is aware.
Ian Rose, do you have all of Brianboulton's watchlisted, or do we need to do something additional on his?
YellowMonkey is long gone, so his will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, User:David Fuchs; I (and others) will chip away at looking at those (no big hurry on FAs that are watched by nominators, as they are typically in good shape). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got an idea on how to potentially save a little space on the page. It won't gain us back a whole lot, but when the page is over 331k bytes, everything that's saved helps. On the tables for kept or FAR not needed, do we really need to keep the columns for the last FAC/FAR and the TFA date? Since we aren't linking to anything, I don't think the new FAR date would really be that helpful, and we're living without those columns just fine on the list of delisted ones. We need to keep the satisfactory signatures around so we know who signed off on each one, but I don't think keeping those two columns for processed entries is worth the space it takes up in bytes. Hog Farm Bacon 02:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
So, if we delete the TFA date and the last review date, my concern is that we hamstring ourselves a few years down the road. Picture a year from now that a TFA Coord can come to this list and find when the article was last (formally) reviewed, when it last ran TFA, and what editors looked at it and declared it "Satisfactory" recently. Even if an FA passed in 2006, if they can see it hasn't run TFA, but was reviewed in 2020 by three independent editors, and is still watched by its nominator, that should give them some assurance that the article is TFA worthy. I'd hate to lose that data because of space issues.
I recognize that, because of the size of the page, we may eventually need to lose something, but suggest we wait to see how the page is used before we decide to delete data. Also, there are other options/ways to split the page, if it truly becomes unmanageable. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
There's a fantastic editor working on atheism, but this highly-viewed article has lots of important parts that need updating and the editor requested help to improve the article. Does anyone know of religion/philosophy experts who would be willing to lend a hand? I hope we can keep this star. Z1720 ( talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks guys for this work, it's invaluable to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's top content. :) I thought it might be helpful to drop you a link to a previous similar effort by WPVG which never made as much headway as you did but into which at least some time and effort was invested at various times. Here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:
This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.
Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)
In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.
If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!
If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm Talk 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
In December, Sandy slowly invited some of Wikipedia's top FA nominators. The goal was to avoid overwhelming the project with reviews in similar topic areas and inviting too many reviewers at the same time. I went through the archives and URFA/2020's page history and noted who had been pinged about this project already or had edited URFA/2020 or the talk page.
I propose inviting Hawkeye7 (milthist), Hurricanehink (cyclones), and Ceoil (music and visual arts) in the coming days. They have different topic areas and are semi-active or active at the moment. Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I took most of the summer off from editing; did FACbot stop updating the TFAs ? [11] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Izno fixed it with this, see response here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Trying again: [13] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm you asked above about the expertise of different editors, and I have been meaning to get back to you on this notification about a park article. (This may be of interest to @ Buidhe, RetiredDuke, and Femkemilene: and anyone else regularly engaging now at FAR.)
Pretty much all of the National Park FAs on Wikipedia are User:MONGO. MONGO is still active and helping out at FAC, and has (in the past) worked through everything asked of him as standards have changed. Notifying/pinging him is more useful than pinging a WikiProject, as MONGO is the one who will do the upgrades. But ... he is only one person, and he has so many FAs, that it may be helpful to approach him like a Project-Unto-Himself, and not overwhelm him with too many at once. On those articles, it can be helpful to check the FAC to see if the article is one of his.
Similarly, many of the Geology of ... parks ... were written by Mav, who hasn't been active since 2015. At some point, I will email him and see if he can be enticed back, and we can decide whether to proceed to FAR with any of his. At the top of the list, Mav has Geology of the Death Valley area.
MONGO's are like Kirill Lokshin's in MILHIST: he has so many, and is willing to keep them at standard, and we should be considerate of their time constraints.
MONGO, can you tell us if you have a plan for approaching any of the articles on this list (particularly the oldest last reviewed), so we don't send an article to FAR unnecessarily ? I see some needs in each of these, near the top of the list, which I know you can address:
If you do improve them, please feel free to add your own "Satisfactory" to the page. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there are still editors who struggle to edit this page because of the page size. If it takes too long to edit, it might discourage new people from joining this project. Below are some ideas on how to reduce the page size:
Thoughts? Are there other suggestions on how to make this page more user friendly? Z1720 ( talk) 19:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Will changing the diffs from urls to Template:dif make the page easier to edit and load? If so, I can make the change this week. Z1720 ( talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, I am going through and trimming sigs to help with the page size. At the same time, I am removing some commas so that the sort order will work. I am not switching to the templated diff as ... I am worried with the size of the page that we could hit template limits somewhere down the road. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
(Per discussion above) Even with all the signature trimming I've done, and less than six months after the last discussion of problems with the page size, I had a bear of a time last night moving the six delisted articles. I fear the page size may be discouraging participation (eg User:Graham Beards) and it may be time to bite the bullet and split the page in two.
I propose we leave this as the main (summary) page, since a) we have talk pages all over creation pointing to this page, and b) it will be our main point of talk discussion about the two (split) pages. We would leave the info at the top of the page (on each page), and the stats at the bottom of this page, but in between, place two links:
On the new pages, we would repeat the instructions at the top, and add a link to them main article where stats are kept, and add a link to the other (split) article. I would also add to the instructions a note about trimming sigs, because even with the split, the two pages will grow large. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Heads up to all; I will start on this today in a few hours, after breakfast, and it may result in a long {{ in use}} as I get things moved around. Please don’t edit the pages until I remove the in use. @ Hurricane Noah: who is quite actively reviewing articles now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm done; please check over the wording at the top of the three pages to make sure I didn't miss anything, and note new instructions page at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Instructions, as well as the new shortcuts listed above. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
1.
Cleveland Centennial half dollar. (Wehwalt) Numismatics. 2015 Free choice (rescheduling of September 28)
2.
Manon Melis (Edwininlondon) Sport. 2021. TFA/R
3.
El Tatio (Jo-Jo Emereus) Geography. 2021 Free choice.
4.
Battle of Pontvallain (Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild) 2019. Warfare. TFA/R
5.
U.S. Route 30 in Iowa (Fredddie) 2011. Roads. Free choice.
6.
1860 Boden Professor of Sanskrit election (rerun of August 7, 2013) (Bencherlite) 2012. Law. Free choice.
7.
Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao (Peacemaker67) 2021. Warfare TFA/R
8.
2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election ( N Oneemuss) 2021. Politics. Free choice (anniversary)
9.
Southampton Cenotaph (HJ Mitchell) 2019. Warfare. Free choice.
10.
Prison education (Damien Linnane) 2021. Education. TFA/R (World Human Rights Day)
11.
James Longstreet (Display name 99) 2021. Warfare. Free choice.
12.
Sega CD (Red Phoenix) 2015. Video games. TFA/R/P
13.
Dhoby Ghaut MRT station (Zhang 123). 2021. Transport. TFA/R (requested for December 12)
14.
Gianni Schicchi (Brianboulton, deceased) 2010 Music. Rerun of May 31, 2011. TFA/R
15.
1988 World Snooker Championship (BennyOnTheLoose) 2021. Sport. Free choice.
16.
Frederick the Great (Wtfiv) 2021. History. Free choice.
17.
Hunky Dory (Zmbro) 2020. Music. TFA/R
18.
Dracophyllum fiordense (Dracophyllum) 2021. Biology. Free choice.
19.
Surrogate's Courthouse (Epicgenius) 2021. Architecture. Free choice.
20.
Grey's Anatomy (season 17) (TheDoctorWho) 2021. TV. Free choice.
21.
Australian boobook (Cas Liber) 2017. Biology. Free choice.
22.
This Dust Was Once the Man (Eddie 891) 2021. Literature. Free choice.
23.
1916 Texas Hurricane (TheAustinMan) 2020. Weather. Free choice.
24.
Soiscél Molaisse (Ceoil) 2021. Art. Free choice
25.
Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) (General Poxter, RobertG) 2021. Music. TFA/R/P
26.
Battle of Panormus (Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare. Per request.
27.
Sesame Street research (Figureskatingfan) 2013. TV. Free choice.
28.
Pepi I Meryre (Iry-Hor) 2021. Royalty. Free choice.
29.
Ezra Meeker (Wehwalt) 2013. History. Free choice. Rerun of June 21, 2013
30.
Jamiroquai (100cellsman) 2021. Music. TFA/R
31.
2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl (Grondemar) 2011. Sport. Free choice.
Since splitting the page in two, the presentation is quite busy, and navigating is complex. Now that I have seen how tabs work at WP:FASA, I suggest that is a good option. Unless anyone objects, I’d like to convert the URFA pages to tabs, similar to those at FASA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Please check my work! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:
This is the third quarterly update on the project. Previous reports are listed below:
Since URFA/2020's launch, 145 FAs have been Delisted, and 114 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR, which the percentage of FAs needing review reduced from 73% to 71%. Work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 136 articles have been delisted during this time while 9 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 84 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 30 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 17 users edited WP:URFA/2020 at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR.
The project continued to reach out to active editors listed at WP:WBFAN to check the FAs they nominated. The project encourages experienced FA writers to check articles already marked as "Satisfactory" by a reviewer; the first reviewer is often the original nominator or interested in the topic, and they might answer questions or concerns if pinged on the talk page.
As of the end of this quarter, we have 135 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, a decrease of 17 listings from the Q2 report. This is a result of older notices being rechecked and listed at FAR. The project needs experienced FA editors to review older notices and determine if the article should be submitted to FAR or marked as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take over 29 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!
If you have any questions or feedback, please post below. Z1720 ( talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Our last round of invites to those at the top of WP:WBFAN was in July. I have been noting who has already been invited to participate in URFA/2020 and who has edited the page. By my observations, the next three editors to invite are Parsecboy (ships), Iridescent (British geography and history bios), and Ucucha (biology). Are there any concerns about sending them invites? Z1720 ( talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to say that I'm really surprised and happy seeing everyone pitching in to my newbie idea in VP, and while we wait for the template editors to respond I'm optimistic about the whole thing and looking forward to how the discussion moves along :D I'm bit bogged down by work and an RfC I'm participating on but once that's done I'll give URFA a shot Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I just made some notes on an article in the list here. I'd appreciate if one of you could tell me if that's a good edit and what steps to do next. I'd like to notify relevant wikiprojects about the notes and am wondering if there's a specific template y'all recommend I use for that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering what to do about articles who seem like a snow demotion from FA status (and possibly GA as well). I recently came across Israel the Grammarian's BLP while trying to find good examples of FAs on literary bios for a discussion at J.K. Rowling's FAR. The article is immensely short and not very comprehensive, barely giving much information on the individual. I've left some comments on the talk page, but I was wondering what the procedure is. Do I go straight to FAR and notify relevant users/WPs? Spending my Friday the best way I know how, Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
To the general question of "what to do about snows", see Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1. When an article looks truly unsalvageable, and there is consensus among reviewers, the Coords are amenable to an accelerated process. ANAK was only five days in FAR, and six days in FARC, so delisted in under two weeks. Also, questions of this nature can be raised at WT:FAR, where the @ WP:FAR coordinators: will weigh in. Best regards, and thanks again for digging in to help out at URFA! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@ A. C. Santacruz:, please, absolutely do not judge a Featured Article on its length alone, or compare its contents with the kind of info that you'd expect to have on a modern-day subject. We have several series of FAs (the sci-fi magazines FAs, the Middle Ages English people FAs, the mushrooms FAs, the East Indies old films FAs, those obscure TV series FAs, the race horses FAs, from the top of my head), where the articles are very short but meet the FA criteria. There's simply not much to be said about those subjects. You have to check for comprehensiveness instead. Also, Israel the Grammarian is not a WP:BLP, the man has been dead for a while. RetiredDuke ( talk) 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
SG said on the FAC talk page: As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily – for ones like these should we just mark in the notes column that they still meet FA criteria? Or go another route? Aza24 ( talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually think we are making the process too bureaucratic to the extent that it will be unmanageable. There are a LOT of articles to check. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ian Rose thanks for the new batch! I did only a few and will get back on them soon, but want to prioritize the work Mike Christie left on my talk, as I don't want to slow down his data analysis of the FA archives.
And I still mean to get back to Peacemaker67 and HJ Mitchell here, but haven't had time to type up my thoughts. The TLDR version is that these new(ish) FAs (relative to the hundreds from 2006 through 2009) are not likely where the real problems will be found, so it does not concern me if any of them sit on the page for even a couple of years (the last time we did this, it took six years to finish). It may even be advantageous to spread those reviews out over years, in case some nominators go missing and someone destroys their work in the interim. But ... they aren't the articles most likely in need of FAR, which is what we're looking for. We are more likely to find those by processing through the oldest first.
I'd like to put a list over at MILHIST of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs that we really need to prioritize, to avoid situations like Battle of Blenheim-- those that are at risk of being submitted to FAR if we don't address them first. And the serious problems are not to be found among MILHIST articles so I want to make sure our process is oriented towards the more problematic areas. More later, Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Grapple X did a really good thing here, as the third reviewer to mark an article “Satisfactory”. Saving the oldid in the third “Satisfactory” note means we don’t have to go looking for the “satisfactory” version, and if we convert to articlehistory, we don’t have to look up the oldid. We should probably all be doing that if we are the third reviewer marking satisfactory and moving. Thx, Grapple X (and congrats on today’s FA). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe, David Fuchs, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, FunkMonk, Grapple X, Hog Farm, Hurricanehink, RetiredDuke, and Z1720: it would be grand if we could get all of the 2004 to 2006 group at least looked at by year-end. Most of the remainder are hurricanes.
I will get PTSD if I have to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam ever again (note the use of restart on that most dreadful of all FACs), so hope someone else will have a look. I also hesitate to tackle Ketuanan Melayu as it has long been one of my least favored FAs, and don't think I can be objective there wrt length. I have avoided Angelina Jolie because of previous experiences with socks and an arbcase. I am willing to take on review of all the Hurricanes, because unless something gives after the third project-wide notice, I will start to wonder if we need to think in terms of a mass FAR for the lot. I will be interested in seeing if any of WikiProject Cyclone articles are resolved by January of next year.
Can we all make a concerted effort to get these oldest of the old moving by year-end? Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I will have gotten through all the 2006 storms other than the hurricane season FAs from that year by the end of today. I have four more left to review as of right now. Noah Talk 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
FunkMonk has done quite a job of marking articles in WP:URFA/2020B, and I am the second reviewer on most of them. An editor interested in making an impact on our year-end numbers might do the third reviews. Similarly, Ian Rose has quite a few where I am already the second reviewer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The start of the tentative WP:TFA schedule for January 2022 has been posted. Listed here are the articles, FAC nominator, and year of promotion. Articles within the URFA/2020 scope are highlighted in bold. Please review the older noms, and post in WT:TFA if there are any concerns.
1.
Black-and-red broadbill (AryKun, 2021)
2.
Seventy-Six (novel) (Dugan Murphy, 2021)
3.
2008 Orange Bowl (JKBrooks85, 2008)
4.
1st Missouri Field Battery (Hog Farm, 2021)
5.
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (Eewilson, 2021)
6.
Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) (Kosack, 2021)
7.
Hammond's rice rat (Ucucha, 2010)
8.
Missouri Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt, 2018)
9.
Power Mac G4 Cube (David Fuchs, 2021)
10.
Ursa Minor (Cas Liber, 2015)
11.
Croatian Spring (Tomobe03, 2021)
12.
Mu'awiya I (Al Ameer & AhmadLX, 2021)
13.
Ham House (Isaksenk, 2021)
14.
Low (David Bowie album) (zmbro, 2021)
15.
The Trundle (Mike Christie, 2021)
16.
Ghostbusters (Darkwarriorblake, 2021)
17.
Chinatown MRT station (ZKang123, 2021)
18.
Battle of Hayes Pond (Indy beetle, 2021)
19.
Hoodoo Mountain (Volcanoguy, 2021)
20.
Old Exe Bridge (HJ Mitchell, 2021)
21.
Schichau-class torpedo boat (Peacemaker67, 2021)
22.
Legend Entertainment (Shooterwalker, 2021)
23.
Archaeoindris (Maky, 2012)
24.
New York Stock Exchange Building (Epicgenius, 2021)
25.
Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) (GeneralPoxter, 2021)
26.
Australian Air Corps (Ian Rose, 2018)
27.
Ba Congress (Peacemaker67, 2021)
28.
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (Balon Greyjoy, 2021)
29.
A Beautiful Crime (DanCherek, 2021)
30.
Benedetto Pistrucci (Wehwalt, 2017)
31.
Delichon (Jimfbleak, 2010)
More will be posted when they are selected at TFA.
Pinging @ WP:TFA coordinators to notify them of this posting. Z1720 ( talk) 18:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Putting this here should we need it again: [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
... of the page should stay on, either submit to FAR, or move to FAR not needed. If we start filling up the page with commentary about the quality of the article (which belongs on talk), we will end up with an unwieldy mess. Diffs only please, either identify deficiencies, or enter an opinion that the article is satisfactory. If we get this page off on the right foot, it hopefully won't become an unwieldy mess full of random commentary about the quality of the article, which is better reserved for article talk or the actual FAR. The page is huge, we have a lot of work to do, so we have to keep commentary here brief and focused on yea or nay, any expanded commentary on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I added a global appeal at the Tropical cyclone WikiProject talk page. Perhaps we can see how that goes before deciding on other global appeals. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
An exciting opportunity to get four off the list at once, and run an exciting and topical TFA: see TFA discussion here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I was about to add this:
'''FAs needing review: {{table row counter|id=count1}}''' {| class="wikitable sortable" id="count1" style="overflow-wrap: anywhere;"
to the table as to make the row counting automatic, but I see it's "undergoing a major edit" now or whatever and I don't want to cause an edit conflict. Although, when I tested the counter, it was counting one less than the current number, do we know if the code or the current count is wrong? If need be we can do
{{#expr:{{table row counter|id=count1}}+1}}
... Aza24 ( talk) 22:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Ian Rose and Hog Farm: making sure you see the change; the tally is now automated by row count, so we don't have to adjust tally, and we no longer have the extra column that was only a tally. Hooray, thanks Aza24. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
In case I forget, so others will watch: [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
URFA 2020 is a very large list and there are lots of editors who have multiple FAs. Should we invite FA nominators to review "their" articles? I was thinking of a personalised invitation on their talk page, starting with editors who have lots of FAs and are still active on Wikipedia. Suggested wording is below:
Hi, you are receiving this message because you successfully nominated one or more featured articles. A task force is reviewing all featured articles promoted before 2015, with the goal of improving them to featured article criteria. The list of these featured articles is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. Can you review your articles and let us know if they still meet the criteria? Thanks.
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 18:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Per Wehwalt's list at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#March 2021 tentative lineup, the following older FAs are being considered in the March 2021 lineup. It would be good to prioritize these for review.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Brownhills has been reworked (thanks, Femkemilene and ChrisTheDude). Because it has not yet run TFA, could others give it close scrutiny with an eye towards mainpage criticisms? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I got them all but I may have missed a couple. If I did, I have ALL my nominations watchlisted and keep them up to snuff. Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Because this work can be so depressing, I wanted to give a shout out to User:Aboutmovies for the 2009 Hillsboro, Oregon, which looks to be the rare city/state/country geography article that has been properly maintained! It's nice to come across a geography article that isn't a wreck :) So, now that I have hopefully enticed them to this page, perhaps Aboutmovies will do some reviews of some of our oldest FAs here :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Month/Year | FAR | Unchecked | Total |
---|---|---|---|
2004 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
2005 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Jan. 2006 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Feb. 2006 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Mar. 2006 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Apr. 2006 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
May 2006 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
June 2006 | 0 | 6 | 10 |
July 2006 | 2 | 7 | 11 |
Aug. 2006 | 1 | 15 | 28 |
Sep. 2006 | 4 | 8 | 19 |
Oct. 2006 | 1 | 19 | 30 |
Nov. 2006 | 5 | 19 | 34 |
Dec. 2006 | 0 | 22 | 28 |
Here's a progress report of where we stand on the ones before 2007. Unchecked refers to ones with no comment of any form into the URFA table. Looks like we've made pretty good progress for before August 2006, and it's coming along for the later months. We shouldn't try to rush along articles - like FAR something somebody's working on, or send like 4 hurricanes to FAR or something like that, but IMO it would be nice to make a concerted push to give attention to the 2006 ones. My hope is to see us well into the 2007s by the end of the year, and we're already a good way into 2006. Hog Farm Talk 00:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Beside the articles listed here, editors are invited to post "Notes", "Noticed", "FAR" and "Satisfactory". I suggest adding another suggestion, called "Working". Editors would post this when work is ongoing to improve the article. This tag should not be used for articles at FAR. Suggested wording to add to the intro is below:
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 20:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Jimfbleak could you please sign this entry? When editors are entering a diff, we don’t need to chunk up the page with sigs, but when entering a Satisfactory opinion, we do need to know who entered that. Thanks for looking! I will tweak the instructions a bit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
TomStar81 if you don't mind, could you please put these comments on article talk, with only a diff back to here? [3] The idea of this page is to sort which articles are Satisfactory, being worked on, noticed for FAR, need to go to FAR, or are at FAR. If everyone puts every list of every minor thing needed for every article on this page, it will become unmanageable. If you scroll down the page, you'll get the idea of what sorts of things are put on here; the idea is to be able to submit the truly deficient to FAR, know what has been checked, and keep track of what is OK or improving. (And from your comments, I am left with no idea if the article is still at status or not.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a WP:TFARP to run this on April 21. It was a TFA on the same date in 2006, so it's eligible for rerun. It's obviously had some updating, is it enough for it to still be good enough for TFA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:
With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.
The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.
The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old ( last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old ( last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.
With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.
Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.
The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).
While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.
You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.
Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.
If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@ A. Parrot, AustralianRupert, Choess, Heartfox, and Nick-D: thanks for joining in the URFA effort! It's exciting to be able to mark more articles "Satisfactory" and move them off the list, and your reviews are most appreciated.
I did want to call to your attention some of the limitations caused by the (enormous) size of the page, and the conventions we have taken on to try to address that. We need to accomplish all of the following (and more :)
In that vein,
Gog the Mild has a planned schedule at User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs for May 2021. Could reviewers here glance through the very old FAs:
Also, old FA:
Also, Menstrual cycle from 2004 which is about to wrap up at FAR, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Some updates above. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to save bytes to remove the exact times for the satis/kept at FAR list? And just keep the date, like is done with the delisted ones? Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm considering re-running one of the 9/11 articles that are FA (the individual flights, I believe) on the 20th anniversary in September. Do any of them remain in decent shape?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't edit the page. I think it's because of the plethora of links. It just locks up in edit mode. Graham Beards ( talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the tentative TFA schedule for September 2021. It is subject to further TFA nominations or other needful changes:
1. Level Mountain (Volcanoguy) 2021 Geography
2. Indian roller (BhagyaMani , LittleJerry, Aa77zz, Shyamal & Cas Liber) 2021 Biology
3. Battle of Dunbar (1650) (Girth Summit; Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare TFA/R.
4. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Al Ameer) 2019. Royalty.
5. Abberton Reservoir (Jimfbleak) 2021. Geography.
6. Katie Joplin (Aoba47) 2021 TV TFA/R
7. Battle of Babylon Hill (Harrias) 2020. Warfare.
8. Can't Get You Out of My Head (Tomica) 2021. Music. TFA/R
9. Huey Long (HAL333) History. 2021. TFA/R/P
10. Giovanni Antonio Grassi (Ergo Sum) Education 2021 TFA/R
11. United Airlines Flight 93 (Veggies, retired) 2008. History. Rerun of September 11, 2008.
12. Mr. Dooley (Wehwalt) 2015. Literature. Rerun of August 31, 2016.
13. Chandler's Ford shooting (HJ Mitchell) 2021. History.
14. Keechaka Vadham (Ssven2) 2018. Film.
15. Raymond Pace Alexander (Coemgenus) 2020. Law.
16. Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) 2020. Gog the Mild. History/Warfare
17. Hurricane Humberto (2019) 2020 (Juliancolton).Weather.
18. Acamptonectes (2021) FunkMonk Lythronaxargestes , Slate Weasell, Jens Lallensack Biology
19. M-1 (Michigan highway) (2017) Imzadi 1979. Roads.
20. Lettuce (2012) Dana boomer. Food & Drink. Rerun of September 26, 2012
21. Banksia sceptrum (Casliber) 2017. Biology.
22. The Triumph of Cleopatra (Iridescent) 2015 Art.
23. Turf Moor ( WA8MTWAYC ) 2021. Sports.
24. Sonic X-treme (Red Phoenix, Popcornfud) 2018 TFA/R Video Games
25. Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots (Jimfbleak) 2021 Birds
26. British nuclear tests at Maralinga (Hawkeye7) 2020. History/Warfare
27. Transandinomys (Ucucha) 2010. Biology.
28. Cleveland Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt) 2016. Numismatics
29. U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary) (White Shadows) 2018. Warfare.
30. Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah (SarahSV, deceased) 2010. Anniversary. History
Hey all, It may be useful to split up the list into smaller sections, as any time I try to make an edit it takes my computer about a minute to process what I'm typing and put it through. Perhaps sorting it into sections by year, or even years and months may be helpful in reducing this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The November schedule for TFA has been posted. Of note to URFA/2020:
Can editors please review these articles to ensure they are still up to FA standards? Thanks. Z1720 ( talk) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I am going to ever so slowly starting pinging in some top nominators, eg Mike Christie and David Fuchs. I don't want to ping in Wehwalt, Cas, Sturm, Hawkeye, Parsecboy yet lest we overwhelm bio and milhist editors all at once. Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 are already in. On Hurricanehink, I pinged the entire Tropical cyclone project, and he responded there and is aware.
Ian Rose, do you have all of Brianboulton's watchlisted, or do we need to do something additional on his?
YellowMonkey is long gone, so his will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, User:David Fuchs; I (and others) will chip away at looking at those (no big hurry on FAs that are watched by nominators, as they are typically in good shape). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got an idea on how to potentially save a little space on the page. It won't gain us back a whole lot, but when the page is over 331k bytes, everything that's saved helps. On the tables for kept or FAR not needed, do we really need to keep the columns for the last FAC/FAR and the TFA date? Since we aren't linking to anything, I don't think the new FAR date would really be that helpful, and we're living without those columns just fine on the list of delisted ones. We need to keep the satisfactory signatures around so we know who signed off on each one, but I don't think keeping those two columns for processed entries is worth the space it takes up in bytes. Hog Farm Bacon 02:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
So, if we delete the TFA date and the last review date, my concern is that we hamstring ourselves a few years down the road. Picture a year from now that a TFA Coord can come to this list and find when the article was last (formally) reviewed, when it last ran TFA, and what editors looked at it and declared it "Satisfactory" recently. Even if an FA passed in 2006, if they can see it hasn't run TFA, but was reviewed in 2020 by three independent editors, and is still watched by its nominator, that should give them some assurance that the article is TFA worthy. I'd hate to lose that data because of space issues.
I recognize that, because of the size of the page, we may eventually need to lose something, but suggest we wait to see how the page is used before we decide to delete data. Also, there are other options/ways to split the page, if it truly becomes unmanageable. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
There's a fantastic editor working on atheism, but this highly-viewed article has lots of important parts that need updating and the editor requested help to improve the article. Does anyone know of religion/philosophy experts who would be willing to lend a hand? I hope we can keep this star. Z1720 ( talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks guys for this work, it's invaluable to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's top content. :) I thought it might be helpful to drop you a link to a previous similar effort by WPVG which never made as much headway as you did but into which at least some time and effort was invested at various times. Here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:
This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.
Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)
In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.
If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!
If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm Talk 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
In December, Sandy slowly invited some of Wikipedia's top FA nominators. The goal was to avoid overwhelming the project with reviews in similar topic areas and inviting too many reviewers at the same time. I went through the archives and URFA/2020's page history and noted who had been pinged about this project already or had edited URFA/2020 or the talk page.
I propose inviting Hawkeye7 (milthist), Hurricanehink (cyclones), and Ceoil (music and visual arts) in the coming days. They have different topic areas and are semi-active or active at the moment. Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I took most of the summer off from editing; did FACbot stop updating the TFAs ? [11] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Izno fixed it with this, see response here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Trying again: [13] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm you asked above about the expertise of different editors, and I have been meaning to get back to you on this notification about a park article. (This may be of interest to @ Buidhe, RetiredDuke, and Femkemilene: and anyone else regularly engaging now at FAR.)
Pretty much all of the National Park FAs on Wikipedia are User:MONGO. MONGO is still active and helping out at FAC, and has (in the past) worked through everything asked of him as standards have changed. Notifying/pinging him is more useful than pinging a WikiProject, as MONGO is the one who will do the upgrades. But ... he is only one person, and he has so many FAs, that it may be helpful to approach him like a Project-Unto-Himself, and not overwhelm him with too many at once. On those articles, it can be helpful to check the FAC to see if the article is one of his.
Similarly, many of the Geology of ... parks ... were written by Mav, who hasn't been active since 2015. At some point, I will email him and see if he can be enticed back, and we can decide whether to proceed to FAR with any of his. At the top of the list, Mav has Geology of the Death Valley area.
MONGO's are like Kirill Lokshin's in MILHIST: he has so many, and is willing to keep them at standard, and we should be considerate of their time constraints.
MONGO, can you tell us if you have a plan for approaching any of the articles on this list (particularly the oldest last reviewed), so we don't send an article to FAR unnecessarily ? I see some needs in each of these, near the top of the list, which I know you can address:
If you do improve them, please feel free to add your own "Satisfactory" to the page. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there are still editors who struggle to edit this page because of the page size. If it takes too long to edit, it might discourage new people from joining this project. Below are some ideas on how to reduce the page size:
Thoughts? Are there other suggestions on how to make this page more user friendly? Z1720 ( talk) 19:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Will changing the diffs from urls to Template:dif make the page easier to edit and load? If so, I can make the change this week. Z1720 ( talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, I am going through and trimming sigs to help with the page size. At the same time, I am removing some commas so that the sort order will work. I am not switching to the templated diff as ... I am worried with the size of the page that we could hit template limits somewhere down the road. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
(Per discussion above) Even with all the signature trimming I've done, and less than six months after the last discussion of problems with the page size, I had a bear of a time last night moving the six delisted articles. I fear the page size may be discouraging participation (eg User:Graham Beards) and it may be time to bite the bullet and split the page in two.
I propose we leave this as the main (summary) page, since a) we have talk pages all over creation pointing to this page, and b) it will be our main point of talk discussion about the two (split) pages. We would leave the info at the top of the page (on each page), and the stats at the bottom of this page, but in between, place two links:
On the new pages, we would repeat the instructions at the top, and add a link to them main article where stats are kept, and add a link to the other (split) article. I would also add to the instructions a note about trimming sigs, because even with the split, the two pages will grow large. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Heads up to all; I will start on this today in a few hours, after breakfast, and it may result in a long {{ in use}} as I get things moved around. Please don’t edit the pages until I remove the in use. @ Hurricane Noah: who is quite actively reviewing articles now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm done; please check over the wording at the top of the three pages to make sure I didn't miss anything, and note new instructions page at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Instructions, as well as the new shortcuts listed above. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
1.
Cleveland Centennial half dollar. (Wehwalt) Numismatics. 2015 Free choice (rescheduling of September 28)
2.
Manon Melis (Edwininlondon) Sport. 2021. TFA/R
3.
El Tatio (Jo-Jo Emereus) Geography. 2021 Free choice.
4.
Battle of Pontvallain (Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild) 2019. Warfare. TFA/R
5.
U.S. Route 30 in Iowa (Fredddie) 2011. Roads. Free choice.
6.
1860 Boden Professor of Sanskrit election (rerun of August 7, 2013) (Bencherlite) 2012. Law. Free choice.
7.
Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao (Peacemaker67) 2021. Warfare TFA/R
8.
2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election ( N Oneemuss) 2021. Politics. Free choice (anniversary)
9.
Southampton Cenotaph (HJ Mitchell) 2019. Warfare. Free choice.
10.
Prison education (Damien Linnane) 2021. Education. TFA/R (World Human Rights Day)
11.
James Longstreet (Display name 99) 2021. Warfare. Free choice.
12.
Sega CD (Red Phoenix) 2015. Video games. TFA/R/P
13.
Dhoby Ghaut MRT station (Zhang 123). 2021. Transport. TFA/R (requested for December 12)
14.
Gianni Schicchi (Brianboulton, deceased) 2010 Music. Rerun of May 31, 2011. TFA/R
15.
1988 World Snooker Championship (BennyOnTheLoose) 2021. Sport. Free choice.
16.
Frederick the Great (Wtfiv) 2021. History. Free choice.
17.
Hunky Dory (Zmbro) 2020. Music. TFA/R
18.
Dracophyllum fiordense (Dracophyllum) 2021. Biology. Free choice.
19.
Surrogate's Courthouse (Epicgenius) 2021. Architecture. Free choice.
20.
Grey's Anatomy (season 17) (TheDoctorWho) 2021. TV. Free choice.
21.
Australian boobook (Cas Liber) 2017. Biology. Free choice.
22.
This Dust Was Once the Man (Eddie 891) 2021. Literature. Free choice.
23.
1916 Texas Hurricane (TheAustinMan) 2020. Weather. Free choice.
24.
Soiscél Molaisse (Ceoil) 2021. Art. Free choice
25.
Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) (General Poxter, RobertG) 2021. Music. TFA/R/P
26.
Battle of Panormus (Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare. Per request.
27.
Sesame Street research (Figureskatingfan) 2013. TV. Free choice.
28.
Pepi I Meryre (Iry-Hor) 2021. Royalty. Free choice.
29.
Ezra Meeker (Wehwalt) 2013. History. Free choice. Rerun of June 21, 2013
30.
Jamiroquai (100cellsman) 2021. Music. TFA/R
31.
2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl (Grondemar) 2011. Sport. Free choice.
Since splitting the page in two, the presentation is quite busy, and navigating is complex. Now that I have seen how tabs work at WP:FASA, I suggest that is a good option. Unless anyone objects, I’d like to convert the URFA pages to tabs, similar to those at FASA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Please check my work! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:
This is the third quarterly update on the project. Previous reports are listed below:
Since URFA/2020's launch, 145 FAs have been Delisted, and 114 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR, which the percentage of FAs needing review reduced from 73% to 71%. Work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 136 articles have been delisted during this time while 9 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 84 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 30 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 17 users edited WP:URFA/2020 at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR.
The project continued to reach out to active editors listed at WP:WBFAN to check the FAs they nominated. The project encourages experienced FA writers to check articles already marked as "Satisfactory" by a reviewer; the first reviewer is often the original nominator or interested in the topic, and they might answer questions or concerns if pinged on the talk page.
As of the end of this quarter, we have 135 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, a decrease of 17 listings from the Q2 report. This is a result of older notices being rechecked and listed at FAR. The project needs experienced FA editors to review older notices and determine if the article should be submitted to FAR or marked as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take over 29 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!
If you have any questions or feedback, please post below. Z1720 ( talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Our last round of invites to those at the top of WP:WBFAN was in July. I have been noting who has already been invited to participate in URFA/2020 and who has edited the page. By my observations, the next three editors to invite are Parsecboy (ships), Iridescent (British geography and history bios), and Ucucha (biology). Are there any concerns about sending them invites? Z1720 ( talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just wanted to say that I'm really surprised and happy seeing everyone pitching in to my newbie idea in VP, and while we wait for the template editors to respond I'm optimistic about the whole thing and looking forward to how the discussion moves along :D I'm bit bogged down by work and an RfC I'm participating on but once that's done I'll give URFA a shot Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I just made some notes on an article in the list here. I'd appreciate if one of you could tell me if that's a good edit and what steps to do next. I'd like to notify relevant wikiprojects about the notes and am wondering if there's a specific template y'all recommend I use for that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering what to do about articles who seem like a snow demotion from FA status (and possibly GA as well). I recently came across Israel the Grammarian's BLP while trying to find good examples of FAs on literary bios for a discussion at J.K. Rowling's FAR. The article is immensely short and not very comprehensive, barely giving much information on the individual. I've left some comments on the talk page, but I was wondering what the procedure is. Do I go straight to FAR and notify relevant users/WPs? Spending my Friday the best way I know how, Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
To the general question of "what to do about snows", see Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1. When an article looks truly unsalvageable, and there is consensus among reviewers, the Coords are amenable to an accelerated process. ANAK was only five days in FAR, and six days in FARC, so delisted in under two weeks. Also, questions of this nature can be raised at WT:FAR, where the @ WP:FAR coordinators: will weigh in. Best regards, and thanks again for digging in to help out at URFA! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@ A. C. Santacruz:, please, absolutely do not judge a Featured Article on its length alone, or compare its contents with the kind of info that you'd expect to have on a modern-day subject. We have several series of FAs (the sci-fi magazines FAs, the Middle Ages English people FAs, the mushrooms FAs, the East Indies old films FAs, those obscure TV series FAs, the race horses FAs, from the top of my head), where the articles are very short but meet the FA criteria. There's simply not much to be said about those subjects. You have to check for comprehensiveness instead. Also, Israel the Grammarian is not a WP:BLP, the man has been dead for a while. RetiredDuke ( talk) 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
SG said on the FAC talk page: As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily – for ones like these should we just mark in the notes column that they still meet FA criteria? Or go another route? Aza24 ( talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually think we are making the process too bureaucratic to the extent that it will be unmanageable. There are a LOT of articles to check. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Ian Rose thanks for the new batch! I did only a few and will get back on them soon, but want to prioritize the work Mike Christie left on my talk, as I don't want to slow down his data analysis of the FA archives.
And I still mean to get back to Peacemaker67 and HJ Mitchell here, but haven't had time to type up my thoughts. The TLDR version is that these new(ish) FAs (relative to the hundreds from 2006 through 2009) are not likely where the real problems will be found, so it does not concern me if any of them sit on the page for even a couple of years (the last time we did this, it took six years to finish). It may even be advantageous to spread those reviews out over years, in case some nominators go missing and someone destroys their work in the interim. But ... they aren't the articles most likely in need of FAR, which is what we're looking for. We are more likely to find those by processing through the oldest first.
I'd like to put a list over at MILHIST of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs that we really need to prioritize, to avoid situations like Battle of Blenheim-- those that are at risk of being submitted to FAR if we don't address them first. And the serious problems are not to be found among MILHIST articles so I want to make sure our process is oriented towards the more problematic areas. More later, Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Grapple X did a really good thing here, as the third reviewer to mark an article “Satisfactory”. Saving the oldid in the third “Satisfactory” note means we don’t have to go looking for the “satisfactory” version, and if we convert to articlehistory, we don’t have to look up the oldid. We should probably all be doing that if we are the third reviewer marking satisfactory and moving. Thx, Grapple X (and congrats on today’s FA). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe, David Fuchs, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, FunkMonk, Grapple X, Hog Farm, Hurricanehink, RetiredDuke, and Z1720: it would be grand if we could get all of the 2004 to 2006 group at least looked at by year-end. Most of the remainder are hurricanes.
I will get PTSD if I have to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam ever again (note the use of restart on that most dreadful of all FACs), so hope someone else will have a look. I also hesitate to tackle Ketuanan Melayu as it has long been one of my least favored FAs, and don't think I can be objective there wrt length. I have avoided Angelina Jolie because of previous experiences with socks and an arbcase. I am willing to take on review of all the Hurricanes, because unless something gives after the third project-wide notice, I will start to wonder if we need to think in terms of a mass FAR for the lot. I will be interested in seeing if any of WikiProject Cyclone articles are resolved by January of next year.
Can we all make a concerted effort to get these oldest of the old moving by year-end? Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I will have gotten through all the 2006 storms other than the hurricane season FAs from that year by the end of today. I have four more left to review as of right now. Noah Talk 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
FunkMonk has done quite a job of marking articles in WP:URFA/2020B, and I am the second reviewer on most of them. An editor interested in making an impact on our year-end numbers might do the third reviews. Similarly, Ian Rose has quite a few where I am already the second reviewer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The start of the tentative WP:TFA schedule for January 2022 has been posted. Listed here are the articles, FAC nominator, and year of promotion. Articles within the URFA/2020 scope are highlighted in bold. Please review the older noms, and post in WT:TFA if there are any concerns.
1.
Black-and-red broadbill (AryKun, 2021)
2.
Seventy-Six (novel) (Dugan Murphy, 2021)
3.
2008 Orange Bowl (JKBrooks85, 2008)
4.
1st Missouri Field Battery (Hog Farm, 2021)
5.
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (Eewilson, 2021)
6.
Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) (Kosack, 2021)
7.
Hammond's rice rat (Ucucha, 2010)
8.
Missouri Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt, 2018)
9.
Power Mac G4 Cube (David Fuchs, 2021)
10.
Ursa Minor (Cas Liber, 2015)
11.
Croatian Spring (Tomobe03, 2021)
12.
Mu'awiya I (Al Ameer & AhmadLX, 2021)
13.
Ham House (Isaksenk, 2021)
14.
Low (David Bowie album) (zmbro, 2021)
15.
The Trundle (Mike Christie, 2021)
16.
Ghostbusters (Darkwarriorblake, 2021)
17.
Chinatown MRT station (ZKang123, 2021)
18.
Battle of Hayes Pond (Indy beetle, 2021)
19.
Hoodoo Mountain (Volcanoguy, 2021)
20.
Old Exe Bridge (HJ Mitchell, 2021)
21.
Schichau-class torpedo boat (Peacemaker67, 2021)
22.
Legend Entertainment (Shooterwalker, 2021)
23.
Archaeoindris (Maky, 2012)
24.
New York Stock Exchange Building (Epicgenius, 2021)
25.
Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) (GeneralPoxter, 2021)
26.
Australian Air Corps (Ian Rose, 2018)
27.
Ba Congress (Peacemaker67, 2021)
28.
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (Balon Greyjoy, 2021)
29.
A Beautiful Crime (DanCherek, 2021)
30.
Benedetto Pistrucci (Wehwalt, 2017)
31.
Delichon (Jimfbleak, 2010)
More will be posted when they are selected at TFA.
Pinging @ WP:TFA coordinators to notify them of this posting. Z1720 ( talk) 18:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)