This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Other FAs from the Biology content area last reviewed from 2004 to 2007
|
---|
Also posted to individidual WikiProjects Biology: Birds
Biology: Dinosaurs
Biology: FishBiology: Mammals
Biology: Plants
Biology: Reptile |
Hello! I'm looking to improve the biochemist Joseph DeRisi's Wikipedia page. I've composed a new Career section for his page, which builds on what's already there by revising certain passages for clarity, adding new information about his professional life, and trimming away a handful of less-than-encyclopedic details. I've currently got an edit request active on Mr. DeRisi's Talk page, which further explains what my draft seeks to accomplish. You can see that request at this link, and the full Career section draft is available for review on a sub-page of my user page.
To be transparent, I'm a COI editor working on behalf of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub to propose improvements to Mr. DeRisi's page. You can view my full COI disclosure on my user page. If anyone at this WikiProject could help me implement my edit request, or provide notes on how I might improve my draft, that would be immensely helpful. Thank you! Patricia at GMMB ( talk) 16:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Some organs are known in most way as a word (ex Pulmonary) but the organ itself has another name (ex Lung). The possible spelling based of the former could be a redirect, for example:
-Cerebre
-Pulmon
-Cardio
I think those are all. Oixyplanet ( talk) 07:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all - I know this is a 'meta' discussion but I was wondering if there is any appetite for formation of some task forces in the model of WP:TV to inherit some inactive descendant projects as task forces rather than have a diaspora of smaller projects? (for those who don't know, many TV shows had their own wikiprojects prior to many, but not all, TV show-specific WikiProjects being rolled in to WikiProject TV as task forces)
My overall opinion is that this does take a bit of effort (which I am happy to coordinate) but does offer some benefits in the form of centralising maintenance and deduplicating bits and bobbs. Such a process would of course need consent from the smaller project pages: I thought it may be worth asking here prior as an initial step. Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
"deduplicating bits and bobbs"is a phrase that I will try to integrate into every conversation I have. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I created a draft for Biogenic magnetite. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This interrelated series of articles is one of the most disoriented, contradictory and factually compromised sets that I've encountered on our project in quite some time. Moreover, the overlapping nature of content and lack of adequately unambiguous central navigation is confusing, even for someone who has existing familiarity with the general topic. I'm not certain of how much available manpower WikiProject Biology has to offer at the moment, but I'd like to get the ball rolling on a collaborative effort of some sort. — C M B J 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The page ( plants used as herbs or spices) finally went live, and if any knowledgeable people care to add to the, well, biology-ness of it, I'd appreciate it. <g> Tamtrible ( talk) 13:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, |
hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced. Artem.G ( talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion on Talk:Sex that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Loki ( talk) 19:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath talk 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Sex#Suggestion for Leading sentence and section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm posting here to notify this WikiProject that an RFC that may be relevant to it has started regarding the definition of sex. Loki ( talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Amusingly, as a totally unexpected consequence of Cote, West Sussex ( AfD discussion), we have Gaster's paper on bicavea radiata for you. Uncle G ( talk) 08:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Should we, or should we not, delete articles about species that are not properly accepted?
The context for this RfC is a number of recent AfD debates on deletion of articles about species that have been described, but whose names have never been properly accepted, for example Stomopteryx splendens. WP:SPECIES advises that we should keep articles on valid species, but it doesn't give any advice on what to do about non-valid species. Elemimele ( talk) 18:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I was cleaning up Reuben Shaw just now and noticed that there was an issue with a journal citation without a journal listed. It turned out to be a link to a grant abstract from grantome.com, and I couldn't remove it without leaving a substantial part of the article without a reference to a pretty specific claim. So:
Thanks. Reconrabbit ( talk| edits) 15:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey all, there's a discussion about Aristotle's standing in current biological science going on here. I'm pretty sure this is wp:fringe or wp:undo, but I'm not trained as a scientist. Input from anyone who is would be most welcome! Cheers Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 22:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have just created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Fossorials. If you can, please join, as we are in desperate need of members! Fossorials are animals that spend much of their time underground, so if you are interested, please join!
Thank you, UserMemer ( chat) Tribs 00:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, |
This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Other FAs from the Biology content area last reviewed from 2004 to 2007
|
---|
Also posted to individidual WikiProjects Biology: Birds
Biology: Dinosaurs
Biology: FishBiology: Mammals
Biology: Plants
Biology: Reptile |
Hello! I'm looking to improve the biochemist Joseph DeRisi's Wikipedia page. I've composed a new Career section for his page, which builds on what's already there by revising certain passages for clarity, adding new information about his professional life, and trimming away a handful of less-than-encyclopedic details. I've currently got an edit request active on Mr. DeRisi's Talk page, which further explains what my draft seeks to accomplish. You can see that request at this link, and the full Career section draft is available for review on a sub-page of my user page.
To be transparent, I'm a COI editor working on behalf of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub to propose improvements to Mr. DeRisi's page. You can view my full COI disclosure on my user page. If anyone at this WikiProject could help me implement my edit request, or provide notes on how I might improve my draft, that would be immensely helpful. Thank you! Patricia at GMMB ( talk) 16:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Some organs are known in most way as a word (ex Pulmonary) but the organ itself has another name (ex Lung). The possible spelling based of the former could be a redirect, for example:
-Cerebre
-Pulmon
-Cardio
I think those are all. Oixyplanet ( talk) 07:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all - I know this is a 'meta' discussion but I was wondering if there is any appetite for formation of some task forces in the model of WP:TV to inherit some inactive descendant projects as task forces rather than have a diaspora of smaller projects? (for those who don't know, many TV shows had their own wikiprojects prior to many, but not all, TV show-specific WikiProjects being rolled in to WikiProject TV as task forces)
My overall opinion is that this does take a bit of effort (which I am happy to coordinate) but does offer some benefits in the form of centralising maintenance and deduplicating bits and bobbs. Such a process would of course need consent from the smaller project pages: I thought it may be worth asking here prior as an initial step. Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
"deduplicating bits and bobbs"is a phrase that I will try to integrate into every conversation I have. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I created a draft for Biogenic magnetite. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This interrelated series of articles is one of the most disoriented, contradictory and factually compromised sets that I've encountered on our project in quite some time. Moreover, the overlapping nature of content and lack of adequately unambiguous central navigation is confusing, even for someone who has existing familiarity with the general topic. I'm not certain of how much available manpower WikiProject Biology has to offer at the moment, but I'd like to get the ball rolling on a collaborative effort of some sort. — C M B J 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The page ( plants used as herbs or spices) finally went live, and if any knowledgeable people care to add to the, well, biology-ness of it, I'd appreciate it. <g> Tamtrible ( talk) 13:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, |
hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced. Artem.G ( talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion on Talk:Sex that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Loki ( talk) 19:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath talk 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Sex#Suggestion for Leading sentence and section. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm posting here to notify this WikiProject that an RFC that may be relevant to it has started regarding the definition of sex. Loki ( talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Amusingly, as a totally unexpected consequence of Cote, West Sussex ( AfD discussion), we have Gaster's paper on bicavea radiata for you. Uncle G ( talk) 08:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Should we, or should we not, delete articles about species that are not properly accepted?
The context for this RfC is a number of recent AfD debates on deletion of articles about species that have been described, but whose names have never been properly accepted, for example Stomopteryx splendens. WP:SPECIES advises that we should keep articles on valid species, but it doesn't give any advice on what to do about non-valid species. Elemimele ( talk) 18:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I was cleaning up Reuben Shaw just now and noticed that there was an issue with a journal citation without a journal listed. It turned out to be a link to a grant abstract from grantome.com, and I couldn't remove it without leaving a substantial part of the article without a reference to a pretty specific claim. So:
Thanks. Reconrabbit ( talk| edits) 15:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey all, there's a discussion about Aristotle's standing in current biological science going on here. I'm pretty sure this is wp:fringe or wp:undo, but I'm not trained as a scientist. Input from anyone who is would be most welcome! Cheers Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 22:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have just created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Fossorials. If you can, please join, as we are in desperate need of members! Fossorials are animals that spend much of their time underground, so if you are interested, please join!
Thank you, UserMemer ( chat) Tribs 00:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, |