Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive69

Top FAC reviewers for July

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of July (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 16 reviews: Dank.
• 13 reviews: Aoba47
• 12 review: Casliber

One reviewer did eight reviews; five did five; three did four; eleven did three. 86 editors provided a total of 195 reviews.

Image and source reviews

• 18 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 16 reviews: Ealdgyth.
• 10 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus

A total of 25 reviewers provided a total of 74 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list; thanks to all. As I now have a full year of this data, I will see if I can come up with some interesting annual summary graphs or tables and will post them here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, it might be worth publishing at least the top ten in each category, even if you care only to give barnstars to the top three, on the regular monthly basis. It seems a little harsh to remove the names if they have not made the top three.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to add a bit: it may have been more useful in the past, when fewer reviews were getting done. Now they are, by dint of much effort by our reviewers. Mike in his lists and such has caught most of the regulars, but it still seems to me a good idea to mention all who put in effort. And thank Mike for providing statistics we've long been short on.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll update these lists and the lists below to have ten reviewers, and will do that regularly in future. I agree it's worth acknowledging as many people as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's everyone who did at least three reviews in July. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

	Reviews
Editor	Image	Source	Prose	Grand Total
Nikkimaria	17	1		18
Dank			16	16
Ealdgyth		16		16
Aoba47	1	0	13	14
Casliber		1	12	13
Jo-Jo Eumerus	10			10
Wehwalt	1		8	9
Parcly Taxel	1	2	4	7
Ian Rose	1		5	6
FunkMonk	3		3	6
Johnbod			5	5
Finetooth			5	5
Jimfbleak			5	5
Moisejp	1		4	5
Tintor2		2	3	5
J Milburn			5	5
Brianboulton			4	4
Ceranthor		2	2	4
Edwininlondon		1	3	4
Adityavagarwal		1	3	4
Numerounovedant			3	3
Hawkeye7	1		2	3
Ceoil			3	3
1989	1		2	3
Hchc2009			3	3
Auntieruth55			3	3
Peacemaker67			3	3
Graeme Bartlett	1	1	1	3
JennyOz			3	3

Updated annual FAC statistics pages

More statistics are available for those interested. At User:Mike Christie/Sandbox9 you will find a table with a row for every single review done in the 12 months ending July 2017 (by month of archival/promotion, not by date of review). This is useful if you want to look at specific activity, but has no summary statistics.

At User:Mike Christie/Sandbox10 there is a summarized version, showing one row per editor, and giving counts for nominations and for reviews received and given. Note that conominations are weighted less; you only get half credit for a conom, and only count half a review if your conomination is reviewed. The last two columns show how many reviews you did for each one you received, and how many reviews you gave for each article you nominated. "Infinity" in these columns means you didn't receive any reviews or nominate any articles.

On request I will remove any names of editors who don't wish to be listed in this table, and will keep track so they will not be included in this version. Unlike last year I have included sorting columns; I am doing this because I haven't seen any evidence this data is being used to shame people, and because of the option to remove names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors who have reviewed at FAC without nominating articles

These are the altruists -- editors who are reviewing without expecting a review in return, just because they want to. We owe all of these editors a great deal. There are 221 editors in this category, and you can see them all in the tables linked above, but below is a list of those who did seven or more reviews without nominating at FAC over the last year.

Editor	Reviews
Nikkimaria	187
Dank	150
Jo-Jo Eumerus	63
Giants2008	23
GermanJoe	21
Laser brain	18
Johnbod	17
Tony1	15
Hchc2009	13
Graham Beards	12
Sagaciousphil	12
Praemonitus	10
Parcly Taxel	9
SlimVirgin	9
Caeciliusinhorto	8
Dough4872	8
Indopug	8
Nergaal	8
The ed17	8
Graeme Bartlett	7
JennyOz	7
Ssven2	7

Nominators who have reviewed the most other articles

This is a list of every editor who reviewed two or more articles for every review they received. As above, these editors are critical to the success of FAC.

Editor	Noms	Received	Gave	G/R
Ealdgyth	0.5	3.5	52	14.9
Sarastro1	0.5	4.0	42	10.5
John	0.3	3.0	22	7.3
Tim riley	0.3	1.0	7	7.0
Moisejp	1.0	7.0	46	6.6
Aa77zz	0.5	3.5	19	5.4
Brianboulton	1.0	7.0	27	3.9
Iazyges	1.0	2.0	7	3.5
Syek88	1.0	8.0	27	3.4
Dudley Miles	1.0	6.0	19	3.2
Lingzhi	1.0	5.0	13	2.6
Finetooth	2.0	13.0	31	2.4
J Milburn	1.5	13.0	31	2.4
Coemgenus	3.0	16.0	33	2.1
Edwininlondon	2.0	11.0	22	2.0
Snuggums	0.5	5.5	11	2.0
TheSandDoctor	1.0	1.0	2	2.0
Jimfbleak	5.5	36.5	72	2.0

How much does nominator experience matter?

There's a table from last year that I don't have enough information to redo this year: the one showing likelihood of promotion for nominators with different levels of FAC experience.

Note: This is Jan-Jul 2016 data, not current data.

Nominator stars	Archived	Promoted	Total	Success rate
0	50	9	59	15.2%
1	12	9	21	42.9%
2-10	9	24	33	72.7%
11-30	4	22	26	84.6%
31+	0	24	24	100%
total	75	88	163	54.0%

I would love to be able to produce this table regularly, as I think it's one of the more important things we discussed last year. If anyone is handy with bots and would like to hoover up the data for me, it's fairly straightforward: I need to know how many stars each editor listed at WP:WBFAN had on different dates throughout the year. A copy on the first of each month would be good enough for most purposes; a weekly copy would be more than sufficient. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with all this important stuff, Mike. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this one is interesting, if probably no great surprise. It doesn't tell us how many nominations are usual before a promotion is managed, which would be nice to know. For example, I'd guess that a decent proportion of 2nd+ noms succeed. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There is clearly a learning curve. Not a surprising one, so the statistics basically confirm what everyone would reasonably have expected - one gets better with practice, and there is possibly a tendency to more easily pass a nomination by a person who has a history of passing, and be more thorough about checking a newcomer's nominations (not saying this would be a bad thing, as it would be more time-effective for the reviewers if not disproportionate)

What would be interesting would be the reasons why so many first time nominators fail - what can be learned regarding how to avoid those problems. Is there any common factor separating most of the fails from the successes? What are the common factors in the multiple fails? Are these factors changing with time, and can they be distilled into guidance to improve success rate and increase earlier success.

Do most failures pivot on a single issue, like inadequate/unverifiable sources, or reference formatting, or are they issues of completeness of content, or quality of prose, or are they usually articles which are deficient in several aspects? I am sure there are cases where each of these is the issue, but is there a general trend? Maybe there is a class of topic which is more difficult to get to FA. Maybe even a trend linked to reviewers. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, my impression has been prose and referencing as two main issues, but that might not reflect many others - just the few I have seen. I think this is some area we need to work on as we need diversity in production, which is best managed by getting as many people involved as possible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the reasons for failure are too varied for an easy summarization. Prose is definitely part of it, and I see two levels of prose problems. Sometimes the individual sentences are perfectly grammatical but the prose still doesn't work well. This can be because the article is poorly organized at a section, or paragraph, or even sentence level, or because the underlying thought that is being conveyed is not clear, or is irrelevant or out of sequence. This sort of prose problem is much harder to fix, and unfortunately a copyeditor is less likely to address these problems.

The difficulty of learning how to succeed at FAC is partly why the mentoring program was created. FACs nominated as part of the mentoring program are not flagged in any way, so I can't provide statistics, but anecdotally I believe it has helped, having seen several mentored FACs achieve promotion.

The question Johnbod asks above probably requires more than one year of data, but I could make a start on it if I had the WBFAN data by month. I may try to extract it myself if nobody else does; it'll be a while though as I'm away for the second half of August. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Addressing the sourcing issue - it's going to be a bit skewed because of how source reviews are done now. Most source reviews don't happen until later in the process of an FAC. I won't do one until the nomination has at least one support and I no longer do "pop culture" subjects. So, it's more likely that ill-prepared noms will get opposed for prose/other issues than they will for sources. And, frankly, I have found that a large proportion of first time noms are in the "pop culture" area, certainly not all, but probably a good bit over half. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, that is an interesting observation. Do you have any comment on what percentage of first time noms ever make a second nomination, and whether the ones that come back are the ones that succeeded the first time? The current table suggests less than half, and that most of them fail again, but that is a small sample. I would be unsurprised if most of the second time fails also failed the first time, and that not many of those tried a third time. I would also hypothesize that success in the first nomination is a robust predictor of further nominations, and a continuous run of successes is almost a guarantee of s prolonged run of nominations.

Mike Christie, do you remember when the mentoring program started? It might be possible to contact the first time nominators since then and ask if they were mentored, and if so what their impressions were of the effectiveness/usefulness of mentoring.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have anything beyond just the impression - I've tried to avoid becoming sucked into playing with the data because I have enough projects on my plate already... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

On the evidence of your user page, you keep busy. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the wording "Nominator stars", my interpretation was that this was the number of previous successful FAs the nominator had, not the number of previous nominations they had made. A nominator who fails the first time and tries again (as I did myself, for example) would show up as 0 stars both times. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec)The mentoring program began at the end of August 2016; see the first section on this talk page. Peter, did you notice that the data above relates to the first half of 2016? Things might have improved since then, but I need to have historical WBFAN data to report on it -- if I run a report now it just tells me the numbers based on the stars the nominator has now, rather than how many they had at the time of nomination. (Post-ec): RL0919 is correct; that's how the report is written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, Yes I noticed the date, and thanks for the clarification. Also thanks RL0919, the cumulative zeros don't add up very fast, which brings me to wonder how many multiple fails there are in that half-year no-star category. So the mentoring is very new only in action for 1 year, and therefore a relatively small amount of work to check who participated. I will look into the numbers and the possibility of a survey. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If anyone has a little free time...

There has been a run of nominations in the last few days, which is great to see, but which has pushed the number of open FACs to 50. If anyone could turn their attention to the bottom of the FAC list, where some reviews have been lingering for a very long time, or to the source/image review request and "urgent" sections at the top of this page, that would be greatly appreciated and might reduce the length of the list a little. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Some FAC statistics August 2016 through July 2017

First I'd like to acknowledge the editors who have contributed the most reviews over the past year.

Overall champions, counting all types of review:

1. Nikkimaria 187 reviews
2. Dank 150
3. Casliber 129
4. Jimfbleak 72
5. Funkmonk 69
6. Aoba47 67
7. Jo-Jo Eumerus 63
8. Wehwalt 59
9. Ian Rose 55
10. Ealdgyth 52

Ian's total is particularly remarkable given his role as a FAC coordinator; Sarastro1, the other coordinator, was not too far behind, with 42 reviews, in 13th place.

The top ten reviewers of prose reviews include some of the above, plus:

• Moisejp 38
• Tintor2 33
• Sarastro1 32

The top ten image, source, and accessibility reviewers also include:

• Coemgenus 20
• GermanJoe 19
• Laser brain 13

As in my comment above, I suggest publishing at least the top ten in each category, rather than excerpts. Thanks for going to all this trouble to do the work. And thanks to the reviewers who drive this process.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a table showing everyone who did at least ten reviews over the last twelve months. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

	Reviews
Editor	Image	Source	Prose	Grand Total
Nikkimaria	160	20	7	187
Dank			150	150
Casliber	7	36	86	129
Jimfbleak	2	4	66	72
FunkMonk	23		46	69
Aoba47	8	1	58	67
Jo-Jo Eumerus	63			63
Wehwalt	2	9	48	59
Ian Rose	2	18	35	55
Ealdgyth		51	1	52
Moisejp	2	6	38	46
Tintor2	1	9	33	43
Sarastro1		10	32	42
Coemgenus		20	13	33
J Milburn	4	4	23	31
Finetooth	1		30	31
Syek88		1	26	27
Brianboulton		3	24	27
Giants2008		5	18	23
Jaguar		4	19	23
Gerda Arendt			22	22
John			22	22
Edwininlondon		4	18	22
GermanJoe	14	5	2	21
Peacemaker67	1	2	18	21
HJ Mitchell	2	2	16	20
Sturmvogel 66	3	6	11	20
Sabine's Sunbird			19	19
Dudley Miles			19	19
Aa77zz		4	15	19
Nick-D			19	19
Laser brain	2	11	5	18
Ceoil		1	17	18
Midnightblueowl		1	17	18
Hawkeye7	2	6	10	18
Johnbod			17	17
RileyBugz			17	17
Tony1			15	15
The Bounder			13	13
Lingzhi			13	13
Auntieruth55		1	12	13
Carbrera			13	13
Hchc2009	1	1	11	13
FrB.TG	2	4	7	13
Graham Beards		1	11	12
Sagaciousphil			12	12
Juliancolton	1		10	11
Snuggums	5		6	11
Numerounovedant		1	10	11
RL0919			11	11
Praemonitus			10	10
Bruce1ee			10	10
Imzadi1979	1	6	3	10

Nomination/promotion stats

Over the last twelve months there were 437 nominations, of which 308 were promoted (70%) and 129 archived. This includes a few drive-by nominations, but does not include any FAC for which the FAC page was simply deleted and not archived. 2017 has been a much more productive year for both nominations and promotions; the increase seems to have started in January, with a significant jump from December. The last five months of 2016 averaged 31 nominations and 21 promotions; the first seven months of 2017 averaged 41 nominations and 29 promotions -- almost replacement rate for TFA usage. We only promoted more than one FA a day in one month: March, when there were 47 nominations, and 34 promotions.

FAC has also sped up, which has long been a goal; it's not fast yet, but it's moving in the right direction. From August 2016 to January 2017, the average time to promote was 51 days; from February to July 2017, the average was 33 days, which is a huge improvement. I'd like to think this is because we're all reviewing more than we used to. Archiving hasn't changed much in that time -- 36 days for the first half of the past year, and 38 days for the second half.

I'll work on putting together an updated version of the big table of nominators I did a few months ago, and will post here again if I can get that done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike Christie, I was opposed to the idea of shaming people into reviewing when it was raised and at the moment am in a situation where shaming is harmful. When I logged in to peek at my watchlist this morning, I noticed your table with my name at the bottom. Will you please remove it? I'm not at the moment active. If that means the coords need to remove my name from a recently promoted article (which I was unable to help get through FAC), that's fine with me. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, done; but just so you're aware, this was a list of people with a very high number of reviews, not a list of people who didn't do enough reviews. The inclusion of your name (and all the names on the list) was intended as congratulations and a public thank you for your reviews. There's no implied criticism or shaming here at all -- sorry if that's not clear. There are a great many more reviewer names below yours on the full table; I just arbitrarily cut it off at ten reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that, Victoria; get well soon. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, Where / how did you get the number of nominations, and is there anywhere that the archived nominations are listed? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter: I manually record every nomination and reviewer at the end of each month in Excel, and load the data into a local SQL database. (I'm hoping to making this accessible on the toolserver at some point.) The summarized results are available at User:Mike Christie/Sandbox9, but I think for your purposes this may be what you're looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike, The data in your sandbox 9 may have what I need. Thanks for the link. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

It's been suggested that a source review and review for close paraphrasing be requested for this article. All the best. TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Added to the list of requests at the top of this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes. Obviously that was a test to see if... things. You passed. Congratulations. TimothyJosephWood 22:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Government report about a historical event is primary source?

Many Wikipedians err by shouting "Primary source"! and deleting. WP:NOR actually allows quite a bit of primary source use. Having sad that, I have a question: Is a government report about a major historical event, made a year or so after that event, automatically a primary source? I ask because I have at least 106 cites solely to such a source (and a very large number of cites that are backed up by secondary sources. I don't want to waste days or weeks adding secondary sources to those 106 if I don't need to. [Many and probably almost all of the events thus cited fit under the WP:NOR description of not being an interpretation of events, but instead "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you please identify the article and source are you referring to? The context is likely to be helpful in informing editors' responses. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the rather eccentric definitions at the guideline, this seems clearly a secondary source. Many people don't I think realize how our definitions differ from those in general use outside WP. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this relates to the Bengal famine article. British Raj sources are, by long-standing consensus, unreliable for pretty much everything. Their census data was unreliable, they couldn't identify communities properly, they were imbued with notions of scientific racism, their own sources were a very select group of elite people, their worldview was, well, weird, etc. Far better to use sources that accord with WP:HISTRS. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

much better to use secondary sources that are of recent date than an older source, whether it's primary or not. If there are recent secondary sources but the article uses older primary sources, at FAC I'd be concerned that the article wasn't well researched...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yeppers it's the British Raj report about the Bengal Famine of 1943. And yeppers it (according to some) is unreliable to the extent that it (allegedly, by design) blames the provincial Bengal government for the horrific famine but leaves the Raj itself more or less unblamed. And ditto unreliable on other statistics (that unreliability is specifically addressed). But it is reliable in many many many other details about the economic milieu and background, timing of events, etc etc etc. And if you've taken a look at the article (which has had some recently added text that needs to be deleted, but I have no power to do so), it has many many many many other secondary sources. But as I said there are at least 106 assertions (many of them background info) which are cited solely to the Raj's report.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am confused. If you do not have a more recent secondary source then how do you know the government report is ok? And if you do have a secondary source then why do you want to use the government report? I can see that the report might, for example, add some colour to the article but, really, adding colour is not the sort of thing a dispassionate encyclopaedia should be doing, surely? Tbh, I wouldn't even trust it for timing of events.- Sitush (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• It seems you haven't read the article. [I wish I could point out the recent additions you can safely skip... or you can check the history for my original version]. There are hundreds and hundreds of other facts cited either to other secondary sources or to the Raj's report plus other sources. Whenever I used the Raj's report alone, as far as I can recall, it was only for non-controversial assertions... I have little desire to spend weeks backing up 106+ non-controversial assertions with secondary sources.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have no desire to read the article in any form, Lingzhi. I am not getting drawn into the snippy, long-running argument which, it seems, you are now raising here in a roundabout way. It's fine if you don't want to dig up secondary sources; that just means the info probably would not be included at present. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• What does "not be included at present" mean? Please explain, seriously... And the reason I have no desire to look up 106+ OTHER secondary sources is because I have no desire to edit Wikipedia whatsoever, period, in any article, at any time, ever. I am done. Well almost done. I am determined to wade my way through all this... unfair criticism... and make that damn article a FAC. And then goodbye. But until them, I need to resolve every question, fair or not.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• If there is no reliable secondary source, and bearing in mind the general unreliability of Raj era sources, the default would be not to include information gleaned solely from the report. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(←) Right out of hand? With exactly zero attempt to engage you brain? That seems..... "arbitrary" would be a very nice word.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you want to insult me then I'll just walk away. I suspect I know far more about sources for Indic matters, and especially regarding the Raj era, than you ever will but you're entitled to dismiss my thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

My point is, a proper approach would be to examine each assertion one by one. If its veracity is questionable, question it. If not, don't. But say "poop" on a source which every major article on the topic cites very very extensively is perhaps not the appropriate approach.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You asked a question in the most vague terms. People answered it. Now you move the goalposts. I'm not interested in playing games. If the secondary source covers the point, use that; if it doesn't cover the point, we are not qualified to assess its reliability. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec)I sense you're quitting the thread, which is fine. But I hope you'll think back and realize that you actually moved the goalposts. I asked, "Is it primary?" Others said "Nope!". But then you said, "Doesn't matter if it's primary or not, it's unreliable, every assertion, top-to-bottom." You're the one who moved from "primary versus secondary" to "reliable versus unreliable". And "we are not qualified" is an odd tactic from one who just cited his knowedge. My point is this: It would clearly be very unfair to say "It's got many cites from Raj report -- OPPOSE" in the future FAC; it would be fair to examine each.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi, could you say which report you're referring to? As you've described it, it's a primary source. That doesn't mean you can't use it. Primary sources are often the best sources. The question is whether it's an appropriate and reliable primary source. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source unless the specific point is cited without equivocation in a policy-compliant secondary source. Look, plenty of secondary sources use things such as the Raj census reports and the Mahabharata even though they are known to be unreliable. If the secondary is an academic, we trust their judgement in cherry-picking and we scour their entire text to ensure that there are no provisos attached; for any other Raj-related secondary citing (eg: newspaper), we forget it. You will usually find that academic secondaries do in fact qualify their use somewhere or another (well, the non-Indian ones do; the Indian academics quite often have a bit of a problem for socio-political reasons I won't bore you with but, for example, see NCERT controversy). Census of India prior to independence, James Tod and H. H. Risley should give you a sense of the problems and why this is necessary.

Lingzhi has mis-stated my position here, as they have been mis-stating the position of others regarding the article in question. I never said "it's unreliable, every assertion, top-to-bottom". But Lingzhi, who has got themselves in a real twist about the article, is increasingly tending to see things relating to it as a battle. It isn't a good way to deal with it, especially when you know you are conversing with people who are steeped in the general subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the one exception that always applies is the "According to X, ..." formulation, which allows us to escape our own voice. That's fine for occasional use but somewhere we do still have to make it clear in the article text that there are huge problems inherent in quoting such things. - Sitush (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've been out of town. All I know is this: everyone (meaning Sen and other domain experts, Indian and non-Indian) cites the Famine Commission Report, and no one hedges except by stating that the report gives the Raj itself the kid-glove treatment when it comes to blame. Rice production figures (from whatever source) are always and everywhere described as unreliable, mainly because they were unreliable. The Famine Commission Report's info is treated as reliable by everyone in all of the citations I remember. I could generate statistics listing authors and the number of times they cite it, etc... As for Sitush saying I am exaggerating what he or she said (I am a "he" not a "they"), Situush said above "the default would be not to include information gleaned solely from the report", which I took t mean "everything in that report is dubious". A natural misunderstanding of Sitush's words; a mischaracterization of the Report..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for August

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of August (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 10 reviews: Casliber, Dank.
• 8 reviews: Finetooth
• 7 reviews: Wehwalt
• 6 reviews: Aoba47
• 5 reviews: Jimfbleak
• 4 reviews: Ceranthor, FunkMonk, Gertanis

Eight reviewers did three reviews; seventeen did two reviews; thirty-three reviewers did one review. 68 editors provided a total of 153 reviews.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews

• 20 reviews: Ealdgyth.
• 11 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 9 reviews: Adityavagarwal
• 6 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus
• 5 reviews: Wehwalt
• 2 reviews: Ceranthor, Homeostasis07, Tintor2

21 editors provided a total of 70 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list, and will also give one to Wehwalt, who didn't quite make the top three on either list, but did 12 reviews in total -- more than anyone except Ealdgyth. Thanks to all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Please see WT:TFA#Reruns. - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Delayed comments

I'm concerned about the delay that can occur between the entering of comments on an individual FAC page, and the appearance of these comments on the main WP:FAC page. I think I know why this happens, but the situation is unsatisfactory. At present, the main FAC page doesn't reliably record the up-to-date state of individual nominations – I recently spent a lot of time doing a source review which looked to be necessary, only to find that it had already been done by someone else, though it had not yet appeared. Like many others I like to scroll down WP:FAC to see what needs attention, but this becomes tiresome and difficult if one has to check into each individual page as well. Surely the problem is fixable in some way? Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I recommend going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and clicking on "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page". It will add a tab with an asterisk that you can click to "purge", which updates all transclusions. - Dank (push to talk) 10:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments for Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)

Could I please get some additional comments on my current FAC? It's been a few days since the last comment, and I don't want it to get stalled like the first one. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Cite Q

There is a deletion discussion for {{Cite_Q}} which editors who watch this page may be interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for September

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of September (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 14 reviews: Dank.
• 9 reviews: Wehwalt
• 8 reviews: Brianboulton, Casliber
• 7 reviews: J Milburn, Finetooth
• 6 reviews: Aoba47
• 5 reviews: Ceoil, Vanamonde93
• 4 reviews: Pbsouthwood, Edwininlondon, Gertanis, Ian Rose, SchroCat

Seven reviewers did three reviews; eleven did two reviews; thirty-five reviewers did one review. 67 editors provided a total of 170 reviews.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews

• 15 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 9 reviews: Ealdgyth.
• 7 reviews: Brianboulton, Adityavagarwal
• 4 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus
• 2 reviews: Sarastro1, DrKay, Moisejp, Pbsouthwood, Casliber, Wehwalt

23 editors provided a total of 66 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources reviews, video game articles

I've been working through the FAC list to bring source reviews up to date, but I can't do video game articles. Someone with better knowledge of this area than I have is required. Perhaps the nominators of such articles could help each other? Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

How are displayed supports counted?

I just noticed my last nomination, Rodrigues rail[1], is listed here as having 3 supports, though it only had 2. Is this because Adityavagarwal listed a support twice? In that case, there are still only two, so I'm wondering whether supports are listed there automatically or manually? FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are using the Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer tool, then it is automatic and based on (simplifying slightly here) the number of bolded instances of the word "support" in the text. --RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, seems like that could be making trouble then... FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Context in Ship Articles

I have recently commented on an FAC for SMS Brandenburg and am genuinely baffled by the response to my concerns.

In this particular instance, I observed that the article on Brandenburg lacks any sort of background to the ship’s construction. Essentially, there is no information about how or why Germany chose to build this ship – the first modern battleship it ever constructed (it's worth noting that the ship was part of a rapid expansion of the German Imperial Navy that ultimately precipitated an arms race with Britain). The nominator, Parsecboy, acknowledges this lack of information, but believes that it does not belong in this article; “That kind of background information is better suited to the Brandenburg-class battleship article - in general, class articles should cover the design history, strategic rationale, etc. while individual ship articles should focus on the service history.” The rationale for the article being structured in this way is an agreement “between a couple of other editors and I, [who have] written around 150 FAs based on this format over the last 8 or 10 years”. This has then been sanctioned by FA reviewers who have “participated in those 150 or so FACs” and not questioned it.

Personally, I fundamentally disagree that pertinent background information should be left out of articles at FA level (even a GA to be honest). Criteria 1B clearly states that an FA should be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Criteria 4 also states that that articles should follow Summary Style. WP:SS is clear that “Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit” and that articles linking to other articles contain “enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles.” In this case the ship article links to the class article and should contain a summary of it.

This has been rejected by Parsecboy as “a little absurd” and that “since one must draw the line somewhere, I and others have chosen to draw it where we have.” This line involves summarising the particulars of the ship class (tonnage, dimensions, firepower etc…), but nothing else (Parescboy acknowledges that design history and strategic rationale would go in a class article, but does not believe that information should be summarised in the ship article). This would appear to be in complete opposition to the FA criteria outlined above.

This informal agreement between editors concerns me. Parsecboy believes the fact that this issue has not come up in previous FACs indicates a broad consensus, but it appears that this format for warship articles has not been written down, presented to the community or actually agreed as a model for article structure or FA criteria anywhere. It surprises me that important contextual information can be deliberately left out of an article based on this model, which essentially creates a situation where the context required by 2b is satisfied by another article that may not have even been written.

It is true that there are a great many warship FAs and that most do follow this model. However, I don’t see that as a reason to continue this format without question. At the moment, many of these warship FAs are little more than a summary of the ship’s particulars and a service history. FA criteria evolve (at this very moment the FA for Western Front is up for review with the observation that it’s 11 years old and falls short of modern FA standards) and to my mind a ten year old informal consensus that dictates the quality of FAs deserves review.

I’d like to add that I am not deliberately being pedantic, nor do I wish to question the integrity of anyone involved in these FAs. I’ve read and enjoyed many articles by the editors who create these articles and I do not believe anything malicious or ill intended is going on. However, I do think a certain complacency may have crept into warship articles at FAC and that they are not meeting agreed FA standards. Regards, Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Another argument is that singular ship classes (classes of ships with only one ship) have all that info included in the one page. Unless the counter argument is that there should now be class pages for single ship classes so all the design stuff can go on that page, you now have contradictory instructions for different ships; those in a multi-ship class and those of singular design. Llammakey (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, for unique ships, those articles will necessarily fulfill the roles of class and ship articles (since there was no class to begin with), so it's not at all contradictory to say that background and most technical information should be confined to class articles where there was a class, and included in the ship article when there is no class. Though there are rare examples where there are class articles for unique ships - the Admiral-class battlecruiser and HMS Hood pair comes to mind. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point, I'm just saying that if you promoted a single class ship article to FA then different rules apply than those ship articles with a ship class. So now there are two types of articles about single ships at FA, and therefore the instructions become contradictory on what is required. The rules need to be codified. Llammakey (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And yes, the WP:SHIPMOS is very underdeveloped - that's part of the issue here (not to mention these unrelated but recent issues). It might be time to sit down and hammer out the guidelines a bit more. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources on warships generally discuss the context for the construction of vessels in relation to the class as warships are almost always purchased in batches and designed to meet a common set of requirements. Covering the context again in the article on each ship in the class would be over-kill, and not helpful for readers - it would also likely lead to them thinking that the ships were more important individually than they actually were. There are exceptions to this, but it's generally in unusual circumstances - for instance, HMAS Australia (1911) was a stock-standard member of her class, but was purchased to meet unique Australian needs, and her sister ship HMS New Zealand (1911) had a similar history. In contrast, the only fully 'British' ship of this class, HMS Indefatigable (1909) was just another battlecruiser built during a period when the Royal Navy was acquiring relatively large numbers of such ships. The sheer number of ships here is also significant - as the Order of battle at Jutland article sets out, Britain and Germany were using battleships by the dozen in this period, with few having a particularly different background. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I see your point Nick, but it doesn't change the fact that WP:SS requires a summary of the class article, and the class background is the context required by FA criteria. I'm not expecting the entire background history of the class to be copied verbatim into individual ship articles, just a summary. I fail to see how that can be unhelpful to readers. Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Frequently, the information available is so scant that there is no way to summarize it without either copying verbatim (and probably unbalancing the article in the process) or reducing the amount of information to the point of it being useless to readers. And even when there is that kind of material available, there's generally no way to incorporate what you asked for at the FAC without a ton of additional context - most readers know next to nothing about warships in general, let alone a specific type of ship at a specific time in history. And there's no way to reduce the amount of information necessary to unpack everything short of forcing the reader to click on a bunch of links, and if we're doing that, how is that any better than simply sending them to the class article? A case in point: if we're going to talk about a German dreadnought, is it sufficient to simply state that it was ordered as part of the Anglo-German naval arms race? Or should we unpack Tirpitz's (who is he?) strategic thinking (which arguably had a major impact on how the given dreadnought was design)? What about Wilhelm's role in naval appropriations? Or the German Navy League? Those affected how willing the Reichstag was to appropriate funding to the construction of specific ships. How about German operational doctrine? The list could go on and on, but as I said at the FAC, one must draw the line somewhere, and I see no reason why the place I and others have chosen to draw it is fundamentally wrong.

The central question here is how much the child article should summarize the parent. Would the article on Eastern Front (World War II) be expected to include a summary of everything that happened in the Western Front (or in the Pacific Theater) during WWII? Would the article on the Battle of Stalingrad be expected to include a fairly hefty summary of Operation Barbarossa, since that accounts for a solid third of its parent article? Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand your examples. Battle of Stalingrad does contain a background section that establishes the context of the battle within the Eastern Front. Looking at FA battles, every single one I've just randomly looked at contains a background section that establishes the context that the particular battle was fought it. Battles fought in Normandy contain a brief summary of the preceding actions at Normandy that relate to that battle, with links to the wider campaign as necessary. This sets the scene, rather than simply leaping into the opening day of the battle. I would not expect the Eastern Front article to include a summary of the Western Front any more than it already does and in any case I would not expect a full summary of the Second World War either, that is far too much detail for a summary.

Many of the FA ship articles, Brandenburg included, contain absolutely no background information at all; they leap straight into the construction with no context. Taking the ship article alone, which is how the article should be considered (Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit) that means it fails both WP:SS and criteria 2b. As you say, it does come down to how much information should be summarised from the class article, but I cannot accept it should be zero. Significant factors, like Kaiser Wilhelm's desire to expand the navy when he came to power only two years earlier, and the appointment of Monts, both of which had a direct bearing on the construction of these ships, belong in there. It doesn't need to be a complicated overview of German naval policy, but it should link to the relevant articles covering that in a well written summary paragraph or two. It doesn't have to be, nor should it be, hefty. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - those examples contain a summary of the parent article, up to a point. The background section of the Eastern Front article summarizes part of the WWII article, not the entire thing. So we are talking about places to draw the line, not about whether there should be a line at all. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you're equating my desire to see a summary of information (contained within the ship class article) in the ship article, to having a summary of WW2 in any article about a battle in that war? That's not what I'm suggesting at all. Wkikpedia does not advocate summarising evey single wikilink contained in an article. WW2 is linked in all of the articles about battles that occurred during the war, as it should be, but nowhere in those articles is there a hatnote saying "for more information see WW2". There are however, hatnotes to relevant campaigns (such as Normandy), followed by a summary of aspects of that campaign relevant to the article/battle. Within the ship articles, there is a hatnote to the class article, but only an incredibly selective summary of the ship particulars and nothing else. Crucially, all the examples I have given give a background summary, to establish context. The equivalent in the battle articles of what I see in the ship articles would be to hatnote to a campaign (Normandy again) and then a summary consisting of only the Order of Battle and nothing else. Once again, I'm not expecting much more than a paragraph. I'm flabbergasted that it's such a big deal. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, your argument appears to be that all of the class article should be summarized in the ship article. By extension of that logic, all of the World War II article should be summarized in the Eastern Front (World War II) article, which should in turn be summarized in the Battle of Stalingrad article. There is a difference between providing background on the military situation in the southern Soviet Union in late 1942, and summarizing the entire war on the Eastern Front up to that point. Can you explain why you think it's reasonable to summarize only part of the parent article in the WWII/Eastern Front/Stalingrad example but not in a ship class/individual ship article?

The reason why this is such a big deal is, as I have said a few times now, the type of information you're asking for simply isn't available for many ships, particularly those built before the 20th century, and particularly those not built in Britain or the United States. If our articles are meant to summarize the information available in reliable, secondary sources, I don't understand how we can place, as a minimum requirement to FA status, material that is not covered in reliable, secondary sources. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I really have already answered your first paragraph in my previous answer and it does not, by extension, imply that WW2 should be explained in every WW2 article. Pertinent information that provides context is required per FA criteria 1b. In response to your second point, I have said nothing to imply your concern. If information is not available, of course it can not go into the article and nor should it prevent it from becoming an FA. More to the point, it won't be in the class article either, and so cannot be summarised in the ship article. However, if it is in the class article, then it can be easily summarised in the ship one, just as the ship's careers are summarised in the class article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me try again: if it's acceptable that only part of the WWII article is summarized in the Eastern Front article, why are you objecting to the idea that only part of the class article should be summarized in the ship article? Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to my previous responses and at the risk of repeating myself, it isn't necessary to cover that much detail. The article already summarises events that occurred prior to Barbarossa that are pertinent, including much more than just WW2. It is unnecessary to include detail that does not add context (such as an outline of the entirety of WW2). Context is what is required in a summary style, per WP:SS ("enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader"). The problem here is that there is currently zero context of any sort in many of the ship articles. This whole line of comparison is invalid anyway - the Eastern Front article has not reached GA, much less FA, and therefore has not been compared to the same standards as the ship articles discussed here. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

But that's the issue - the amount of material necessary to put something into context is entirely subjective. I don't see the benefit to adding a couple of sentences without the context necessary to explain why those sentences are important. How does adding a line along the lines of "Ship X was designed by Redlinked Ship-constructor in 18XX" put the ship in context any more than the basic construction dates? How does something along the lines of "Kaiser Bill wanted to expand Germany's prestige abroad, and sought a fleet capable of projecting power overseas" add something useful to the average reader? What does that actually mean? And does simplifying the situation that much really, accurately explain the situation in Germany in the 1880s and 1890s? We can go on and on.

As for the comparison, the articles themselves are irrelevant - we're talking concepts, not the current state of the articles in question. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And yes, the WP:SHIPMOS is very underdeveloped- and reading, it is entirely devoted to military ships! Even publishing the informal agreement on a military ships MOS would be a start. My interest is narrow and limited and all the ships carry canvas- what sections do I need? Rig, ownership, cargoes, construction, race results? Please can we start the discussion. ClemRutter (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that we can define a demarcation between content in the article for a class of ship, and the articles for individual members that class. I think that the class article should be comprehensive on design features, while the individual articles need not be comprehensive. For example, compare the design section for Comus-class corvettes with that for a member of that class, HMS Calliope, which has a summary and a link to the class article. (The FAC for Calliope also addressed the issue.) Ultimately the matter is a judgment call, and I agree with how Parsecboy handled it. Kablammo (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectably, although you don't feel that individual articles need to be comprehensive, FA criteria states exactly the opposite. Criteria 1b. This is the point I'm trying to make. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the definition of "comprehensive" we're using here? One could interpret your argument to mean that all of the material in the class article should be duplicated in the ship article, and vice versa. If that's not the case, then the articles obviously aren't individually comprehensive, in which case, again, we are back to splitting hairs. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comprehensive is defined in the FA criteria. I don't anywhere suggest duplication of content, only summarising content per WP:SS. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but as we've agreed above, only some material in parent articles needs to be summarized. The central problem here is, there is no objective rule about where the line is drawn. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that ship's careers are frequently summarised in the class articles. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as they should. Class and ship articles act as mirror images; class articles focus on the history and characteristics of the class, and ship articles focus on the specific ship. Parsecboy (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ranger Steve, take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Speedy (1782)/archive1, where SandyGeorgia, then the FAC delegate, appeared to approve of handling the design details in an article for a class of ship. Kablammo (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but have a look at the class article. It's tiny and summarised in the ship article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The article for the Iowa-class battleships has over 5,000 words on the background and design of the class (and that does not include postwar changes). Is all of that to be included on the article for each member of the class? Kablammo (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth should it be? A simple summary paragraph would suffice, per WP:SS. Again, I do not anywhere advocate copying, only summarising. Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we are speaking past each other; if so, my apologies. I agree that the ship articles should have a summary and cross-reference to the applicable sections of a fully-developed article on the class. If you agree, I will steal a phrase I once heard: "I'm in violent agreement with you." Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we were. I'm not expecting War and Peace, nor does FAC require that. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Covering the context again in the article on each ship in the class would be over-kill, and not helpful for readers" I disagree, having reviewed quite a few battleship articles by now, but having little knowledge about them in general. You can't expect that most casual readers who go to read about a specific ship has also read about whatever class it belongs to. I agree that for comprehensiveness, such background info should also be included in the article about specific ships, at least in summarised form. Ship-articles are generally written in a very esoteric tone, which is somehow accepted, while articles about scientific subjects, such as animals, usually have reviewers ask for every single technical term to be explained for layreaders. By comparison, ship-articles seem to get a free pass when it comes to jargon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a reason why class articles should include technical details, while articles of individual ships should tell the story of the ship in a manner accessible to a general audience. Kablammo (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the latter point? In that case, it is besides the point, because articles about individual ships are just as jargony as those about classes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, that's why ship articles tend to have so many links. :-) Parsec's pretty good at that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

So do for example palaeontology articles, but reviewers always demand in-text explanation of terms there anyway, per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links".[2] Not taking a swipe at Parsecboy in any case, this is about ship article sin general. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hey Ranger Steve, it's been far too long since I've seen your name! I hope everything's going well in RL and such. :-) I'm happy to see a discussion like this, as it's always good to think about how we can best serve our readers. My view, as a ship editor like Parsecboy, is that a sentence or two of background should be sufficient for the majority of individual ship articles. Moreover, we give a lot of leeway to article writers, and to my knowledge this is the first time I've seen this brought up in the ten-ish years since OMT started rolling. If I may propose a compromise, we could make it more clear where readers can go for more detailed historical background by making a custom {{main}} template, eg "For more details on why this ship was constructed, see ..." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ed, yes it's been a while! RL is good - suffice to say I spend my working time writing military history in the real world, which doesn't leave much time to do it on Wiki anymore :-).

I see where you're going with your suggestion, but it doesn't change the simple fact that context in the article is a requirement at FAC and is wholly lacking from a good many articles. If your suggestion is to make that context available via another article, that still fails basic Wiki policy. It would also create the odd situation where an article's FA quality is dependent on that of another article. I'm not bringing this up just because I'd like to see a background section - I feel that many of these articles are failing basic FA criteria by not including some basic historical context.

In response to Parsecboy's comments above (I'll answer here to try and centralise things), it comes down to context again and I simply can't agree with his comments ("How does adding a line along the lines of "Ship X was designed by Redlinked Ship-constructor in 18XX" put the ship in context any more than the basic construction dates? How does something along the lines of "Kaiser Bill wanted to expand Germany's prestige abroad, and sought a fleet capable of projecting power overseas" add something useful to the average reader?"). Of course it adds something - it gives actual context to the statements being made. Without your examples, there is no context at all, which is the situation that has brought us here. For example: "HMS Warrior was launched in 1860." No context. "HMS Warrior was launched in 1860 in response to France's newly launched Gloire, the world's first ocean going ironclad warship." Context, an explanation for the existence of this vessel. Of course it adds something useful to the reader, who can now follow links to those articles to find out more. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with Ranger Steve that SMS Brandenburg could use a little more background, mainly why did they want to build a "pre-dreadnought as opposed to "coastal defense, I fully disagree that it is not a stand alone article. The article is about the ship and its history, not all the nuances that lead up to its design and reasoning for being built, the "Class" article should take care of that. Ship articles are inherently different from other types of article on Wikipedia, look at Enola Gay, an article about a specific B-29, it doesn't go into all the details of the B-29 and how it was built and why it was built it does go into some detail of how it was different than the average B-29, which is what a ship article should do, details that set a ship apart from other ships of the same class, but not a complete history of the class. I usually don't see eye to eye with Parsecboy, but on this one I totally agree that ship articles equal ship details and history, while ship class articles equal background of class, designs detail of specs and reason(s) for being, and a brief on the ships in the class. I don't like the way HMS Warrior (1860) is written, as a reader I want to know about the ship and what she did, not what guns she was going to have and that they copied the hull from some other ship but made it out of iron, I can find out all of that at the Warrior-class ironclad article, which isn't even linked under the "Design and description" header.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Gosh. I can see there's a great deal of precedent, and feeling, here. Clearly there's no good repeating large amounts of class material in every member-of-class article (this goes far wider than ships, or even manmade objects: it applies to biology articles too, for instance). But on the other hand, every article is to a degree stand-alone - the reader on their mobile wants a comprehensible piece without following links. So we need a sensible balance: a few words of context (there was an arms race with France), and links to the class and history articles. A compromise here should not be difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Very much agreed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Then we're in more agreement than you think Pennsy. The context I'd expect (and is required), is exactly what you suggest. I (and the FA criteria), do not require a "complete history of the class", only a summary to establish context. I've said this over and over again now - a simple summary is all that's required. As for your idea of how ship articles should be structured, noted, but it's not written down anywhere and has never been discussed. That's exactly why we're here. Chiswick is absolutely correct that a compromise should not be hard to reach - I'd suggest a short paragraph of a few sentences on average, more if the article warrants it and less if that sort of information isn't available. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For example, this is what I would expect to see at the start of the Design section in SMS Brandenburg (NB. This is crude text but covers the amount of background context I would expect).

After the unification of Germany in 1871, the new Imperial Navy became largely focussed towards coastal defence, facing a perceived threat from French or Russian attacks on the German coast. The fleet expanded in the 1880s, largely with the addition of torpedo boats which appeared to promise a cheap means of equalising naval power against much larger warships.

In 1888 Kaiser Wilhelm II became the Emperor of Germany. Wilhelm had a strong desire for a large and modern navy that could become comparable to Britain’s Royal Navy and within three weeks of his accession to the throne had appointed a new Naval Officer; Admiral Alexander von Monts. In less than six months, Monts designed a brand new class of modern battleship, the first such vessels for the German fleet. The Reichstag approved funding for four of the new class to be built.

(referenced to: Dreadnought by Massie and; The Price of Admiralty by Keegan)

I think you're right, in my opinion, HMS Warrior is too much, SMS Brandenburg is not enough. We need a definitive MOS:Ships so articles will have a better basis of what's expected and needed for the different types of articles.Pennsy22 (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Warrior may be a slightly unusual case as there's so much literature on it - quite a lot of books specifically about that ship and not the class. So per 1c, a bit more detail may be warranted. But anyhow, in the main most ship's have a more modest amount of literature in comparison. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't agree that this is useful, but I see consensus seems to be forming that some background is needed. How do we feel about this? Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Anybody have an opinion on this? Ranger Steve hasn't edited in over a week, but I'd like to get some kind of consensus here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have read through, and would agree that there is a consensus that some background is both desirable and in terms of the FA criteria, also necessary. The amount of background should be appropriate to the subject and is obviously limited by what is available, but should put the subject into context for the reader without having to refer to other articles. There is a large amount of variation possible, and I would suggest that the appropriate amount of background will have to be established on a case by case basis. This is one of the functions of review, as the outsider may be in the best position to see the picture from the reader's perspective. When there is disagreement, further opinions should be requested. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, been away for a while. This was exactly what I was thinking and I believe it provides a suitable context to the ship's construction without unnecessary detail or adding more than a paragraph to the article. I've made a slight change in order to incorporate the details that opened the Construction section, but otherwise I think it's a great improvement. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, we all get busy. Thanks, your changes seem fine to me. I'll go ahead and add the same material to the other ships in the class as a start. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I find it ironic as hell that Pennsy22 brought up my article on HMS Warrior as it had a very contentious FAC four(!) years ago between RangerSteve and myself regarding this very issue. Looking it over now, I'd definitely trim some of the technical details that I regarded so fondly back then as I as well as some of the background material as better suited for the class article, which, BTW, is linked in the lede so no explicit link in the design/background section is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Housekeeping

When closing FACs that are ready for promotion, both Ian and I usually do a last few checks. It might speed the process up a little if other reviewers did a check for these issues, which are not major and do not involve delaying promotion. Namely, these are: checking for duplinks, checking for alt text (some image reviewers check for this, others don't. It isn't an explicit requirement, but perhaps should be), checking for disambiguation links, and checking external links (some reviewers do this as part of the source review). Apart from the duplinks (for which this tool does the job nicely), all these checks can be done by using the links in the box on the right hand side of every FAC page. If anyone does check an article for these, it would be good if they could indicate this on the FAC page; that way it means that nobody is duplicating what someone else has already done. (I'm not sure if I've missed anything here.)

I also notice that there is an increasing habit for nominators to give every reviewer on their FAC their own section with a level 4 heading; unless the comments of that reviewer are long enough to make editing the page a nuisance, I think this is best avoided where possible as it results in a cumbersomely long table of contents on the review page, and adds very little to the readability of the review page. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Specifically on the table of contents point: isn't there a magic word to suppress a TOC? I personally have found it easier to edit FACs when they are subsectioned. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I also find it easier to respond when there are sections. Sarastro, re: alt text, that isn't part of WP:FACR. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If I'm in a minority on sections, it's fine. No, alt text isn't an explicit FA requirement, as I noted. However, as I usually say when I mention it, while we can't insist on its inclusion, I think we should encourage best practice at FA level, and I think alt text qualifies as good practice as the very least. Several reviewers mention it regularly, and I have never seen an editor refuse to include it; nor is there a good reason not to do so. However, this is rather moving away from the point I wanted to make; I can remove the request to check for alt text if it is going to cause problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, if you like to use the table of contents at WP:FAC, and if that's harder to do now because it's very long, {{TOC limit|3}} will disable the display of level 4 subheadings in the TOC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, we're already using TOC limit. Nevermind. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro, there were lots of objections when someone tried to add alt text to the FACR years ago, and complaints at Wikimania from people who use screen readers that we were adding too many words and that it was a nuisance. Editors won't normally refuse to add it at FAC, because they just want to get through the process, but I wonder whether it's fair to ask them. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a long archive of alt text discussions which may be of interest. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Also prefer subsections. TOC limit seems to do the job just fine. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mostly absent from FAC for about four years, I'm just catching up with some of the changes here. Alt text was required at FAC back then, but I see (after a few nudges) that is isn't now. I just read through as much as I could stand of the debate Nikkimaria linked to, and that gives me a general grasp of the alt-text issues. For the nonce, I'm planning on noting the absence of alt text by saying "Concise alt text would be nice" and letting it go at that unless the nominator asks for help with the alt text. I'll check for duplinks, alt text, dab links, and external links and add my findings to a list of General issues for any article that I comment on. I've no strong opinion about the level 4 headings; I'll stop using them. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I've quickly changed my mind about the level 4 question. The TOC link The subhead eliminates a lot of scrolling through others' comments to find my own. Also, I've been using the Ucucha duplinks checker. How do I add the Evan37? My fumbling attempts to figure this out do not seem to have worked. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: for those worried about the TOC, this script may be very useful to you. :-) Add importScript('User:Gary King/nominations viewer.js'); // [[Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer]] to your /vector.js page, then go to WP:FAC and see what's changed! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. It is indeed useful. I like it. Finetooth (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have one section at the top for reviewers making relatively brief comments and then reviewers with more extensive comments can create subsections below? Lots of headers for relatively short reviews just creates clutter, but with several reviewers offering loner lists of comments, it can sometimes be difficult to see what's been addressed and what hasn't, or to find one particular comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That could work. I like to keep all my comments in one level 4 section, so I know that I have looked at all the responses. If I am only making one comment it is unnecessary. Keeping one-liners together at the top seems a workable solution. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a lot easier for the nominator if new comments come at the bottom. Occasionally someone will post a short note at the bottom of a level-4 section without making a fresh section, which is a bit clumsy but I think better than having them go up to the top. And you know not everyone would do it that way, so it would be confusing. At least right now we consistently have new reviewers at the end, and new comments following each reviewer's old comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point. As you say, the problem with the current system is that you often get a new comment, sometimes quite a brief one ("images are appropriately licenced", for example), under the same level 4 heading as someone's extensive bulleted list of prose flaws, which as you say is clumsy and not always entirely clear. The only other solution I can think of is collapsing the lists of prose flaws once they've been addressed like they do at FLC, but we haven't been ken on that here in the past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Once upon a time, reviewers were encouraged to move the extensive discussion of comments to the talk page of the FAC review page and link to them from the review. One of the concerns is that once FAC review pages are archived, they are transcluded to a page for the entire month. If a reviews start using templates within the individual review pages, then the archive pages will reach the template transclusion limits. That's why we are discouraged from using {{done}} or the templates to collapse sections of prose. By appropriately moving/linking the comments to the talk page, you get the same benefit of collapsing without the technical issues. Imzadi 1979 → 13:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Image and source reviews instructions suggestion

It's long been the unspoken rule that the subpage for requesting image and source reviews (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests) should be used when a nomination is getting close to promotion on supports, and is missing either a source review or image review or both. Occasionally someone will post a request for an article much earlier in the process. I can't blame them, because there are no instructions, but I think it's better to keep the request page down to just the articles that really need it -- often an article will attract an image or source review anyway, and the request page is very helpful to nominations that have stalled near promotion.

I suggest adding "Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted at least two supports. Requests for nominations with less than two supports can be removed by any editor." to the top of the subpage. Any objections? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea, and might take some of the pressure of rather limited resources. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tks guys. I don't like to complicate a straightforward suggestion but I guess the caveat here is that we try not to focus simply on numbers of supports when determining consensus (or in this case near-consensus) to promote, but rather on the comprehensiveness of the reviews that result in support (as opposed to drive-bys). So while I think a note is a good idea I wonder if the wording could better reflect the FAC instructions -- which never mention numbers of supports -- or just say the article needs to be close to promotion per the guidelines in the FAC instructions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That could work, but it does occur to me that the editors likely to add an early nomination to the page won't be familiar with FAC and won't know what "close to promotion" looks like. Still, they should know it doesn't mean "just nominated". What wording do you think would be best? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, fair point -- what about something along the lines of "Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted several reviews and declarations of support -- premature requests can be removed by any editor"? To me (albeit an old hand) this gives a feel for what we want without being overly specific. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, done. I removed a couple of requests; one was premature, the other had been completed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for October

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of October (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 12 reviews: Dank
• 10 reviews: Casliber, Finetooth
• 7 reviews: HJ Mitchell
• 6 reviews: Aoba47, Hawkeye7
• 5 reviews: FunkMonk, Peacemaker67, Brianboulton, Wehwalt
• 4 reviews: John, RL0919

Eight reviewers did three reviews; eleven did two reviews; fifty-three reviewers did one review. 84 editors provided a total of 182 reviews.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews

• 25 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 22 reviews: Brianboulton
• 6 reviews: Adityavagarwal
• 5 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus
• 3 reviews: Moisejp, Ealdgyth, Hawkeye7
• 2 reviews: Casliber, Jaguar, Peacemaker67

Eleven editors did one review. 21 editors provided a total of 84 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Thanks to all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ODNB access

I find I can now access ODNB entries without using my library code or other entry particulars. Are other users finding the same? I may have missed some announcement or other, but if ODNB have indeed opened themselves up to everyone, ought we to start deleting those tiresome (subscription required) tags? Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m still getting prompted to login to see articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still getting them, too. (I'd be happy to see all the copy/pasted stuff from the earlier DNB gone, btw - someone is still adding that stuff nowadays.) - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Still prompted here too. Possibly you're now within a registered IP range for some reason? Or have a proxy tool of some kind enabled? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what I've got, but obviously my hope that ODNB had opened up is false, I'm sorry to say. Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You probably have a cookie set or something. I know I'm only prompted for my library card number every few months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Open an incognito browser window, and see if it still lets you in; if it doesn't, that means it's something to do with your cookie settings. I've noticed that the OED has recently experimented with allowing you to perform a couple of searches for free and only prompting you to log on after the third or fourth search of the day (presumably in the hope that potential subscribers will see how useful it is and decide to pay), so OUP may be experimenting with this across all their subscription sites. ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I just tried, in the UK, & login was required. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of getting things moving...

WP:FAR is moving at a glacial place - I have updated three into User:Tony1/FAR urgents. All should be fairly straightforward to check and see if keep or delist. If folks could please please check one (or more), that'd enable me to clear the decks over there a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The obligation of opposition

I've noticed a trend at FAC in which "opposers" (usually on merits of prose) are expected to enumerate, in great detail, every change that would be necessary to satisfy their concerns—the idea being that every nomination has surmountable prose concerns, given enough time and patience from reviewers. As a result, reviewers (myself included) oftentimes don't participate when opposition presents an onerous commitment than that required of "supports". And accordingly, some candidates are rubber-stamped without their major issues aired.

I imagine this stems, at least in part, from the 1b criterion's change from "even brilliant" prose to the teethless engaging/professional standard, as it's harder to make a case that prose is "not engaging" than it is to contend that prose is "not brilliant". I'm also mindful of the social element, in which it is quite demoralizing to have a nom opposed and quite spiriting to view most prose issues as surmountable rather than malignant. But I've learned hard lessons from opposition in my noms and newer editors are robbed of those opportunities when they attribute their nom's closure to a simple "lack of participation" instead of withheld criticism. And from the other end, it's hard to maintain status as a quality benchmark when comparatively few are willing to draw the line. If others agree that this norm exists, perhaps we can undo it. czar 19:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's long been the case that some nominators try to draw in reviewers to do the work for them (in simple cases it is of course often easier to correct the problems than list them out). If you don't want to do it, you just have to be firm. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have said they don't oppose because of the work that's expected of them and the length of time reviews remain open. In addition to that, some reviewers are supporting when it would be better not to. This means that the first oppose becomes the villain of the piece, which is another reason not to do it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes and it has become that a diplomatic "comments" section with unaddressed issues serves a similar purpose (but at least highlghts that problems are surmountable I guess), so the FAC pages have adapted to a point though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable, and actually quite useful, to just give samples with an oppose. If a reviewer says, for example, "Oppose on 1a" with two or three instances showing that the article does not meet that criterion, that is actionable and it is up to the nominator to dig deeper or ask for help (not necessarily from the reviewer). Another course that has been taken by some reviewers is to perform sample edits in one section to demonstrate problems (and sometimes they revert themselves so that it is up to the nominator what happens next).

A long shopping list is sometimes unhelpful and makes life harder for everyone. If the nominator asks for every instance of a problem to be pointed out, the best course may to be recommend that the FAC is withdrawn and worked on elsewhere. I would consider it acceptable for a reviewer to post an oppose and then run for the hills; once that reviewer's concerns have been addressed (in the broad sense, not just having corrected the examples they listed), they can be pinged or other reviewers can consider whether their concerns have been met: as a last resort, the coordinators can help out there. I agree some reviewers (especially those unfamiliar with FAC) support after a superficial review, but no-one can be forced to dig deeply; it is up to other reviewers and the coordinators to ensure that all the FA criteria have been assessed. Similarly, when there are long lists of "comments" without a support, the coordinators dig a little deeper to ask for clarification. Nothing would be promoted if issues remained, whether the reviewer opposed or not.

It is often, but not exclusively, articles with issues which linger at FAC; an oppose or two would speed things up as the review would be archived faster instead of sinking to the bottom of the page. Finally, if reviewers find an article at FAC which clearly does not meet the criteria, even if it has support, please chip in, even if that means opposing. The coordinators can step in if necessary if the oppose is not a popular one. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: if we give three examples of poor writing or sources, they fix those three, then expect more examples or the withdrawal of the oppose. If we say "this is so problematic, it should be archived", the coordinators often don't act on it (unless several reviewers say it over a protracted period). It's therefore easy to get sucked into having to point out every single thing that's wrong, sometimes for weeks because the coordinators won't archive. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I consider it polite not to archive immediately someone opposes. If there are several supports, it is only fair to wait a little longer to see what happens and if a consensus emerges. The job of a coordinator is largely to judge that consensus and check that all the FA criteria have been reviewed, not to decide who is correct. As I said above, there is no obligation to return after opposing; in fact when a reviewer keeps responding, that makes archiving less likely as discussion is ongoing and agreement may be reached.

If you are referring to the review I believe you are referring to, that was an unusual case which I admittedly left open longer than would normally be the case as work seemed to be going on, and there was quite a lot of back-and-forth which I didn't want to cut off; perhaps I was mistaken. But given that it had a high number of supports, it was only fair to leave it to see how it panned out. And I must disagree that recommending withdrawal is not effective; it does not happen very often. If it happened in a hypothetical review which had a lot of support ... that is tricky but if two or more reviewers recommended withdrawal, I think I would be inclined to archive it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Sarastro1, I did exactly that recently in the failed Mallard FAC. I sympathise with the perceived pressures on reviewers noted in the original post, but at the same time I feel it's fine to oppose if you can justify it with some examples. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to another of Czar's points: I've learned hard lessons from opposition in my noms and newer editors are robbed of those opportunities when they attribute their nom's closure to a simple "lack of participation" instead of withheld criticism. I have sometimes refrained from reviewing something because it looks like too much work. (I do quickly oppose when I think it's hopeless, but it doesn't happen that often.) Good writing is hard, and I don't mind using a FAC review to try and teach whatever it is I might know about it (and it's sometimes been a rewarding experience), but Czar is right that this engagement is less likely if reviewers are unwilling to oppose. On the other hand I don't think a nominator who has doubts about their writing skills should expect FAC to be where they learn how to write well.

This discussion has made me realize that I review differently depending on the nominator. Some articles are long, well-researched, fascinating, and well-structured, but can benefit from a very thorough review that can lead to scores of bullet points. Some writers have genuinely weak English skills; for them a long list would just lead to what Sarah describes above -- fixes for just those points and a request for re-review. In those cases I deliberately delay revisiting, and deliberately avoid providing a long list of problems, since otherwise I will be the one doing the work of improving the article.

I sometimes think the worst problem an article can have is at a level intermediate between prose/copyediting, and overall structure; perhaps it's the paragraph level. Sentences can be fixed, and sections moved around, but if the abstract structure of the text does not have overall progression and coherence it's not going to get fixed at FAC. The problem is hard to articulate, and I don't have a good example to hand. You see it sometimes in sections where all the material is present, but it hasn't been organized in such a way as to draw the reader through it with a sense that the prose is purposeful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In view of the thoughtful comments above, I'm rethinking what it might mean to oppose. I've never opposed anything, preferring to find another way or else avoiding things that look like trouble. This is probably not fair to reviewers who pluck difficult cases from the pile and do sometimes say "no". Finetooth (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Apart from encouraging more reviewers to oppose, it would help if the coordinators would archive when asked to. WP:FAC says: "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." What I've seen happen several times is that nominations are left open for weeks after reviewers have recommended that it be archived. This puts enormous pressure on those reviewers to keep on explaining or else start trying to fix the articles themselves. Experienced reviewers won't say that something is unprepared if what they really mean is that they simply oppose it. I wish the coordinators would extend more trust to those reviewers rather than putting the onus on them to fix the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the encouragement to cut and run oppose and possibly a shorter shelf life on noms without a snowball's chance of passing (though I agree that there should be at least some time to address doubt), I have a lingering concern as to how consensus is tabulated. Some noms in a dry spell are lucky to get their three supports (of any quality) while others get five or more, perhaps weighed against a single oppose. I imagine it's easier to close when everyone is in agreement, hence the pressure on the nom to turn the opposer, but if the opposer is truly cutting and running and has no obligation to respond to pings, isn't the result that the oppose has no weight as long as the nom claims the issues are resolved and no one else arrives to reaffirm the opposer's rationale? That would seem to put the onus on the FAC coordinators to weigh the rationales and make the final call. If y'all are fine with that, then sounds good, but it feels like an undue burden. Alternatively, I don't know, would it make sense to highlight lopsided cases on this talk page or another forum for wider consensus, or is it feckless to try to push the burden back to the community? czar 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Real Madrid

Hi all, any chance an admin or someone with superuser powers could delete the Real Madrid candidacy? I've left a notice on the nominator's talk page about the nom process and the article is nowhere near FA standard for the time being. A quick fail would be meaningless. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have requested the withdrawal on the FAC page, citing your notice. I'm sure the coordinators will respond shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Source query

An IP has edited Kingdom of Northumbria at [3] from saying the Book of Kells was probably written at Iona to "whose writing may have started at Iona". This looks like valid correction, but badly worded. The sourced wording in the Book of Kells article is that a widely accepted theory is that it was probably written at Iona and the illustrations added in Ireland. I am inclined to revise the Northumberland article accordingly, but I am doubtful about copying the citation as I do not have access to the source and I might be copying an error. If I amend the Northumberland article unsourced, anyone interested can go to the Book of Kells article for the source. How would others deal with this? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I would probably start by requesting the source at WP:RX, which has an outstanding record at getting even obscure sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I will try that. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for November

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of November (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 8 reviews: Aoba47
• 7 reviews: Finetooth, Wehwalt
• 6 reviews: Casliber, Brianboulton, Dudley Miles
• 5 reviews: Dank, Ceranthor
• 4 reviews: Edwininlondon
• 3 reviews: FunkMonk, Jimfbleak, Aa77zz, John, Moisejp, FrB.TG, Vanamonde93

64 editors provided a total of 139 reviews.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews

• 25 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 24 reviews: Brianboulton
• 2 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus, PanagiotisZois
• 1 review: Moisejp, Dunkleosteus77, RL0919

7 editors provided a total of 56 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Thanks to all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

At Folsom Prison anniversary is approaching

Hello, all. I noticed that January 13 will be the fiftieth anniversary of the recording of Johnny Cash's At Folsom Prison and I wanted to bring that to the attention of the appropriate Wikpedians in the hope that it might become that day's TFA. Currently, it's not a featured article but it is a good article; perhaps it can be edited into a featured article in time? Thanks in advance for your replies. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Reception sections again

I've been concerned about the quality of "Reception" sections for some time (e.g. here and here), and with Czar's help I wrote an essay, Copyediting reception sections, which I'm glad to see is starting to get cited. The essay applies mostly to film, TV, and video game articles. To me the standard of writing the essay describes ought to be the minimum for a FAC to qualify for promotion under 1a. I think this standard is rarely met, and so far (maybe five or six instances) when I've pointed this out, the editor involved has either been unable to fix the issues, or has not really understood them. Czar and I have done substantial work on several articles to bring them up to standard (and it's a lot of work; see here for an example), and I've no objection to doing this occasionally when I feel motivated, but I can't put in the time for every video game/TV/film article that comes through FAC. I am inclined to simply oppose, and cite WP:RECEPTION as the justification. I don't think this will make me popular, particularly as it is common practice now at FAC to ask reviewers for specifics. This is not a simple copyediting issue, and specifics are not easy to provide without doing the work of rewriting. If I just say "Oppose; doesn't meet the writing standard described at WP:RECEPTION", is that acceptable? Will it be helpful, or just disruptive?

TL; DR: if I oppose on WP:RECEPTION, without giving specifics, is that helpful or disruptive? And what else can or should be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mike and Czar, thanks for putting this together. Citing it in an oppose would be very helpful to the nominator. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• The gist of Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, for those who are busy, is to avoid "Reviewer X said Y" constructions in succession, which I would consider lazy prose. The essay offers some suggestions for rephrasing, such as signposting paragraphs and generalizing claims without veering into original research. See the bottom of the page for before-and-after examples to see the difference. After considering the "after" examples, it's hard to argue that the "before" is adequate for FA, nevertheless "brilliant prose". czar 01:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• It seems fine to me, as long as you can give feedback when the writer reorganizes it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think it is a fine piece of work and I intend to quote it in future reviews. It could go a lot further with regard to prohibiting over-quoting; I frequently see articles with 30, 40 even 50 sentence length quotes. This is too many. --John (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  @John: glad you like it. A article currently at FAC I've been considering opposing on this basis is Meteos; I'd be interested in your opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  I'll be happy to take a look, maybe even tonight. --John (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

FA Mentor

I am looking for an FA mentor to aid in an FA nomination. This is a first time dabble at an FA for both ManKnowsInfinity and myself who are looking to joint-nominate Alfred Hitchcock for FA. The article was an old FA in January 2004 but was demoted in December 2004 and failed GA in 2010 and has just regained its GA status. ManKnowsInfinity is handling the content details and I am looking at the MOS/consistency side of things. Hopefully someone can step-up to the plate to point us in the right direction on any things that need doing before nominating. Keith D (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A cursory look to me suggests that it isn't fully comprehensive to an FA standard yet. Where's the themes, the signature appearances? These need to be more substantive, IMO, than just two paragraphs. ceranthor 23:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: The two main articles for that section in the Hitchcock article are currently: Themes and plot devices in the films of Alfred Hitchcock and List of Alfred Hitchcock cameo appearances, both of which are fairly thorough. There is always some back-and-forth between sibling articles and if you feel some of the material should be in the Hitchcock biography instead of the sibling articles then I would be glad to do the edits for this if you could indicate your suggestions here or on my Talk page. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As a note to all you "registered" mentors I would like to say that ManKnowsInfinity has approached me for assistance in this regard. I however only have four FAs under my belt, so I'm technically below the 5+ mentor standard. Nevertheless I reworked the article's book citations, tagged some issues, and left a list of suggested improvements on their talk page. I'd agree the article is not ready for FAC yet, but I'd like to help bring it there best I can. I was lucky enough to send my first FA through WikiProject Military history's A-class review system, which helped bridge the gap between GA and FA nicely. I think it would be good if some editors would help these two bridge that same gap. I've currently got school on my plate, not to mention some articles under my own stewardship I wish to improve. If another editor, perhaps one with a good knowledge of Hitchcock and/or cinema, would be willing to pitch in, I'm sure it would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be very happy to work with you, Indy beetle, in helping to get this article to FA standard. I'm not a cinema expert, but I've written or co-written a number of featured biographies, and reviewed countless others at FAC. One stage in the process will be a peer review, when editors with lots of cinematographic knowledge can weigh in, together with prose experts like Eric (below) who will help improve the text. If the nominators are prepared to go ahead, I'll read the article over the next few days and see what needs to be done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Another user has opened a thread on my Talk page starting a peer review on the Hitchcock biography and you are welcome to add to it when you have a chance to read the article. If either you or Indy would like to take up the mentor role for the article you can let us know if or when it is ready. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd be more than happy to help out at the peer review. ceranthor 17:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the offer of help, I would be happy to let you point out the things that need doing to progress the article. Keith D (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Same. I have not much knowledge of the topic, but feel that sometimes an outsider sees better than an expert what is not quite clear for the average reader. A peer review is a good step to get (hopefully) many eyes, rather than (only) one mentor. We have one for Mendelssohn, DYK? ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A peer review would be one of my first suggestions if I was mentoring. Considering the level of interest this thread produced, it should get plenty of feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I see quite a few copyediting problems, which will likely be a hinderance at FAC. For instance, "By the end of the 1950s, Hitchcock had directed all four of his canonical films including Rear Window (1954), Vertigo (1958), North by Northwest (1959) and Psycho (1960) .... If this is the complete list of his canonical films, then what's the "including" doing there? I'm not an FA mentor by the way, although I am credited with 51 FAs, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Eric Corbett 16:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have simplified the wording there in the lede. If you have more of these then you can list them here or put them straight into the article as improvements. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  I'm only looking at the lead until any peer review has concluded, but here's another sentence that seems a bit muddled: "By 1939, Hitchcock's reputation as a filmmaker became recognised as being of international rank in merit and importance." Was it really his reputaion that become recognised as such? Was it not rather Hitchcock himself? Eric Corbett 18:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: That second edit was added in. There is a thread on my Talk page which was started by another editor as a peer review of the Hitchcock biography and you are welcome to add comments there also if the main body of the article for Hitchcock looks interesting. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As an update I have opened the Peer review suggested as a first step. If anyone wants to add their 2-pence worth on this one feel free. Keith D (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot delay

Megalodon was promoted 4 days ago, and the article still hasn't been updated yet. I checked WP:FAC/ar and it said the delay's around 24 hours, so I feel like I'm missing something here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I am having some connectivity problems. I have initiated a manual run, which has processed the Featured Articles. My apologies for the inconvenience. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please close Bengal Famine '43 FAC

Yep, that was fast, but this time it's on a positive note. The positively heroic Brianboulton has agreed to take on the Herculean task of trimming (potentially) thousands of words. He feels this would best be done while it's not in FAC. Of course I would've been ready to do this myself, but my grubby hands may not be the most presentable to all involved or potentially involved parties. So, huge thanks to Brian. And please close the FAC. Thank you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate drive-by nomination

Can one of the FAC coordinators please close/delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Spiegelman/archive1? The nominator hasn't edited the article at all or consulted anybody who did work on it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Image reviews

I've drafted a guide to passing an image review, targeted to nominators - amendments and comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a very useful summary. I'll be adding it to my list of useful links, but could we also add it to WP:FAC, somewhere where nominators will see it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I don't mind, but I'm not sure where exactly to do that... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but not sure that's the right place. A list of useful links for nominators would be helpful, and would include more than just this - anyone want to take that on? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Should be available at all review processes, at the very least. I think a lot of reviewers and editors struggle over this issue. Right offhand, I think this should be linked somewhere on WP:WPWIR for newbies and old hands alike. @Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Ipigott, Penny Richards, Rosiestep, and 97198: Thanks for putting this in writing. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Maile66, Woo Hoo! Very helpful guideline and I thank you for putting it together. I think it should be listed in our navigation box in the Administration: Essays section. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: yes, thank you! I agree with SusunW. Do you want to add it to the nav box? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: The nav box works for me. @Nikkimaria:, in creating this for FA, did a really good job creating something that can be beneficial to all projects straight across the board. I still get a little confused over images, and this page will be helpful. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup

I hardly like to mention it in this august community, but this is to let you know that the 2018 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. Participants can score through achieving DYKs, GAs, GA reviews, FAs and by other means. At the time of writing, only twenty-five users have signed up to take part in the competition. Interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for December

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of December (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 8 reviews: Finetooth, Dank
• 7 reviews: HJ Mitchell, Ceranthor, Aoba47
• 6 reviews: Moisejp, Jimfbleak
• 5 reviews: John, Wehwalt, TheJoebro64, Casliber, SchroCat, Brianboulton
• 4 reviews: Ceoil, Tim riley, KJP1
• 3 reviews: FunkMonk, Gerda Arendt, Edwininlondon

78 editors provided a total of 173 reviews.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews

• 25 reviews: Brianboulton
• 20 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 5 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus
• 2 reviews: Pbsouthwood
• 1 review: Lingzhi, Laser brain, Yashthepunisher, Moisejp, Wani, Sturmvogel66, Casliber, Umimmak

12 editors provided a total of 60 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Thanks to all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by nominations

Could someone delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive2? They've been created by a nominator who didn't consult major contributions to the article. JOEBRO64 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

All set. --Laser brain (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation for absence

I don't want anyone to think I am dead in a ditch or that I have departed from FAC in a huff. I've got a health problem that's made it increasingly painful to use a keyboard and mouse. The time has come to seek remedies, if any there be. I don't know if or when I'll be able to return to serious editing. Stay well if you can and carry on. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Take care of yourself and we will see you when you return.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So sorry to hear that. Even if you're not editing, let us know how you're doing. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto; best of luck with the health issue -- come back when you're ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your contributions over many years and in many forms have been of immense value to the project. I do hope that your treatment will prove effective and that you will be able to return in due course. In the meantime, my very best wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all that you do, and look forward to seeing you back. Sarastro (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks, & all the best! Hope to see you back. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon. ceranthor 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, best wishes for full recovery! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Take care of yourself -- hope to see you back soon, your work here is much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Get well soon! Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

take care/get well! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is for a full recovery soon! Ceoil (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Best wishes, Finetooth, and I hope you recover fully and can return to editing in the near future. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for a mentor

I've been working on the Big Bang article for a couple of years now. It was listed as a GA article in 2010, and I feel like it has improved. I would like to nominate it for FA but this would be my first time & I would love to have a mentor to guide me through this process. Thank you. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Image request problem

Fellow user Nikkimaria started an image review in this review. I tried fixing the issues and ping him, but I still haven't heard responses. Could it be that I still failed to fix it? I reworked one nonfree and replaced a free image with another from wikicommons that seems to be more suitable as it was an "own work". I'm not too skilled with free images so I'm kind of lost. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria has responded now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Script for source reviews, maybe 95% done

I've been working on a script for source reviews, maybe 95% done, as described at User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck. It currently flags 12 types of errors (still thinking about inconsistent date ranges as a 13th). The documentation is still a bit underdeveloped; it'll improve. If anyone would like to try it out and look for false positives etc., that would be very appreciated. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it should check for consistency in whether author first names are abbreviated or not? If possible... FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds doable... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it could also check for whether ISBN 13 is used or not. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Access and archive dates

• @Mike Christie:, @Brianboulton:, @Nikkimaria:, and of course everyone else too...
• Do we care about access and archive dates? What's the rule of thumb for these:

1. Access dates? Archive dates? I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK. We are one big happy family. Do whatever you want, and have an awesome day!
2. You can do one or the other or both, but must have one or the other or both. In other words, do whatever you want, but just do something.
3. You can do one or the other or both, but archive dates are clearly preferred whenever available.
4. Something else. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

5. Per WP:CITE, accessdate is only required for web sources without a known publication date. I generally don't comment on it if people include it consistently for other web sources, unless for GBooks links. Archive date is included for any archiveurl. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, so if we have a publication date, we don't need to check for either access date or archive url? What about linkrot then? Plus, when I said archive date, I was being unclear. I meant "archive url + archive date"; in other words, just archiving in general. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If we have a publication date, access date is allowed but not required. Archiveurl has nothing to do with publication date - as you point out, it's for linkrot. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have found accessdates useful sometimes when using the Wayback Machine to track down a deadlinked news report, especially on those occasions when the report was subsequently updated for some reason but we had included it prior to the update. Publication date in those situations is sometimes not enough to resolve the confusion. - Sitush (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) Thank you for all these comments. Perhaps I should have asked this question differently from the beginning: assume you were gonna write a script to help with checking notes, refs, etc. and display various kinds of warnings, errors or even suggestions. When that script looked at pubdate, accessdate and archiving, how many different warnings would you want, under what circumstances?Certainly you'd warn if all three were missing; any other cases? And does consistency matter at all, or not? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think consistency does matter, from a presentational point of view – our featured articles should be presented professionally even if some of the information is not strictly required in all cases. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I understand that external style guides like the APA style only require them when there isn't an explicit publication date, but I include them whenever there is an online source being accessed. It's just easier to make sure that citations consistently have authors, dates, titles, access dates, etc. It also aids automated tools in adding archive links in the future, and even with resources like Google Books, there's no future guarantee that the source will remain accessible, so the access date is an indication that at least at one time that it was. Imzadi 1979 → 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I can't see what difference it would make that on a certain date someone had been able to access a book page via Google Books. That's like adding what date you looked at a book in the library. Access dates are almost always pointless citation clutter. The only time they're needed is when the publication, usually something on a personal website, is undated. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Context: I am working on a script to check all these things and flag with warnings or errors. Access dates are not flagged if publication date or an archive date is present, or if the link is for a book. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. Access date is absolutely necessary for web sites because it allows the bots (and humans) to locate the correct version of a web page from one of the archive sites. The archive date closest to the access date will be chosen. It should be mandatory for anything with a URL in it. We don't need this for books, but we do need location/publisher/date. This is because books are often published simultaneously in the US and the rest of the world, and the pagination may differ due to non-standard US paper sizes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

(←) I've given this some thought, and while I totaaly subscribe to Hawkeye's stance, I think for the purposes of this script underreporting is better than overreporting. First, because that would seem to comply with WWP:CITE. Second, because you can CTRL-F or just eyeball it to see if there are no access dates, but a script should point out which refs are naughty and which are nice according to a conservative view.... I am still open to other ways tho. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Top FAC reviewers for January

Here are the lead reviewers for the month of January (by date of archival/promotion of the FAC, not by date of review).

Reviews

• 8 reviews: Tim riley
• 7 reviews: Aoba47
• 6 reviews: Jimfbleak
• 5 reviews: Casliber, Ceoil, Lingzhi
• 4 reviews: Usernameunique, HJ Mitchell, Moisejp, Finetooth, SchroCat, Edwininlondon, Ceranthor
• 3 reviews: Giants2008, Brianboulton, Dank, Wehwalt, Numerounovedant, Sturmvogel 66, Iazyges, J Milburn, John

83 editors provided a total of 165 reviews.

Image, source, and accessibility reviews

• 26 reviews: Brianboulton
• 19 reviews: Nikkimaria
• 6 reviews: Jo-Jo Eumerus
• 1 review: Ian Rose, Edwininlondon, Funkmonk, Casliber, Moisejp

8 editors provided a total of 56 reviews.

I'll post barnstars on the talk pages of the top three reviewers on each list. Thanks to all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Go Tim! - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been slacking, clearly! ceranthor 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References for Ancestry sections

Lecen claims that references are not required for Ancestry sections when considering a biographical article about a member of the nobility for FA status. As I am not someone who participates in FAC/FAR discussions, I would like to confirm this statement. IMHO WP:V still governs them, but I would like to hear from the panel here. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I would consider them required. I put references on the pedigrees for horse articles - so there should be some sort of reference for people's ancestry also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As a reviewer and a FAC coordinator, I've always expected to see ancestry sections referenced unless all of the content has been referenced in the main body of the article (similar to how we treat infoboxes or lead sections). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

His claim is only for royalty - personally I think reasonably close royal ancestry may not need referencing in such cases. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's my issue. There are a lot of articles about nobility of varying levels of quality considered for inclusion in OTD. Most of these have no citations for the Ancestry sections. An example from today: Mary, Queen of Scots (FA). I know for a fact that the genealogical histories of English/Scottish monarchs are extremely well-documented, so I did make an effort to add a citation. However, a lot of the article sources are offline, so I can't verify them, and Google searches lead me to sites like englishhistory.net or thepeerage.com that are run by laypersons, so I'm hesitant to call them reliable. Even when I find genealogical charts in books, they show less than what we have (again, for Mary, I could find charts for the Tudors and the Stuarts, but nothing for the Guises). Eventually, it was taking me far too long to do this and I gave up and I slapped a {{unreferenced}} tag on the section. And then to add insult to injury (not in this example), I get people like Lecen who chew me out for this because they are apparently averse to adding citations for some reason. —howcheng {chat} 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry sections have somehow over the yeas earned an exemption from the basic verifiability rules. This exemption, of course, has not been formalized and exists only in the minds of users who edit articles about royal people. I do not think that the subject's royal status should give us free pass to ignore WP:V when claiming that Princess Eugenie of York's mother's mother's father's mother was a Muriel Fletcher. In my opinion, reasonably close ancestry that does not need referencing ends with grandparents at most. Lecen is not averse to adding citations but to having people meddle with "his" articles. In any case, it is time to hold royalty ancestry sections to the same standard as horse pedigree sections. Surtsicna (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends if the grandparents are royal - if say Queen Victoria is the grandmother, I don't think her ancestors back some considerable way absolutely require referencing. I agree Muriel Fletcher does need referencing. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This should also be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, because the issue is whether ancestry sections should be exempt from that policy. Surtsicna (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean obviously not, don't see a need for a big discussion on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would normally expect to see them referenced. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hchc. All content should be referenced, apart from the lead summarising referenced content in the main text. Ancestry sections sometimes include speculative genealogies which are not supported by reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So what do you suggest that we do when users insist on keeping these sections without sources and without being tagged as lacking sources? That is precisely how this myth of exemption has spread and continues to spread. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're asking is, how do we stop editors behaving unreasonably? Good luck in finding an answer to that one. All I'd say is that any article coming to FAC is required to meet the FAC criteria so far as sourcing is concerned, and I don't think any "myth of exemption" applies there. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I think ancestry sections should certainly be referenced, the same as any other content. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur. Especially as genealogy is an ongoing process as new documents, etc., are discovered or analyzed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I'm not completely crazy. I am going to continue tagging 'em when I see 'em. Thanks for the input, everyone. —howcheng {chat} 02:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Media review

I have posted File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg on commons and added it to Emily Ratajkowski. I am not sure whether anything in the photograph is protectable beyond my photographer copyright and would like some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Typically in the US fashion is not copyrightable; see Design_Piracy_Prohibition_Act#Current_Status_of_Fashion_Design_Protection and this (to my knowledge the bill mentioned there has not passed, nor has any similar legislation). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Media review needed for Amarte Es un Placer (album)

Could someone please do a media review for Amarte Es un Placer (album)? Thanks! Erick (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Magiciandude: I would put it up in the box for "Image/source check requests". Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)