Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How to request a procedural close

I don't see anything in the instructions at WP:FAR about how to request a procedural close to abort a FAR that has been requested for cause, so it doesn't have to go through the whole process. In this case, I am referring to WP:FAR#India, and I'll leave a note there, but absent any doc on the proper procedure, I'm not sure if that's the right way to do it; apologies if it isn't. Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Added a close request to #India, here. Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC on classes assigned to demoted Featured articles

I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles that concerns editors of this project, in particular the coordinators. Please comment there. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Speer/archive1

A query has been made as to the progress of the nomination: [1]. I would appreciate clarification as to the next steps. My understanding is that it's not up to me as the FAR nom, per FAR instructions: "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage."

The situation is somewhat complicated by the fact that the article has been restructured and substantially rewritten in the course of the nomination. The latest discussion could be found here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman, it's up to us to assess the consensus - that means those commenting, including the nom, can and should express their opinions (with rationale). Do you feel the concerns that led you to initiate the FAR have been addressed? Do you feel the article meets the FA criteria as it stands, or do you see deficiencies? If there are issues pending, they should be discussed at the review page, to allow for them to be addressed. At the moment, I'm not seeing consensus for closure, but it would be helpful to get a sense of what remains. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Albert Speer: Ready to close?

The issues that prompted the FAR have been addressed. Is the discussion ready to be closed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look this weekend, but on a quick glance I'd suggest pinging a couple of the most recent commenters (eg. Nick-D) to verify that the changes have addressed their concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick-D & Assayer were critical of the article as nominated. I'm pinging them both (although Assayer has not edited in a while, so I'm not sure he'd respond). --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
There's still scope for improvement, but I think that this is ready to close as a 'keep'. My concerns are now addressed (disclaimer: I've made enough edits to this article during the FAR that I'm now 'involved'). I know that this has been a bit of a team effort, which I've enjoyed participating in, but Wehwalt has done a fantastic job of rapidly reworking the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't accept more credit than the next guy; everyone has done a fine job, including reviewers like you for keeping us on our toes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that there are too many FA nominators who would so enthusiastically re-work one of 'their' FAs as you've done here. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Some advice for FAR

We've been working on the global warming article, which as of a year ago, didn't comply with half of our FA criteria. After raising issues on the talk page, it's now somewhat/quite? close to meeting all of them, and I have proposed on the talk page to go to stage 2 of the FAR process to solve the remaining issues. The article also needs a copy-edit, for which I'm planning to request the help of our GCE experts. What is the proper order of things? Copy-editing a long and sensitive article like this is quite an involved process, so I wouldn't want them to copy-edit an article that's still changing. Thanks for the advice! Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

FAR is a last resort. If discussion is continuing on the talk page in a positive fashion I don't think it should be listed here. It appears a little like you wish to use FAR for polishing the article. Without looking into the matter deeply I'd suggest it would be better to stay on the talk page but explicitly state the remaining problems in a checklist. Szzuk (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the FAR is indeed not entirely the right location. I'm looking for more than polishing however. The current article doesn't resemble the 2006 featured article at all. I have fixed a considerable amount of mistakes in the article and I'm sure there are more to be found. I think the article, considering its 4 million readers per year, can do with another person scrutinizing its content. Would WP: peer review be the better place to do this? I feel like that is not meant for featured articles... Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think peer review is a better place to get more input on possible improvements. Good Articles are routinely listed at peer review and I can think of no reason a featured article shouldn't also be listed. Szzuk (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: The article is already FA? Edit: I've just seen it was passed 13 years ago. I would advise you to leave a note on the talk page of the wikiprojects for which global warming is of "top/high" importance, you may find someone to help. T8612 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks :). I might try peer review then with a note on WikiProjects, as far as they're still active. I'll discuss with other regulars. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Premature review?

Should Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jabba the Hutt/archive1 be speedy-closed and deleted? It was clearly made out of process by a brand-new editor, although it does seem to be a good-faith edit. I personally see a few problems in the article, but I don't know if they're quite enough for a FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new FAC coordinator

Hi, pls see here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring (2)

Apparently, no consensus to change the status of an article is being regarded as consensus to do so. Is there any avenue of appeal against the coordinator's decision, or will all Featured Articles now be summarily delisted? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the correct call was made there-- there were issues identified that were never corrected. Yes, there is an avenue of appeal. Work on the issues, and re-nominate at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the article. No issues were identified that can be corrected. There was no consensus to delist. The article can never be renominated. The question now is whether any article can be nominated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Why do you say it can never be re-nominated? Why not go back to each reviewer and ask on article talk what can be done to satisfy them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
That has already been done. Nothing can be done to satisfy them. Their objection is to the subject itself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall FA process discussion

See the FAC talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

articles with deprecated method of citing sources

  1. Katyn massacre
  2. Peter Jennings
  3. Józef Piłsudski
  4. Anarky
  5. Pennsylvania State Capitol
  6. Mutual Broadcasting System
  7. Renewable energy in Scotland
  8. HMS Ark Royal (91)
  9. The Log from the Sea of Cortez
  10. Cherry Springs State Park
  11. Colton Point State Park
  12. Durian
  13. Johnstown Inclined Plane
  14. Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3
  15. Ganoga Lake
  16. Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park
  17. Charles Darwin
  18. Richard II of England
  19. RKO Pictures
  20. History of Poland (1945–1989)
  21. Red Barn Murder
  22. Demosthenes
  23. House (TV series)
  24. Beagle
  25. Weymouth, Dorset
  26. Definition of planet

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Although {{note label}} is "no longer the recommended method of citing sources", does that mean it's actually deprecated rather than just discouraged? Much as I dislike the fact and think we should have a uniform citation format, Wikipedia currently has more than 2000 active citation formats. Given that there are still FAs like Actuary which use inline parenthetical referencing throughout and don't even have a single numbered reference in the sense in which we usually understand it, enforcing the use of {{efn}} instead of {{note label}} wouldn't seem to be a priority. (I Am Not An Expert, but as I understand it there are still legitimate reasons for editors to avoid the {{efn}} system, as they can't be added in VisualEditor and we can hardly blame new editors for using the system the WMF encourages them to use when they sign up rather than the wikitext editor.) ‑ Iridescent 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I was basing that statement on this diff, which is linked from the template page. I have no idea whether the assertion of "deprecated" is WMF Approved or whatever. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Any serious attempt at producing an encyclopedia would of course have a consistent citation system, and even a consistent way of presenting dates, but Wikipedia is not a serious attempt at anything other than providing a free income stream for the WMF. Eric Corbett 20:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd say some level of variable consistency isn't a bug but a feature. An article about world history heavily using a few print sources, for example, a scientific article relying on journals, and a recent television episode based on web sources have different priorities in how they use their sources, and so expecting them to align exactly seems folly. Shorter articles are easier to just use a single reflist and be done with it, whereas longer articles may benefit from having a notes/refs dichotomy. I think we’d be better off with a slightly narrower gamut of styles (deprecating style-guide-specific options like MLA or parenthetical Harvard citations, for example) but I can't recommend a single style overall. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That you can't doesn't mean that others can't. Eric Corbett 22:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps enlighten us then as to the One True Reference Style to rule them all? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Heat > Light. Nothing here to argue about. So no reason to do so. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2: okay then. do you wanna post specific concerns on any article you've found the most wanting, wait two weeks while no-one responds and then nominate for FAR? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the question of finding a systematic approach to nominating a FAR needs thought. Off hand, some possibilities: fewest cites per prose size? most non-text per section (barring galleries, perhaps; this idea suggested by the demographics section of Manitoba)? And so on. These could be a later step. Right now I am working on a graph of mean/media prose size through time. Actually right now I am examining a few systematic discrepancies between my results for prose size and dr pda's, to figure out the best approach for each. That might be followed by stats regarding rolling prior FAs per nominator in any given (three month?) period (which might be tweaked to exclude some outliers, such as yourself and Wehwalt, if it seems reasonable). There are several things that could be done; the graph of prose size through time was my original goal... (by the way, the tag atop Folding@home raises some initial FAR suspicions)... but your input is solicited. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to FAR instructions

Please discuss at FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

Just as a heads up: Tropical Depression Ten (2005) which is a featured article has been nominated for deletion and subsequent merger into 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.Jason Rees (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


Edit notices

DrK, Cas and Nikki, I established editnotice templates on all medical FAs, for example, Template:Editnotices/Page/Asperger syndrome. It does not appear that the Medicine Project is going to pick up maintenance on the (many) medical FAs that are outdated, so we need a procedure for handling the editnotice templates on FAs that are defeatured. Do you all know what to do with those editnotices if an article is defeatured? Do you delete them with admin tools, or do I just edit out the content? Something to watch for on medical FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, unless there's a reason for page-specific templates that I'm missing, I'd suggest we replace all of these with {{Medical FA editnotice}}, and then just remove that if an article is delisted. Alternatively, we could turn the last sentence into a more general notice re MEDRS and the like - I don't have a strong preference on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
They all use that, but yes, there are some other page-specifics (BrEng). We can't just remove an editnotice; they go automatically with the page. I suspect the editnotice has to be deleted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The only other solution I can see is to use the expiry parameter in Template:Editnotice. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, maybe, it would just be deleted, but removing the template from the editnotice page is fine. I have removed it on Asperger's (at FARC), as an example: this is what the edit window looks like now.
Sandy, being the swell person that I am, I went looking for a technical solution. There is a technical solution, which is to add code to the template that checks if the talk-page still indicates FA status. If currentstatus=FA is not found (for example), the template would not print. However, it turns out that this conceptually simple task is not a usual use of Wikipedia's template and coding system, and I was discouraged from using it (without giving the context) by one of the apparent super-users of Wikipedia at the Village Pump. (There is no way to directly ask, via templates etc., if an article is in a category, which is kind of surprising.) It's not hard to implement - it's really quite simple, but the problem is that it "asks for" the entire talk-page content in the background every time someone goes to edit the article, in order to make that check. (One can imagine the potential performance impact of an edit notice that did that across tens of thousands of articles.) And anyway, this is really quite a specific localized issue... Anyway, I've been discouraged from something; I'll go log that in Things I've Been Discouraged About Here, entry #3,127. I'm about to close that journal again, I think. Outriggr (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I forgot you had templateeditor rights! Now I shall count on you to watch over all the medical FA editnotices :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot query

Hawkeye7 why did you remove the FAR template here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bot complains if there is a FAC/FAR template, but the review is not created. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawkeye7; still not sure what was wrong there, though, because I think the review was created several days before you removed that-- I could be wrong. Could you go through the process-- that is, add it back and see if the bot burps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. Bot still says it is wrong. Oh I see; the review is archive1 and the template is archive2. Corrected the template. It should be right now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Poke

@WP:FAR coordinators: Since the instructions now limit nominators to four FARs on the page at a time, would it be possible to get some of those with feedback moving along? Otherwise, nominators (like me) are going to be limited by the instructions soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

okay. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: you have three so can nominate another now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Casliber: but I can't, because now I am up against the "one every two weeks" limit. We have two different limits now (one every two weeks, and no more than four on the page), so I am just wanting to make sure that we keep them moving the best we can, so when I am due for number five, there aren't still four on the page. I have to wait a week for my next nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, as FAR coordinator I explicitly give you permission to nominate another one now. As I suspect some nominations as of right now are waiting for time to lapse before being delisted. So give a passing editor more choice :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Very nice of you-- thanks Cas! But I'll pass for now, what with TS coming up mainpage, and worried about coprolalia-vandalism, I fear my plate will be quite full this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Troubling Presuppositions of the FARers

I'm seeing highly troubling posts such as at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Poetry/archive3. Can the FARers learn something from Graham Beards who left a polite post at Talk:Mysore. I have edited neither Poetry nor Mysore, but can we agree on some basic ground rules, some etiquette? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Err, ok looking. Will post there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler I fear the "presupposition" is that FAR is some sort of penalty box. The lengthy procedure was designed to restore as many articles as possible to featured status. It was also explicitly divided into two phases, where the first is review, and removal is only considered if the article progresses to the second phase. The tone of the commentary on the FAR does not seem to recognize that, and makes it seem that seeing an article at FAR is a bad thing. I would welcome a FAR of Tourette syndrome, a 14-year-old FA, so that the articlehistory could reflect a recent community review. Might I suggest that you keep negative commentary about the process (which I submit you have misunderstood) on this talk page and off of the individual FAR, as the commentary there does not advance the aim of improving the article. And plenty of improvement is needed. The article might benefit from you hatting the unnecessary attacks on the process so we (and those new to the page) can focus on the work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand that, but there are rules, your own. There was no intimation on the talk page; there still isn't. Editors such as Nihil novi who have long edited the article and did so only two weeks ago, were not intimated as a courtesy (though I understand the rules don't say that). Out of the blue, with the briefest of explanations, as vague as the ones they purport to question—one of which was entirely misplaced, as a drive-by had created a bogus section with an expansion tag—the article appeared at FAR. It seems a little bizarre to me. I'm not saying that the article is FA quality, but the FAR process here is peremptory and probably presumptuous to the longstanding editors. Following the rules is a must. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
There was a student notification on talk; perhaps DrKay considered that sufficient notice. At any rate, it is abundantly clear (with the article so far out of compliance and having maintenance tags for almost a year and no one actively following the article) that another notification would not likely have gotten results. There are no long-standing editors of this article; Nihil Novi has been active, but maintenance tags stood for almost a year. You might discuss with DrKay as to whether there should have been further notification, but at this point, withdrawing this FAR would only result in a two-week delay until it can be restarted, as a review is much needed, and will hopefully result in improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. Btw, I very much do understand what an FAR is about, having self-nominated one in 2011 and having created informal ones in Talk:India/Archive_46 and Talk:India/Archive_47 before the TFA October 2. Dr Kay attempted to make a vague post there too. The people who have helped write the page know way more about the topic (and have forgotten more) than the FARers will ever hope to know. The FARers need to follow the rules and show some humility. That's all I'm suggesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Do you know anyone who can address the issues at Poetry? Please ping them in to the FAR if you do. Saving Stars Is Our Motto! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Fowler's characterization of my comments at Talk:India/Archive 46#Featured article? as "vague" is so self-evidently incorrect, I can only surmise this post and others like it are ill-informed and will consequently ignore them. DrKay (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(Writing here in general terms, and not about any specific posts or comments) I think its very important to maintain a collegial tone and politeness when reviewing content, whether that is content which is currently a candidate to be featured or content which is featured and needs review. It is vitally important to remember that many of these articles will have taken tens or hundreds of hours to put together, as a labour of love and without recompense, and also to remember that our shared goal is to work together to produce and maintain quality content (and not against each other). Indeed, I consider my writing on KLF-related subjects to be one of the few achievements I can be proud of in my life. Having your work ripped to shreds by some know-all can be soul destroying, and I personally am wary of bringing any article to FAC because of the fear of being torn a new one (I'm forever tempted to try to get a star back on to the article The KLF - not in it's current state, though, before anyone goes looking :)).
That said, Sandy Georgia recently left a note on the talk page of an FA in my domain and has been nothing but helpful and supportive as I, with her help, have worked at bringing it back up scratch. I am immensely grateful to her. The same cannot necessarily be said of some of the GAR reviewers who - in the great GA reassessment sweep some years ago - delisted articles under ridiculous pretences and/or with cold and clinical reviews which sometimes gave the impression that being able to delist a GA was the highlight of their day.
My take-away point is that there are real people with feelings at the other end of the line, and it costs nothing to be nice. --kingboyk (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

I've just closed this RfC and I felt I should bring it to your attention.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I do want to mention in case any of the participants there are thinking of pursuing FAR for that article that this is not designed to be a dispute resolution forum - keep that in mind when considering if to proceed here vs another venue and how to frame relative to the criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
ON the other hand, they tried dispute resolution and that failed, so it might need to be defeatured on 1e. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I've added it to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given which means we'll check in occasionally to see if page editors have resolved the problems cited, or are at least making progress. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, removed from there. It's already been taken to the FAR page. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Does the article meet the FA criteria or not? Discussion at Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. buidhe 00:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Germany

Can we get Germany off the Notices given list, or does it still have issues? Trying to work through the notices given and prioritize. What do we think about Japan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I've pretty much finished re-citing Germany - if anyone sees things left to do there let me know. Japan is not done but I can take a look at it this weekend. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Permission for five noms

I'm doing everything I can to keep the page moving, but with Manzanar stalled, I am constantly at the four-nomination limit. Until Manzanar is resolved, may I have permission for five nominations from the Coords?

  1. 9 May Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manzanar/archive1
  2. 29 July Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1
  3. 13 August Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gilberto Silva/archive1
  4. 1 September Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ohio Wesleyan University/archive1

So, I should be due for a (once every two weeks) nomination on 15 September, but it does not look like any of my four previous noms will be closed by then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Rikan Lateef

Can you review my article if it contains an error and help me amend it Karrar.allamy (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Karrar.allamy, this is not the right place for this question. You might try WP:Teahouse or WP:Iraq. (t · c) buidhe 22:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what is the right placeKarrar.allamy (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Cliftonian nominations

Some worrying issues have been reported on FA articles by a vanished user formerly known as User:Cliftonian related to politics of southern Africa. Ian Smith was recently delisted and Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence looks like it's headed that way, with a FAR notice placed at Roy Welensky due to excessive sourcing to the subject's memoirs. I have taken a look at Cliftonian's other FA nominations. Some of them are sports- or crime-related and unlikely to be problematic but Hugh Beadle, William Harper (Rhodesian politician), Paul Kruger, D'Oliveira affair, Air Rhodesia Flight 825, Southern Rhodesia in World War I, Rudd Concession, Rhodesian mission in Lisbon, and Military career of Ian Smith should probably be checked. If anyone has additional suggestions on whether these articles meet FA criteria, please post on talk pages and ping me. buidhe 23:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I was concerned about this before I'd like to add Shangani Patrol as another Rhodesia article by Cliftonian that should be checked. Roy Welensky is very problematic but actually looks like it was written by a different user, User:Beneaththelandslide, in 2007. --65.96.222.96 (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm also quite concerned about those articles. They all share an over-reliance on a handful of sources (in particular JRT Wood), to the extent that I'm worried about close paraphrasing. In particular Missão da Rodésia em Lisboa, which follows Wood very closely in terms of pagination: many single pages are cited over and over again, to back up long stretches of text. The article also assigns thoughts and emotions to political agents in an editorializing way, which is unacceptable: The Rhodesian government now believed that it would almost certainly declare independence unilaterally and, knowing the purchase of materiel would be more difficult following this, wished to have the Rhodesian Security Forces' necessary ammunition, weapons, spare parts and other equipment in place beforehand. and Reedman, the former minister for immigration and tourism, was also a retired officer of the British Royal Air Force (where he had been involved in bomber research), and an experienced engineer and businessman: all the right ingredients, the government thought, for someone in the position to source European aircraft, weapons and other equipment, while also representing Rhodesian interests in mainland Europe. A search for "believe" gives nine results, four for "wish", ten for "consider", etc. Some of these might be acceptable, but this language does set off some alarm bells in terms of POV, methinks. Eisfbnore (会話) 01:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Eisfbnore, Thanks for taking a look and please feel free to nominate it for FAR. Unfortunately, I can't nominate any more articles until next week. buidhe 01:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
While I think POV fears are totally valid here, I don't see how, from a prose perspective, terms such as believe/wish/consider are problematic if backed by appropriate sources. While a tad old-fashioned in phrasing, it clearly means "the beliefs of the government apparatus as a whole". It doesn't seem any less valid than saying "In 1914, the British government believed that World War I would come to a quick end, barring Secretary of War Kitchener." Something like that could easily be sourced to many reliable sources. I'm sure the Rhodesian sources are spottier than something famous like WWI, but it's not invalid or unacceptable on its face, and can be qualified with "According to XYZ, members of the Rhodesian government now believed..." worst comes to worst. (POV will be much harder to weed out, especially since the sourcing is likely lopsided...) SnowFire (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Pickup up the pace at FAR

@WP:FAR coordinators: The notices given template seems to be working, as we are now seeing more notices given and more FAR throughput. But the number of articles listed on the template is growing. Right now we have nominators constrained by:

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks.
  2. No more than four nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

I was thinking of making a proposal at WT:FAC to move this to:

  1. No more than one nomination per week.
  2. No more than four five nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Would the Coords support making such a proposal at the busier page, WT:FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a sense of what proportion of the current list is from the 'prolific' nominators who could make more nominations under your proposal, vs 'one-offs'? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Nikki, since I have been going at only about one every three weeks, with Buidhe and Retired Duke semi-regular, but few others, my sense in the last month is that we are finally seeing an uptick in "non-prolifics" ... that's why I'm suggesting this now, in fact ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I'm not sure I follow the rationale - this would increase throughput from list to FAR for prolific nominators, but how does it promote a continued uptick among non-prolifics? Is the issue simply the length of the list, or is there some other reasoning I'm overlooking? I'm not against seeing a proposal that only supports prolific nominators, just trying to understand the picture here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand :) The first four (FAR)s now are 1) Buidhe, 1) me, and 2) newish reviewers. And if you look at the declarations in the FARC phase, we seem to be engaging more people finally. We WANT to take advantage of this uptick to bring in and encourage new reviewers. My thinking is that now is the time. Unless we get more people in here, the bottom (FARC) is going to continue to stagnate, and the template will continue grow. IF you feel it's too soon, I understand ... but it concerns me that Buidhe found seven on the cleanup list today. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm certainly happy to see the matter discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll wait to hear from Cas and DrK ... I just feel like the (overall FA) process is regaining some momentum finally :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm OK with what the community of editors here decides. DrKay (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
hmmmm ... good point. We are past 50 FAR notices given, and while the pace has picked up here, there is still relatively little general concern over at WT:FAC, along with increasing reticence to revisit and discuss current thinking, processes, and statistics to re-invigorate the overall FA picture. Perhaps DrKay is correct that this page is a better place for the discussion, notifying that page, so that anyone who cares can come over here instead. Cas and Nikki, what say ye? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the timing is not optimal for a new proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with this proposal. I was going through the list of FAs with cleanup tags today and added 7 to the template because they had ongoing, valid cleanup tags. At the current rate it would take 3 months to bring them all to FAR. (t · c) buidhe 21:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with the proposal. It is not drastic, but a measured attempt to move things along. Loosening up an arbitrary Rate Limiting Step a little is fine by me. Either things get worked on or (more commonly) they don't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's an excellent proposal given the large list of articles for which notices have been given. Even as a non-prolific newbie, I might want to make use of nominating more frequently when time allows. This would motivate me to stay more active on this page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I keep forgetting to mention this ... RetiredDuke thought that the FAR instructions meant that no more than four FARs could be on the page at a time, so thought there was never room for a new nomination. Femke, did you also have that impression? I made this temporary fix, but it's not very elegant and wording is repeated ... we do need to correct this misimpression, though, as it could have been part of what slowed down nominations such that the template has mushroomed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
That was indeed my impression when I first started following this page around March. I was quite confused that there were always a few more than 4 nominations open at the same time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Yikes, so maybe that was the problem, and the additional relaxing is not necessary ... perhaps we can wait a month to propose this officially, and then notify wt:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the previous wording was a bit ambiguous (coming from a non-native English speaker), and I was under the wrong impression about the number of nominations allowed at the same time. But I see that you have changed the wording, Sandy, looks more precise now (from my point of view). RetiredDuke (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, I wish there was a "speedy" FAR process for FAs that are obviously not up to FA standards and would require a complete rewrite. Then, other editors would vote here on whether the FA status is recoverable (leading to normal FAR), or the article needs to be rewritten (back to square one). It could speed up the process. T8612 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe rather than being a separate process, that can just be part of the normal FAR process? Just "if the participants agree it needs serious overhauls and no one volunteers to work on it, move to speedy FARC"? Even for articles I'd like to improve, the realistic nature of doing things means if an article needs rescuing I'm not likely to get to it on an expedient timetable (Halo: Combat Evolved is still on my radar to improve but I've got stuff in front of it. It was good it got delisted and comments for improvement but it can wait for the editors to come along for it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @David Fuchs: That is a proposal I'd support. In my view, the efficiency of the process and engagement with reviewers are the critical issues. The limit on nominations here was done in concert with similar limitations at FAC because the community believed (correctly, IMO) that the cognitive burden of processing a larger list is daunting and off-putting for reviewers who usually have limited energy to expend on the page. A less cumbersome, less ponderous list is more appealing and inviting of involvement. The community at FAC encouraged coords to more aggressively archive lackluster nominations and I think a similar thing should be undertaken here. A quick-delist, if you will. --Laser brain (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with the formal proposal here; although we now have a healthier number of editors engaged here, I know of dozens of articles I haven't even templated talk yet because I know I can't bring them to FAR for many months! With increased editors participating, it may be a good time now to pick up the pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked over at Script requests if someone could generate a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Formal proposal

The notices given on talk pages of deficient FAs is approaching 60 articles, but nominators are restricted in bringing those articles to FAR by the FAR instructions:

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks by the same nominator.
  2. No more than four nominations on the page at one time, by the same nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

This proposal is to loosen the restrictions as follows:

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than four five nominations on the page at one time, by the same nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Discussion

  • Support, I know of dozens of deficient FAs that I haven't been able to bring forward because we are hamstrung by the limitations. Thankfully, we are seeing more FA regulars participate here now, so it's time to pick up the pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I also support quicker delisting when indicated, but do not think this requires a change in instructions, rather should be left to the Coord discretion: they know when faster delisting is applicable when they see it, and it worked for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Webley Revolver/archive1. We have to take care that only FAs that are truly unsalvageable or unlikely to be salvaged will be speedily removed. (I will recommend same for El Hatillo Municipality when it comes up; it looks fine on the surface, but Venezuela is not even the same country as when I helped Enano get that article featured 14 years ago, and no mere mortal can rewrite that article post-Chavez, nor is there any editor still editing who would try.) The current FAR instructions do not prevent the Coords from speeding up or slowing down any given nomination, saying "The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks ... " (emphasis added). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I also agree with Toccata quarta that moving from four to six might work; I am often restricted in nominations because something I nominated stalls on the page, because it is being improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I would also support loosening further or abolishing entirely the limit on concurrent nominations. (t · c) buidhe 15:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think abolishing entirely would be appropriate at this point. Let's see how loosening goes first. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - GamerPro64 02:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – people should be free to draw attention to problems to be solved, of which there must be many, especially among older FAs. (In fact, I would be in favor of increasing the threshold to six articles.) I would also recommend changing the wording of the second paragraph to The same nominator may place no more ..., to minimize the potential for misreading. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a good idea. Of course it could become a slippery slope but - if that happens - we can deal with a flood of FAR nominations in the future if need be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There are a lot of older FAs (from around 2006-2009) that clearly are not up to standards and would need a complete rewrite to comply with 2020 criteria. If we want the Featured Article designation to actually mean something, we can't have Five Go Down to the Sea? on the same list as The Orb (that falls off a cliff once it hits 2007 - the year of promotion), Skegness on the same list of Weymouth, Dorset, or Battle of Crécy on the same list of Battle of Blenheim (that uses so much flowery language and so many quotes that looks like it was based off an English General's diary). The fact that FAR has been moribund for a number of years means that many deficient FAs have gone unnoticed until now; we should take opportunity of this sudden revival of the FAR process to call attention to these deficient FAs so they can either be rescued (if anyone is interested - like Masem is doing with Wii), or not. If this ends up in a flood of nominations, we can always reassess the situation and slow the process down again. RetiredDuke (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, as well as supporting quicker delisting if there's no active work ongoing. There's quite the backlog, especially when you think that there are many that haven't even gotten notices yet. Hog Farm Bacon 17:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Coords - When will this take effect? It seems there's getting to be consensus for this change, and the FAR notice list only keeps getting longer. Hog Farm Bacon 03:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – been thinking about this and was not sure at first. However, I think in general it is net positive. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --Rschen7754 04:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented the proposed change. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Icon change for articles undergoing FAR/FARC

Thoughts on having an altered icon (in place of the FA star in the top right) for articles that are undergoing FAR/FARC? I would think that the simplest way to do this would be to use the same FAR/FARC icon (File:Cscr-star piece.png) with a hovering title similar to the FAR notice on the talk page. My reasoning is that Wikipedia is a frequently visited live website, so when an article is below featured status this should be recognized prominently on the article page so readers are aware that it might not be "the best content Wikipedia has to offer". It's also worth keeping in mind that articles often take a rather long time to receive improvements (which is fine, progress takes time), and during this time there's essentially what may be "false" FA star on them – sure it says it on talk, but surely the amount of readers who visit the article more often than talk is substantially higher. Another added benefit is that it might better alert users who visit the page and have interest in the topic, perhaps convincing them to join in on the review. Another option might be to subsitute the star for FARC not FAR. Just a thought, obviously if there's support here this could be opened up to a more formal venue like an RFC or a proposal. Aza24 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(all)#Move_good/featured_article_topicons_next_to_article_name and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Redesigning_the_good_article_and_featured_article_topicons people have raised concerns that readers often do not notice and/or understand what the existing icons mean. My concern with your proposal is that we'd be exacerbating that problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Nikki and think we are better served to deal with the older, deficient FAs than fiddle with the icons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
For example, Anton Chekov was at FAR/C for 3 months, and that entire time it was starred as a "Featured Article" even when blatantly falling short. I don't see how readers not noticing the icons changes anything, if they don't notice the FA icon, they wouldn't notice a proposed FAR/C icon. However, the readers (and our many editors) who do notice the FA icon will have came across an Anton Chekov article for 3 months, thinking it is a "the best Wikipedia has to offer". Aza24 (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
But there are scores of FAs worse than Chekov that have not even hit FAR yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated list of Unreviewed featured articles

Thanks to the kindness of User:SD0001, we have a new list of unreviewed featured articles at WP:URFA/2020. It is organized by date so we can easily find the oldest unreviewed FAs.

@FAC coordinators: @WP:FAR coordinators: @WP:TFA coordinators @Dweller: This new list can be used to determine what old FAs need review, but it also has a column that allows us to include some of what is at Dweller's list of FAs that haven't been run TFA (a page whose link I can never find), by making use of the "Notes" column. In the Notes column, we can add information about whether the article has been maintained, whether it is mainpage ready, etc. Thanks, SD0001! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is excellent data, thank you Sandy for thinking about it and to SD0001 for working on it. I see a number of BLPs that have not been reviewed since 2006, which is worrying: Angelina Jolie, Frank Klepacki, Jake Gyllenhaal, Eric Bana, Bob McEwen, Sasha (DJ). RetiredDuke (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
yep. perhaps people are seeing now why I have been saying for well over a year that about a third of our FAs ... aren't. We have a large task ahead ... and I am so happy and appreciative that so many are on board to help clean this up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
So far, I am uncertain if we should just remove the post-2016 portion from the page and not track those, since the page is so huge ... but several of them are noticed ... thought we would wait and see whether it makes sense to try to reduce the page size by removing the more recent FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe - My instinct would be to slough the post-2016 stuff into a subpage somewhere. As is, the page is just way too long. My laptop will handle it, but it's just too much for my mobile device. The post-2016 material should have less errors. This could be a massive undertaking. Hopefully we can get some new blood into FAR. Hog Farm Bacon 19:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to do that, but will it cause problems when we are trying to update notices, etc? And if we are to remove it, we may as well just delete it out right, since if we need it again, maybe we can prevail upon SD to run the script they now have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, I test deleted 2016 to 2020 (we can reinstate from history should we decide), and the page is still huge. What worries me is that a) when we go to update notifications or what is at FAR, we will now have to know if they are not included on the page; and b) I asked Hawkeye7 if FACBot could keep TFA up to date on this list, and would the absence of the recent FAs foil the bot? ANd, if we go with this, maybe I should delete one more year for size (2015 as well)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The absence of recent articles won't be a problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Hawkeye. Then maybe we should delete 2015 as well, since the page is just way too huge. What do others think? What years should we be focusing on when it comes to cleaning up the older FAs? Right now, we have 2,188 FAs last reviewed between 2004 and 2009, and 2,343 between 2010 and 2015. And 2015 FAs are five years old already ... we just let too many years go by, so now the numbers are large. But we need to be able to edit the file. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I figured out a way to reduce the file size to make it easier to work with. SD0001 would you be able to put something together that will run through WP:URFA/2020 and just eliminate the fourth column entirely (the link to the last FAC or FAR)? I thought it important at the time to provide that link, but the file is just too unworkably large making it hard to edit, and removing that column would leave more room for comments/notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Editing tables (where you can add, remove, and rearrange rows and columns with one click) is one of the few occasions it's worth switching Visual Editor on. ‑ Iridescent 06:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Don’t know how you did that but awesome ... that reduced size by 131! Thanks, Iri, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm and Peacemaker67: is the file size manageable now? Would hate to have to delete 2015, and not sure that would make much of a difference, as the high volume years were the earlier ones .., SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Works better for me. Mixing the extra column was a big help for my screen. Hog Farm Bacon 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If you click this link it will open the page in Visual Editor even if you normally keep VE disabled. (It might take a few seconds to load because of the page size). While VE is generally a dog, it's fantastic for editing tables; you can remove rows and columns by clicking at the top of the column, cut-and-paste things around, etc, and the software will work out the Wikicode for you once you hit "save changes". ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Going in, then, to try to use the VE to fix the three errors listed below. I'm warning you, if it fails, I am giving you my first-born. And he has COVID. :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd remove the post-2016 part as we should probably be focusing on earlier articles that are in worse shape. It may also be helpful to have a list by FAC, FAR OR TFA date. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag, Sandy, and the work, SD. My page is User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Error

Errors resolved
I'm confused, why is the date 2005-12-15 for Jesus? (I ask because its FAC was August 15, 2013, but I'm not sure if I'm understanding the table correctly) Aza24 (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
You caught an error. I think that's due to the high number of milestones listed in the article's talk page; Jesus' FA promotion was action n=15, whereas most articles only have 4 or 5 actions before promotion. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
hmmmm ... I will fix that one manually and check on others that had high ActionN numbers. SD thought they had caught and corrected that error, so I will inquire what N they used for highest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Better ask them that, could be a different thing altogether. But that article does have a convoluted history. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that is the problem as it occurred in an earlier version, and I believe they upped the N used ... but will check. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
When SD re-ran the list, I checked baseball which has a convoluted history, and it was OK at action8, so it is possible SD only ran through N=10 ... in which case there may be very few errors. Would hate to have to re-run the list since it now has so many comments ... would be faster to run a separate script looking for FAs with actionN greater than x. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Beatles are action10 and they are listed correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, problem seems to be N=10 limit on Action, since Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) is listed incorrectly at the action10 date when the promoted FAC was action 11. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Errors:

These (along with Beatles) confirm that the problem is that N was capped at 10 for actions in articlehistory ... we need a new script to identify any current FA where the last (articlehistory action) N for FAC or FAR was greater than 10. There won't be many. I will fix these three, and suggest that correcting the errors manually will be better than re-running the list because of the extensive editing already to the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, while you are at it, could you remove the links to the FACs/FARs on the 4th column in the table "Last FAC or FAR 2010–2015"? Like how Iridescent did with the table "Last FAC or FAR 2004–2009". Would reduce the page a bit, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I tried my hardest, but could not make the Visual editor cooperate ... punted that one to Iri on his talk :) But I am relieved to realize that we have another path to reducing the page size! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Oops, apologies for the error. There was no cap on N. But the silly thing is that while trying to find the highest N, my program was actually comparing them as strings rather than numbers, by which logic "7" is greater "10" :( Let me see if I can fix all the errors programmatically. Should be possible. SandyGeorgia, note that Talk:The Beatles is actually listed incorrectly (action9 is listed rather than action10). – SD0001 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ha, my error on the Beatles. I am not sure if I should fix that now (FAC promoted date= 2009-11-03) or wait for you to fix all of them. Not to worry about the error, SD0001-- most appreciative that you did the work! And happy that with Iri's edits, we have now reduced the original 741,000 byte file to a more editable 290,000. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
There were about 30 errors; fixed. The sorting and table placement wasn't changed though. And yikes, that edit also ended up removing all spaces from end of lines. If someone wants to go and fix the sort order, here are the entries whose dates changed: Sesame Street, Truthiness, Solar System, Cretan War (205–200 BC), The Simpsons, Manchester United F.C., Earth, Karmichael Hunt, Ronald Reagan, Belarus, Liverpool F.C., Michael Jackson, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Hillary Clinton, Half-Life 2: Episode One, Crown Fountain, Frank Zappa, Barack Obama, Flag of Singapore, The Beatles, York Park, No Line on the Horizon, Elizabeth II, Lady Gaga, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Halo (Beyoncé song), Final Fantasy VII, Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars, May Revolution, Hyderabad, Nintendo DSi, Jesus, S&M (song), Ulysses S. Grant – SD0001 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again, SD0001 ... 30 errors out of 4,530 articles, no complaints :) I'm a bit frustrated right now about how long it is taking computer to pull up the diff of your changes, and trying to understand why that resulted in a loss of 22,000 bytes. Were the 22,000 bytes only the spaces from ends of lines? Or were there some deletions as a result of last FAC/FAR being after 2015 ?
I would like to work back through all of these myself, and re-sort them, as this ties in with the other messy work Mike Christie and I are doing to sort out old, pre-Gimmebot errors in FAC archives (it will be good for me to lay eyes on each one of these articles with long histories). So, if everyone will bear with me, I will get through these ... at any rate, the chart is still sortable by any column across the top, so no loss. Thanks again, SD, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Yep they're all from the spaces at the end of lines. So sorry the diff will be as long as the length of the page, which is why I put up the list above.
BTW, the page is still too big to be edited properly (I had to copy the source into my text editor to work on it – unfortunately the text editor was configured to shove the spaces at the end of lines). I'd suggest splitting it up into subpages – one page for each year. That would make it a lot easier to edit for adding notes and so on. – SD0001 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, the diff finally came up, so I am manually writing down the changes I need to do so I won't have to pull it up again :) Once I work through all of this, we will all put our heads together to figure out how to divide this up. (The problem with separate pages is that will be harder to add notices, notes, and keep tallies ... we will see where we end up ... let me get through the corrections first ... ) Curious to hear how many people have editing issues once I get this part sorted, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh well it pains me to know that someone is going to do this. Just in case you haven't already went through the changes, SandyGeorgia ,here is the list of date changes (page name then the revised date – output of the script I used):
Extended content
:::::::*Sesame Street 2011-09-11
  • Truthiness 2007-09-29
  • Solar System 2009-05-12
  • Cretan War (205–200 BC) 2006-11-24
  • The Simpsons 2007-08-14
  • Manchester United F.C. 2010-07-27
  • Earth 2020-11-14
  • Karmichael Hunt 2007-11-26
  • Ronald Reagan 2009-05-21
  • Belarus 2007-12-27
  • Liverpool F.C. 2011-08-30
  • Michael Jackson 2008-07-28
  • The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2008-05-08
  • Hillary Clinton 2014-12-13
  • Half-Life 2: Episode One 2008-10-31
  • Crown Fountain 2009-09-27
  • Frank Zappa 2017-07-31
  • Barack Obama 2012-10-22
  • Flag of Singapore 2009-12-29
  • The Beatles 2009-11-03
  • York Park 2009-12-16
  • No Line on the Horizon 2010-06-01
  • Elizabeth II 2012-02-21
  • Lady Gaga 2017-11-26
  • The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 2013-03-11
  • Halo (Beyoncé song) 2012-01-28
  • Final Fantasy VII 2017-05-29
  • Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars 2013-03-16
  • May Revolution 2012-11-03
  • Hyderabad 2015-03-07
  • Nintendo DSi 2013-09-25
  • Jesus 2013-08-15
  • S&M (song) 2013-08-13
  • Ulysses S. Grant 2015-03-31
If it makes your work easier, you can just revert my edit and apply the updates above. – SD0001 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that kindness :) The problem is that, because I had already subdivided the page, some change sections, which is why I had to write it all down. And we lose four articles that now have their latest review past the dates we are looking at. Thanks again, going in for the changes now! And I had already changed four of those you highlight (Jesus, Holy Wood, S&M and May of Revolution), so my list is a bit off from yours. I shall learn to move more slowly next time :) Had I not done all the other editing by the time the Duke Aza24 found the Jesus error, we coulda just started over, so it's my fault :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I just found 22 actions in article history at Talk:Real Madrid CF-- which brings up bad memories of my FAC delegate days! If anyone locates a greater than 22, you can have my other son, who also is about to get COVID, since his fiance and her entire family has it, and they (the two of them) live in a teensy apartment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

SD0001 something went wonky with your change to The Simpsons Movie? [4] 21:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Nice catch. The date update was meant to go to The Simpsons not The Simpsons Movie. Fixed now. – SD0001 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No mainpage appearance

You can sort on the TFA date column at WP:URFA/2020 to see the old FAs that have not run TFA. There are tons! The TFA Coords may appreciate it if we look into those sooner rather than later, as to whether they need review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ready to roll

I think everything is in order now; ready to roll. I've put new instructions at the top of WP:URFA/2020 so we can keep notes brief because of the file size issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily. And so on ... We're not looking for perfection :) We're looking for which FAs have deteriorated enough that review is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A general point that occurs to me is that while there's never going to be an ideal time for it, launching a mass cleanup drive when much of the world is in lockdown (and a not-insignificant number of editors are seriously ill or caring for people who are seriously ill, and an even more not-insignificant number of editors are extremely busy) is definitely less than ideal. The FAR co-ords need to be very aware that there will likely be a lot of "I can't check the exact wording of the source as every library is closed" and of editors who aren't in a position to reply quickly to queries, and make allowances accordingly. ‑ Iridescent 07:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely have been planning for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we have to worry about our exceedingly patient FAR Coords, who were all chosen for this characteristic :) They have shown themselves comprehensive in their allowances for improvements and time needed.
But in terms of institutional memory, the last WP:URFA undertaking took about six years; this is a marathon, not a sprint, and participants should keep in mind that we are not in a rush to defeature thousands of articles, and proceed instead in an orderly way that will maximize the number of stars retained without engendering ill will. We will be doing this long after COVID has hopefully faded in our daily existence. We can take our time to ping for collaboration, reach out to still-active nominators, etc. And keep in mind not to overwhelm one project or one nominator ... proceed in a way that those who are willing to improve articles are able to do so methodically, without being hit all at once with fifteen FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

History of saffron on hold

Buidhe just noticed History of saffron, where I saw that it was on hold. Do Coords want to delete the on-hold FAR, or bring it back ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Island on hold ?

Caroline Island (which is a mess) has a notice at the top of the article that it is currently undergoing review because Wikipedia:Featured article review/Caroline Island/archive1 is still open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it because it's so old I think it best if the entire process restarted. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a category where we can find these old still-open FARs. But something still was triggering the notice at the top of the article, so there must be a way to find them all and deal with them, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This was triggering the notice, although there seems to be no cat: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't see anything on the article page. Do you have a gadget/script installed that puts information there? DrKay (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
It was probably coming from my Preferences —> Gadgets —> Appearance —> Display assessment ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I think that script searches the talk page wikicode for a string like "{featured article review*/" and if found then displays a message on the article page. So: Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, Talk:MTR, Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. DrKay (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I've resolved those, so the gadget should only recognise the 20 known reviews (the 19 currently transcluded at FAR plus the one at /Coordination). DrKay (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Testing article issue detection AI

Help us test our problematic statement detection system. We hope to deploy this to help editors.

We are developing an AI to automatically detect issues in articles related to: NPOV, CLARIFY and CITE. We need help evaluating how well the model is working. We are asking for a group of volunteers to evaluate a set of sentences that are flagged by the AI. The landing page for evaluations can be found here. This page has a small set of examples for each issue. We have included sub-pages that include more examples (e.g. More POV examples). If you want to help, please assess as many example statements as you can. The more assessments we get, the better we can judge our model and make improvements. A description of our research project is on meta. Sumit (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Pulling this back from archive for a bit more input, since this AI is now being applied in active reviews. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It is potentially useful for identifying issues of weasel and loaded language but should also be applied with common sense. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
buidhe, fully agreed. If we do this right, it'll be useful. But it won't replace reviewers and editors. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Sumit.iitp would it not be better to put these comments at article talk, with a link back to the FAR ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that 100%. I have volunteered my candidates to get the AI treatment, just to help start understanding how to explain why it's saying what it's saying. Something I'm interested in both here and professionally. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia aha that makes sense. We could do that. Sumit.iitp, when you get a chance to look at The Rambling Man FARs, maybe we could try posting the flagged sentences on the article's talk page. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 12:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
EpochFail, I think TRM is referring to his Featured article candidates. (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Aha! That makes sense. That's for clarifying. EpochFail (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SandyGeorgia for the suggestion and The Rambling Man for letting us post the problematic statements on your FAR candidates. I'll get to generating the predictions for the given articles and post the statements which the classifier flags with the highest confidence to give an idea of the overall quality of predictions.
Sumit and EpochFail, thank you for updating the research page. Here's my concern: your goal is to reduce review burden, which is fantastic. However, the approach you're taking to try to get there is to post predictions on live reviews and ask reviewers to provide feedback on them... thereby increasing review burden.
Also: as seen in this particular review, the accuracy of the suggestions is debatable, which is to be expected given that it's still under development; I'm not too worried about that at the moment. What gives me pause is this: even if all three of the statements identified were indisputably a NPOV problem... what does that accomplish at that stage of the review? Best-case is those three get rephrased/cited, but neither I nor the reviewers know just from that whether these are minor deviations from an otherwise excellent article, or whether the whole thing is irretrievably non-neutral. I would suggest we go with Sandy's suggestion, post a list of every potential issue on article talk (perhaps with a pointer from the review), and/or provide some sort of summative assessment ("There were 900 neutrality problems identified, suggesting this article needs major work..."). Thoughts from others? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria for the detailed response. Below is the response to the questions:
  • Debatable accuracy: Agreed that the accuracy of the suggestions is debatable but this is precisely why we need feedback. Our automatic (preliminary) evaluations show promise in identifying issues with this approach of using "improving edits" to build AI to identify these issues. Beyond this, only editor feedback can help us identify the gaps to make it robust (like "How many statements to flag?, How to tailor it for Featured Article Review?"). Further, once we establish through broader consensus that we can identify missing citations and minor POV problems effectively through our proposed approach, it can similarly be used to build AI to automatically identify other issues like "Full paragraphs having neutrality issues", or "Full paragraphs needing lots of copy-edits" in review stages to give a sense of overall paragraph/statement quality in the article.
  • Easing review burden: Posting statements on the talk pages of articles as per SandyGeorgia's suggestions will allow us to solicit feedback on the positive and negative aspects of the predictions and identify ways to refine them so that they can be reliably used. I can also provide a summative assessment of the most problematic statements. E.g., "15 (or approx 4%) of the statements in this article were flagged to have NPOV issues". With regards to easing the review burden, after an initial assessment of the individual problematic statements, posting aggregate number of problematic statements seems like a good idea to achieve faster review. Sumit (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for climate change

Hello coordinates. In March, Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests/Archive_18#global warming nomination I inquired whether climate change (then global warming) could be featured on the main page. I got loads of feedback that has been acted on, and the advice to go the FAR to make sure it's main page ready.

Since, I've been waiting for the right moment, making sure there isn't much development or heated disucssion on the talk page. This topic attracts many passionate editors, and so that moment of calm hasn't arrived yet. Is it okay for me to bring it to FAR once the latest RfC is concluded? Or would you prefer for me to wait a bit to avoid a British-Empire like review? Most of the gang agree, but one editor objected on neutrality grounds when I proposed we bring it to FAR now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the most recent objection from that editor in the linked discussion was stability - do you believe that the article is stable now, or will likely be stable once the RfC you mention is done? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I do believe so. It changes moderately from week to week and we have the capacity to teach new users how not to be disruptive. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think then it would be reasonable to nominate post-RFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR pre-load

DrKay or Nikkimaria, could one of you please fix the pre-load to remind nominators to include a link to the talk page notification? One wearies of checking and adding them. I can't figure out how to edit those portions of the pre-load, but:

to something like:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

India

I noticed India yesterday for problems with comprehensiveness and summary style (plus a set of minor issues). I was met with personal attacks and ownership behaviour. Could an experienced FA reviewer have a look? I prefer some content-focused mediation to behaviour-focused ANI. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For now, watchlisting to see which way things develop. Sorry to see this, SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Femke, I believe the issue has calmed a bit,[6] and will separately address the panic in your new section below this one. On that particular article, it may be helpful for now to focus on the climate change additions you want to make, and let the (considerable) MOS:SANDWICH, caption, and WP:SS issues slide until February, at which time, I will be happy to outline the problems in dispassionate detail. Overall, India is in amazing shape relative to what usually happens to Geography articles, and particularly one with such high views, so I feel it is OK to let these issues slide until the temperature lowers. Would you be amenable to that for now? And by the way, thanks for not adding to the heat over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Has it truly calmed down? I opened Karnakata's FAR discussion yesterday and I was met with abuse twice since. I have never interacted with that editor before the nomination so it's all a bit perplexing to me. Appaling behavior from an FA regular. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, my. Well, I've moved that to talk, sorry it happened to you, and hope it does not repeat. I am watching both. Not an excuse, but there was a lot going on in the last few days, that included socking and hounding of an editor who acknowledges they need a break. Shall it repeat, please ping me ... I can sometimes make a difference, although my patience will wear thin if that behavior continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not particularly concerned about it, I just wasn't expecting that kind of reaction following a FAR of that particular article. It's a Geography FA, for heaven's sake... We're in for a long ride. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@SG: I agree that is the best course of action. The reason I'm focused on these high-profile FAs is that those are probably used as a template for other FAs. I definitely checked these articles when trying to figure out how to get climate chagne to FA level again. @RD: I think it has. There has been a sort of apology at the India page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not looked, but Nikkimaria has done a ton of work at Germany and Japan; would they be good candidates for your "template" work? Thanks again for the patience, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Preferably, we'd keep an eye out on all of those super-prominent articles (with slightly more tact that I did), so that FA novices will be able to go to any odd one, and find it in good shape. The next learning step for me will be the FAR of climate change, which I hope to bring this Friday. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep the asbestos suit handy :) I am sorry some of you are enduring this; it kind of goes with the territory here, along with a steep learning curve, which you are handling well! At least you haven't been threatened by an entire cabal of admins like I was, leading to me being named FAC delegate and eventually to one of the admins being desysopped by arbcom, and framing my entire impression of Wikipedia :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
That sounds stressful... I started out on the Dutch wikipedia, battling off climate denial while learning the ropes, so I'm used to the heat. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Give more time to article watchers?

Now that we've picked up the pace here, and identified many articles that require some love, we may want to make the process a bit less stressful. Now, we could bring the articles to FAR 5 days after a notice. In practice, we sometimes do so after two weeks (f.i. at Battle of Blenheim). We know we're patient at FAR, but people unfamiliar with the process might not.

Would it work to increase the time from 5-7 days to, say 3 or 4 weeks? Given the recent flurry of notices, this shouldn't slow down the overall process. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I often post notices that we are happy to leave FARs open for a long time (even months) if there is active progress being made on them. Might be worth expanding somewhere. Will have another look over the guidelines/process. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the discussion that resulted in the 5 to 7 days; Cas, note that this lowering was NOT part of my original proposal, and yet it crept in without explicit endorsement from everyone who weighed in (two editors endorsed the 5 to 7 days). I think it is doing more harm than good, and agree that we should put it back to a vague "few weeks" to lower the panic that we have seen now in three recent instances. (And from now on, keep FAR proposals at FAR talk.) Vague because there will always be occasional differences, at FAR Coord discretion. (As an example, I can assure you that I am the only editor left who had/has anything to do with El Hatillo Municipality so that timing would never be an issue there.)

The last thing we need, when gearing up to take on years of unaddressed FA reviews is to have editors panicking and turning against the process and participants because, as Femke says, they don't always realize how much leeway is given on timing. And with so many articles so many years out of compliance, there should be no reason to leave the non-FAR-knowledgeable feeling an "oh my gosh" panic, that is part of what led to the reaction Femke got at India (there are other factors there, including hounding and socking that contributed to the overreaction, but nonetheless, we don't need to add to it).

I suggest that we never had strong consensus to lower the wait days, and we can put it back without a new RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think increasing back around where it was, and then leaving it slightly vague is a decent idea. There's obviously a judgment call. Very flawed articles with no active involvement and nobody responding on the talk page might be good to go after a couple weeks (Chew Valley, maybe?), while stuff like Blenheim, especially since the project is rather active, would probably be worth holding off on. Another thing to keep in mind would be that while most wikiprojects are dead/dying, some aren't, like MILHIST or the medical project. In cases with still-functioning wikiprojects, it's also probably worth a note on the project talk page to see if some work can be done without a FAR. Hog Farm Bacon 16:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Couple of notes ... the author of both Chew Valley articles indicated on one of the talk pages that they have moved and no longer have access to sources and cant' fix them ... so those provide an example of FARs that can probably move forward. In general, common sense and awareness that editors are humans, and tons of hours went in to every bronze star, is a good thing. When we're uncertain, we should reach out to the original nominators if they are still active. And, by the way, the Medicine project is active, but many of them want nothing to do with the FA process, which is why I wrote User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content ... an attempt to get some to re-engage after years of neglect related to other issues that resulted in the loss of many medical FA writers. (So, if you are a non-med editor, please go review medical articles at FAC ... we have a couple of editors trying to bring back medical FAs, but it's hard to get reviewers to engage, as they are unnecessarily scared off.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay - happy to revert/lengthen the 5-7 day segment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Please do that. I don't understand why the length of the talk page notification stage was brought up in the first place. Speaking as someone who has saved articles at FAR in the past, a lot of the pages in question are going to need more work than a 5–7 day window allows. Between this and the multiple expansions of the nomination limit, I couldn't blame outsiders for thinking that this has become much more of a "delisting" process than a "bringing deficient articles up to standard if possible, and delisting if not" process, when the latter is truer to the intended spirit of FAR. If the former is truly what FAR has become, than it would be better to just delist most everything at UR/2020 and get it over with. If not, then the minority of us who care need to know that we will have the time needed to work on the pages we are interested in. If it takes a few weeks, it takes a few weeks. While I am proud that I've managed to add a couple pages to the FA tally over the years and would say that I feel connected to the collection as a whole, I won't waste my time on a lost cause. Too many of the ones we have now are going to be very hard for even interested editors to save, and I doubt I'll even be able to save most of the ones in my field (leading to the panic mentioned above, and demotivation on top of it). If I had believed that the notification window would be changed, I would have opposed the proposal as a whole. Let's fix this so that we can do some fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think "5–7 days" means that the article needs to be *fixed* within 5–7 days, there just has to be an indication that someone is interested and will work on it. If that happens, it will be delayed as long as necessary, usually months. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm on the record saying it is far too short. I agree with Giants2008 that with the current timings it seems more like a delisting process rather than an article rescue process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree that FAR should be a last resort process for articles with significant issues and nobody willing to work on it. Two week minimum between notice and FAR sounds like a decent floor except in rare cases. Hog Farm Bacon 01:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This hasn't happened yet at Template:FAR-instructions ... all we need is for:

  • Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns.

to go back to ...

  • Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns.

Could someone do that?

Also, separately, I am unable to find what edit caused FAR listings to be removed from the end of the WP:FAC page. Does anyone have a link to the edit, or where there is consensus that caused that to happen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Done the template change. The FARs are not transcluded because of [7]. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
oh my. Thanks as always, DrKay. I'm not sure many people over there even understand what that means, why it happened, and why I used to work so hard to keep off-topic off the page. Extended commentary goes on talk! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Back at last; thanks DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

At my five limit

I am due for another nomination tomorrow, but at my five limit.

  1. 8 November Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wii/archive2 (still in FAR)
  2. 25 November Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami/archive1 (3 Delists)
  3. 2 December Wikipedia:Featured article review/When God Writes Your Love Story/archive2 (1 Delist)
  4. 9 December Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of the Lesser Antilles/archive1 (2 Delists)
  5. 16 December Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jupiter/archive1 (still in FAR)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Almost one-third of the nominations on the page are extended reviews that people have promised to work on or that are actively being improved. That's a Good Thing. But extended FARs mean that many nominators will hit their five-article limit, and that FAR overall could stall. Do we need to entertain the possibility of moving to a max of six at a time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
My idea would be to set a limit solely for the number that could be in the FAR section at a time. The idea is to prevent system overload, and the bigger fish of system overload IMO is when stuff gets stuck at the FAR stage before FARC. Hog Farm Bacon 17:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'm also at my 5 limit (Cell nucleus and daylight savings time at FARC, the others at FAR). (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I would very much prefer people ask for exceptions when needed (as in the cases of extended FARs) rather than making a blanket change. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with that ...just was hesitant since I have had to keep bugging the Coords :) It looks like Wii will be at FAR for quite a while, so I may be asking for an exception soon. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Limited again

Due for another nomination tomorrow, but at my five limit again because of two extended reviews holding for improvements:

  1. 8 November Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wii/archive2 (still in FAR, holding for improvements)
  2. 16 December Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jupiter/archive1 (holding at FARC for improvements)
  3. 26 December Wikipedia:Featured article review/Myxobolus cerebralis/archive1 (moved to FARC 9 Jan, has 3 Delist declarations)
  4. 3 January Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Philadelphia Inquirer/archive1 (moved to FARC 16 Jan)
  5. 10 January Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yagan/archive1 (still in FAR)

@WP:FAR coordinators: May I have permission for six nominations on the page for as long as Wii and Jupiter are still holding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed/seconded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Update/correction needed

It would seem that someone has become confused as to who the FAR coordinators are here - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving. Could someone correct it? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks. DrKay (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hm. That page is linked from the closing comment in older noms where the people listed wouldn't have been the coordinators. Might make sense to simply say coordinators without specifying names? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It's linked from the talk pages of current FACs[8] but not FARs. DrKay (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Today's TFA

Nine Inch Nails live performances has been pulled out of the front page because of sourcing problems, noted in the article's talk page and at Talk:Main Page. It's one of the older ones. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have raised what I consider to be abuse of ERRORS at both that page [9] and at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article, which is where I believe this discussion should continue. No TFA is perfect. The vehicles for improving older FAs are here at FAR, and at WP:URFA/2020. TFA was once a recruiting tool for FAR and a place where older FAs were quickly tuned up. I sense some overstepping of bounds here by ERRORS (especially to the extent of declaring an "emergency"), but that discussion should probably be coordinated at the TFA page link above. Meanwhile, we keep plugging away at improving older FAs via URFA/2020 and FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Correct in everything you say; I opened this here because it might have skipped someone's attention (and well, we are kind of collectively looking at old FAs now). RetiredDuke (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep ... we just keep doin' what we're doin' and let TFA and ERRORS (mal)function as they wish. It is most unfortunate, though, that TFA no longer seems to understand that editor recruitment is helped by giving "anyone" something they "can edit", and not by suggesting that TFAs are perfect, since none are. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, the NIN one is not even close to the most decayed FAs. I can see not running one as TFA because of failed verification issues, but that one is in decent enough condition that the extra eyes from TFA could have done it some good. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It is precisely for actions like this that FAR fell into decay. Why keep older FAs up to snuff if one knows they will never run TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What's been wrong with the delisted FAs - A probably useless study

This is a fairly rough look, but I'm going by the listings for 2020 at Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive to see what issues the delisted FAs had in common, simply judging by the statement at the head of the FARC section (or my interpretation of the rest of it on the cases where it was delisted without FARC). The sum will not match the number of delisted FAs, as some of them had multiple issues.

  • Merged at AFD - 1
  • Sourcing - 44
  • Comprehensiveness - 9
  • Prose - 17
  • Neutrality - 5
  • Verifiability - 1
  • Close paraphrasing - 1
  • Organization - 10
  • Style - 7
  • Structure - 2
  • Currency - 5

So, unsurprisingly, the most common issue is sourcing. I suspect prose/style/organization may be catchalls. What is interesting is the number that had issues with comprehensiveness and neutrality, which is something to keep in mind when looking at WP:URFA/2020. Hog Farm Bacon 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Another extremely common (almost universal) issue among the unwatched older FAs is the cramming in of images with no regard for image layout. Irritating as all heck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Issues like image sandwiching tend not to get mentioned in that sectioning summary, which should not be taken as encompassing every issue an article may have. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, this was just a rough look, and my "study" is probably useless. Most of the time the sandwiching can generally be fixed by just removing some of the less-useful images, although massive infoboxes can cause problems almost impossible to fix. Hog Farm Bacon 18:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I hesitate to remove images, because the problem is so big, and I would need to ping Nikkimaria for a new image review on every article I touch! How many of these older FAs are out of compliance with image policy? (I Don't Speak Images :) I don't know which to remove and which to keep, being deathly afraid of image policy as I am :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
When fixing the sandwiching issues at Battle of Blenheim, I removed two images. Somehow, they wound up being the two with licensing issues. So idiot's luck for me, I guess. Hog Farm Bacon 18:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Prose is (relatively) easier to deal with before you reach an FAR, so it's not surprising to me that larger issues like sourcing and organization come up. It's easy for junk edits to accumulate or for subsequent edits to break clear links in sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: get thee over to WP:URFA/2020 and add a "Satisfactory" note to your older FAs that you have watched and are still at standard. They don't have to be perfect; we need to sort out which articles need to go to FAR, and which would be an embarrassment if run on the mainpage. If you indicate which of yours are "Satisfactory" (good enough), other editors are then triggered to look in, and get those moved off the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that lack of comprehensiveness is so low, that is the issue that I find more difficult to flag down on the "notice stage". We're looking at a rather large array of topics here; I don't know enough about many of them to judge if the articles are comprehensive or not. When the article reaches the FAR stage, more issues are spotted by other editors, and sometimes comprehensiveness is one of them, like what happened at Gilwell Park's FAR. I had no idea that aspect was missing from the article. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Those with institutional memory will understand my silence on some FARs ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this a different way, there are four main reasons that a FA might warrant / have warranted delisting:

  • The criteria have changed - this of course applies most significantly to the earliest FAs
  • The article has changed - if no one is stewarding, cruft and uncited/poorly cited material accumulates
  • The subject has changed. This could be with regards to "living" subjects, and I include in that not just living people but also other subjects that are still "around", if you will - for example, a common problem you see in the geography articles is that something promoted in 2010 still uses 2010 stats for economy/demographics/etc. But it also includes non-"living" subjects because people still tend to write stuff about people/things that aren't around anymore, and in order for an article to be a comprehensive survey of the literature someone needs to keep up on that.
  • Something wasn't flagged in the FAC. This is a smaller category and includes things like close paraphrasing/copyvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • And add to that, when you get back in to the 2004 to 2007 period, you find promotions on two simple support statements, no review or analysis, and promotions over multiple opposes. So not only did criteria change; reviewing standards changed. And Coords/Delegates were often obligated by consensus to promote things they didn't agree with. There was a period where I was flogged in the blog-o-sphere for flagging blog sources on a computer-related topic, and editors claiming that blogs were the most reliable sources in that field. We went into an extended period then when lesser quality sources were endorsed by reviewers as appropriate to certain content areas-- those are coming out now. The criteria never changed on this, but what reviewers accept did.
    I have been reading through some old FAs of a well respected and now long departed FA writer and reviewer, and seeing amazing amounts of original research that have stood for well over a decade. And trembling at the prospect of deleting it, knowing I will be flogged again, on Wikipedia this time. Her academic reputation was such that reviewers passed on original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And on this topic, see this great idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR conduct

  1. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spiderland/archive1
  2. Wikipedia:Featured article review/300 (film)/archive1
  3. Wikipedia:Featured article review/St Kilda, Scotland/archive1
  4. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Talbot Tagora/archive2

Femkemilene raised issues with HumanxAnthro on March 20 about the tone of their participation at FAR.[10] When that conduct continued at FAR 3 (St Kilda), I followed up on HumanxAnthro's talk with specific examples of problems, and explanation of the goals, aims and appropriate tone at FAR, [11] and asked that the disparaging of writers of older FAs stop.[12] Such behavior is discouraging to the very people we hope will participate and, it it becomes commonplace, will give FAR a negative rap as a place where previous FA writers and their work are disparaged unnecessarily.

Today, HumanxAnthro put a long and unnecessary quote from a previous FAR at FAR 4 (Talbot Tagora), connecting a previous editor with a subsequent account, and questioning their credibility with: "Anybody believe them?"

Because two previous attempts to discuss this conduct with HumanxAnthro have been unsuccessful on their talk, I am bringing this here for further feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

They also add unhelpful commentary like this, after I explained the importance of remembering that the Coords have to read through everything added to the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Come on. How is "Anybody believe them" a disparaging comment? This is just getting ridiculous. Nothing implied anything disparaging. I brought up the FAR quote only because the nominator's comment about its comprehensiveness may be of interest to the reviewers. I just asked other users a question, why are you now interpreting everything I'm saying a possibly a disparaging comment towards another user? 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, why is that other comment worthy of complaint? 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I have obviously done everything I did to avoid anything sound disparaging, and you're still coming up with ways to misrepresent and misinterpret what I'm commenting. It's so obvious. Stop it! 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Name the part where I supposedly "connect[ed] a previous editor with a subsequent account." Now you're lying to prove your point. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
How is hearing insights of the article of one of its most prominent editors and reasons it was nominated to FA unnecessary? 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi HumanxAnthro, I'm reading through your comments and I don't think your tone matches what editors expect at FAR. Although you might be trying to bring some fun to this place, the joking tone is lost when people are reading text instead of hearing what you say outloud. Furthermore, many editors come to FAR when "their" featured articles, which they had worked on for months or years, are critisised by strangers that propose taking away "their" FA star. These editors might be defensive about their work and interpret your comments as insulting them personally. Even though that was not your intention, it is still your responsibility to account for the misinterpretation.
I suggest you refrain from commenting on any editor's conduct or prior comments in FAR. Instead, keep your comments short and stick to the facts. Some great comments to post are, "I am concerned about the prose because there are lots of short paragraphs", "There are lots of citation needed templates" and "I think this article has improved a lot since it was nominated to FAR and fulfils the FA criteria." Keeping comments short helps editors quickly understand what the problems are so they can fix them. I also suggest that you do not comment in this thread anymore. If your tone doesn't improve, I will suggest that you stop editing at FAR for a couple of months. Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, and I agree, it's not good to disparage editors. Good thing there was nothing that I did in the review that discussed the editor's conduct. I only brought up the viewpoint of the article from a FA nominator, not discussed their conduct to give other reviewers insight for FAR reviewing. I honestly do not know how Sandy could interpret it that way. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think HumanxAnthro means any harm but the issue is that humor and sarcasm don't come across very well in wikitext. It can already be very demoralizing for editors to have their work come up at FAR, let's try not to make it any more harsh than necessary. (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi there. Excuse me if I sound harsh and a little uncivil in this discussion, but I do not take lightly to false accusations about me. You would be just as mad if your reputation was determined by false statements made about you. Sandy was right about inappropriate tone in my FARs before your comments, but I don't like things getting obviously misinterpreted. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do believe conduct has improved. With a similar improvement step from now on, we'd be there.
    • Keep it short. You're not spending your time efficiently if you comment as the third person on a FAR with no engagement. It's already clear that there are unsolved problems at that point, and nobody has stepped up to solve specific issues.
    • No fun allowed :P. Your type of humour has a high risk of being misinterpreted, so it would be best to refrain from it in FAR, we're people may already start out defensive, as we're trying to take away their star.
    • Probably refrain from saying that an article doesn't merit/deserve the star, as these words are emotionally loaded.
Hope that helps. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevant MFD

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2015, which is relevant to this project. Hog Farm Talk 17:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


WP:URFA/2020 revisited

(Posting here rather than WT:URFA/2020 for visibility reasons and the overlap in regular editors between the two project pages) Well, progress with URFA is coming along pretty well under the leadership of SandyGeorgia, who's been informally heading the project. One thing that's been noticed through the project that I think ought to be introduced is a change as to how we've been doing the noticing system. The goal of this project is to get interest in bringing older and abandoned FAs back up to standard, with delisting as really a last-choice option for when the article has major issues and nobody is stepping up to work on it. Currently, what generally happens is that the article does not meet the criteria, and a notice is left on the talk page stating that if identified issues are not met, FAR is coming. This is likely to discourage or scare off editors who might want to work on the article. An idea is that maybe references to FAR should be left out of the talk page notice identifying issues, and then FAR only mentioned and the article added to the list of notices after some time if no work is being done to address the issues. In exceptional cases, it's probably perfectly fine to drop the notice early: for instance when there's only a single main contributor who has been indeffed for years or has stated that they can't or don't plan on bringing it back up to standard. Additionally, if there develops consensus that the article is hopeless in its current state for whatever reason, that'd also be a sign to go ahead and notice.
Additionally, this is an effort that needs some more help. We let featured article maintenance get backed up by about 10 years, so there's a lot of attention that needs to be given here, especially with the oldest entries. One thing that could be done easily is for editors considering nominating articles at FAR to give precedence to nominating the articles closest to the top at the URFA list, although it should be kept in mind that some of those noticed are not good FAR candidates as they were only recently noticed, and someone may still step in to fix the issues. Hog Farm Bacon 02:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that if a featured article needs to be rewritten to retain its status, then it should be delisted and go through a new FAC. Several FAs promoted in 2006-2008 have not gone through a proper FA review, and I think that asking editors to upgrade them in the background is not the proper way to go. I repeat my suggestion to have a "speedy delist" process for FAs that need to be rewritten. I've seen FAs that wouldn't pass a GAN. T8612 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
So have I. The extreme cases should probably go the more accelerated route. Examples include Webley Revolver which was delisted a few months back, or Battle of Tippecanoe, which has serious source-text integrity concerns. But stuff like Shadow of the Colossus, which has definite issues but is not systematically broken, should get some more time to try to get engagement. I support not giving extra time to the hopeless cases, but the fixable ones I think should get a little extra time. There's a bunch of hopeless cases out there now, but as URFA works into the period with less time to degrade and stricter original standards, there will be more fixable ones coming up. Hog Farm Bacon 04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Not so much "my leadership" as URFA/2020 has been an amazing collaboration of many editors. The only thing I've done is try to set the tone and process, taking lessons from the old WP:URFA, knowing what some of the pitfalls can be down the road.
T8612, I like to think there is also a middle ground. Remember that a FAR is a new FAC. (See Climate change. No, strike that; these days, FAR is better than a new FAC, because FAC has fallen into a problem where any nomination is lucky if it can get three reviewers, and once it does, the review often stops-- you get more reviewers at FAR. We don't allow subheadings here. FAC has fallen into a pattern of allowing subheadings, including an indication of support, so that once reviewers see three segmented sub-heads where others have reviewed and supported, they say fine, I don't need to look-- this is a Very Bad Thing, that affects article quality, and is not happening at FAR. And when people see an article's status is challenged via a FAR they are more likely to weigh in and review. I do not think Climate change would get the grilling at FAC that it is getting at FAR.)
So when an article is many years separate from its original FAC, and considerably changed (I'm looking not only at Climate change, but also at Bob Dylan, where editors have engaged on my talk to ask for feedback), my suggestion is a three-step process: 1) involved editors who are notified on article talk that there are issues work for a few months to bring the article closer to standard; 2) once they've done that, URFA/FAR reviewers give them further guidance towards improvement; 3) then an article with that many changes is submitted to FAR for a check, as is happening with Climate change.
Ultimately, we have to keep two goals in mind-- article improvement, and engaging more editors toward same. If we are only here to strip stars from articles, or even perceived that way, FAR will fall into decline again.
All that aside, I agree that we need to move the hopeless cases through quickly, and conserve resources for where there is hope, or at least, for article improvement even if the star can't be saved. It's hard to know where to draw that line, but the Coords here do a very good job at sorting that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I think you all have a dialogue to finish. I came here to ask a question and found this thread that's kinda sorta getting at what I wanted to ask about. My understanding is that saving a FAR used to outweigh a quick and simple delist, but I've been away for ages and stuff changes. Above Hog Farm mentions the Battle of Tippecanoe as unfixable which he reiterated on the nomination page last night. Whatever the goal - delist, rewrite and go back to FAC, or something else entirely - it needs to be clear so that we don't have volunteers stepping up unnecessarily and wasting time and energy. For now I'll cease on Tippecanoe until coords and all are clear re goals. Let me know on that talk page or on mine what to do or not to do once it's clear to all. FWIW, as an uninvolved seldom-around participant my view is that saving an article is always preferable to delisting. But ymmv and all that. Victoria (tk) 15:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, I don't think Hog Farm said it was unfixable, just expressed skepticism that it could be fixed as part of the process. Improving articles is the main goal. (t · c) buidhe 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for clarifying what I was having trouble articulating. Do we delist & then rewrite, or rewrite & keep the star. What is the process? Asking @FAR & SandyGeorgia. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
If it is possible to rewrite and keep the star, that would be ideal (excepting odd cases like article merges and splits). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, what the boss said above me. But in this case, since you are the one interested in and capable of doing the work, it is also a matter of how you are most comfortable working. Meaning, I would want others on the page to understand that health issues make it best to let you work at your own pace. It can be done at FAR. But alternately, you are also capable of bringing it back to FAC (but that takes longer than a FAR these days). So it is almost up to you to decide how you prefer to work, and how your time is structured these days, and whether you will feel pressured working at FAR. You should know that the Coords are amenable to as much time as needed. And I also agree with you that saving the star the first time through is preferable (FAR is not in the business of stripping stars unnecessarily) ... but only if you are comfortable working that way, in this case. I am just thrilled that such a competent editor has taken an interest in this particular article, and know it will be better no matter how you work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki and Sandy. The point I'm trying to make and not doing it well, is there needs to be a general and clear policy so that anyone who shows up at FAR is aware of the goal. For the Tippecanoe FAR, I'm getting two vibes - one is "yeah, great, go for it, no pressure, thanks for showing up", the second is more along the lines that it's more work than should be done at FAR. I know how to navigate this place to seek guidance, but for the newbie it might be confusing. That's why I've tacked on to the discussion above.
As far as my personal circumstances, yes I need to pace myself, and no, I don't want to go to FAC. I've decided to crank it out to avoid aggro, but do we want to impose pressure on anyone, especially newbies, who show up to pitch in?
URFA2020 shouldn't just be an exercise in delisting imo, rather an exercise in salvage & then if that doesn't work, delist.
Of course there has to be incentive to salvage. Obviously delisting and then rewriting for FAC gets someone a star whereas a straight rewrite doesn't. Dunno what the solution is for that. Anyway thanks for indulging me. Victoria (tk) 00:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoriaearle, Another option is that the coords can also place a review on hold if the work to improve it will take awhile. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
So would that be a general policy that applies to everyone? My point is that people need to know what to expect. I'm getting the impression that it'll take too long, or something. It's a 3000 word article & after 4 days I'm a third of the way through, which includes a literature review and a fair amount of reading. I'll try to finish by the end of the week. Victoria (tk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's general; as the Coords will re-iterate, at FAR they are willing to leave pages open for months, or put them on hold, whatever it takes as long as it takes, but if involved editors indicate they can't save it, then the Coords will also shut it down if you request that. See the FARs at the bottom of the page now. This is how FAR works-- nothing out of the norm :) And there are FARs on hold now. Someone should go back and see what the record is, but I am pretty sure it approaches three months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The goal should always be saving the star. We are now prioritising the review of the oldest articles (pre-2009) on our list; those are the ones that tend to have more issues and require more effort to keep the star (for several reasons). When we open a nomination on an FA that has never been reviewed since it's promotion more than a decade ago, it's difficult to find someone willing to put in the considerable work to update the article - hence the high number of delistings at this stage. From what I gather, Tippecanoe's FAR seemed to go that way too. But when someone expresses an interest in improving the article, the process halts. That was the case in Earth's FAR, for instance, and the article was kept. I see no issue giving Victoria (or others) the time she needs; the review is kept on hold in the meantime. It's nice to have people engaging, FAR seemed like a ghost town for the longest time. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin

Due to a somewhat fractious RfC (see Talk:Frédéric_Chopin) the article, which I was active in promoting to FA status, has become seriously debased. The tumult has subsided somewhat, but we are still awaiting closure of the RfC which would enable issues to be resolved. In the meantime the article has become seriously degraded in places, and attempts to restore order are met by vociferous reversion by some eidtors. The article at present, I believe, is in content, references and layout no way acceptable as an FA, and therefore demeans WP standards. I would like to suggest that FA status be suspended until closure of the RfC, and that a reconstituted article, following the decision(s) at the RfC, then be resubmitted for FA evaluation. What is the best way to do this - or do editors have any other suggestions? --Smerus (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Smerus, You have to file a FAR in order for the article to be delisted from FA status. I would encourage you to do so if you think that the article has degraded from the standard, as not infrequently FAR leads editors to improve the article and bring it back to standard. (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this Buidhe - but I rather fear that moving an FAR at this point would inflame the various parties to the RfC which we have been waiting for several weeks to be closed, especially as I have been a party to the exchange of views.. I think that when it is closed there could be no objection to moving for an FA review - the problem is that whilst awaiting closure (which could be a while as a consequence of the vehemence of some opinions), this frequently-viewed article (>1m/year) is listed as an FA when it certainly doesn't (in its present state) meet that standard. If there is no alternative to an FAR, then I will consider this further.--Smerus (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no mechanism by which featured status can be suspended, other than by submitting the article to FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Buidhe, now that the editing of Chopin has quietened down somewhat, I have restated my query on FA review below.--Smerus (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Characters of Carnivàle

@Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay: - can the Characters of Carnivàle FAR be fast tracked to FARC please? It is obvious that the article should never have been promoted in the first place and there has been zero effort to address issues since I raised them more than two months ago. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if there's no engagement over the next few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for extension of 5 nominations limit

Hi @WP:FAR coordinators: , I was going to nominate an article for FAR, but I realised I already have 5 articles posted at FAR/FARC. Can I add a sixth nomination? The list of articles I have nominated, and their status, is below:

  1. 2021-01-27: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Extratropical cyclone/archive1 (FAR, on hold until Tropical cyclone FAR is complete)
  2. 2021-02-17: Wikipedia:Featured article review/St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery/archive1 (FARC)
  3. 2021-03-03: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Amchitka/archive1 (FARC)
  4. 2021-03-10: Wikipedia:Featured article review/War of the Fifth Coalition/archive1 (FAR)
  5. 2021-03-17: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chinua Achebe/archive1 (FAR)

Thanks for considering my request. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You and RetiredDuke seem to have a penchant for nominating articles that then end up in the "ongoing improvements underway" category, causing you to reach your limit. I endorse extension of your limit while any one of these is in the "being improved" queue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah happy for another to be nominated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Me, too

We just got news of another week delay on Menstrual cycle for an external expert peer review (which is actually pretty exciting news), so it looks like I may be needing an extension this week as well, depending on Greek mythology progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Me, too, too

Two of 'mine' are being improved by editors with limited time / a lot of work (Geology of the Death Valley area and Tropical cyclone), so hitting my 5 limit for the first time this week. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Me four

Several of mine are undergoing improvements, can I go to 6? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I understand if the coords don't view this as a good idea, as the current process isn't broken, but with limits frequently being hit and WP:FARGIVEN having grown to almost 150 articles, it may be useful to consider a temporary loosening of the limits, as there's a very substantial backlog. Just spitballing, though; not suggesting the current thing needs change, as FAR seems to be working well. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy for you to go to 6 - have been closing some a day early too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Me, again

I'm scheduled to nominate another FAR tomorrow but I am at my 5 limit again. Can I have another extension? Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
One of my nominated FARs was closed recently, so I am back at 5 FARs in the queue. I haven't nominated one this week, so can I get an extension to nominate a sixth article? The articles I have at FAR are:
  • Chinua Achebe (March 17)
  • Extratropical cyclone (Feb 24)
  • British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War (March 24)
  • Order of St Patrick (March 31)
  • Paul Stastny (April 7)
Thanks for your consideration. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: in case they missed my new request above. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another extension

@WP:FAR coordinators: It's been two weeks since my last nomination, and one of my noms has closed. Since I'm still at my 5 limit, can I have another extension? My noms at FAR are:

  • Chinua Achebe (March 17)
  • Extratropical cyclone (Feb 24)
  • Order of St Patrick (March 31)
  • Paul Stastny (April 7)
  • Nigel Kneale (April 21)

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

go for it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And me

I hate for this to be an every-other week occurrence, but given the URFA backlog of ones needing review, @WP:FAR coordinators: may I have a sixth nomination (the meteorological history of Katrina one is looking like its about wound down, so I understand if you want me to wait another week). Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Go for it - after years and years of tumbleweeds blowing anc crickets chirping at FAR and I delriously happy that more than one person is taking any interest at all. Really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@WP:FAR coordinators: - (the weekly ping comes again) May I have a sixth, this week as well? The Katrina FAR has closed. Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: - May I have a 6th? I'm currently have:

  • The Greencards, FAR, 10-9
  • Gillingham F.C., FAR, 10-3
  • Cincinnati, Lebanon, and Northern Railway, FARC, 9-25
  • Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico, FARC, 7-24
  • Great Lakes Storm of 1913, FARC, 5-8

Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I've closed Gillingham so you have room for another nom. Could I also get you to give an update at the Sherman review? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: - I've provided an update at the Sherman one; unfortunately the book I borrowed was not helpful. Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR transcluded to FAC

Perhaps it is time to revisit the viability of transcluding the FAR page to FAC. Depending on where FAR regulars stand on this issue, we might make a recommendation at WT:FAC. FAR is functioning. Nicely! Coords are responsive. FAC is not functioning; it is stagnant. Do we have any indication that readers of FAC are looking at the list of FARs and using that list to come here to weigh in? Did anyone who regularly contributes at FAR come here because they saw an article listed at FAC? How are people coming to FAR? With the FAC page as out of control as it now is, I have a hard time imagining anyone even being able to scroll to the bottom of the list, and am beginning to wonder why we are there. The FAC page is too large to load, and FACs are too long to read, and no one will monitor them as we do here. Please, thoughts, no !votes ... depending on our thoughts here, we can propose something over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not opposed, it would shorten the FAC page somewhat and make it easier to load. (t · c) buidhe 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Buidhe, do you recall what brought you to FAR? Was it a Project notification, an article notification, an article you were already involved with, seeing it at FAC? It would be helpful to talk about how FAR participants found their way here. For me, it was the horror of seeing a massively POV Hugo Chavez as a Featured article in 2006-- that is, I came to FAR because of a specific article in my topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Same: I found my way here after it was suggested this would be a good venue to further improve climate change. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Two reasons I came to FAR. 1) I was completing edit requests from COI editors and would recommend FA articles as templates. It took me dozens of articles to find an FA article I could recommend as a template, which frustrated me. 2) I followed the WP:URFA/2020 link from somewhere (I think it was from an FAC page), saw that there was an effort to check older FAs, and wanted to help. I started by nominating the articles I could not recommend in the COI process.
I don't mind removing FAR from the FAC page. I felt no need to help out because I saw the FARs underneath the FAC. From what I see, most FAR reviewers are here because they have the FAR'ed article watchlisted or the Wikiproject notification. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I came to FAR because of Battle of Shiloh, which was a badly decayed older one. Stuck around because I saw how bad the issue was; will be here to stay. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do know I came to FAR because of FAC. I made some (very sporadic) FAC comments here and there back in 2017 and I noticed FAR at the bottom. Back then FAR was virtually dead and it would take months to get people to commit one way or another, even to get a single declaration. Eventually I grew tired of seeing Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/West_Bengal/archive1 there, so I left a comment. Then I started nom'ing some articles, too. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well ... that's one (at least) very valuable FAR participant who found us via the FAC transclusion. Are there others? What do the rest of you say about the possibility of missing a future RetiredDuke if we drop FAR from FAC, not because of FAR issues, but because of FAC problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think removing FAR from FAC does anything good for FAR, and it would only be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at FAC (the problems there are not caused by the inclusion of FAR), so I personally would support keeping this with FAC. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well, if I'm being honest I don't know if I would engage if it were today; I can't remember the last time I managed to scroll down halfway through FAC. But I do think the 2 processes are best kept together. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not the solution we deserve, but the amount of articles at FAC right now is getting kind of ridiculous, and anything would help. It makes sense, practically in my mind, both are largely independent projects—different coords, different participants, articles, general culture etc.—and the connection doesn't seem direct enough to warrant its transclusion on FAC. I would speculate that the new editors who (like Retired Duke above) discover FAR through FAC, could be led there still if we replace the transclusion with a little blurb about FAR and a link to the page (similar to what is there right now, just without the articles). This would actually make a lot of sense; we already have a (in big text) "New reviewers should read the full FAR-instructions before reviewing, or nominating an article for review."—so we want new reviewers to go the main FAR page to see the instructions anyways, why are we transcluding the articles below then if they can be accessed in the main review page (which is where the new reviewers would end up going to read the instructions)? Also, its not as if this is the only action we're going to take to help with long FACs/transclusion limits—which is why I disagree with HF's titanic sentiment above. If we were rearranging the chairs and then leaving the ship, that would be a problem, but there's no one saying that we're doing this and then calling it a day—we can certainly look at other (additional) solution, such as the many suggestions about adopting a PR like transclusion system at FAC talk. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I agree, the FAC page should only display nominators' introductions. T8612 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Can't that be accomplished by simply adding noinclude tags to the bottom and top of every FAC? That would solve the load time and transclusion limits, but do absolutely nothing to address the fact the FAC is no longer FAC, rather peer review, and would leave each FAC still unreadable. Anyway, can we stay focused here on the FAR issue? Is there a benefit to having FARs transcluded? Do reviewers come to FAR because they see articles of interest at the end of the FAC page. And Aza24, historically FYI, it was one page, one process; of course they are related. They are not different participants; the processes are intrinsically linked via WP:WIAFA and WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know if that's something we can reliably determine, we could doing a big poll, but that still seems dubious. Is there a way to perhaps display the links to the nominations, for FAR but not trasclude the reviews? Maybe that could both help with transclusion limits and also not erase the possibility of attracting reviewers by displaying the articles below. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know the answer to that, but I'd wager that DrKay does! And ... I think that's a brilliant solution ... we stay transcluded, but add little to the page load :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'd support that solution - cuts a good compromise. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    This seems to have gone in limbo, @DrKay: do you know if this is possible? Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    It should be possible, but I haven't found a way of doing it. I think we need a better coder than me to look at that. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
    • List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
    • Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs
  • WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.
  • Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.
  • Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Limit of five nominations at FAR

There is currently a limit at FAR for: "No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator." I went through the FAR and FAC talk page archives but could not find the discussion of why and when this rule was first implemented. I also couldn't find instances of FAR coordinators rejecting an extension request. Two weeks ago, four editors asked for this extension, and it's likely that next week I will ask for an extension to seven articles. What is the rationale behind this rule, and should we revisit this limitation? Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I've understood, there are two reasons why this limitation exists. The first is to avoid overloading the FAR process. If everyone had 10 nominations on there, it would be much more difficult to keep track of. The other is that we don't want to have so many up at one time that it overloads editors who want to try to improve the articles and save the star, much like why it's discouraged to have multiple similar articles at FAR concurrently. What the overwhelming numbers currently are, I do not know. FAR has also gone through a lot of different climates. Many years ago, way before I started editing, it looks like it was a happening place. When I started into FAR last year, it was a graveyard. Everything was slow and few people were involved. And now things are picking up again. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It was actually an allowance of only one nom at a time for years - it was boosted for URFA noms initially in 2015 and then for all noms just in 2020, I believe. I'm not inclined to boost it further at this point. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/archive_9#Concerns has some relevant discussion. In addition to the rationales listed by Hog Farm, the other consideration is that ideally nominators would be actively engaged in identifying issues, even addressing them themselves when possible. Obviously that doesn't happen on every nom, but it's more possible when the nomination numbers are limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion where we loosened the number to five is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 13#Pickup up the pace at FAR. For all the reasons mentioned by Hog Farm and Nikkimaria, I feel like we are at about the right pace now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep the current limitation in place, as the queue is getting a bit too long. The idea is that every nom gets its opportunity to be attended to. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, we have to stop somewhere (for practical reasons—this isn't a delisting process), and the current seems more than enough. Aza24 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that if we automate some of the process (f.i. notification, updating the URFA/2020), it may open up editor time to keep even better track of listed FARs and help get quicker keeps, and we could increase up to 6. As it stands, 5 seems appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin again

I want to ask opinion about FA review for this article. It was the subject of substantial controversy over the past 6 months and much of it has been rewritten. I would like to feel confident that it still meets FA criteria. In one area it seems to me to be clearly deficient. That area was the source of controversy.

All modern accounts of the life of Chopin raise the matter of his correspondence at the age of 19 or 20 with Tytus Woyciechowski. In this correspondence Chopin uses language which can, and has been, interpreted by biographers as having possible homosexual implications. Most authorities conclude that the evidence is equivocal or may represent a passing phase. Some WP editors claimed (although there is no clear evidence) that Chopin was clearly homosexual. A number (including myself) felt that the article should, citing the aprorpriate authorities, mention this correspondence and note that it was equivocal. Others felt that, although the matter was mentioned by all modern authorities, no reference should be made to it; they gave no reason except that they considered it WP:UNDUE. It is not appropriate here to speculate on their motives; but my personal feeling is that it is wrong to 'censor' Wikipedia from reporting opinions that some editors may dislike, even when these are opinions of respected authorities.

Now that the furore has subsised I have restored to the article a paragraph on Chopin and Woyciechowski, citing the various relevant authorities. I hope this will prove acceptable to editors, but some of them may yet object further.

If this article is effectively censored as a consequence of the objections of a few editors, I am doubtful that it can reasonably continue to hold featured status. This issue of course raises general questions about de facto censorship of WP beyond this particular article. I should be very interested to learn of other editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, I only speak for myself, and this opinion is based on my short time here and how I assess articles at FAR. Currently, British Empire is at FAR and there is a disagreement on what content to include in the article. That FAR started in October and the discussion is still ongoing. If Chopin is brought to FAR, there's a possibility that the same thing will happen; Chopin's sexuality dispute spills into FAR and the article languishes in FAR purgatory because editors can't come to a resolution. I don't think that is what anyone wants.
I suggest bringing the article to dispute resolution; perhaps some RfCs on proposed text, or WP:DRN to help untangle the UNDUE concerns. If this is brought to dispute resolution, editors should be prepared to "lose" or not have their preferred perspective included in the article. I would be happy to reevaluate its FAR suitability after dispute resolution has been attempted since I can look at how a more formal process unfolded and get a better understanding of the dispute. I am also willing to help bring this article to DR; although I won't mediate the dispute, I will help determine which route everyone wants to take, help get the process started and submit information to the appropriate place, if necessary. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this thoughtful comment. Let's see how the reaction goes to the edits I have just made in the article. One of the most contentious editors last time has just been indefinitely blocked from WP (for actions in other articles) so it just may be easier to get an acceptable consensus now.....--Smerus (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Z1720. FAR is not a good mechanism for sorting out contentious content inclusion/exclusion. The article will just sit in purgatory for months and nobody will be happy in the end. Hog Farm Talk 21:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
OK so far (touch wood) so good, so I will drop FAR unless things change. Thank you all for your opinions.--Smerus (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR instructions and URFA link

Just worked through the process of creating a FAR for the first time, for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rugby World Cup/archive1. Hopefully I did it all correctly. A few of procedural points/questions:

Firstly, I'm surprised there's no link from Wikipedia:Featured article review to URFA/2020. Instead, I have to go to this talkpage and then to Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles (which is historical at this point I think?), and then to Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. This is unintuitive, even as someone already aware of the URFA process. What I'd expect is something like Wikipedia:Good article nominations, which has a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021 right at the top.

Secondly, why doesn't Template:FARMessage create a talkpage header?

Lastly, I removed the article from Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given as I had seen others do before. This is again visible only on this talkpage, and is a step absent from the FAR instructions. If this is something that is meant to be kept up, it could be noted, even if as an optional item.

Best, CMD (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the FAR instructions should be updated. I think it should include that a notice must be placed on the talk page for at least two weeks before it can be nominated for FAR, and I agree that removing a notice from FARGIVEN should be included. I think URFA/2020 was hesitant to add a link to the top of this page because editors wanted to test out the process before there was an influx of editors. However, I think the process is working well and a link at the top can be helpful to recruit for the URFA/2020 working group. As for WP:URFA being historical, I think that discussion should happen at URFA, not here. A talk page header for FARMessage would be wonderful. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure WP:URFA itself is historical for all practical purpose - the list of unreviewed articles there states Unreviewed articles on this list have been re-listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 and status is no longer being tracked here. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I've made the link to the updated URFA page more noticeable in the main URFA page. I don't think having a banner is ideal; the URFA process will take far longer than a month like the GA drives, so its inclusion at the top of the page might be mostly clutter if anything. Also, it's not like there's been a small amount of articles at FAR anyways. Having an automatic header in the FAR message is a great idea, that's something we could ask for assistance with on the technical pump. Aza24 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I've added a URFA2020 link to the linklist beside the instructions, and added a header to {{FARMessage}}. Z1720, the instructions already say that the talk-page stage should last two to three weeks; are you proposing it should say something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: It is mentioned in the "Reviewing featured articles" section (the dark blue background) but not in the "Nominating an article for FAR" (the light blue section). We've had a couple times when new nominators have not waited the two week period. Should there be something added to step 2 like, "Articles should be noticed (Step 1) for two weeks before they are listed here." However, if this is making the process more complicated, then it shouldn't be added. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I've made an addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to FAR

Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#What_happens_when_today's_FA_is_apparently_not_in_a_fit_condition_to_be_a_FA?. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 2Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA) by:
    • Listing older FAs that are ready for the main page
    • Helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before they run on TFA

This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)

In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.

If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How can you help?
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix article concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
  • Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing FA standards and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
  • Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.
Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm Talk 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How to regulate FAR themes

I believe I've seen before somewhere, but cannot find to hand, the idea that opening multiple FARs covering similar topics is undesirable as it is often the same editors working on these topics. Is my recollection correct? If so, is there a vague consensus on what this might mean? I notified 2003 Pacific hurricane season back in April and it hasn't seen work since, despite a bit of discussion on the Wikiproject page, so I feel it would be appropriate to bring it into a formal FAR. However, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Great Lakes Storm of 1913 are currently at FARC. Would it be preferable to wait for one or both to finish up? Thanks, CMD (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: - it's generally up to a judgment call. The editors working on the Great Lakes Storm of 1913 are generally not hurricane editors, so that isn't of concern here. So I guess it'll just be a judgment call (personally I'd recommend waiting until the Katrina one closed, just in case to prevent a repeat of the time we had Wikipedia:Featured article review/Extratropical cyclone/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical cyclone/archive1 running at the same time, especially when there's a backlog of roughly 140 other articles potentially needing FAR). The Katrina one may be winding down, though. Hog Farm Talk 05:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: - The Katrina one is now closed. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

James Joyce FARC extension request?

I'm not sure if this should go on this talk page for the James Joyce FARC discussion subheading, but the instructions seemed to suggest posting here is reasonable. I was just going through the Featured Articles Review list and saw James Joyce on the removal list. I think taking on HAL33's concerns and Nikkimaria's summary is something that can reasonably addressed with this articles. Though I have two caveats and a question.

First, there is a request for modern academic research. I can certainly try to move in this direction, but my access to the other side of the academic paywall is limited, so I probably won't be catching the latest.
Also, there was a question regarding Nikkimaria's summary. HAL33 mentioned length, Nikkimaria mentioned coverage. I know these are both related, but I felt like length is never a problem with such articles, so if it doesn't grow substantially, is this okay? My goal is to try and get it back into citation shape, though I'll add what I discover on the way. And, of course, if other editors are inspired to add content, that's great. But if it can stay focused, and on the lean side that could be good too.
Finally, a question. How does the FAR process compare to FAN? My goal is to help out, and I'm definitely open to some in-depth peer review and ensuring that all raised FAR concerns are addressed as well as possible, but I'm hoping that it is seen as assisting with maintenance and not having to address the more open-ended gamut of concerns that are properly expected from an FAN article. I'm just hoping that helping out is a bit less intense that an FAN. If the FARC team is okay with my caveats, I'd like to request an extension to the delisting, that can be noted on the Joyce FARC page, so I can give being lead editor to maintain the article a shot. If it is too late or my request is unreasonable, just let me know. If so poor Joyce will just head toward a commodious vicus of recirculation (FW, p.1) Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Wtfiv: - If you leave a note that you plan on working on it at the FAR page, you'll be given time to work on it. Sometimes, even just one person working on an article can inspire others to chip in. The FAR coordinators are generous with giving time when work is still ongoing. Although sometimes when significant work is needed, it's sometimes better to work on it outside of the FAR process. Hog Farm Talk 05:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Thanks for the quick response. I guess I'm figuring on working to helping to keep its FA status. This seems a quite different process than having to clamber the GAN and FAN slopes for the article again. So if multiple extensions can be given in the face of progress that would be great. I'd totally agree though that the clock has to run out at some point. I'll note this on the FAR page too! Again, I appreciate your guidance and feedback! Wtfiv (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv, you can get access to academic research via The Wikipedia Library and/or the Resources Exchange. As Hog Farm noted, happy to give time to work to bring this back up to standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks FARC team. And thanks, Nikkimaria for the heads up regarding resources. Wtfiv (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest putting the article on hold. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree with putting it on hold; as it stands, editors who should have been brought in were not, and putting it on hold will only make others less likely to be aware of this FAR (as would have/could have happened in my case, as a relevant party who should have been notified). As I find time, I will look in to see how things are progressing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Ceoil: wondering if you were aware of this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Ya, have been following. I don't agree with putting "on hold", not a good call at all imo, the edits to date have been rather informnd, and some direction from the process might help. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Mystery: missing or inadquate notifications

Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

These instructions have been part of FAR since ... forever. Why are they not being followed, and separately, who is checking? When I am editing, I check every FAR, but since I haven't been editing, I see that notifications at worst are not happening, or at best are not being listed.

Because of work on its 2006 FAR, before Wtfiv started work, I still showed as the top contributor by edits to James Joyce, even though I added no significant content. Buidhe ... Why wasn't I notified? I am only today discovering this FAR, and it would have been my pleasure to ping in some editors qualified to work on it. I haven't taken the time yet to see how I feel about such a massive rewrite being done via FAR for such a topic; will get to that as I have time, but it is concerning to see such a complete overhaul at FAR, and I wonder if a new FAC is better indicated (have not looked yet). Separately, HAL333, this notification of deficiencies was not adequate. Provide a sample of the referencing formatting issue. Provide a sample on non-reliable sources. Provide a sample of recent academic work that is not represented. We don't use article size in KB to indicate whether an article is comprehensive and "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; we document what facts or details are missing. We should be checking for adequate notifications before nomination so that we don't see grumbles down the road that will reflect negatively on the FAR process, where we often see claims that FAR simply seeks to delist articles.

More importantly, why is no one checking notifications? After seeing this, I scanned the page and found this problem on multiple FARs. The instructions do NOT say to notify only the nominator; the goal is to cast as wide of a net as possible, to find someone who might be willing to improve the article, and for that reason the instructions recommend viewing the stats tool. Further, one of the reasons the instructions say to indicate at the top of the FAR who you have notified is so that someone can doublecheck that it has actually happened.

I stopped there, but this is enough to give concern that this is the tip of the iceberg and FAR isn't making its best effort to bring in editors who might be interested or able to salvage a star.

Lest anyone needs a complete example of how to list notifications, I offer a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oriel College, Oxford/archive1. With all the activity and improvements this year at FAR via WP:URFA/2020, please, let's not risk having FAR get the rap of being a place where articles are delisted without adequate attempts to locate editors who might save them. Please do the notification, check that they are done, and make sure that the FAR needed notices are adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize and will alert more editors and give a more thorough list of issues going forward. But in my defense, I actually notified the TAMU and Texas WikiProjects as well, and I did not nominate James Joyce for FAR. All of my actions fell under "1. Raise issues at the article's talk page". Also, in my first FAC nomination, I was told that I should aim for a particluar KB count. Was that not accurate? ~ HAL333 19:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a certain KB count that it's generally not good to exceed for various reasons, but in general just the KB count isn't a good measure - it's better to identify certain areas too thin/too detailed as some subjects will be longer/shorter by nature. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, okay. ~ HAL333 22:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I'm good with whatever is decided. I saw this article just on the edge of falling off its featured article status and thought a project to keep it on would be fun. At first, I thought I would just be adding references, cleaning prose, and changing claims based on the evidence of accessible references. (e.g., the claim that Jung called Joyce schizophrenic or that Ibsen wrote Joyce back have been corrected with accessible citations.) I didn't even think the article would necessarily need expansion.
I think the first half of the article continues to track the original fairly well, though undoubtedly my voice intrudes. But as you can see, it got bigger once I got to Trieste. As HAL333 noted or warned, post-Dublin was thin. I just didn't think about it until after I had gotten there and gotten into the project After that it got bigger as I pulled together sources (trying to ensure every one of them is accessible and trying to get the multiple perspectives) and tried to fill out Joyce's post-Dublin life. Then recently, I added pictures just to make it look not so text heavy So, I suppose it is a major rewrite, but I tried to respect as much of the original material as I could. (i.e., the Ulysses censorship material was integrated into Joyce's biography.)
In addition to expanding post-Dublin, I did separate out Joyce and Politics, as it seemed to be a nice parallel to Joyce and Religion. I did add the information on his passport as there seems to be an ongoing set of disruptive edits regarding Joyce's English passport. I figured it's best to start a secont on it.
Still, if I've done something that would be better not done, or in some fashion undermined the original integrity of the article, please feel free to revert all. Watching the work evaporate would be difficult, but I understand that there is implicit ownership of articles, and I certainly didn't mean to encroach. I learned an incredible amount from the process and am grateful for the opportunity to learn a biography in depth.
You will be seeing me enlarging and reworking the first paragraph of Joyce and Politics section. As mentioned, I'm replacing out the second-hand mentions of Ellmann, Scholes, and Mangianello...plus a number of more recent critics...with verifiable citations from these critics. But this is just my need to wrap up. After that, I'm pretty much done. I expected my wrap up to be done by today or tomorrow, and I can leave the article alone from there.
Again, my apologies. Had I known the article had an active lead editor with access to fellow qualified editors to work on the article, I would have steered clear. Perhaps, there is material here worth keeping, and if little of that, perhaps resources provided- for example, the directly linked, verifiable references- that you find you can integrate and use. Wtfiv (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv no apologies needed, other than mine for coming across as so rude in my frustration-- and not about you making needed improvements to an article, but about a basic function of FAR going by the wayside. Please forgive my poor manners. I haven't even looked at the article yet, and I don't consider myself a "lead editor" (I only have a high edit count because of Manual of Style type cleanup I did in the last FAR), but I did know editors who would have possibly taken an interest had there been notifications. It is not your much appreciated work that had me frustrated; it was the absence of notifications :) Thank you ever so very so much for taking on this important article and I look forward to catching up with your work if/when I find a free moment (occupied elsewhere at the moment). I believe there was some past controversy about religion, so that will need to be handled with care? But I am not a literature type at all, and trust Joyce is in good hands since you took the interest. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Great work on this article by the way Wtfiv. I do believe you have considerably improved a high-traffic article. (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia Thank you! As mentioned, I'm pretty close to done with my major edits. After thinking about this over the last weekend, I had decided it was time to wrap up: Rework the first paragraph on politics a bit, and stop there. (except for the unless pruning, addition and tinkering with citations, prose and format.) Then I planned to ask if it could stay as an FA, since I covered the concerns outlined by HAL333. It'd be great if you could come in to edit as you see fit once your other projects have been taken care of. I'm always uncomfortable working without the eyes of another editor, particularly one generally passionate about the topic, watching and collaborating. Wtfiv (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, I think the silver lining may be that you are now aware of the changes and can participate in its further formation (or reclamation). Thank you again. Wtfiv (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thinking further: I'd like to request the following, if possible. Could you look and see if you feel it is still meets FA criteria in your opinion? If so, we could toss it out to the FARC team for an abbreviated FA reassessment review? I'd ask the FARC team if we could get an experienced FA reviewer to go over the article and ensure it maintains FA criteria. On the other hand, if you feel the article has just wandered too far from your vision, we could just demote it. I'm not interested in accompanying the article through a full FA process myself, but eventually somebody would own, edit and advocate for it.
Given that your engagement with this article, what do you think is the best course of action? I'll do the follow up. Wtfiv (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv, you are to a point where you need not worry … when you let others know that you are done with major edits, regulars at FAR will take a look anyway. And we don’t easily demote FAs :) It sounds like you are almost over the line. I am, probably, considerably older than the rest of you here, and am at my limit today for how much longer I can sit at a computer and type, but I will give it a look soon. There is no hurry at FAR (although I know you will want feedback sooner rather than later). Meanwhile, some other Irish and literature knowledge editors may have a look as well. I pinged Ceoil, and I can think of a few more editors who might want to have a look— I’ll ping them soon. Thanks again for all the work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, what you were told is more nuanced than just judging an article on KB. I agree with Esculenta that more aggressive summary style would be beneficial. Ideally an article like this would be somewhere in the 45-55 kb range, imo, for the right balance between comprehensiveness and readability. (According to an online calculator, reading this article would take over an hour). Summary style is a good way to ensure that the information does not disappear from the encyclopedia, while enhancing readability and conciseness. That is much more specific advice than saying, articles should be X KB. And it was about an article being too long needing use summary style, rather than an article being allegedly too short, where the more correct argument is to explain what is missing in terms of comprehensiveness. Thanks for understanding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
All right, guilty as charged. In the future I'll look at the major contributors to see if there are other editors besides the FA nom who should be notified. (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll go and do this retroactively for pages I've given notice too that haven't been yet nominated for FAR yet. ~ HAL333 22:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: You said Why are they not being followed, and separately, who is checking? I thought it was the FAR co-ord's role to ensure procedures are properly followed. Is this not the case? Pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: as I mentioned them. If there are any concerns about my nominations, please ping me and I will immediately fix it. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, my take on this is that it is a job that anyone can do, but the Coords should make sure it is being done. Truth is, probably no one knew I was doing it regularly so no one knew it had fallen through the cracks during my editing absence. Now we all know :). If I am not editing, someone should be checking … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
All the fun stuff happens when I'm asleep...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

And ... another, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/England national rugby union team/archive1,  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FAC that impacts FAR

… and yet, was not noticed to this talk page.

Please see:

See also the

  • discussion above where we realized many participants find their way to FAR because of the FAC transclusion, and
  • similar expressed here by Wtfiv, who is close to finishing the restoration of James Joyce to FA status.

Buidhe, as in the thread earlier on this page, it would have been considerate to raise your idea first at FAR, then move on to FAC based on feedback here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/archive_13&oldid=1142151153"