Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
URFA/2020 and
instructions		Very old FAs
(2004–2009)		Old FAs
(2010–2015)		DiscussionMonthly stats
and reports
Shortcut

ITN

[edit]

Glynn Lunney, the NASA engineer who led the team that brought back Apollo 13, died yesterday. Unfortunate that our URFA/2020 notes were not cleaned up before his death, but happy that MLilburne has come out of a 9-year absence! Please keep an eye on whether we can mark this “Satisfactory” after obit-related updates. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that we should prioritize making sure all of our BLPs of older individuals are up to snuff, eg, recent work at Sandy Koufax. User:SD0001, do you know if it is possible for a script to pull a list of every article on the URFA/2020 list that is a) a BLP, and b) of an individual older than 65 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SD0001/sandbox&oldid=1013287421 it lists BLPs from URFA/2020 born in 1956 or earlier. – SD0001 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ever so much; that was speedy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed BLPs on older subjects

[edit]

WP Cyclone CCI

[edit]

Continued from #2021 year-end goal ?

Don't want to get this derailed too much here, but also something to keep in mind with hurricane ones - there's four pages of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Not all are copyvios, of course, and the US government stuff should be public domain, but recommend checking for copyvio on these. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fiddlesticks, I wasn't aware of that. I'm unable to tell from the CCI which editors to watch out for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this statement give me some relief on what I need to check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

To complicate it, we've already cleared out some of the seasons of copyvio (denoted via FA icon or Green tick) and we haven't checked other articles within WPTC. I hope we can clear this soon; more editors are going to be active soon and not all of them understand copyright. Sennecaster (What now?) 17:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster, MER-C, Moneytrees, and Vami IV: - pinging CCI big dogs who know more about this situation than I do. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially did a preliminary veiw of WPTC articles with Chlod in my userspace; that has since been deleted since the time of case opening, so that is where the checking thing came from. It shouldn't impact the flow too much; I will go through the listings and mark ones that have already been cleaned during the preliminary review.
I would be on the lookout for unattributed PD copying and a lot of meteorological agencies are copyrighted. Most of the ones that were checked were not GA/FA, and I haven't found any copying from them so far, but I definitely found an FA with pirated links. The issue with WPTC is that I haven't identified any singular editor that has been a problem; it seems to be a huge mix of what kind of copying is done, and the project itself has chronic unattributed copying issues between season articles like 2021 Pacific typhoon season and cyclone articles, like Cyclone Tauktae. Hope this cleared things up. (please ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oops sorry Sennecaster, edit conflict on my post below ... there is a list there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether I have to also worry about copyvio as I am reviewing old FAs (2004 to 2006, this list) to see if they still meet FA criteria. And if so, what am I looking for. Some of the original diffs at the CCI are revdel'd, so I can't see them. If privacy is a concern, pls do email me as to what to watch for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps this explains why I haven't gotten responses from WP Cyclone re older FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Original diffs are RD1 redacted so no privacy concerns. I noticed that most of the problems are post-2006, so I think you will be fine. Wouldn't hurt to occasionally spot check, and I'll see if I can swing by and check them for CV. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I don't think FA needs to worry about that CCI at all. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21 is probably the only CCI that has a non-negligible number of FAs listed. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, crap ... I seem to recall that I noted that issue VERY early on, MANY years ago, in a FAC DYK. Not surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at the talk page of the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sample hurricane CCI check

[edit]

For those following at home, I have put hours, hours, and hours into this example at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1. I'm waiting for more feedback from the CCI peeps, but this work is arduous, and I doubt I caught everything. Also, on an individual hurricane URFA review here. Hope everyone will have a look at what is involved. My new knowledge forced me to go back to my days as a new editor, and template my early moving around of content as I built the Tourette syndrome suite; even though it was almost always my own writing I was moving around between sub-articles, in the early days (2006 and 2007), I did not know to state in edit summary when I was copying between articles. This has really slowed me down, and we have tons of work ahead with Hurricane article evaluation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc21 CCI

[edit]

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21

  1. System Shock 2 2012
  2. Sinistar: Unleashed 2012
  3. Homework (Daft Punk album) 2013
  4. Gravity Bone 2013
  5. Armada of the Damned 2013
  6. Typhoon Maemi 2014
  7. Thirty Flights of Loving 2014
  8. Flotilla (video game) 2014

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees and Wizardman: is this CCI completed and do we need to still check these older FAs? As I recall, the early problems were with Spanish-language sources, and these FAs seem different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flagged on list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can tell, Hahc21 did not get a source check on his first FAC, then this on second (scanty). And no source check on third, where I indicated article was not FAC ready. Stopped there: These will all need closer scrutiny.
@Buidhe and Hog Farm: this is why User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 makes that happen FIRST, before the FAC can proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the completion question, answer is no. I can put that in in my high priority list to clear since it's not a large CCI at least (sadly can't give a better guarantee than that, nearly all my edits the past 6 months have already been CCI-based as it is). Wizardman 22:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poor you ... it is such hard work ... thanks for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other FAs at CCI

[edit]

Per above, there are other FAs on the 2020 list that are also on the 2020 Unreviewed featured articles per User:Moneytrees/GAFAFLCCI:

Of these three, Kingdom Hearts II and Mana (series) have meaty edits in the CCIs while Elizabeth II doesn't. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged on list, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have time to pull the rest of Judgesurreal777's FACs from WP:WBFAN and list them here? We need to see why they aren't flagged on the CCI (or maybe they are). Not worried about Elizabeth, as that was a DrKay nomination. Haven't looked at Favre1fan93; heading out for the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super smash bros and Metroid are not on the CCI. The CCI only covers Judgesurreal's edits from 2006 to September 2011. Those FA's may of come later. The issue in that CCI is splitting and merging without attribution, so in most cases, I believe the text itself will not be removed for copyvio. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other ones, just in case:
Just those 4. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We didn’t start copyvio checks at FAC until November 2010. I flagged all of these so we will remember to look into them—not an indication that any of them actually have copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to read the CCI pages; what are the N and X indicating? The Kingdom Hearts II edits are not by the FAC nominator, but sure are a lot of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay see the CCI at the top of this section; there is a CCI on an editor who was editing FA Elizabeth II in 2017 (after the 2012 FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems found on those edits. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: N is the articles that the user created. We use X mark (articles with no vio} and tick (articles with vio). As for these FA articles, there could be copy violations by the CCI user but a different person nominated the article at FAC. In either case, hopefully there was no copying in the old or current revision of these FAs. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, there's also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kailash29792 (Courtesy ping @Kailash29792:), which has six FA's listed; Keechaka Vadham (2018), Andha Naal (2017), Mayabazar (2016), Kalidas (film) (2015, went through a FAR in 2017), Enthiran (2015), Chandralekha (1948 film) (2014, went through a FAR in 2018). I haven't seen any violations on those articles, but they should probably be checked. I don't have a full list of all the FAs listed at CCI, but I think most of them have been listed here now. If I find any others I'll make sure to note them here. Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moneytrees. This page focuses only on the older FAs, so there was only one to flag but ping @TFA coordinators so they know to check this thread for all of the FAs that have open CCIs.
Moneytrees, if I might trouble you, where we most need your expertise and advice so we can move forward at both URFA and FAR, is to make sure I am doing the work correctly at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1 and Talk:Hurricane Nora (1997)#WP:URFA/2020. I hesitate to continue reviewing the hurricanes if I'm not doing the CCI checks thoroughly, or if I am tagging the article talk pages with {{Copied}} incorrectly. With so much work to be done here, I am concerned that FAR may need to take a global approach to the hurricanes, cyclones and seasons, so it's important to make sure my work so far is heading the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees might you review my work at Hurricane Irene (1999)? I did everything I know to do to check for both copying within, copyvio, and text taken from public domain sources without attribution. This includes stepping back through diffs of the hurricane article and the season article, and running general Earwig, as well as specific Earwig on archive.org links. In this case, the first two iterations of the article did contain public domain text without attribution, but that has since been rephrased, so I assumed (??) that attribution in the article was not needed. Please let me know if I'm on the right track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priority to check

[edit]

At least three FAs so far by Charles Edward have been found to have source-to-text integrity issues, and should be examined for and submitted to FAR for fresh review.

When Victoriaearle rewrote Battle of Tippecanoe at FAR, she argued that the article was developed during a time period when FAs didn't hew closely to inline citations; in fact, 2009 was after that period. Inline citations were required by 2006, and were widely enforced at FAC by the end of 2008. It appears that these FACs never had a source-to-text integrity check, with an LTA sockmaster being among the early supports. During 2009, FA nominators who already had FAs were not subjected to source-to-text integrity checks again, and from examining each FAC, it appears that none of these FAs ever were.

The problems at Battle of Tippecanoe were significant, and I have found same at Eli Lilly, while Hog Farm has noticed also Battle of Corydon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date and FAC promoted Article Comments
2009-04-04 Battle of Tippecanoe Source-to-text issues; reworked at FAR by Victoriaearle
2009-04-21 Eli Lilly Considerable 2022-10-10 source-to-text issues, Mattisse
Defeatured, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2009-05-22 Elwood Haynes 1, Mattisse
FARGIVEN 2023-04-15
2009-07-14 Battle of Corydon Source-to-text issues
2009-10-31 Thomas R. Marshall 1, 2
2010-04-22 On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away Source-to-text issues
2011-04-16 Sherman Minton Source-to-text issues raised
2018-07-22 William M. Branham 1, 2
Yikes. I can try to take a look at Minton today or tomorrow—will leave some comments on the talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I probably still have most the original sources and can help review a little if it helps. But feel free to update\change them however you feel best. You are right, the standards were a bit different back then and the standards have evolved quite a bit. Nowadays, I pretty well cite every sentence, and most sentences are pretty close paraphrases of the source. Back then, generally just put citations at the end of paragraphs and tended to broadly summarize multiple pages of a source on one paragraph. And often there were multiple citations at the end of the paragraph, so it was not always obvious which source went with which sentences. Regarding Tippecanoe and Battle of Corydon - they both relied on "Funk" as a source, and I think that when Tippecanoe was reviewed, it was decided Funk was not a high quality source. That source is used in multiple of my FAs, and that may be the source of some of the issue, looking back.
Minton should be easier to check out, since there is primarily one main sourced used. Eli Lilly, have to be honest my memory is pretty fuzzy there. Thomas Marshall should be pretty solid too, although not sure how much the text may have drifted from the original writing. Its been alot of years since I wrote them, and I am not even sure how much those articles have drifted from what they were originally. I have not been maintaining quality on them. Hope that helps! They are mostly all old enough to warrant an FAR. Cheers! :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reviews underway. I guess apparently I have been writing junk on here for 20 years... Makes me sad. But I guess FAR them or whatever you need to do. :( I an sorry the articles are not up to FA standards. I will work with you on the William Branham article, as it was promoted most recently and I still have access to all the source material. But I just don't have time to do them all at once. I am sorry. I am genuinely quite sad over this. I hope you find some redeeming quality in these article... —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 23:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't mean that the articles are bad, just that they don't meet the highest standards. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes column on Mobile view

[edit]

Right now, on Mobile view via smartphones, the Notes column is very narrow and squeezed, making notes harder to read. Can the issue be remedied? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A favor?

[edit]

Would somebody be able to take a look at Talk:White Deer Hole Creek#FA concerns and White Deer Hole Creek? It's one of the 2006s, and the nominator has been doing some work on it since I noticed it in November. I haven't been able to follow up due to RL busyness and am so thoroughly burned out right now that I have no idea when I'll be able to get to it. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on my ToDo list (for what that's worth :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for regulars on TFA scheduling

[edit]

... re Bengali language movement, see here and re post-scheduling changes to TFA, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page notifications

[edit]

Has anyone thought of using a bot (or just AWB) to place a notice on the talk page of articles listed here? Seeing an old article pop up on a watchlist might drive some new engagement with it. I can't be the only one who watches the FAs of wiki friends, especially those who have left Wikipedia, for example, and some inactive editors might still check on their FAs periodically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting delisted articles into columns

[edit]

As the number of delisted articles gets longer, this list is causing the scrolling bar to get smaller. Would anyone object to me putting the delisted articles on URFA/2020A and URFA/2020B into two columns? This would not change the numbering system. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my iPad, I do get them in two columns, so I suspect that hardwiring two columns is not the way to go, rather something to do with setting a colwidth. I don't actually know how that is done :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'06s and '07s with two satisfactories

[edit]

Hopefully we can get the '06 and '07 portions of the list largely processed in the nearer rather than longer term. These are ones from that time frame that have two satisfactories, suggesting that they're in good shape or close to such and could use another set of eyes:

  1. Battle of Savo Island
    Has some notes listed
  2. Medieval cuisine
    Has some notes listed
  3. Kansas Turnpike
  4. Confederate government of Kentucky
  5. Thomas C. Hindman
    Has my crappy prose
  6. Lawrence Sullivan Ross
    Has some notes (some damage done to article since FAC)
  7. Louis Riel
    Had a content dispute in 2021

Hog Farm Talk 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Slave Community

[edit]

I've started preliminary work on June's TFAs and I was looking for something appropriate for June 19. This might be appropriate, but it's rather old. Has it been looked at and found satisfactory? Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I don't think this would be a good pick. The "Methodology and sources" section is almost exclusively cited to the book, meaning that this section is mostly a primary source and possible OR. Also, about a third of the article is sourced to the book this article is about, while there are six sources listed in "Further reading". A (very long) criticism section also exists, which might be against NPOV, but considering the subject matter of the topic I am not sure about this. I'm going to post some notes on the talk page and see what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1720 (talk • contribs) 23:08, April 14, 2023 (UTC)
Wehwalt I agree with Z1710 that the article is in need of a trip to FAR and wouldn't pass FAC today, but ... if you can't find anything else for Juneteenth, I'd not object to running it anyway as an article in need of improvement presents a chance to engage editors in improving an FA. Indy beetle can you think of another FA that would be good for Juneteenth? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative June 2023 TFA schedule

[edit]

Can be found here. Key word as always is "tentative". Comments welcome and should be put at the foot of that page. Scheduling will not occur until at least May 1. Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old ones are:

  1. UEFA Euro 1976 final
  2. Cyathus
  3. Benjamin Morrell (deceased nominator)
  4. USS Massachusetts (BB-2)
  5. Johnstown Inclined Plane
  6. Banksia grossa
  7. Gather Together in My Name

None of these look high-risk to me, but I'll try to take a look over the next few days and get some satisfactories marked on the chart where appropriate. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some worries about how up to date Johnstown Inclined Plane is. Ridership figures are from 2017 and the 2021 refurbishment is an after thought (the citations don't match for instance). -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings - would you have any interest in looking over the Johnstown Inclined Plane article to see if it needs listed at WP:FARGIVEN? I was actually in Johnstown in January 2022, but for the national memorial for the flood, not for the rail line. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it may take a few days for me to find time but I can definitely give that article a look. I will be relying on online sources to check as I don't have any books that cover the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings/Hog Farm: Lets move to the talk page to dig into this. I think the article is salvageable. I do have some personal interest in this topic because I grew up on the other side of the ridge from Johnstown. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have it off the schedule for now but if you can get it into shape I can give you June 30. I'd need it ten days in advance since dying does their copyedit of the blurb about a week in advance. This gives you two months as a practical matter to whip the article in shape and write a blurb. Let me know on my talk if you have something for me to look at. Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tentative list had listed Harrias, who is still active, as the nominator, but it looks like it's actually Niagara, whose last 50 edits go back to 2019, so that probably does need closer attention. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with Sandy Koufax, which though old was marked satisfactory by this project in 2021. Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt darn it !! I was so hoping we would keep Koufax in reserve to show how TFA can work in an impromptu ... given his age. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better to run it while it's in shape. These athletes and astronauts and similar are living a long time these days. Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The UEFA final isn't "old", it was promoted in 2021: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 1976 Final/archive1. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to double-check the promotion dates after work. The list gave its promotion date as 2008, so there may be others that are off as well. Hog Farm Talk 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the older ships have needed work, so @Parsecboy, Sturmvogel 66, and Peacemaker67: for USS Massachusetts (BB-2) (it doesn't have to be perfect for TFA -- just not in need of a FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated USS Massachusetts (BB-2) when USS Indiana (BB-1) ran on the main page a couple of months ago - it should be in fairly decent shape (but happy for others to have a look also). Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look, and it's in quite good shape. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July TFA

[edit]

... at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023; pls discuss there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year-end summary

[edit]

Were we interested in running another one of these like last year? I've had some tracking stuff in my userspace and a list of all open '06-'07s; it shouldn't be too hard for me to update the info from last year. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown together User:Hog Farm/annual update as an updated table. Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this off. Sorry that I have not responded until now. I think an update on the year would be beneficial, as the updates usually cause new editors to join in. Here's a report I put together, using the format of last year's year-end report: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Feel free to edit and make improvements. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll update the numbers in the table I produced on Tuesday or Wednesday. Hog Farm Talk 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated with final numbers; it didn't change much. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I selected 5 FASA articles to showcase based on the article's FA age, variety of topics and if they were TFA in 2023. I think the newsletter is almost ready to go. @Hog Farm, SandyGeorgia, and Buidhe: thoughts and a copyedit would be appreciated! Should I also ping the FAR coordinators? Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and Hog Farm: I had two very close friends die on the same day, followed by COVID exposure and then the nasty flu ... it was not a merry Christmas here ... one funeral was Saturday, and the next is the 11th. I can't look at anything until after the 11th. Yes, we should ping the FAR Coords when it is ready. If you are able to wait until next weekend for me, I can have a look ... if not, you'll have to run without my feedback ... I haven't had time to even glance at what you've done. Thank you for doing this, and congrats on your new hat! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I am sorry for your losses. Real life is more important than Wikipedia, and there's no rush to get this out. We'll ping the co-ords when the final draft of the report is ready. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, SandyGeorgia, and Buidhe: @FAR coordinators: I updated the chart from User:Hog Farm/annual update. Any thoughts on this draft? Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this: should this be sent off soon? Z1720 (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Introduction

[edit]

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Statistics

[edit]

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023:

  • 83 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
  • 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
  • The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%

Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Some 2023 "FASA articles"

Topics and Wikiprojects

[edit]

There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Physics and astronomy
  • Biology
  • Mathematics
  • Warfare
  • Engineering and technology
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Literature and theatre
  • Royalty and nobility
  • Geology and geophysics

Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2023 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2023 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.56) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 14 8 22 0.36 15
Biology 16 45 61 2.81 62
Business, economics and finance 11 1 12 0.09 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 6 1 7 0.17 6
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 15 1 16 0.07 7
Education 25 1 26 0.04 2
Engineering and technology 5 6 11 1.20 3
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 47 6 53 0.13 17
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 9 4 13 0.44 4
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 30 16 46 0.53 36
Language and linguistics 4 0 4 0.00 3
Law 15 1 16 0.07 1
Literature and theatre 17 16 33 0.94 20
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 22 11 33 0.50 36
Meteorology 20 6 26 0.30 27
Music 30 9 39 0.30 52
Philosophy and psychology 3 1 4 0.33 0
Physics and astronomy 3 10 13 3.33 22
Politics and government 24 4 28 0.17 7
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 9 19 0.90 44
Sport and recreation 40 12 52 0.30 38
Transport 9 3 12 0.33 9
Video gaming 5 6 11 1.20 21
Warfare 31 51 82 1.65 27
Total 446 Note A 248 Note B 694 0.56 482

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

We need your help!

[edit]

Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity at WP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following the featured article criteria.

Here's how any editor can help:

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed, but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article who would otherwise not look at it.

Feedback and commentary

[edit]

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:URFA/2020/Unreferenced

[edit]

Phlsph7 and their List Unreferenced Paragraphs script has gratiously created a list of FACs at URFA/2020A that have 6 or more unreferenced paragraphs. I have placed the list at Wikipedia:URFA/2020/Unreferenced, and I hope this list will be updated every few months, and perhaps have URFA/2020B's article added, too. The script is not perfect, so I hope reviewers will look through this list and determine if these articles need to be improved, noticed, or sent to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of y'all! I'll try to take a look but my time will be really limited for another couple months. Hog Farm Talk 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020&oldid=1238627271"