Misplaced Pages

Template:FAC-instructions: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:37, 22 February 2010 view sourceRjanag (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users58,857 edits minor ce← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:57, 17 August 2024 view source Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,435 edits →Commenting, etc: ce 
(133 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{For|the similar process page for ]|Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations}}
:''Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding ] to ].''
{| {|
| style="background:#e6f2ff; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; padding:1em; vertical-align:top; width:70%;"| | style="background:#e6f2ff; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; padding:1em; vertical-align:top; width:80%;"|


] ]
Here, we determine which articles are to be ]. FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the ]. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the ]. Here, we determine which articles are to be ]. FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the ]. '''All editors are welcome to review nominations'''; please see the ].


Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at ]. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at ] and adding the review to the ]. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are '''strongly advised''' to ], to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or ] at the same time.


⚫ The FAC coordinators—], ], ] and ]—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be ] to FA status, ] must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and ] if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
An article should not be on ] and ] or ] at the same time. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using ] (if necessary, use bolded headings).
⚫ * actionable objections have not been resolved;
⚫ * consensus for promotion has not been reached;
⚫ * insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
* a nomination is unprepared.


⚫ It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve ''critical'' comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.
⚫ An editor is allowed to nominate only one article. While the nomination is still active, that editor shall not nominate another article. If the article is promoted, the same editor may nominate another article immediately. If the article is archived, and not promoted, the nominator may not nominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.


Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as {{done}} and {{not done}} slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{tl|collapse top}} and {{tl|collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{tl|green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{tl|done}}, {{tl|not done}}, {{tl|tq}}, {{tl|tq2}}, and {{tl|xt}}, may be removed.
⚫ The FA director, ]—or one of his delegates, ] and ]—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be ] to FA status, ] must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and ] if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
⚫ *actionable objections have not been resolved;
⚫ *consensus for promotion has not been reached;
⚫ *insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
*a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.


⚫ An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate <em>any article</em> for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.
⚫ It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve ''critical'' comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.


Nominations in urgent need of review are listed ]. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the ], or use the {{tl|@FAC}} ] template elsewhere.
⚫ A ] after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the <tt><nowiki>{{FAC}}</nowiki></tt> template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates <tt><nowiki>{{ArticleHistory}}</nowiki></tt>. '''If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.'''


⚫ A ] after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the <code><nowiki>{{FAC}}</nowiki></code> template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{nowrap|<code><nowiki>{{Article history}}</nowiki></code>}}.
{{purge|<small>''Purge the cache to refresh this page''</small>}} &ndash; <small>]</small>

<small>]</small> – <small>This page:</small> {{purge|<small>Purge cache</small>}}
| style="background:#e6f2ff; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; padding:1em; vertical-align:top;" | | style="background:#e6f2ff; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; padding:1em; vertical-align:top;" |
{{Shortcut|WP:FAC}} {{Shortcut|WP:FAC}}
{{Fapages}} {{FApages}}
'''Toolbox'''
<!-- See ] for setup instructions -->
* {{User:Dispenser/Checklinks/config
| name = Featured_article_candidates
| interval = daily
| generate = heading
| linktype = summary
| title = <span title="View the status of external links from articles listed here">Checklinks</span>
}}
* ]
|- |-
| colspan="2" style="background:#f5faff; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; padding:1em;"| | colspan="2" style="background:#f5faff; border:1px solid #a3b1bf; padding:1em;"|
==Nominating==
{{collapse top|How to nominate an article}}
<span style="font-size:1.4em">Nomination procedure</span> <span style="font-size:1.4em">Nomination procedure</span>
⚫ # Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the ] and that ] are closed and archived.
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools/without list}}
⚫ # Place <code><nowiki>{{subst:FAC}}</nowiki></code> at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
⚫ #Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the ] and that ] are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
⚫ # From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to ] for assistance.
⚫ #Place <tt><nowiki>{{subst:FAC}}</nowiki></tt> on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
⚫ # Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, and save the page.
⚫ #From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to ] for assistance.
⚫ # Copy this text: <code><nowiki>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}}</nowiki></code> (substituting Number), and '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>''' (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will ] the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
⚫ #Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> and save the page.
{{collapse bottom}}
⚫ #Copy this text: <tt><nowiki>{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}}</nowiki></tt> (substituting Number), and '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>''' (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.


==Commenting, etc==
{{collapse top|Commenting, supporting and opposing}}
<span style="font-size:1.4em">Supporting and opposing</span> <span style="font-size:1.4em">Supporting and opposing</span>
{{shortcut|Misplaced Pages:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE}}

*To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the ''whole'' FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see ] for an overview of the review process. * To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the ''whole'' FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see ] for an overview of the review process.
*To support a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki>, '''followed''' by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. * To support a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki>, '''followed''' by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
*To oppose a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Object''' or *'''Oppose'''</nowiki>, '''followed''' by your reason(s). Each objection must provide '''a specific rationale that can be addressed'''. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <tt><nowiki><s> ... </s></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it ]. * To oppose a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Object''' or *'''Oppose'''</nowiki>, '''followed''' by your reason(s). Each objection must provide '''a specific rationale that can be addressed'''. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <code><nowiki><s> ... </s></nowiki></code>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
⚫ * To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write <nowiki>*'''Comment'''</nowiki> followed by your advice.
⚫ *If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per ], nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
* {{anchor|subsection|semicolon}}For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral ''fourth-level'' subsection, named either <nowiki>==== Review by EditorX ====</nowiki> or <nowiki> ==== Comments by EditorX ====</nowiki> (do ''not'' use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple <nowiki>*'''Support''',</nowiki><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki>, or <nowiki>*'''Comment'''</nowiki> followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates ] problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML ] with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
*Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{tl|done}} and {{tl|not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
⚫ * {{anchor|below}}If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per ], nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
⚫ *To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write <nowiki>*'''Comment'''</nowiki> followed by your advice.
{{collapse bottom}}
|} |}

<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 19:57, 17 August 2024

For the similar process page for good articles, see Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Commenting, etc

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge] For featured article criteria, see WP:FACR.

See also

The above documentation is transcluded from Template:FAC-instructions/doc. (edit | history)
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template. Category: