Misplaced Pages

talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

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 04:07, 28 January 2006 editTsavage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,227 edits →"Didn't go through Peer Review yet": the newest witch hunt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:34, 27 December 2024 edit undoGeneralissima (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers10,859 edits →disputing archiving: well now I feel sillyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
<includeonly></includeonly>{{skip to bottom}}{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}{{FA sidebar|expanded=FAC}}
;Archives
{{archives
*]
|collapsed= yes
*]
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
*]
|auto = no
*]
|editbox = no
*]
|search = yes
*]
|searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive
*] - April Fools archive (Feb-Apr1 2005)
|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
*]
] ]
*]
] ]
*] - June 15 - Aug 22
] ]
*] - Aug 22 to Sep 11 (Terry Schiavo's nom)
]
*] - Sep 12 to Nov 3 SVG etc
] ]
*] Nov 3 to Dec 26
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] <br />
] ] ]
] ] <br />
] ] ] ]
] ]
] ]
] <br />
] ] ]
] ] ] ] <br />
] ] ] ] ] ] ] <br />
] ] ] ]
] <br />
] ] ]
] ] <br />
] ] (2013)<br />
] ] ] (2014)<br />
] (2015)<br/>
] ] (2016)<br/>
] ] ] (2017)<br />
] ] ] ] ] (2018)<br />
] ] ] (2019)<br />
] ] ] ] ] ] (2020)<br />
] ] ] ] (2021)<br />
] ] (2022)<br />
] ] ] (2023)<br />
] ] (2023–24)
<div style="text-align: center;">'''Archives by topic:'''<br />
], ]
</div></div>
}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d
|counter = 95
|maxsize= 150000
}}
{{dablink|Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding ] to ].}}
{{dablink|For a list of foreign-language reviewers see ].}}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests}}
==FAC mentoring: first-time nominators==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
<!-- DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE ] 09:21, 8 May 2053 (UTC) -->
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click ] for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. ] (]) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


==FAC source reviews==
==Proposed policy change on FAC reasoning==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
I am proposing a change to FAC reasoning, eliminating the rule that suggestions that an article should never be frontpaged be ignored. Please come discuss it at ] --] 19:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
For advice on conducting source reviews, see ].
*I think you're also missing the point that being a FA and being featured on the front page are different things. That quote from the FAC criteria you highlight is about not keeping an article from being featured based on it's topic. The main page is just an article selected from among featured articles. It has long been held that certain featured articles can be agreed upon to never be put on the main page. I've never followed up on how that is done in practice, but you can ask ]. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2024 ==


Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for October 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# reviews'''
! colspan="4" |Type of review
|-
!Reviewer
! data-sort-type="number" |Content
! data-sort-type="number" |Source
! data-sort-type="number" |Image
! data-sort-type="number" |Accessibility
|-
|Nikkimaria
|
|1
|23
|
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1
|15
|6
|
|-
|SchroCat
|11
|4
|
|
|-
|Mike Christie
|12
|
|
|
|-
|Generalissima
|7
|1
|3
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|8
|2
|
|
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9
|
|
|
|-
|Matarisvan
|4
|4
|
|
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|8
|
|
|
|-
|750h+
|5
|
|1
|
|-
|FunkMonk
|6
|
|
|
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Edwininlondon
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Tim riley
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Crisco 1492
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|3
|1
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Llewee
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Phlsph7
|1
|
|3
|
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|3
|1
|
|
|-
|Aoba47
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Dudley Miles
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Gog the Mild
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Mujinga
|2
|1
|
|
|-
|RoySmith
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|3
|
|
|
|-
|TechnoSquirrel69
|2
|1
|
|
|-
|Vacant0
|2
|1
|
|
|-
|Buidhe
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Chipmunkdavis
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Draken Bowser
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Graham Beards
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Hurricanehink
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Nick-D
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Sammi Brie
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Sawyer777
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|Shushugah
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Steelkamp
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Wehwalt
|2
|
|
|
|-
|2601AC47
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Alavense
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Arconning
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Aza24
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Bneu2013
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|1
|
|
|
|-
|BorgQueen
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ceranthor
|1
|
|
|
|-
|D.Lazard
|1
|
|
|
|-
|David Eppstein
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dumelow
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Eewilson
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Femke
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Frietjes
|1
|
|
|
|-
|GA-RT-22
|1
|
|
|
|-
|GamerPro64
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ganesha811
|1
|
|
|
|-
|GeoWriter
|1
|
|
|
|-
|HAL333
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Hawkeye7
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Heartfox
|1
|
|
|
|-
|IceWelder
|1
|
|
|
|-
|IJReid
|1
|
|
|
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Joeyquism
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Joshua Jonathan
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Kung Fu Man
|1
|
|
|
|-
|MaranoFan
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Mathwriter2718
|1
|
|
|
|-
|MSincccc
|1
|
|
|
|-
|MyCatIsAChonk
|1
|
|
|
|-
|NegativeMP1
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Paleface Jack
|1
|
|
|
|-
|PanagiotisZois
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Panini!
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Pbritti
|1
|
|
|
|-
|PrimalMustelid
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Queen of Hearts
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Remsense
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Reppop
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Rjjiii (ii)
|1
|
|
|
|-
|SandyGeorgia
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Shooterwalker
|1
|
|
|
|-
|SilverTiger12
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Sky Harbor
|1
|
|
|
|-
|SNUGGUMS
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Spy-cicle
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ss112
|
|
|1
|
|-
|ThaesOfereode
|1
|
|
|
|-
|The Rambling Man
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Tintor2
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|1
|
|
|
|-
|WhatamIdoing
|1
|
|
|
|-
|XOR'easter
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Zawed
|1
|
|
|
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''201'''
|'''35'''
|'''38'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for October 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations'''
! colspan="7" |'''Declaration'''
|-
!'''Editor'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose converted to support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''None'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Total'''
|-
|Nikkimaria
|
|
|
|
|
|24
|24
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1
|
|
|
|
|21
|22
|-
|SchroCat
|7
|
|
|
|3
|5
|15
|-
|Mike Christie
|12
|
|
|
|
|
|12
|-
|Generalissima
|5
|
|
|
|
|6
|11
|-
|Hog Farm
|6
|
|
|
|2
|2
|10
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9
|
|
|
|
|
|9
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|6
|
|
|
|1
|1
|8
|-
|Matarisvan
|4
|
|
|
|
|4
|8
|-
|FunkMonk
|4
|
|
|
|
|2
|6
|-
|750h+
|5
|
|
|
|
|1
|6
|-
|Tim riley
|5
|
|
|
|
|
|5
|-
|Edwininlondon
|5
|
|
|
|
|
|5
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|3
|
|
|
|2
|
|5
|-
|Llewee
|
|
|
|
|
|4
|4
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|1
|
|
|
|1
|2
|4
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|
|
|
|4
|4
|-
|Crisco 1492
|3
|
|
|
|1
|
|4
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|3
|
|
|
|
|1
|4
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|3
|
|
|
|
|1
|4
|-
|Mujinga
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|1
|
|
|
|1
|1
|3
|-
|Vacant0
|1
|
|
|
|1
|1
|3
|-
|Gog the Mild
|
|
|
|
|2
|1
|3
|-
|Dudley Miles
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|TechnoSquirrel69
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|3
|-
|RoySmith
|1
|
|
|
|
|2
|3
|-
|Aoba47
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Sammi Brie
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Hurricanehink
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Chipmunkdavis
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Graham Beards
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Shushugah
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Buidhe
|
|
|
|
|2
|
|2
|-
|Steelkamp
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Nick-D
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Sawyer777
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Draken Bowser
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Wehwalt
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Dumelow
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Joshua Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Tintor2
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|MSincccc
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|HAL333
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Panini!
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Paleface Jack
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Rjjiii (ii)
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Heartfox
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Eewilson
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|IceWelder
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|XOR'easter
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Spy-cicle
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|PrimalMustelid
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Pbritti
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|WhatamIdoing
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Frietjes
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Reppop
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|The Rambling Man
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|MaranoFan
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Shooterwalker
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Aza24
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|ThaesOfereode
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|BorgQueen
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|IJReid
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|GeoWriter
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|D.Lazard
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|2601AC47
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Sky Harbor
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Alavense
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|MyCatIsAChonk
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Remsense
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|NegativeMP1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Zawed
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|SNUGGUMS
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Kung Fu Man
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Arconning
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Femke
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Queen of Hearts
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Joeyquism
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Bneu2013
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|SandyGeorgia
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|PanagiotisZois
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ceranthor
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|SilverTiger12
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|David Eppstein
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|GamerPro64
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Hawkeye7
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Mathwriter2718
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ss112
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|GA-RT-22
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Ganesha811
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''135'''
|
|
|
|'''21'''
|'''118'''
|'''274'''
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!Nominations (12 mos)
!Reviews (12 mos)
!Ratio (12 mos)
|-
|750h+
|5.0
|47.0
|9.4
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|8.0
|43.0
|5.4
|-
|Amir Ghandi
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|BennyOnTheLoose
|3.5
|10.0
|2.9
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|1.5
|5.0
|3.3
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9.0
|73.0
|8.1
|-
|Darkwarriorblake
|6.0
|4.0
|0.7
|-
|Dudley Miles
|6.0
|30.0
|5.0
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|3.0
|14.0
|4.7
|-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|3.0
|9.0
|3.0
|-
|Epicgenius
|7.5
|17.0
|2.3
|-
|FunkMonk
|2.8
|28.0
|9.9
|-
|Generalissima
|9.0
|54.0
|6.0
|-
|Hawkeye7
|5.0
|8.0
|1.6
|-
|Heartfox
|5.0
|26.0
|5.2
|-
|Hog Farm
|6.0
|42.0
|7.0
|-
|Hurricanehink
|1.5
|16.0
|10.7
|-
|Ippantekina
|5.0
|5.0
|1.0
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3.3
|28.0
|8.4
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0
|221.0
|36.8
|-
|Joeyquism
|3.0
|16.0
|5.3
|-
|Kung Fu Man
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Kurzon
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Kyle Peake
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Lee Vilenski
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|Llewee
|2.0
|7.0
|3.5
|-
|M4V3R1CK32
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|MaranoFan
|5.0
|14.0
|2.8
|-
|Mattximus
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Mike Christie
|6.0
|64.0
|10.7
|-
|NegativeMP1
|3.0
|10.0
|3.3
|-
|Nick-D
|2.0
|14.0
|7.0
|-
|Paleface Jack
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|Peacemaker67
|6.0
|2.0
|0.3
|-
|Phlsph7
|7.0
|15.0
|2.1
|-
|Pickersgill-Cunliffe
|2.0
|5.0
|2.5
|-
|Pollosito
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|9.3
|36.0
|3.9
|-
|PSA
|2.0
|4.0
|2.0
|-
|Sammi Brie
|3.5
|13.0
|3.7
|-
|SchroCat
|15.0
|143.0
|9.5
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|3.0
|45.0
|15.0
|-
|Skyshifter
|4.0
|6.0
|1.5
|-
|SounderBruce
|3.0
|1.0
|0.3
|-
|The ed17
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|The Green Star Collector
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|5.0
|4.0
|0.8
|-
|Tim riley
|5.0
|49.0
|9.8
|-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|Turini2
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|5.0
|93.0
|18.6
|-
|Volcanoguy
|4.0
|7.0
|1.8
|-
|Voorts
|5.5
|15.0
|2.7
|-
|WeatherWriter
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Wehwalt
|8.5
|31.0
|3.6
|-
|Wolverine XI
|5.0
|8.0
|1.6
|-
|ZKang123
|4.0
|13.0
|3.2
|}
{{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


== Science articles are underrepresented ==
== Why is it so imposiblly difficult ==


For a long time there has hardly been any science articles at FAC. Perhaps someone could remind me of the last successful candidate? But we have ] now which is not garnering much attention, which is a shame. I'm not canvassing for support, despite having given mine, but is there any chance of a few reviews? ] (]) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
to find a list of some sort that can show me all of these wonderfull featured articles ?
: I'll try to take a look within the next couple days, although I've got quite a bit going on IRL. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I really did try. I checked all of the search results of the phrase and found nothing but internal referncing to
::Ditto. I'll have time to review this weekend. I can take on the source review as well if no one beats me to it (please feel free to beat me to it). ] (]) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
"Featured article candidates" etc'.
:Not sure if it was the most recent, but off the top of my head there was ] not that long ago (if biography articles on scientists count). ] (]) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This REALLY SHOULD BE QUITE EASY to get.
::Right now we have ] being reviewed. Plus of course ], at which additional thoughts would be most welcome. I assume that science is being used in a way which excludes biology and geology? ] (]) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Even as a link from the main site ,yet it is so alluding ,I still cant find it.
::I believe ] counts as a science article, no? It has seven participants but only one review and is at risk of being archived. Adding onto that, it is a former featured article, which should be getting more views, especially because of its notable impacts in the ] and the United States. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
what is there to hide?
] 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).
:Are you looking for ]? ] ] 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


*Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
::On the main page, you can click "More featured articles." When you're looking at the talk page of any FA, you can click the "featured article" link. You can also look at ] which redirects to ]. Hope this helps. ] ] 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
*Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (25 Aug)
*Dracunculiasis (22 May)
*Prostate cancer (22 Apr)
*Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) (7 Jan)


My apologies for any I missed. We need more. ] (]) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
YES ,thank you so much Dave..:-)
:Yes, we clearly go to great lengths to hide the list ;) ] 09:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::I think we should put ''featured crap'' on the front page and password protect the featured articles. :-) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I think I should get a dollar for every time I have to cite ] ] 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
::::No, I wasn't just saying that the articles should be protected from editing... I was saying that they should be encrypted so people can't find them. "Misplaced Pages: the 7337 encyclopedia that only h4X0rz can edit" ] ] 09:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::The ''Teet'' encyclopedia? --] 10:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm clearly not a member of the elite. ] ] 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:You boob. (Couldn't resist ;-)--] 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::Also see ]. — ] 11:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


:You missed ]. Its ] was successfull on 27 September. I'm still surprised that a less notable, damaging, and deadly storm was promoted, but ], the opposite, is at a significant risk of being archived. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
==New inline citation style available==
:There is also ]. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and ]. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. ] (]) 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
For those of you who ], I wanted to let you guys know about the new (long promised) native Mediawiki citation style. It's described at ]. It works in much the same way as the ref/note template does, but it automatically generates your reference section for you. You can see an example article at ]. where I made the switch from the ref/note style. ] 13:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::That's the case with many articles, not just science ones. If FAs are maintained, this should not be a problem. Also, many science articles are remarkably static. See ], which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. ] (]) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Is it completely done (is it prone to change)? Should we be making the switch for all of the articles? ] ] 16:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Aye, I know about ] and relatives which also don't get much new research. I guess I just used up my space of "how many articles can I maintain" ] (]) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::I'll check it out. From a first glance, it appears this fixes my major issue with the older ref/note system, which was how easily people could mess up the order and screw the cites up. Figure I'll be an early adopter of this standard and try it in an article I'm working on now. Thanks,--] 16:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
::::That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::It's changed (for the better) since I updated the Beethoven's article last week. When I made the switch, citing hte article multiple times threw off the numbering scheme (e.g, if you cite the first reference 4 times, all hte other references would be 3 higher; this has been fixed so that the first refernce is cited as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and the second is 2). Other than that, I doubt we'll be seeing any big changes. ] 19:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::It also use to italicise everything, which was annoying. That got fixed yesterday. (All the styling is controled by MediaWiki: messages). &mdash;] (]) 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) :Tiger was promoted July 25. ] (]) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? ] (]) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::I've been using it in the articles that I update, such as ] and ]. I've found it exceptionally handy, especially when multiple locations need to refer to the same citation. ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:::They do. <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#00008B;background-color:transparent;;CSS">]]</span> 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
: Great. I JUST learned ref note and now this. :P <small>'''''I'm </small>]<small> and ]'''''</small> 16:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:I think ] (Aug 8) counts as a science article. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That's really quite exciting. I doubt that many people will notice the announcement here either though- if the use of this is to be encouraged, it should have a prominent mention at ]. ]] 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Nice! Although, since the notes can no longer be edited directly, this will be somewhat more difficult to use with traditional Chicago-style footnotes than the ref/note system is. &mdash;] 16:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:I mentioned it to an ] talk page, and it was applied. --] ] 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I would not call a typical hurricane article a science article. For sure, meteorology is a science, and there's plenty you can write about hurricanes in general which is about the science. But most of these are just cookie-cutter recitations of the specific facts about events that happen dozens of times a year. What was the track, where it made landfall, pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall, damage caused. That's not science, that's just a data dump wrapped up in prose form with carefully formatted references. ] ] 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Mostly looks good, but think of the havoc someone will wreak when they mistype &lt;/ref>. Oh, well, I guess that problem already exists with a lot of other markup. -- ] | ] 01:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
:Yes I agree, was thinking the same. Just because a hurricane comes about due to scientific phenomena does not make discussion of individual hurricanes scientific per se. We might as well argue ] is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏 &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Even if that particular mistake was made, the consequent error is exceptionally easy to spot (there will be a chunk of prose following the footnote portion). And I've only made this error once while converting ] and ]. Overall, this new method is much more idiot-proof. ] 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
::Just addressing the elephant (hurricane writer) in the room, I kind of agree, that hurricane articles aren't really "science". In fact, as a hurricane writer, I make attempts to make it hurricane articles not appear too scientific, so it is accessible to the average reader. This isn't about a ] or a ] where you talk about years of research and tons of research papers. No, instead we rely on "pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall", all different tools to describe what actually happened, and why a single storm affected so many different people. Sometimes storms can even cause wars and disrupt national economies, but they're such short-lived events, that it's not like they're an ongoing thing worthy of significant research, not when a lot of storms are honestly pretty similar. They all do very similar things, with some slight variations. That's why I find them fascinating, and why I write about them, and I'm not going to stop writing about them since I think the vast majority of tropical cyclone articles are useful and interesting. But they aren't exactly "science", like some kind of hypothesis or idea, and admittedly there should probably be more articles on the study of meteorology. I'm gonna have to do something about that... ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)


:Removing my comments for now. Will post again when I've had more time to think about the content. Apologies. ]] 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yup. It's such a pleasure to be able to use section editing and still add footnotes, and to not have to worry about reordering the footnotes when reordering text. &mdash;] (]) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


== Seattle Kraken nom ==
:Words cannot express my joy at this development. Finally section editing with footnotes is actually viable. ] | ] 04:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello there. A couple months back, I nominated the article ] for FA, but after five weeks, it didn't get the needed amount of reviews, and the nomination was subsequently closed. I nominated it again 11 days ago and it still hasn't received any reviews. Any reasons why? Thanks. ] (]) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Is there any way to prevent the small citation numbers (e.g. "29.1") from appearing, other than omitting the name parameter on the ref? &mdash;]]] 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


:To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. ] (]) 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think I'm going to stick with note+ref label, FWIW, because from what I see in the Beethoven article, that model is much easier to work around in edit mode. This ref model leaves giant bibliographic references in everyone's path, and repetitive ones no less. Also, since the numbering isn't "hard," when you're section editing, the numbers "convert" to whatever's the order on a section-by-section basis, rather than relative to the whole article. For example, when looking at the whole article, the "Composition" has notes in order: 2, 1, 3, 4, 5. When in edit mode, they become 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Similarly, when the "Premiere" section is in edit mode, notes 6 and 7 become 1 and 2. ] 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:I think in this particular case it might be the topic. Popular culture doesn't fare brilliantly for FAC reviewers, and sports are even more niche (in that just liking 'sport' isn't enough, rather the sport itself). The article itself isn't in bad nick as it goes; no major MOS violations jump out, everything's cited, sources all seem OK, if news heavy (but that's probably inevitable for a relatively young team like this). ]'']'' 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::It's not 2-1-3-4-5; it's 1-2-1-3-4-5. The first 1 is from a previous paragraph. So when you go into section editing, the numbering changes because the previous reference is omitted. ] 19:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::<small>Also, i forgot to mention that you're allowed—encouraged—to ] reviewers ] ] part in the early FAC... ]'']'' 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::And 6 and 7 convert to 1 and 2 while in edit mode, because refs 1-5 are "omitted." This strikes me as confusing. Also, I ''think'' it assumes that all references when placed in running text, are formatted identically, which is how it knows to create 1.1 + 1.2 + 1.3. Without identical bibliographic phrasing (say, in one the year is at the end and in another the year is the beginning), would it create two separate references? ]
:Another reason might be that you haven't reviewed any articles at FAC, according to the . Reviewing articles helps editors learn the ], shows that you understand the criteria, and builds goodwill among editors. If looking for reviews, I always recommend reviewing articles yourself. ] (]) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Echoing this, particularly the "goodwill among editors" bit. Reviewing takes time, and I'm more willing to take that time to help someone who has invested in the FAC process. Note that when {{U|Graham Beards}} asked for volunteers a couple sections above, ]. If you're wondering why, feast your eyes on and imagine the kind of goodwill the guy has stockpiled. ] (]) 20:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::One caveat here is that we don't want "I'll support/oppose your article if you support/oppose mine"-type situations. Each article needs to be reviewed dispassionately. ] (]) 13:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfC at WT:BLP ==
::::The 1.1, 1.2 is explicitly controled by giving the first <nowiki><ref> a name, like <ref name="zippy">blah blah blah</ref> (this will make 1.1) and then making another ref referring to the name: <ref name="zippy"/></nowiki>. Personally, I dislike multi-refs, and always stick with single unnamed references, but then, I did with the old methods too. As far as repetitive bibliographic data, that's a style choice too: I'd just say ''Johnson p. 234'' for the second ref to the same book. (Or use a separate References section, and have all footnotes in short form.) I haven't got it all cleaned up yet, but you can see what that sort of thing looks like in ]. &mdash;] (]) 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Drawing the attention of project editors to an RfC concerning a proposed change to ], which could affect relevant FACs. Interested parties should join ]. ]'']'' 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Japanese and Farsi/Persian speakers needed ==
:::::Aha! ''I'd just say ''Johnson p. 234'' for the second ref to the same book. (Or use a separate References section, and have all footnotes in short form.)'' Yes, that's approximately what I'm doing with ], albeit using a different technology (ref-note/label-note). Mmmm. Muy intersada. ] 20:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


There are two FAC reviews where the source spotcheck hinges on Japanese and Farsi/Persian sources. Specifically, ] for Farsi/Persian and ] for Japanese. Anyone who knows how to read them? ] (]) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at ] and tell me why I'm getting errors from using this new system? It worked fine until I tried to use the much more complicated system for having duplicating notes show up as "2.1", "2.2", etc. Thanks . . . .— ] 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:Google Lens' translate function is quite good these days for translating pictures of documents. ] (]) 13:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Never mind. I didn't realize that the ref name had to be in quotes. Fixed it now. — ] 03:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::Unfortunately not all of the problem sources are in image form; some are behind paywalls and stuff. ] (]) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


==Images in BLPs==
Why isn't this implemented in a better way? The ref/note system is not bad, the only enhancement that it needs is a seperate automatic numbering system. How about having this reference in the middle of the text you want to edit: {{Journal reference issue | Author=Hillier LW, Graves TA, Fulton RS, Fulton LA, Pepin KH, Minx P, Wagner-McPherson C, Layman D, Wylie K, Sekhon M, Becker MC, Fewell GA, Delehaunty KD, Miner TL, Nash WE, Kremitzki C, Oddy L, Du H, Sun H, Bradshaw-Cordum H, Ali J, Carter J, Cordes M, Harris A, Isak A, van Brunt A, Nguyen C, Du F, Courtney L, Kalicki J, Ozersky P, Abbott S, Armstrong J, Belter EA, Caruso L, Cedroni M, Cotton M, Davidson T, Desai A, Elliott G, Erb T, Fronick C, Gaige T, Haakenson W, Haglund K, Holmes A, Harkins R, Kim K, Kruchowski SS, Strong CM, Grewal N, Goyea E, Hou S, Levy A, Martinka S, Mead K, McLellan MD, Meyer R, Randall-Maher J, Tomlinson C, Dauphin-Kohlberg S, Kozlowicz-Reilly A, Shah N, Swearengen-Shahid S, Snider J, Strong JT, Thompson J, Yoakum M, Leonard S, Pearman C, Trani L, Radionenko M, Waligorski JE, Wang C, Rock SM, Tin-Wollam AM, Maupin R, Latreille P, Wendl MC, Yang SP, Pohl C, Wallis JW, Spieth J, Bieri TA, Berkowicz N, Nelson JO, Osborne J, Ding L, Meyer R, Sabo A, Shotland Y, Sinha P, Wohldmann PE, Cook LL, Hickenbotham MT, Eldred J, Williams D, Jones TA, She X, Ciccarelli FD, Izaurralde E, Taylor J, Schmutz J, Myers RM, Cox DR, Huang X, McPherson JD, Mardis ER, Clifton SW, Warren WC, Chinwalla AT, Eddy SR, Marra MA, Ovcharenko I, Furey TS, Miller W, Eichler EE, Bork P, Suyama M, Torrents D, Waterston RH, Wilson RK | Title=Generation and annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4 | Journal=Nature | Year=2005 | Pages=724-31 | Volume=434 | Issue=7034 }} PMID 15815621 I know it can be shortened by using et al, but still some references have long titles and it makes text a whole lot harder to read. --] 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:So do fancy tables, a lot of images, and any number of other things. In the end, it's not a WYSIWIG editor. I have found it considerably easier to edit using the new system, but your mileage may vary.&mdash;] (]) 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC) There is a thread at ] about adding images of BLPs, and possibly not passing FAC if no non-free one can be found. All comments are welcome. - ] (]) 19:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Strikethrough error ==
== Moved from Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) discussion ==


There appears to be some sort of error in one of the FACs as several of the listings in the "Older nominations" section have all their comments displayed with a strike-through. I was wondering if there was any way to have that fixed? I am guessing that it is an issue with one of the FAC that is bleeding out into the other FACs on the list. ] (]) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
As this discussion drifted away from the actual FAC nomination, I moved it over here. ] 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


==RfC at ]==
*I've excised the insults that Giano applied to me above. Please refrain from personal abuse.] 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::*This is an insult, and personal abuse? ] | ] 11:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


There is an RfC at ], an FA. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''. - ] (]) 05:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*That's ''right'', Giano, which is why I excised your kind link to it here as well. Please participate in this process without resorting to personal insults and belittling. It's not appreciated. ] 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Please do not remove my edits. I am sorry you feel an obviously light hearted phrase was offensive to you. However, your sensitivities do not give you free licence to remove other peoples edits at whim - or make unfounded allegations of personal attack. Please remember that. For anyone interested in this perceived insult (imaginations must be running riot) the link is once again here. Please leave it here. Thank you. ] | ] 14:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*No way, man; I'll remove it every time you put it in.Your behaviour is offensive to me. Back off. ] 15:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::::*GIANO! Mio Bello Bambino! relax! Tony is doing no more than your buddy Bishonen did when he/she/it removed my comments . And he has JUST as much right. Your remarks, if not deliberately insulting, are clearly and deliberately provocative (I also find them snide and childish). Ironic, is'nt it, that personality issues aside you and I are on the same side about this article and Raul's right to submit it.--] 08:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::*Look, ], three things, all directly relevant to FAC, this nom, and this nom discussion as it has unfolded (in easy to follow point form):
::::'''1.''' When you address me with '''Obviously it's a hornet's nest here so I'll leave you in it to sting away''', I take some offense at being likened to a possibly dangerous pest insect that is generally to be avoided or preferably killed. Avoiding cruelty to stinging insects is NOT on most people's agendas: annoyance, fear and hate more likely are. Touchy? Just reading the English the way it was intended... More importantly, that comment is uncivil in a rather vicious and extreme way and you're...off-topic.


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024 ==
::::'''2.''' As things possibly "escalate" here in what I see as a current '''Big Problem with FAC in general''', what may be the normal sharp asides of vigorous debate become more problematic. For example, are you acting as an agent provocateur, trying to goad the outspoken few into making themselves seem in one way or another, to use a fine old phrase, off their rockers (could that come in handy for later use in some "Request for" proceding, I don't really know my around all that...)? (Or do you ''really'' believe EVEN JUST A LITTLE bad spelling and awkward sentences (that wouldn't get an A in a junior high writing class) are "OK" for now, and equal "compelling, even brilliant writing". And that's just the tip of some of the specific problems with recent FAs.) I'm not seeing some plot here, but at least maybe group dynamics where ranks get closed and things get ugly and people can revert to...uh, type. This IS the way of life and human nature and all that, but isn't WP supposed to be yet another stab at some sort of implausible ideal...? (And, Giano, caught in a hornets nest, one presumably watches out not to get stung... Thank you for the warning.)


Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::'''3.''' I'm perplexed here, at the renom of ''']''' by the FAC Director specifically because the FACD also just promoted several FACs despite standing objections, from me from others, that I think clearly identified fundamental FA problems. I am concerned that '''editorial judgements''' beyond "adding up consensus" are being made. Concrete is preferable to abastract so, just one before-and-after illustrations: the ] promotion in Dec, then front page Dec. 27, and the current apparent gang-support (mob-support?) of the Dec 31 front page ] now in a , where practically every voter admits the problems with poor writing and/or jargon named in the nom, but still says, "let's keep". I say before-and-after because I don't know when Iowa class was FA-ed, but I do know there are serious FA criteria problems with the Mac article, that are still there in the FAC transcript. It's just rather difficult and possibly useless to act after the FAC, especially when it seems FAC seems somewhat unstable at present, and once an FA, there's strong defense... (there are several more examples from my last seven weeks in FAC)... '''''So, if ] as renominated represents the FACD's personal interpretion of FA criteria well met, then that view must logically extend itself to the fine points of consensus arbitration, particularly in cases where objections exist, but aren't (apparently) overwhelmingly supported; if the Director judges objections ''for merit'' against the FA criteria, that's editorial review, not arbitration, and I don't believe the FAC Director is meant to be Editor-in-Chief (if so, lemme know, 'cause that changes everything about FAC)...''''' --] 16:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for November 2024}}
:* As I've said higher up this page this is not the place, but so much now seems to have been written off subject, so what the hell. - My agenda here was to vote on an FA, albeit one written by Raul, who (IMO) has as much right to edit as anyone else. Having dared to say so, I immediately realised there was an undercurrent here, and another agenda (hence the hornet's nest analogy). I truly have no view, I have complete trust in Raul to make sound judgements; if others have less faith, then let Jimmy Wales himself adjudicate on Raul's edits. I appreciate the points you are making, and you may well be right - I don't know, and don't hugely care - the project is a success, made even more creditable by good referencing. There are now hundreds of articles that are more informative and better researched than the few that become FAs - and that is the proof of Misplaced Pages's success. FAs are now tending to be a few uniform articles of a generally good standard. On the other hand, Tony bounces around, forces the English into his own limited vocabulary, issues imperious commands (ie "please fix") on subjects about which he knows little <s>if anything <s>, and leaves rude and sarcastic edits (e.g: as recently as today: ) which generally put intelligent editors backs up. This is detrimental to the system. (Yes Tony!...That actually is an insult..recognise one now!) ] | ] 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable sortable"
:::(Edit conflict) Giano, please don't tease, and especially don't post deliberate insults, as you've unfortunately done now. Tony, please stop removing text/links from other people's posts. WP:FAC is a discussion page, not an article; you don't have the right to edit comments that have been posted here. The only exception is ''very clear personal attacks'', and the text/link you keep removing is nothing of the sort. Your notion that clear personal attacks are defined through "Your behaviour is offensive to me. Back off." is mistaken. Compare ], which is an official policy page: ''The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack."'' I have restored the link in one of Giano's post above so people can see what all the brouhaha is about. Please dont remove it, Tony. Apart from the don't-edit-other-people's-comments issue, I will hold you in contempt of the ] if you do. Please just don't. If you feel that strongly about Giano's comment, I suggest you ask ''him'' to remove the link. Giano, perhaps you'd like to consider removing or striking through some of the message you just posted, as a gesture of good will. ] | ] 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC).
!'''# reviews'''
:::I'm sure if the situation had been reversed, you would not have hesistated to <s>strike</s> the comments yourself. Without giving the provacatuer a chance to retrack or apologize You have every right to take up for your friend, but when you employ your admin powers and threats thereof for this, it becomes a clear case of ABUSE. Which if FAR worse than a few petty, personal insults. So the injunction "Please just don't" applies to both parties here.--] 08:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
! colspan="4" |Type of review
::*Thanks for the wise advice. I have struck through one word, which was probably a little unfair (I apologise Tony - I'm sure you know a little about a great deal) I suppose it is a deliberate insult, but perhaps tact and diplomacy are something that Tony needs to learn. I will be a contented man if in some small way I have helped achieve this. ] | ] 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
|-
!Reviewer
! data-sort-type="number" |Content
! data-sort-type="number" |Source
! data-sort-type="number" |Image
! data-sort-type="number" |Accessibility
|-
|Nikkimaria
|3
|1
|17
|
|-
|SchroCat
|14
|6
|
|
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|
|7
|3
|
|-
|Crisco 1492
|9
|
|
|
|-
|Generalissima
|5
|1
|2
|
|-
|Matarisvan
|6
|1
|1
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|6
|
|1
|
|-
|Aoba47
|3
|2
|
|
|-
|Dudley Miles
|5
|
|
|
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|5
|
|
|
|-
|750h+
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Gog the Mild
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Borsoka
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Ceoil
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Graham Beards
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Hurricanehink
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|1
|2
|
|
|-
|TheJoebro64
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Tim riley
|3
|
|
|
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|2
|
|
|
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Cukie Gherkin
|
|1
|1
|
|-
|Draken Bowser
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Epicgenius
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Heartfox
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|2
|
|
|
|-
|MaranoFan
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Medxvo
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|PARAKANYAA
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|2
|
|-
|Piotrus
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Vacant0
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Ajpolino
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Balon Greyjoy
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Biruitorul
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Caeciliusinhorto
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Choliamb
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Czar
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Eddie891
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Fifelfoo
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Gen. Quon
|1
|
|
|
|-
|HAL333
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Hawkeye7
|1
|
|
|
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Ippantekina
|1
|
|
|
|-
|JennyOz
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Joeyquism
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Johnbod
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Jonesey95
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Lankyant
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Lazman321
|
|1
|
|
|-
|LittleLazyLass
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Mike Christie
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Mrfoogles
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Mujinga
|1
|
|
|
|-
|NegativeMP1
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Nick-D
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Paleface Jack
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Panini!
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Relativity
|1
|
|
|
|-
|RFNirmala
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Rjjiii
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Sammi Brie
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Shapeyness
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Shushugah
|1
|
|
|
|-
|SnowFire
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Srnec
|1
|
|
|
|-
|The Rambling Man
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Thelifeofan413
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Thuiop
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Tintor2
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TompaDompa
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Volcanoguy
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|-
|WikiOriginal-9
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Wtfiv
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Zmbro
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Zzzs
|1
|
|
|
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''155'''
|'''26'''
|'''27'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for November 2024}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations'''
! colspan="7" |'''Declaration'''
|-
!'''Editor'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose converted to support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''None'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Total'''
|-
|Nikkimaria
|
|
|
|
|3
|18
|21
|-
|SchroCat
|8
|
|
|
|4
|8
|20
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|
|
|
|
|
|10
|10
|-
|Crisco 1492
|9
|
|
|
|
|
|9
|-
|Generalissima
|3
|
|
|
|2
|3
|8
|-
|Matarisvan
|5
|
|
|
|
|3
|8
|-
|Hog Farm
|5
|
|1
|
|
|1
|7
|-
|Aoba47
|2
|
|
|
|
|3
|5
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|4
|
|
|
|1
|
|5
|-
|Dudley Miles
|3
|
|
|
|
|2
|5
|-
|750h+
|4
|
|
|
|
|
|4
|-
|Gog the Mild
|2
|
|
|
|1
|1
|4
|-
|Tim riley
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|1
|
|
|
|
|2
|3
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Hurricanehink
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Borsoka
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Graham Beards
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|2
|
|
|
|1
|
|3
|-
|TheJoebro64
|2
|
|
|
|1
|
|3
|-
|Ceoil
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Vacant0
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|PARAKANYAA
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Draken Bowser
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Piotrus
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Heartfox
|1
|
|
|
|1
|
|2
|-
|MaranoFan
|1
|
|
|1
|
|
|2
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|1
|
|
|
|1
|
|2
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Epicgenius
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Cukie Gherkin
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Medxvo
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Lankyant
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Balon Greyjoy
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Caeciliusinhorto
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ajpolino
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|The Rambling Man
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Shapeyness
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Nick-D
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Paleface Jack
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Gen. Quon
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Joeyquism
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|LittleLazyLass
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Jonesey95
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Zzzs
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Thelifeofan413
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|JennyOz
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Srnec
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|SnowFire
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Choliamb
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Lazman321
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|WikiOriginal-9
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Mike Christie
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Hawkeye7
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Wtfiv
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Thuiop
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Fifelfoo
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|NegativeMP1
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Mrfoogles
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Czar
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Rjjiii
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Volcanoguy
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|RFNirmala
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|TompaDompa
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Johnbod
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Panini!
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Sammi Brie
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Zmbro
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Relativity
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Tintor2
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Biruitorul
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Eddie891
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Shushugah
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Mujinga
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|HAL333
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ippantekina
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''105'''
|
|'''1'''
|'''1'''
|'''16'''
|'''85'''
|'''208'''
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for September 2024 to November 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!Nominations (12 mos)
!Reviews (12 mos)
!Ratio (12 mos)
|-
|750h+
|6.0
|51.0
|8.5
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|7.0
|39.0
|5.6
|-
|Amir Ghandi
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|2.5
|8.0
|3.2
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9.0
|66.0
|7.3
|-
|Darkwarriorblake
|6.0
|3.0
|0.5
|-
|Dudley Miles
|6.0
|33.0
|5.5
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|3.0
|14.0
|4.7
|-
|Dxneo
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|3.0
|10.0
|3.3
|-
|Epicgenius
|8.5
|17.0
|2.0
|-
|FunkMonk
|2.8
|27.0
|9.5
|-
|Generalissima
|9.0
|61.0
|6.8
|-
|Hawkeye7
|5.0
|7.0
|1.4
|-
|Hog Farm
|7.0
|49.0
|7.0
|-
|Hurricanehink
|2.5
|19.0
|7.6
|-
|Ippantekina
|5.0
|6.0
|1.2
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3.3
|28.0
|8.4
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0
|218.0
|36.3
|-
|Joeyquism
|3.0
|17.0
|5.7
|-
|Kurzon
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Kyle Peake
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Llewee
|2.0
|7.0
|3.5
|-
|M4V3R1CK32
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|MaranoFan
|5.0
|14.0
|2.8
|-
|Mike Christie
|6.0
|54.0
|9.0
|-
|NegativeMP1
|3.0
|11.0
|3.7
|-
|Nick-D
|2.0
|15.0
|7.5
|-
|Noorullah21
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Paleface Jack
|3.0
|3.0
|1.0
|-
|Peacemaker67
|6.0
|2.0
|0.3
|-
|Phlsph7
|5.0
|16.0
|3.2
|-
|Pollosito
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|8.3
|35.0
|4.2
|-
|Relayed
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Sammi Brie
|3.0
|12.0
|4.0
|-
|SchroCat
|15.0
|155.0
|10.3
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|3.0
|39.0
|13.0
|-
|The ed17
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|The Green Star Collector
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|5.0
|3.0
|0.6
|-
|Tim riley
|5.0
|52.0
|10.4
|-
|TrademarkedTWOrantula
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|Turini2
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|6.0
|89.0
|14.8
|-
|Volcanoguy
|4.0
|7.0
|1.8
|-
|Wehwalt
|7.5
|29.0
|3.9
|}
{{cob}}
-- ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
>>>


== Status of Virgo interferometer ==
::Folks, '''please!''' First, Raul, you might really want to let this one slide off for a while, as there is a massive amount of heat and very little light in this deliberation, and I don't think the people objecting are being too picky. That said, Raul doesn't have to give up writing, or nominating, FAC's when he takes on the job of promoting and featuring them, because ''that'' job is not simply left to his discretion. Raul has to, and has, follow the voters here. Otherwise, he'd just promote it in spite of objections, so the hand wringing over conflict of interest is a bit hysterical and licensed. Second, Giano, you were being provocative, but not insulting. Tony was prepared, however, to see an attack anywhere, and you had to know that. Third, Tony, you need to shrug off things. Giano doesn't approve of the way you do things. Ok. So? He's one person. If you think he's ''baiting'' you, he's not actually ''attacking'' you, and when you rise to the bait, you're showing an interest in escalation. (Otherwise, you'd just be sly, yourself.) FAC is supposed to be deliberative, and not a tragic stage or political tabloid. If we stay focused on this article, we're going to get on with our lives and actually make for better FA's than if we start playing the who-struck-John. ] 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


{{@FAC}} What is the status of ]? Gog the Mild promoted it, FrB.TG ] for a spotcheck. , and I am not sure if what Hurricanehink mentioned is a spotcheck. ] (]) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Perhaps someone could move the slanging match and comments on Raul's role (as opposed to the article) to the talk page; anyone thinking of adding a comment will take one look at this discussion (41K already!) and run away. It may not be too late to fix objections if we get back to the matter in hand. ]] 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Object:''' deliberation is now longer than the recommended article maximum. :-) (What a mess!) ] 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*I am not happy about what has gone on here at all; I have a right to contribute without degrading comments from this man. PLEASE remove this appalling exchange NOW. ] 22:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
**Try not to blow it out of proportion. Take a break, have a cup of tea. Giano's comments weren't degrading or appalling, and even if they had been, the best thing you can do is ignore it. But Giano - please - go ahead and remove whatever Tony1 finds insulting. Step up and defuse this sensitive situation. &mdash;] (]) 23:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


== Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article ==
*As long as this diversion remains here, there's reason to pursue the issues it raises. If this page is to be ruled by the the anti-intellectuals, by those such as Giano who, by their own, admission, can't write to save themselves, then all is lost. Sloppily written FACs will still be promoted, sending a signal to all WPians that amateurism is the accepted standard. ] 23:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
**Tony, you really should stop, there. You're getting into dangerous (and silly) areas, and it is never wise to assume that style sheets are eloquence or that standardized diction is euphony. Bunchofgrapes has good advice: you're really getting bent out of shape over nothing. ] 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*I said what I mean, and I won't step back from it. I don't see my self being bent out of shape at all. ] 00:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
**Tony, my friend, "anti-intellectuals", is a bit harsh. I think PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALS would be a more accurate term in this case, don't you think? That aside, I must disagree with you about this article. I think it is feature quality. Raul did the subject justice and he has every right to submit his fine work. I believe everyone here should be a CONTRIBUTOR FIRST with all else is secondary if not tertiary. Let us try and keep focus on the matter at hand here...please. I have let Giano, and those holding his leash, know exactly what I think of his insulting remarks and their threats against you. There is bias here, my friend, you are right about that. But it has nothing to do with this article or its main contributor. Peace mate...for now :> --] 09:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::*Ciao Ghost - Well fancy us being on the same side (well almost) I see you have put a link above to the kerfuffle following Tony's RFA failure. That is a little bit below the belt to Tony, and I don't think you should have done that. It's not fair to him. Even I don't go there to discredit someone. Regarding your comments immediately above "pseudo" or "anti intellectual" it does not really matter what we are because all we can do here is regurgitate information and reference it to creditable books - preferably not those we may have written ourselves. Own research and all that is frowned upon. As for not being able to write, half the encyclopedia knows I'm dyslexic, and if they don't then they have pretty poor powers of observation, as for grammar, I tend to treat it a little like house-work - let those that enjoy it - do it. However, as for style that is individual and we all have a perfect right to our own, as much right as Raul or even Jimmy Wales himself to write what we like, when we like, where we like, in whatever manner we like. So long as it is generally acceptable English. It seems to me Tony has a problem accepting the views and styles of others on many subjects - and sees threats and insults all around him. That must be difficult for him, but it's not my problem. Regarding your final point about bias here - Perhaps you should make a comment at ] which seems the current place for discussing her behaviour. I don't think there is bias here, just look at the link you put in above - pretty nasty stuff and you're still here to edit. No there's no bias just a lot of opinionated people, of whom you and I can probably be included. ] | ] 12:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::I have a newsflash for you Sunshine, I'm dyslexic too (Dyslexics of the world UNTIE!). I battle against ] as well. But I don't use them as a crutch for my mistakes nor an excuse for being a jerk (I can find myself plenty of other excuses for that, thank you). By the time I was diagnosed, I had almost completed my masters, so clearly it is something which I can overcome. You seem to have overcome yours pretty well too. So that dog don't hunt. BZZZZZZ, Sorry, wrong answer, but thanks for playing! As for Tony, his only major problem I see is he needs to try and abide by the principle of ]. Even you must conceed, Giano, that NONE of us came away from his Rfa and aftermath smelling rosey. It was a grand mess which created a lot of bad blood that has now fermented and spilled into this discussion. Given the personalities and egos involved (and no I'm not letting mine off the hook here either)I don't see this going anywhere but down...possibly to the road of another Rfc...once everyone stops snikering about "Hollaback" Wilerding's.--] 14:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::My goodness, and now pseudo-intellectuals? Astonishing! Go straight to arguing the person instead of the issue, and you set the stage for either your own personality coming into question or the other defending his person. That's a fool's game, and only a fool would set it forth. ] 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


I would appreciate input at ]. This is one of my earliest FACs, and I would appreciate some additional thoughts to make sure I'm not being too harsh on myself; this one isn't really up to my current standard. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 04:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
==Voting age==
Hello there.
Sorry to interrupt. Can anyone tell me how long I have to be a registered user, before I can vote on Featured Article Candidates? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. ] 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:FAC is more a discussion than a vote. The important thing in deciding if an article makes "featured" status is not that it has more "support" than "oppose", but that all major objections have been taken care of. If you've got suggestions on how to improve an article, feel free to add them. --] 18:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::Yes and don't be put off the place by the "discussion" above, we all love each other really, even old Ghostie has a soft centre. ] | ] 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:Your views will be taken into account, although a lack of edits, if you are in a startling minority, will probably be used to assess how familiar you are with Misplaced Pages's policies and articles. There is a fallacy in such things, but it's the best defense we have against vote drumming and article wrecking. (I.e. if you are the only objector, and your objections are wild, folks will look at the number of contributions. If you're supporting in the face of a number of objections, it won't make any difference at all, as articles are promoted only when all substantive objections have been addressed.) ] 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


== disputing archiving ==
==No new FA?==
Did you recently up your standards? I use to enjoy reading all the new FA from the lists at signpost, but for the last two weeks no new FA. Hopefully you don't run out of articles to front page. I would help if I wasn't busy trying to get wikiproject Nebraska off the ground.--] 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


] was archived with 5 supports, 1 oppose (which had been mainly resolved), and 3 reviews currently in progress. I think this is very premature — the closer said that the most recent review by {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} showed that it was not ready for promotion, but this mainly consistented of minor text tweaks and recommendations that would be resolved in a matter of minutes. I feel that this should be reopened, though obviously I'm going to be biased in that respect; I wanted to see what everyone else thought. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 13:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:No - ] just didn't promote any last week, but there were lots (14!) the week before, and he has just promoted seven more today (see ]). -- ] ] 22:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:fwiw, although Ian didn't know this when closing, the rest of my review would not have been resolved in a matter of minutes; I was intending, among other things, to deeply question the reliance on one book so recently published I can find zero scholarly reviews of it. ] (]) 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Ok, just as long as one is produced per day.--] 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, given that Airship's review so far was only on the lead and already included a couple of non-trivial comments, plus given the nom had been open for weeks already and had another outstanding oppose, I think a closure was reasonably justifiable, though of course disappointing. ] (]) 14:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::Ah, that's fair enough I suppose. To PR! <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, the current average is running at well over 1 per day, but there is a large backlog of old ones still to go on the front page (if that is what you are worried about). In any event, we could always start from the beginning again. -- ] ] 11:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

==Double whammy today==
OK, Giano may never speak to me again and it's inappropriate to focus in any way on individual contributors, but I ''will'' mention that two articles mainly authored by Giano grace the English ''and'' the French Main Pages today: ] and ]. ] | ] 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

:Amost a triple whammy: ] was ] last week on ]. -- ] ]

:: There is a *Sicilian* Misplaced Pages as well?!
:: Good gods, this is a huge project...
:: → '''<font color="006400">P</font><font color="4B0082">.</font><font color="008000">Mac</font><font color="228B22">Uidhir'''</font> ] ] 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== References -- the new witch hunt ==

Don't get me wrong. As much as anyone, I understand the extreme importance of referencing sources, especially true due to Misplaced Pages's free-for-all-edits nature, and as much as anyone I like reading verified information.

However, I cannot deny the fact the massive referencing paranoia recently flooding this page (as well as the FARC page) to object or remove articles. Why? Because its so easy to pick on it. It has came to the point that users who don't like an article for WHATEVER reason (think its POV, covers a subject they'd rather keep secret, don't like another editor, don't like the prose, etc etc etc) decide to pick on the slightest misreference because they can make a valid (if lame) point, and often successfully ] their way to having an article bounced off featured for a minor technical point that has to do with references.

I mean, how lame it is to object an otherwise perfect article because it uses a footnote rather than inline citations? How dull is it to knitpick every word and punctuation, and pounce on a comma being placed outside quotations when a source is cited? To what length people go to expose flaws that it would have taken them much quicker to correct themselves, and then use it as an argument against the article's quality? How many times have you seen people follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of Misplaced Pages, in regards to "properly referencing sources"?

Referencing is no doubt important, but we should NOT tolerate this paranoia concerning it. It is true that FA's are supposed to be our best work, but perhaps you should remember some other important principles we have concerning:

* ]
* A perfect article cannot exist
* ]
* ]

I think the approach to references should be JUST LIKE ANY OTHER part of our review criteria. That is, it should definitely cover the main bases, and provide justification for the article's text. However, this does not mean that truly MINOR matters (such as referencing in a style you don't like), or not having a reference for an unimportant point where the bigger subject is referenced, should be a CAST IN IRON argument for defeaturing or denying featured status to an article, much like the same way we don't approach prose, composition, or pictures in a die-hard manner.

Once again, I'm not denying the importance of referencing, or asking that it should be dropped from requirements, but I do ask that

*1. Approach the rule, like any other rule, with a "certain degree of elasticity" (quote from our MOS)
*2. Understand nobody and nothing is perfect
*3. Understand, that referencing, like any other principle, should first and foremost apply to the general theme, meaning and interpretation the article conveys, rather than every word and letter
*4. Admit that using a less-than-perfect referencing style still does NOT mean the article is unreferenced
*5. Try fixing minor errors you see yourself yourself before bringing them up here

And most importantly:

*6. '''STOP using "references" clause as an ironclad principle of arguing against articles if it is obvious its not references what you are after, but other issues, but you choose this one because it's so easy to pick on'''.

There's something to think about.

Sincerely,

] 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:Please show me a clear example of what you are talking about, because otherwise, you're violating ]. I strongly doubt that any significant portion of wikipedians have so much malice in their hearts as to lie about the nature of their objections to an article. My personal stance is found at ]. With respect to your claim that it's "lame" and "dull" to have the citations in the correct locations, I heartily disagree. While I wouldn't oppose an article's candidacy on those grounds, professionalism is all about consistency. Scientific journals use a set format, Brittanica uses a set format, for that matter, ''any'' notable publication uses a set format. By the nature of Misplaced Pages, we can't, but there is absolutely no reason to ensure that the articles we call our best should not have consistent formatting. Some people, however, take issue to people changing their formatting style, and as a result, bringing it up on a FAC is the polite thing to do.
:Perfection is impossible, but what we're asking for is not perfection. Perfection in references might be using all printed sources, using no source more than twice, using multiple sources for the same point, maintaining exact formatting, and not overburdening the reader with excessive inline citations. Some of these are easily attainable, some are not. To say that the ones that are easily attainable should be allowed to be ignored is unwise and unnecessary. If it makes the article better, and it's easy to do, why not do it?
:Finally, you seem to suggest that when it comes to referencing, we fail to see the forest for the trees. Sometimes, that may be the case, but at the end of the day, if the article states something that someone will at some point want to verify or use in another work, that ''something'' should be referenced. Period. I will not ignore blatant referencing problems in FAs, because if our best articles lack something that crucial, we have proven that our critics are right; that this is an encyclopedia that can never be taken seriously. --]&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:Why not just thoroughly reference any ] article, thereby avoiding the need to speculate about the motives of people objecting over poor referencing? ] 19:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, an article with a decent number of references is fine with almost all editors either during the FA voting or FARC.--] 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::I think what {{user|Elvarg}} is more referring to is the feeling that some people who comment on FACs are more willing to complain about a problem than fix a problem. In my FAC experiences, I do see some of this and I think it has somethin to do with the way FAC is setup. A nominator is expected to guide the article through FAC so often users come in and make comments opposing, expecting the nominator to make all of the changes, regardless of their magnitude. Of course, often those users never come back to change their votes, but that is an entirely other matter. I think this is a common sentiment, yes, but if the nominator decided to nominate the article, that means they are willing to do whatever it takes to get to FA status. I know I was! :-) &mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> ] 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
:::The nominator does not "own" the article (and neither anyone else does). The nominator merely points out the quality of the article, and offers some reasons for why it should be nominated. The opposers also have to present valid reasons, and together a consensus is supposed to be reached. '''FAC is not supposed to be a battleground''', although too often it is, and '''the nominator should not carry the burden of proof''' when "defending" the article he nominated -- and he does not have any more responsibility than the next editor (including his opposition) to improve the article. ] 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Of course there are two rather good reasons why people here ask for references rather than just inserting them: firstly there are a lot of articles going through the process at any one time, and no-one wants to start fixing 20-odd articles; and secondly the actual author of the article is best-placed to tell us what references he used. Incidentally, if anyone is really objecting because they don't like a particular ''style'' of referencing, then Raul will certainly ignore their objection when it come to tallying up. ]] 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Comment''' Based on my last two months in FAC, I think this discusssion is timely and important. The points made so far do miss a critical aspect of the situation. The insistence on (heavy) use of citations creates a variety of cases where the quality of FAs IMO can be significantly diminished, and in to a great degree takes our eyes off the goal of identifying "really good articles" by putting a lot of focus on an ill-defined area. References can be used to give the appearance of objectivity and academic credibility where it may not exist, they can be misused by referencing extremely dubious sources for the specific material they are supporting, and they can plain clutter up an article making it literally hard to read. These are the three obvious types of problem I've noticed. Examples from recent FACs:

*''']''' - promoted despite standing objections related to use of inline citation. Here, the nominator, in attempting to meet requests for citations, started footnoting everything in sight, then gave up partway, explaining that it seemed an ineffective approach. This left a bizarrely formatted article that I imagine would cause most thoughtful readers to question what was going on. The first three of eight main sections have at least one citation per paragraph (30 in total); the rest of the article (75% of the text) has no citations.

*''']''' - promoted despite standing objections related to sources. Here, my conclusion as a FAC reviewer was that the article did not internally support itself. Without getting into too much detail, who the Radhanites were is (based on the article iteself) largely scholarly speculation, as only two paragraphs from a single historical account exist to describe them (again, as noted in the article). I felt that the article should have been more properly titled "Jewish merchants of the Early Middle Ages", of which much more info is apparently available, instead of making it appear that the Radhanites were (likely, or, possibly) these "Jewish merchants". It ''seemed to me'' like some sort of propaganda exercise. I'm not claiming ANY scholarly insight or even general knowledge of the topic, but was simply working from the article. A rather "impressive" list of (print-based) references were cited. I did some searching and found that one of the central titles was a book from the 1940s which expanded on the above mentioned two paragraphs, IOW one scholar's opinion, and many others were encyclopedias which may have drawn from that source. In the FAC discussion, another reviewer stated that some citations were simply wrong (e.g. did not refer to what they claimed to). That was a heated exchange, and no clear outcome was evident, but clearly, someone there was wrong, IOW some citations ''may'' have been simply window dressing. So here is a case where the article clearly wouldn't have made FA without citations, and where the citations bolstered a (again, IMO) dubious conclusion, and the supporter of the nom didn't see fit to address the questions in any detail.

*''']''' - currently in its third week of FAC. Here, in the lead paragraph, a double citation, to CNN.com and TIME Asia online, supports a claim about the Pokemon character's popularity. In this instance, the use of contemporary news media seems entirely inappropriate for the claims being supported. I looked at the source material, and these were both "casual" articles, one of which stated in effect "as a quick look at some Pokemon web sites will tell you...". This rather indiscriminate use of "any old source material" just to for the sake of citation is, IMO, ridiculous. At least, a formal survey of some sort, some kind of formal statistical undertaking, should be used to cite for something like measurement of popularity. Recent news media are OK for facts and figures, quotes, and to illustrate perhaps the type of popular coverage given a topic at a point in time, but not for quantitative stuff.

These aren't isolated examples. The Radhanites situation is I suppose exactly what references are for in an academic setting, but they are difficult to take to task (foreign language is another problem I ran into, e.g. Spanish-language refs, which isn't BAD, but a problem if and when checking). The other instances, are more common. particularly loading up articles with unnecessary citations (as addressed in the original comment in this thread: "3. Understand, that referencing, like any other principle, should first and foremost apply to the general theme, meaning and interpretation the article conveys, rather than every word and letter").

'''I fully understand and support ] and its related guidelines, but this shouldn't be pushed to the point of creating spurious and pseudo-references for the sake of appearance.'''

My current approach in FAC review is to scan the References section, treating it as a bibliography. If a sufficient number of general titles are presented, and nothing there raises a flag, I'll read the article, where any problems are usually quite evident simply from reading... That only makes sense. An article should ''first'' stand on its own (clear, logical, easy to read, self-contained, consistent), not on its citations. I think that, at this stage of WP/FAC, this is sufficiently reasonable excepting those ''specific'' cases where possibly controversial assertions are being made. (Sorry for the length, I'll come back and try to edit down.) --] 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

== Shot down ==

How do any articles ever make it to Main Page when 90% of nominations get shot down by unanimous objections? ] 00:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:The other 10% are what you see on the Main Page; this is consistent with ], incidentally ;-) —]]] 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:The number of articles unanimously shot down would reduce if nominators spent some time reviewing how other unanimously promoted articles meet the FA criteria. Most editors don't, so the noms get shot down as a result. Spending some time on ] and actually listening to and implimenting the suggestions given there and asking for more is a good start also ignored by most. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

== References: the new new witch ==

Look, folks, let's be absolutely clear, eh? There is no requirement for one ''style'' of citation over another. There isn't one at ], and there isn't one for FAC. Citation is mandatory, but parenthetical vs. inline is an absurd battle to wage. I do not like inline notes. When I see a note, I expect it to be an emendation, to actually ''say'' something. Otherwise, it's as John Barrymore said: "Reading a footnote is like running downstairs to answer the doorbell on the first night of marriage." Provide a parenthetical, and, if I have read the references first (which I have), then I know which work you're referring to as I go. That's far better than a tiny number and flip-backs, for me. I've written my share of Featured Articles, but I will ''never'' use the inline style. Remember: it's a ''style.'' It isn't an obligation.

I demand citations for controversial facts, and I demand citation for inaccessible facts, but something like "he was a noted controversialist" doesn't need a note when the body of the article is going to explain how many controversies he fought in. When the evidence is right there in the biography, the adjective is supportable and NPOV. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source of information, but it's not an academic clipping service: it's an encyclopedia, and that means that things are said that are ''supported,'' not that are ''repeated.''

I object stenuously to anyone who goes through substituting style over all other considerations and who goes into style wars with an aim to reducing rather than increasing choice. Don't ask me to use a reference style that will render my article un-editable. Don't ask me to use a style that is unreadable. Don't demand that I violate my professional academic procedures ''and'' my personal aesthetics because you have a bur in a sensitives spot over footnotes or some other bit of fustian. ] 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:You have a big vocabulary... :) --] 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:You could have shortened that entirely because you are correct there is no consensus for one style over the other and therefore any consistent style within an article is acceptable. Anyone wishing to change that should propose it in ] and will face a huge uphill battle. Objections based only on which style of inline citations are used are invalid. Simply point that out and point people to WP:CITE. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::And, from ], I think this is particularly important as a starting point: ''Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below.'' --] 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::That should probably be modified. Featured articles are required to have some form of inline citations (be it footnotes, or harvard style parenthetical citations). Simply posting a list of references at the end of an article is not good enough as it does not tie specific facts to specific sources. ] 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:Raul, that refers to certain situations like ] or ] or ]: the biography is not controversial, and all of the factual information comes from the personal memoirs of the subject and a ''DNB'' entry, so putting a note up saying "Got this from DNB" and "Got this from there too" and "Got this from there and the novel" and "Got this from there, too, but I also read it in the memoir" is kind of blunt. There simply ''aren't'' many good sources for some of these folks. (The folks I mention there really haven't any biographies other than what one finds in biographical dictionaries, and specialists tend to read the primary source document.) ] 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::Citing a memior that could easily be 100,000 words long isn't particularly helpful to anyone. The cases you cited call for inline citations with specific page numbers. ] 22:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Or ], where the nominator/main supporting editor noted in FAC review: ''I found it silly to continuously repeat the same footnote when from reading the articles its fairly obvious''. --] 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::If it were a research paper, Raul, we'd demand that facts that are inaccessible, phrasings that are peculiar, and structures that are unique be cited. Otherwise, "I'm reading this here book, and this is what's in it" is a references page matter. Similarly, "I'm reading this biographical dictionary, and these are the facts from it in a new order, in new wording, with implications expanded and inferences drawn, with hyperlinks" is a reference. Otherwise, like Tsavage says, you just keep saying, "Ibid," "Ibid," and "Ibid" and sound like a swamp full of frogs. (And, for the record, I've read the ''Memoir'' of Pilkington like a mosquito on a pond -- alighting here and there -- and so to AC Elias's work I add things from the Memoir, but they're not quotes. I haven't added the ''Memoir'' to those references yet, because I got lazy and didn't go find out when the modern edition is. (I used an ancient one when I read it, but I had a great lieberry.)) So the short version is that I don't think the "sometimes References is enough" needs to be changed. Such an article might not get promoted, but it should be ''possible.'' What I wrote to object to, though, was the current run of "not inline citation!" for objections. That has gone unchallenged every time, and I should hope that we'd all be reminding voters that references are required, but notational vs. parenthetical is preference. ] 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

==Peer review automated links==
I'm amazed at home many people take their article to FAC without peer review <s>when it's clearly in the instructions at the top</s>. I'd like to be able to see instantly if, when, and how an FAC was peer reviewed. Is there anyway we could make an automated link to each nominee's corresponding peer review? So if I nominate ], it would automatically post a link to ]. That way, articles without peer review show up as redlinks. ] 14:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

:Nowhere do the instructions say that an article ''has'' to go to ] first, before being nominated here; it is, however, often a wise thing to do. You may be being misled by the "path" to a featured article: it is simply guidance, not instruction. Some other Wikipedias require a period of peer review before selecting their equivalent of featured articles, but we do not. -- ] ] 15:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would be nice to have the links nonetheless. ] 16:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:::It should be noted that the feedback at Peer Review is sometimes non-existent. It leads to me to believe some people take their article to FAC in place of Peer Review because of its greater activity. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
::::That is a good point. I'm just now getting the hang of FAC. ] 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::I agree that some articles get little to no improvement on peer review, but showing that the effort was made to send it there should be good enough for many of us. But, if people really want to bypass Peer Review, they should at least check the grammar, spelling and wording of the article, and make sure that any media passes all copyright tests. ] <small><sup>] ] </sup></small> 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

==="Didn't go through Peer Review yet": the newest witch hunt===
I'm amazed at the amazement expressed above by Lovelac7, but it was perhaps to be expected, since recently a lot of people seem to be objecting to articles on the basis that they "didn't go through Peer Review 'yet'". Admittedly, I haven't so far seen an objection where that is the ''sole'' criticism offered, but I fully expect to any day now, since the lack — or "lack" — of Peer Review is so often objected as a separate point. If the "path to a Featured article" is really making people think PR is obligatory, the "path" should be edited to make it clear that PR ''is not a Featured article criterion''. Never was, and I hope never will be. Such confidently-stated but quite untruthful statistical observations as "very very few articles have without " reinforce the notion that there's something wrong, something careless or downright immoral, about nominators who offer their articles directly to FAC; that these people are wasting everybody's time ''regardless of the quality of the article''.
<br>Please keep referring to Peer Review if the article genuinely needs it (I often do this myself, and sometimes if the nominator won't take a hint I boldly move it to PR), but please stop scaring off nominators by implying that the PR detour is mandatory. In my experience, as FAC nominator and also as PR housekeeper (a while back) a stint on PR sometimes produces excellent input, but more frequently little or none, or mere kind but useless compliments. PR has problems as it is; it needs to be more dynamic; it needs to keep out the mere content disputes placed there without appropriateness; what PR doesn't need is being choked with articles placed there by reluctant FAC nominators under duress. And we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all. ] | ] 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC).
*I definitely don't want to scare off anyone with mandatory PR. I'm a relative newbie to the FAC page. (I have one FA to my name: ].) I do think the "Path to a Feautred Article" box makes PR look mandatory. It fooled me. ] 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
*]: '''''And we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all.''''' Is that a caution or warning for FAC objectors not to object too hard? Like, object if you must, but lightly? I think I understand what you're referring to, but the way it's stated is really an oversimplification and sounds quite bizarre and off-putting... For example, I've objected strenuously on specific FACs, and followed the process through, sometimes as nominations were extended for weeks. Would you suggest that I "object a little less", as a specific example? Or simply make my objection and then go away, rather than follow up on replies...? --] 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:*...? No, it's not a caution to "object lightly". To again take you as the example, I think you do excellent work on FAC. And for simplicity's sake to take me as the example of a nominator, I would have been gratified to have you object strenuously and dialogue critically on some of my selfnoms. (I've probably only listed one since you arrived, though; I've been getting discouraged by the sparsity of critical interest, by no means by objections.) It's a caution against making Peer Review mandatory and specifically against implying that it already ''is'' mandatory, and/or that nominators who don't use Peer Review are acting inappropriately. In speaking of "many" hoops, I also had Geogre's points above about referencing in mind. I'm sorry I seemed to be saying something completely different and sounding bizarre. ] | ] 02:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
::*That sort of thing is what I imagined you were referring to. I commented...vigorously on that last sentence for the sake of clarity. I'm about as new in FAC as anyone, and I know it's a tricky thing finding one's bearings. I don't think Peer Review should be mandatory. I do hope that "new" reviewers feel unconstrained by anything but common sense in interpreting FA criteria, and so, in their FAC comments... Something like that is exactly all I meant! :) --] 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
===="We don't want to scare off (new editors/veteran editors/FAC nominators/etc)" - the default witch hunt?====
I see this used quite frequently, elsewhere as well as here in FAC. As in the comment above. As in a comment just made in ] (now entering its second month as a FAC): "Neutral. I feel it's too short, but it's borderline, and I don't want to discourage contributors, so I won't oppose." It's one thing to be civil, contribute rather than complain, and so forth, but it is difficult to reconcile the high and quite explicitly stated FA criteria with what amount to concessions favoring enthusiasm over quality. FAC isn't deciding whether to delete articles, it is supposedly to review articles according to a high and rising standard. The general principle here is, IMO, not not force peer reviews (though that is an explicit pre-FAC guideline requirement), but to consider that a good percentage of articles end up being extensively revised as part of the FAC process. As I've noted many times recently, I find this can completely skew the FAC process, putting most of the load on objectors to certain articles. "]" (failed), ] (promoted), Bulbasaur (ongoing) are all nominations that took/are taking WEEKS (not to mention second and third renominations within days or weeks), and undergoing dozens even hundreds of edits, requiring objectors to spend hours and hours following all sorts of revisions. I think that's a central point here. From what I've seen, PR doesn't seem all that effective in generating decent feedback, but if the result of that shortcoming is putting the PR load on FAC, that's a different and real problem... FAC should not be a substitute for (or be seen as "better than") a peer review stage, or simply regular article improvement. --] 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:34, 27 December 2024

    Shortcut
    Pages, tools and templates for
    Featured articles
    Articles seeking peer review
    before featured article candidacy
    Unanswered peer reviews
    FACs needing feedback
    view • edit
    Operation Matterhorn logistics Review it now
    Featured article removal candidates
    Boogeyman 2 Review now
    Shoshone National Forest Review now
    Northrop YF-23 Review now
    Bart Simpson Review now
    Emmy Noether Review now
    Concerto delle donne Review now

    Featured article review

    Talk notices given
    1. Diocletianic Persecution 2020-05-03
    2. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky 2020-05-22
    3. Underwater diving 2020-09-15
    4. Józef Piłsudski 2020-09-25, 2021-08-07
    5. Supernatural (season 1) 2020-11-02
    6. Supernatural (season 2) 2020-11-02
    7. Kahaani 2020-11-18 2023-02-25
    8. Major depressive disorder 2020-11-20 2022-08-18 2024-11-19
    9. India 2020-11-29 and 2023-11-28
    10. 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash 2020-11-30
    11. Tumbler Ridge 2020-12-26 2024-11-19
    12. Glacier National Park (U.S.) 2020-12-30
    13. Ivan Bagramyan 2021-02-21
    14. Bird 2021-02-21
    15. Hamilton, Ontario 2021-02-22
    16. Comet Hyakutake 2021-02-22
    17. Mary Wollstonecraft 2021-03-03
    18. Postage stamps of Ireland 2021-03-11, 2023-03-25
    19. The Joy of Sect 2021-04-08
    20. The World Ends with You 2021-04-23
    21. Defense of the Ancients 2021-06-10
    22. Dwarf planet 2021-08-14
    23. Robert Garran 2021-10-09
    24. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna
      of Russia       2021-11-27
    25. Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04
    26. Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05
    27. Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05
    28. Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05
    29. Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05
    30. Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05
    31. Effects of Hurricane Ivan
      in the Lesser Antilles
      and South America       2021-12-05
    32. Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05
    33. Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 2021-12-05
    34. Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05
    35. Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05
    36. Effects of Hurricane Isabel in
      Maryland and Washington, D.C.       2021-12-06
    37. Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06
    38. Hurricane Isabel 2021-12-06
    39. Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06
    40. Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07
    41. Hubble Space Telescope 2022-01-08
    42. Dürer's Rhinoceros 2022-02-04
    43. Io (moon) 2022-02-13
    44. Solar eclipse 2022-04-30
    45. Manchester 2022-05-12
    46. Transformers (film) 2022-06-05
    47. Slate industry in Wales 2022-07-05
      Working
    48. Schizophrenia 2022-08-18
    49. Amanita muscaria 2022-08-26
    50. Battle of Corydon 2022-10-10
    51. White Deer Hole Creek 2022-10-22
      Work ongoing December 2022
    52. Mayan languages 2022-11-19
    53. Sentence spacing 2022-11-19
    54. Indigenous people of the Everglades region 2022-11-21
    55. First-move advantage in chess 2022-11-21
    56. King Arthur 2022-11-22
    57. Stephen Crane 2022-11-22
    58. Mark Kerry 2022-12-01
    59. California Gold Rush 2022-12-02
    60. Harry McNish Noticed 2022-12-03
    61. History of Lithuania (1219–1295) 2022-12-03
    62. Władysław II Jagiełło 2022-12-03
    63. David I of Scotland 2022-12-03
    64. Coeliac disease 2022-12-03
    65. Metabolism 2022-12-03
    66. Northern bald ibis 2022-12-09
    67. Hippocampus 2022-12-09
    68. Cane toad 2022-12-09
    69. Boeing 777 2022-12-09
    70. Second Crusade 2022-12-09
    71. Delichon 2022-12-10
    72. Rock martin 2022-12-10
    73. Lion 2022-12-10
    74. Victoria Cross for New Zealand 2023-01-01
      Work ongoing January 2023
    75. Bengali language movement 2023-01-15
    76. USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23
    77. West Wycombe Park 2023-01-25
    78. Holkham Hall 2023-01-25
    79. Redshift 2023-01-26
    80. Angkor Wat 2023-01-28
    81. Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02
    82. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia 2023-02-12
    83. Guy Fawkes Night 2023-02-14
    84. Marcus Trescothick 2023-02-22
    85. Moe Berg 2023-03-10
    86. Falaise Pocket 2023-03-29
    87. James Nesbitt 2023-03-29
    88. Johnstown Inclined Plane 2023-04-23
    89. Dengue fever 2023-04-30
    90. Wood Badge 2023-05-15
    91. Hurricane Claudette (2003) 2023-05-16
    92. Cleveland 2023-05-16
    93. Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20
    94. Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02
    95. Surrender of Japan 2023-06-30
    96. Felice Beato 2023-08-04
    97. Augustus 2023-08-08
    98. Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13
    99. Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01
    100. Hydrogen 2023-11-01
    101. Ancient Egypt 2023-11-18
    102. Acetic acid 2023-12-8
    103. Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02
    104. Adelaide Anne Procter 2024-01-30
    105. Boston 2024-04-15
    106. Borscht 2024-06-15
    107. Khan Noonien Singh 2024-07-03
    108. Taylor Swift 2024-08-02
    109. Nahuatl 2024-08-04
    110. Carnivàle 2024-08-09
    111. Your Power 2024-08-16
    112. Washington, D.C. 2024-08-27
    113. George Washington (inventor) 2024-08-30
    114. Alien vs. Predator (film) 2024-10-26
    115. Mom and Dad (1945 film) 2024-10-26
    116. A Cure for Pokeritis 2024-10-26
    117. Zombie Nightmare 2024-10-26
    118. Gertie the Dinosaur 2024-11-1
    119. Characters of God of War 2024-11-3
    120. Homer Simpson 2024-11-24
    Find more: Unreviewed featured articles
    Scripts and tools
    Article alerts
    Guidance
    Advice pages
    Writing
    Image and source reviewing

    Archives

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 (2007) 22 23 24 25
    26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability)
    35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41
    42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate)
    49 (2011) 50 51 52 53
    54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58
    59 60 (2013)
    61 62 63 (proposals) (2014)
    64 (2015)
    65 66 (2016)
    67 68 69 (2017)
    70 71 72 73 74 (2018)
    75 76 77 (2019)
    78 79 80 81 82 83 (2020)
    84 85 86 87 (2021)
    88 89 (2022)
    90 91 92 (2023)
    93 94 (2023–24)

    Archives by topic:

    Alt text, Citation templates (load times)


    Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page. For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

    Image/source check requests

    Current requests

    Requests should only be posted here for FAC nominations that have attracted several reviews and declarations of support. Premature requests can be removed by any editor.

    FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

    A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

    FAC source reviews

    For advice on conducting source reviews, see Misplaced Pages:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

    FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2024

    Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Reviewers for October 2024
    # reviews Type of review
    Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
    Nikkimaria 1 23
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 15 6
    SchroCat 11 4
    Mike Christie 12
    Generalissima 7 1 3
    Hog Farm 8 2
    ChrisTheDude 9
    Matarisvan 4 4
    UndercoverClassicist 8
    750h+ 5 1
    FunkMonk 6
    AirshipJungleman29 5
    Edwininlondon 5
    Tim riley 5
    Crisco 1492 4
    Dugan Murphy 3 1
    Jens Lallensack 4
    Llewee 4
    Phlsph7 1 3
    Premeditated Chaos 3 1
    Aoba47 3
    Dudley Miles 3
    Gog the Mild 3
    Mujinga 2 1
    RoySmith 3
    Serial Number 54129 3
    TechnoSquirrel69 2 1
    Vacant0 2 1
    Buidhe 2
    Chipmunkdavis 2
    Draken Bowser 2
    Gerda Arendt 2
    Graham Beards 2
    Hurricanehink 2
    Nick-D 2
    Sammi Brie 2
    Sawyer777 1 1
    Shushugah 2
    Steelkamp 2
    Wehwalt 2
    2601AC47 1
    Alavense 1
    Arconning 1
    Aza24 1
    Bneu2013 1
    Boneless Pizza! 1
    BorgQueen 1
    Ceranthor 1
    D.Lazard 1
    David Eppstein 1
    Dumelow 1
    Eewilson 1
    Femke 1
    Frietjes 1
    GA-RT-22 1
    GamerPro64 1
    Ganesha811 1
    GeoWriter 1
    HAL333 1
    Hawkeye7 1
    Heartfox 1
    IceWelder 1
    IJReid 1
    IntentionallyDense 1
    Joeyquism 1
    Joshua Jonathan 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1
    Kung Fu Man 1
    MaranoFan 1
    Mathwriter2718 1
    MSincccc 1
    MyCatIsAChonk 1
    NegativeMP1 1
    Paleface Jack 1
    PanagiotisZois 1
    Panini! 1
    Pbritti 1
    PrimalMustelid 1
    Queen of Hearts 1
    Remsense 1
    Reppop 1
    Rjjiii (ii) 1
    SandyGeorgia 1
    Shooterwalker 1
    SilverTiger12 1
    Sky Harbor 1
    SNUGGUMS 1
    Spy-cicle 1
    Ss112 1
    ThaesOfereode 1
    The Rambling Man 1
    Tintor2 1
    TrademarkedTWOrantula 1
    WhatamIdoing 1
    XOR'easter 1
    Zawed 1
    Totals 201 35 38
    Supports and opposes for October 2024
    # declarations Declaration
    Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
    Nikkimaria 24 24
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 21 22
    SchroCat 7 3 5 15
    Mike Christie 12 12
    Generalissima 5 6 11
    Hog Farm 6 2 2 10
    ChrisTheDude 9 9
    UndercoverClassicist 6 1 1 8
    Matarisvan 4 4 8
    FunkMonk 4 2 6
    750h+ 5 1 6
    Tim riley 5 5
    Edwininlondon 5 5
    AirshipJungleman29 3 2 5
    Llewee 4 4
    Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 4
    Phlsph7 4 4
    Crisco 1492 3 1 4
    Dugan Murphy 3 1 4
    Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4
    Mujinga 2 1 3
    Serial Number 54129 1 1 1 3
    Vacant0 1 1 1 3
    Gog the Mild 2 1 3
    Dudley Miles 3 3
    TechnoSquirrel69 3 3
    RoySmith 1 2 3
    Aoba47 2 1 3
    Sammi Brie 2 2
    Hurricanehink 2 2
    Chipmunkdavis 2 2
    Graham Beards 1 1 2
    Shushugah 2 2
    Buidhe 2 2
    Steelkamp 2 2
    Nick-D 1 1 2
    Sawyer777 1 1 2
    Gerda Arendt 2 2
    Draken Bowser 2 2
    Wehwalt 2 2
    Dumelow 1 1
    Joshua Jonathan 1 1
    Tintor2 1 1
    MSincccc 1 1
    HAL333 1 1
    Panini! 1 1
    IntentionallyDense 1 1
    Paleface Jack 1 1
    Rjjiii (ii) 1 1
    Heartfox 1 1
    Eewilson 1 1
    IceWelder 1 1
    XOR'easter 1 1
    Spy-cicle 1 1
    TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 1
    PrimalMustelid 1 1
    Pbritti 1 1
    WhatamIdoing 1 1
    Frietjes 1 1
    Reppop 1 1
    The Rambling Man 1 1
    MaranoFan 1 1
    Shooterwalker 1 1
    Aza24 1 1
    ThaesOfereode 1 1
    BorgQueen 1 1
    IJReid 1 1
    GeoWriter 1 1
    Boneless Pizza! 1 1
    D.Lazard 1 1
    2601AC47 1 1
    Sky Harbor 1 1
    Alavense 1 1
    MyCatIsAChonk 1 1
    Remsense 1 1
    NegativeMP1 1 1
    Zawed 1 1
    SNUGGUMS 1 1
    Kung Fu Man 1 1
    Arconning 1 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1 1
    Femke 1 1
    Queen of Hearts 1 1
    Joeyquism 1 1
    Bneu2013 1 1
    SandyGeorgia 1 1
    PanagiotisZois 1 1
    Ceranthor 1 1
    SilverTiger12 1 1
    David Eppstein 1 1
    GamerPro64 1 1
    Hawkeye7 1 1
    Mathwriter2718 1 1
    Ss112 1 1
    GA-RT-22 1 1
    Ganesha811 1 1
    Totals 135 21 118 274

    The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Nominators for August 2024 to October 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
    Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos)
    750h+ 5.0 47.0 9.4
    AirshipJungleman29 8.0 43.0 5.4
    Amir Ghandi 2.0 None 0.0
    BennyOnTheLoose 3.5 10.0 2.9
    Boneless Pizza! 1.5 5.0 3.3
    ChrisTheDude 9.0 73.0 8.1
    Darkwarriorblake 6.0 4.0 0.7
    Dudley Miles 6.0 30.0 5.0
    Dugan Murphy 3.0 14.0 4.7
    Eem dik doun in toene 3.0 9.0 3.0
    Epicgenius 7.5 17.0 2.3
    FunkMonk 2.8 28.0 9.9
    Generalissima 9.0 54.0 6.0
    Hawkeye7 5.0 8.0 1.6
    Heartfox 5.0 26.0 5.2
    Hog Farm 6.0 42.0 7.0
    Hurricanehink 1.5 16.0 10.7
    Ippantekina 5.0 5.0 1.0
    Jens Lallensack 3.3 28.0 8.4
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 221.0 36.8
    Joeyquism 3.0 16.0 5.3
    Kung Fu Man 2.0 1.0 0.5
    Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0
    Kyle Peake 4.0 None 0.0
    Lee Vilenski 3.0 2.0 0.7
    Llewee 2.0 7.0 3.5
    M4V3R1CK32 2.0 None 0.0
    MaranoFan 5.0 14.0 2.8
    Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0
    Mike Christie 6.0 64.0 10.7
    NegativeMP1 3.0 10.0 3.3
    Nick-D 2.0 14.0 7.0
    Paleface Jack 3.0 2.0 0.7
    Peacemaker67 6.0 2.0 0.3
    Phlsph7 7.0 15.0 2.1
    Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 5.0 2.5
    Pollosito 2.0 None 0.0
    Premeditated Chaos 9.3 36.0 3.9
    PSA 2.0 4.0 2.0
    Sammi Brie 3.5 13.0 3.7
    SchroCat 15.0 143.0 9.5
    Serial Number 54129 3.0 45.0 15.0
    Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5
    SounderBruce 3.0 1.0 0.3
    The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5
    The Green Star Collector 2.0 None 0.0
    Thebiguglyalien 5.0 4.0 0.8
    Tim riley 5.0 49.0 9.8
    TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 2.0 0.7
    Turini2 2.0 None 0.0
    UndercoverClassicist 5.0 93.0 18.6
    Volcanoguy 4.0 7.0 1.8
    Voorts 5.5 15.0 2.7
    WeatherWriter 2.0 None 0.0
    Wehwalt 8.5 31.0 3.6
    Wolverine XI 5.0 8.0 1.6
    ZKang123 4.0 13.0 3.2

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Science articles are underrepresented

    For a long time there has hardly been any science articles at FAC. Perhaps someone could remind me of the last successful candidate? But we have one at FAC now which is not garnering much attention, which is a shame. I'm not canvassing for support, despite having given mine, but is there any chance of a few reviews? Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'll try to take a look within the next couple days, although I've got quite a bit going on IRL. Hog Farm Talk 16:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ditto. I'll have time to review this weekend. I can take on the source review as well if no one beats me to it (please feel free to beat me to it). Ajpolino (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure if it was the most recent, but off the top of my head there was Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lise Meitner/archive1 not that long ago (if biography articles on scientists count). TompaDompa (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Right now we have Otto Hahn being reviewed. Plus of course Virgo interferometer, at which additional thoughts would be most welcome. I assume that science is being used in a way which excludes biology and geology? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    I believe Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis/archive1 counts as a science article, no? It has seven participants but only one review and is at risk of being archived. Adding onto that, it is a former featured article, which should be getting more views, especially because of its notable impacts in the Greater Antilles and the United States. ZZ'S 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).

    • Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
    • Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (25 Aug)
    • Dracunculiasis (22 May)
    • Prostate cancer (22 Apr)
    • Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) (7 Jan)

    My apologies for any I missed. We need more. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    You missed Hurricane Cindy (2005). Its nomination was successfull on 27 September. I'm still surprised that a less notable, damaging, and deadly storm was promoted, but Hurricane Dennis, the opposite, is at a significant risk of being archived. ZZ'S 17:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    There is also Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Socompa/archive1. That said, the reason why I am no longer writing many articles is because they need to be updated and my queue has just become too long. I think that's the general problem with science FAs, science isn't static in time so they become outdated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    That's the case with many articles, not just science ones. If FAs are maintained, this should not be a problem. Also, many science articles are remarkably static. See Maxwell's equations, which is not a FA, but a good example of a stable science article. Graham Beards (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Aye, I know about Wōdejebato and relatives which also don't get much new research. I guess I just used up my space of "how many articles can I maintain" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Tiger was promoted July 25. LittleJerry (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    There have been a few animals, both extant and extinct, they should count, no? FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    They do. ZZ'S 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think Bonn–Oberkassel dog (Aug 8) counts as a science article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

    I would not call a typical hurricane article a science article. For sure, meteorology is a science, and there's plenty you can write about hurricanes in general which is about the science. But most of these are just cookie-cutter recitations of the specific facts about events that happen dozens of times a year. What was the track, where it made landfall, pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall, damage caused. That's not science, that's just a data dump wrapped up in prose form with carefully formatted references. RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yes I agree, was thinking the same. Just because a hurricane comes about due to scientific phenomena does not make discussion of individual hurricanes scientific per se. We might as well argue Taylor Swift is science because she's made up of atoms, molecules, cells, mitochondria and all the rest of it 😏  — Amakuru (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    Just addressing the elephant (hurricane writer) in the room, I kind of agree, that hurricane articles aren't really "science". In fact, as a hurricane writer, I make attempts to make it hurricane articles not appear too scientific, so it is accessible to the average reader. This isn't about a proton or a black hole where you talk about years of research and tons of research papers. No, instead we rely on "pressure readings, wind strengths, rainfall", all different tools to describe what actually happened, and why a single storm affected so many different people. Sometimes storms can even cause wars and disrupt national economies, but they're such short-lived events, that it's not like they're an ongoing thing worthy of significant research, not when a lot of storms are honestly pretty similar. They all do very similar things, with some slight variations. That's why I find them fascinating, and why I write about them, and I'm not going to stop writing about them since I think the vast majority of tropical cyclone articles are useful and interesting. But they aren't exactly "science", like some kind of hypothesis or idea, and admittedly there should probably be more articles on the study of meteorology. I'm gonna have to do something about that... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Removing my comments for now. Will post again when I've had more time to think about the content. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    Seattle Kraken nom

    Hello there. A couple months back, I nominated the article Seattle Kraken for FA, but after five weeks, it didn't get the needed amount of reviews, and the nomination was subsequently closed. I nominated it again 11 days ago and it still hasn't received any reviews. Any reasons why? Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    To be honest, the usual cause is that lots of people are reluctant to post 'oppose' reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think in this particular case it might be the topic. Popular culture doesn't fare brilliantly for FAC reviewers, and sports are even more niche (in that just liking 'sport' isn't enough, rather the sport itself). The article itself isn't in bad nick as it goes; no major MOS violations jump out, everything's cited, sources all seem OK, if news heavy (but that's probably inevitable for a relatively young team like this). SerialNumber54129 12:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    Also, i forgot to mention that you're allowed—encouraged—to page reviewers who took part in the early FAC... SerialNumber54129 13:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    Another reason might be that you haven't reviewed any articles at FAC, according to the FAC statistics tool. Reviewing articles helps editors learn the FA criteria, shows that you understand the criteria, and builds goodwill among editors. If looking for reviews, I always recommend reviewing articles yourself. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    Echoing this, particularly the "goodwill among editors" bit. Reviewing takes time, and I'm more willing to take that time to help someone who has invested in the FAC process. Note that when Graham Beards asked for volunteers a couple sections above, folks jumped in to review. If you're wondering why, feast your eyes on Graham's reviewing stats and imagine the kind of goodwill the guy has stockpiled. Ajpolino (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    One caveat here is that we don't want "I'll support/oppose your article if you support/oppose mine"-type situations. Each article needs to be reviewed dispassionately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    RfC at WT:BLP

    Drawing the attention of project editors to an RfC concerning a proposed change to WP:SUSPECT, which could affect relevant FACs. Interested parties should join this discussion. SerialNumber54129 18:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    Japanese and Farsi/Persian speakers needed

    There are two FAC reviews where the source spotcheck hinges on Japanese and Farsi/Persian sources. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 for Farsi/Persian and Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pulgasari/archive1 for Japanese. Anyone who knows how to read them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Google Lens' translate function is quite good these days for translating pictures of documents. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not all of the problem sources are in image form; some are behind paywalls and stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Images in BLPs

    There is a thread at Talk:Len Deighton#Lack of an image about adding images of BLPs, and possibly not passing FAC if no non-free one can be found. All comments are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Strikethrough error

    There appears to be some sort of error in one of the FACs as several of the listings in the "Older nominations" section have all their comments displayed with a strike-through. I was wondering if there was any way to have that fixed? I am guessing that it is an issue with one of the FAC that is bleeding out into the other FACs on the list. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think I've fixed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    RfC at Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

    There is an RfC at Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, an FA. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. - SchroCat (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024

    Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Reviewers for November 2024
    # reviews Type of review
    Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
    Nikkimaria 3 1 17
    SchroCat 14 6
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 7 3
    Crisco 1492 9
    Generalissima 5 1 2
    Matarisvan 6 1 1
    Hog Farm 6 1
    Aoba47 3 2
    Dudley Miles 5
    UndercoverClassicist 5
    750h+ 4
    Gog the Mild 4
    Boneless Pizza! 3
    Borsoka 3
    Ceoil 3
    Gerda Arendt 3
    Graham Beards 3
    Hurricanehink 3
    Premeditated Chaos 1 2
    TheJoebro64 3
    Tim riley 3
    AirshipJungleman29 2
    ChrisTheDude 2
    Cukie Gherkin 1 1
    Draken Bowser 2
    Epicgenius 2
    Heartfox 2
    Jens Lallensack 2
    MaranoFan 2
    Medxvo 1 1
    PARAKANYAA 2
    Phlsph7 2
    Piotrus 2
    Vacant0 2
    Ajpolino 1
    Balon Greyjoy 1
    Biruitorul 1
    Caeciliusinhorto 1
    Choliamb 1
    Czar 1
    Dugan Murphy 1
    Eddie891 1
    Eem dik doun in toene 1
    Fifelfoo 1
    Gen. Quon 1
    HAL333 1
    Hawkeye7 1
    IntentionallyDense 1
    Ippantekina 1
    JennyOz 1
    Joeyquism 1
    Johnbod 1
    Jonesey95 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1
    Lankyant 1
    Lazman321 1
    LittleLazyLass 1
    Mike Christie 1
    Mrfoogles 1
    Mujinga 1
    NegativeMP1 1
    Nick-D 1
    Paleface Jack 1
    Panini! 1
    Relativity 1
    RFNirmala 1
    Rjjiii 1
    Sammi Brie 1
    Shapeyness 1
    Shushugah 1
    SnowFire 1
    Srnec 1
    The Rambling Man 1
    Thelifeofan413 1
    Thuiop 1
    Tintor2 1
    TompaDompa 1
    Volcanoguy 1
    Wehwalt 1
    WikiOriginal-9 1
    Wtfiv 1
    Zmbro 1
    Zzzs 1
    Totals 155 26 27
    Supports and opposes for November 2024
    # declarations Declaration
    Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
    Nikkimaria 3 18 21
    SchroCat 8 4 8 20
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 10 10
    Crisco 1492 9 9
    Generalissima 3 2 3 8
    Matarisvan 5 3 8
    Hog Farm 5 1 1 7
    Aoba47 2 3 5
    UndercoverClassicist 4 1 5
    Dudley Miles 3 2 5
    750h+ 4 4
    Gog the Mild 2 1 1 4
    Tim riley 3 3
    Premeditated Chaos 1 2 3
    Gerda Arendt 2 1 3
    Hurricanehink 3 3
    Borsoka 3 3
    Graham Beards 3 3
    Boneless Pizza! 2 1 3
    TheJoebro64 2 1 3
    Ceoil 2 1 3
    Vacant0 2 2
    PARAKANYAA 2 2
    Draken Bowser 1 1 2
    Piotrus 1 1 2
    ChrisTheDude 2 2
    Heartfox 1 1 2
    MaranoFan 1 1 2
    AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2
    Phlsph7 2 2
    Epicgenius 2 2
    Jens Lallensack 2 2
    Cukie Gherkin 2 2
    Medxvo 1 1 2
    Lankyant 1 1
    IntentionallyDense 1 1
    Balon Greyjoy 1 1
    Caeciliusinhorto 1 1
    Ajpolino 1 1
    The Rambling Man 1 1
    Shapeyness 1 1
    Nick-D 1 1
    Paleface Jack 1 1
    Gen. Quon 1 1
    Joeyquism 1 1
    LittleLazyLass 1 1
    Jonesey95 1 1
    Zzzs 1 1
    Thelifeofan413 1 1
    JennyOz 1 1
    Srnec 1 1
    SnowFire 1 1
    Choliamb 1 1
    Lazman321 1 1
    WikiOriginal-9 1 1
    Mike Christie 1 1
    Hawkeye7 1 1
    Wtfiv 1 1
    Eem dik doun in toene 1 1
    Thuiop 1 1
    Fifelfoo 1 1
    NegativeMP1 1 1
    Dugan Murphy 1 1
    Wehwalt 1 1
    Mrfoogles 1 1
    Czar 1 1
    Rjjiii 1 1
    Volcanoguy 1 1
    RFNirmala 1 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1 1
    TompaDompa 1 1
    Johnbod 1 1
    Panini! 1 1
    Sammi Brie 1 1
    Zmbro 1 1
    Relativity 1 1
    Tintor2 1 1
    Biruitorul 1 1
    Eddie891 1 1
    Shushugah 1 1
    Mujinga 1 1
    HAL333 1 1
    Ippantekina 1 1
    Totals 105 1 1 16 85 208

    The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nominators for September 2024 to November 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
    Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos)
    750h+ 6.0 51.0 8.5
    AirshipJungleman29 7.0 39.0 5.6
    Amir Ghandi 2.0 None 0.0
    Boneless Pizza! 2.5 8.0 3.2
    ChrisTheDude 9.0 66.0 7.3
    Darkwarriorblake 6.0 3.0 0.5
    Dudley Miles 6.0 33.0 5.5
    Dugan Murphy 3.0 14.0 4.7
    Dxneo 2.0 None 0.0
    Eem dik doun in toene 3.0 10.0 3.3
    Epicgenius 8.5 17.0 2.0
    FunkMonk 2.8 27.0 9.5
    Generalissima 9.0 61.0 6.8
    Hawkeye7 5.0 7.0 1.4
    Hog Farm 7.0 49.0 7.0
    Hurricanehink 2.5 19.0 7.6
    Ippantekina 5.0 6.0 1.2
    Jens Lallensack 3.3 28.0 8.4
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 218.0 36.3
    Joeyquism 3.0 17.0 5.7
    Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0
    Kyle Peake 4.0 None 0.0
    Llewee 2.0 7.0 3.5
    M4V3R1CK32 2.0 None 0.0
    MaranoFan 5.0 14.0 2.8
    Mike Christie 6.0 54.0 9.0
    NegativeMP1 3.0 11.0 3.7
    Nick-D 2.0 15.0 7.5
    Noorullah21 4.0 None 0.0
    Paleface Jack 3.0 3.0 1.0
    Peacemaker67 6.0 2.0 0.3
    Phlsph7 5.0 16.0 3.2
    Pollosito 2.0 None 0.0
    Premeditated Chaos 8.3 35.0 4.2
    Relayed 2.0 1.0 0.5
    Sammi Brie 3.0 12.0 4.0
    SchroCat 15.0 155.0 10.3
    Serial Number 54129 3.0 39.0 13.0
    The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5
    The Green Star Collector 3.0 None 0.0
    Thebiguglyalien 5.0 3.0 0.6
    Tim riley 5.0 52.0 10.4
    TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 2.0 0.7
    Turini2 2.0 None 0.0
    UndercoverClassicist 6.0 89.0 14.8
    Volcanoguy 4.0 7.0 1.8
    Wehwalt 7.5 29.0 3.9

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) >>>

    Status of Virgo interferometer

    @FAC coordinators: What is the status of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virgo interferometer/archive2? Gog the Mild promoted it, FrB.TG asked for a spotcheck. None was done in the short timespan between the edits, and I am not sure if what Hurricanehink mentioned is a spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article

    I would appreciate input at Talk:Landis's Missouri Battery#Revamping. This is one of my earliest FACs, and I would appreciate some additional thoughts to make sure I'm not being too harsh on myself; this one isn't really up to my current standard. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    disputing archiving

    Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Gusuku period/archive1 was archived with 5 supports, 1 oppose (which had been mainly resolved), and 3 reviews currently in progress. I think this is very premature — the closer said that the most recent review by AirshipJungleman29 showed that it was not ready for promotion, but this mainly consistented of minor text tweaks and recommendations that would be resolved in a matter of minutes. I feel that this should be reopened, though obviously I'm going to be biased in that respect; I wanted to see what everyone else thought. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    fwiw, although Ian didn't know this when closing, the rest of my review would not have been resolved in a matter of minutes; I was intending, among other things, to deeply question the reliance on one book so recently published I can find zero scholarly reviews of it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, given that Airship's review so far was only on the lead and already included a couple of non-trivial comments, plus given the nom had been open for weeks already and had another outstanding oppose, I think a closure was reasonably justifiable, though of course disappointing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, that's fair enough I suppose. To PR! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)