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 20:52, 20 March 2006 editAtaricodfish (talk | contribs)1,989 edits Recommendation← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:04, 25 December 2024 edit undoHog Farm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators55,473 edits →Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
<includeonly></includeonly>{{skip to bottom}}{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}{{FA sidebar|expanded=FAC}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{archives
|collapsed= yes
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|auto = no
|editbox = no
|search = yes
|searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive
|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] <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==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
For advice on conducting source reviews, see ].

== 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
!align="center" colspan="2"|]<br/>]
! 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
|colspan="2"|] - April Fools archive
|12
|
|
|
|- |-
|Generalissima
|]
|7
|]
|1
|3
|
|- |-
|Hog Farm
|]
|8
|]
|2
|
|
|- |-
|ChrisTheDude
|]
|9
|]
|
|
|
|- |-
|Matarisvan
|]
|4
|]
|4
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
|
|
|-
|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 ==
== Referring to peer review ==


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)
I think we should start referring to peer review articles which clearly won't make it to FA this round (i.e. numerous objections). People are rather reluctant to "vote" to refer (maybe because it sounds less harsh or critical than "object"?), so this would prevent the main FAC page from being clogged up. Thoughts? ] | ] 17:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
: 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)
::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)
: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)
::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)
::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)


Using a broad definition of science, and not counting biographies, I think there have been five promoted this year (dates in brackets).
:Addendum: I have referred the ] and ] FACs to peer review. ] | ] 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


*Heptamegacanthus (26 Aug)
::Seconded. I do that all the time. And where the nominator agrees, or gives consent by silence, but doesn't seem to know what to do about it, I also boldly do the moving myself. But, oh, look, the recommendation to refer to PR in such cases is gone from the instructions at the top of the FAC page. It was there until pretty recently. As much as I agree with keeping those instructions concise, removing that particular one is a terrible idea. Probably that's the reason people have become "reluctant"--they no longer see it as an option. I ask the person who removed the recommendation, or anybody else who can find it, to please put it back. ] | ] 18:08, 14 March 2006 (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)
:::Lo and behold, I have been . ] | ] 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Hear ye, hear ye, you have without responding to to discuss the matter on ]. :-( ] | ] 14:19, 15 March 2006 (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)
===] has some standards===
: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)
A major consideration has been missed in the effrots to purge FAC of submissions that on the surface do not yet appear to be realistic candidates. Peer Review is not the appropriate place for all types of requests. As stated in the ], requests for ], ], ], or ] should be sent to the locations set up for those functions. Due to the differing natures of PR and FAC, a discussion moved directly from FAC without appropriate context looks very much like a content dispute.
::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)
:::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)
::::That's what happens when you become a stellar contributor. :-) ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (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)
:::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)
:I think ] (Aug 8) counts as a science article. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 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. ] ] 19:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
While I understand the desire to remove FAC submissions that ], ] does not seem the best way to handle the problem. Instead FAC should ] on an archiving policy that meets current needs. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 15 March 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)
::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)
:Yes, I agree, or second that, or whatever is appropriate. I ''actively'' visited peer review a few days ago, where I spent time looking through quite thoroughly and also made comments on a couple of articles. It seems to be quite a different place from FAC. In PR, some articles get almost no response (unlike the vast majority of FACs, which do), and more importantly, more general improvement suggestions are often offered (not a detailed critique based on specific FA criteria). I don't imagine everyone going to PR is grooming for an FA star. While a trip through PR can't be bad for a future FAC, moving ("dumping") a FAC on PR, especially with FAC reviews intact, seems to be more of a way to sweep away procedural FAC problems (into another WP area), than improve the article or be "kind" to the nominators. For me, that sends some kind of mixed and bureaucratic message to both reviewers and nominators: if an article comes to FAC, it should be reviewed according to the criteria by the editors on hand, with consensus fairly observed and decisions made clear when requested, and that's that. Hope that's helpful input... --] 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


== Seattle Kraken nom ==
::My recent experience with the ] article was that PR provided very little input - there were only two comments - both of which essentially suggested a rewrite of the introductory paragraph. Contrast that with FAC which has provided a ton of valuable copyedit type changes and a rich set of advice that would have been valuable at the PR stage, IMHO, this is the reverse of how it should be. The nit-picking and layout/linking/references advice should be given in PR - and FAQ should just be a test of whether the quality is good enough or not...essentially just an up or down vote on something that's already been nit-picked to death. Right now, what we have is two stages of peer-review - the second of which is tangled up with the voting process. The ''mechanism'' we have in place is a good one - the problem is that the super-star ace reviewers all hang out in the prestigious FAC and don't spend time in PR where their help would be most valuable. IMHO, articles should be ''required'' to go through PR before FAC ''and'' to pass out of PR via the 'two weeks with no input' rule rather than the 'article still not fixed after a month in PR' rule. Thus, any article that gets into FAC would likely be a great article already and people who just dump garbage articles into FAC would have to wait out at least two weeks in PR and actively work to resolve problems - significantly raising the barrier to people just trying for notoriety. ] 16:58, 15 March 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)
::I agree with Allen and Tsavage. I have published a more detailed explaination of my opinion below. ] 00:31, 16 March 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 agree that articles should need to be on PR (i.e. I agree with SteveBaker) before being nominated. That should cut down on the number of FAC nominations considerably, all of them being ones that were never ready to begin with. I don't think it would considerably dis-encourage the active FACers that wouldn't nominate an article that wasn't at least reasonably close -- most of us wait out the two weeks on PR now, even if no comments are forthcoming, and by separating out more of the chaff from the wheat, the whole process will be quicker. ] 00:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC) ''via edit conflict with Cedars''
: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)
::<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>
: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 problem is that this may clog up peer review with the same sort of problems that FAC experiences. Nominations done more on the hope that they will be able to sneak through rather than a commitment by their submitters to improving the article. That sort of thing could cripple peer review for authors who are genuinely interested in improving their article (with or without the desire to get the article featured). ] 00:50, 16 March 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 ==
=== My opinion ===


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)
I have no problem with people submitting their failed or failing FAC to peer review if they are committed to improving the article. After all improving articles is what peer review is for. But it is poor form to simply quote the FAC nomination verbatim - a mere link to the FAC nomination would be much less distracting and serve the same purpose. Equally someone else moving the nomination to peer review serves little purpose unless the person moving the article is committed to improving the article themselves. Firstly because the original submitter may not be aware of where their nomination has been moved to. And secondly because we have no evidence that the submitter would follow through with peer review's recommendations. Some people decide to have-a-shot at a FAC but are not really committed to improving the article, it is wrong of those working with FACs to simply start offloading such people on the peer review page (which is what I was referring to when I talked about dumping). Peer review's resources are limited and are much better focused towards those articles where it can make a difference (because there is an active contributor willing to work on improvements).
:Google Lens' translate function is quite good these days for translating pictures of documents. ] (]) 13:22, 6 December 2024 (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==
Peer reviewing an article is an intensive process, I would argue more-so than the FAC process. If potential submitters are genuinely interested in getting feedback on their article and are committed to improving the article they are encouraged to submit an article. But there should be no shifting of content to peer review unless the person doing the shifting is committed to improvement. Somehow, I don't believe ] was committed to improving the ] article - certainly he hasn't made any of the last 500 edits to the article.
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 ==
] 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
:Thinking more about this I have to agree that moving them to PR by someone other than the nominator is not helpful. WP:PR only works when someone is motivated to impliment the suggestions given. If they are not it is a waste of time. And after a failed FAC there are plenty of suggestions that need to be implimented before another PR would be helpful. I do however support removing FACs that do not have a snowballs chance, so readding them to FAC isn't helpful either. When there are several unanimous objections, the FAC should simply be delisted and a note added to it about why and maybe additionally on the nominators talk page. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


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)
**I agree the choice of moving to PR or even withdrawing from FAC needs to be that of the editor who nominated. The process its self can be fairly tough on an indiviual editor any way. To leave a FAC one day and wake up the next to find it move could be distressing to point of the editor giving up on the article. If it was me I would be more inclined to leave it nominated for a couple of days and see if I could do the necessary adjustments. Failing that I would with draw altogether then leave it alone for a couple of weeks come back refreshed edit the article then consider what the next options should be. ] 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


==RfC at ]==
Peer review is too cluttered. I propose that we split it into two parts. One exclusively for articles that will be put up on FAC after a set period of time (this space should be serious: refs should be added and it should adhere to ]); and another for general comments and suggestions. ] ] 09:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with ]. &mdash;] | ] 23:34, 16 March 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)
I believe that the mechanisms of PR are OK - the problem is that there aren't enough people (or sufficient capable people) working there. How else can one explain the large number of trivial editing problems that are found in FAC even AFTER an article has been PR'ed? If things worked as they should, PR would have removed all of the little issues with articles - and FAC could address the big-picture matters such as "Does the article cover the material? Is it encyclopedic?" - and would essentially just be an up/down vote. If that system was actually ''working'', then PR would be an almost essential thing for an article heading for FAC. The root problem is that it ''isn't'' working. Far too many trivial problems are being found in articles that have '''passed'' PR through no comments after 2 weeks. ] 14:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2024 ==
:I agree that the primary limiting factor for PR is reviewer participation. Page organization and maintenance concerns can be solved if enough people are willing to actively participate in the peer review process, but without reviewers a split solves nothing other than turning one large page into two or more smaller pages. The possibility of a split has been discussed before at ], but until someone come up with a way to overcome ] any such plan is more likely to result in multiple peer review pages being ignored by the community instead of just the one. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
:No it won't be ignored. We have split the Reference Desk into related categories and it seems to be working perfectly fine. ] ] 16:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


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)
==Archiving==
{{collapse top|Reviewers for November 2024}}
Isn't the last archive a little quick? I understand the discussions were long, but not even letting the current month's worth of topics stand seems a little hasty? --] 16:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
{| 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
|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 ==
== Recommendation ==


{{@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)
If I may make a recommendation (in fact, I think I will), can we add hidden text at the top of the FAC page to remind editors, before adding, that it meets basic FAC requirements? Currently, the hidden text just says, "Add new nominations at the top of the list immediately below." However, it we added one or two more lines which said something along the lines of, "Before adding your nomination, please ensure that the article has references, incline citations, and has been given a proper copyedit for grammar and point of view. Also, you might wish to consider Peer Review as an option before listing an article below".


== Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article ==
A lot of the nominations are by fans of a particular rock group, author, etc., and not by prior contributors to an article. As well, although the rules of what should be in a FAC is at the top of the article, I don't believe many nominators read this. We receive a lot of nominations which say "I believe this meets all featured article guidelines" and then don't have a single reference. Perhaps they'd be more likely to read this hidden text as they get ready to nominate their article, and then they could reconsider the nomination or perhaps move it to Peer Review first.


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)
Just a long, wordy suggestion. --] 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:04, 25 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)