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 16:03, 21 March 2006 editBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,373 edits →[] is banned from [] for three weeks← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:25, 15 January 2025 edit undoSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,561 edits →FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2024: note 
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 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 has been updated with this data, but the has not. ] (] - ] - ]) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for November 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
|]
|3
|]
|1
|17
|
|- |-
|SchroCat
|]
|14
|]
|6
|
|
|- |-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|]
|
|]
|7
|3
|
|- |-
|Crisco 1492
|colspan="2"|] - April Fools archive
|9
|
|
|
|- |-
|Generalissima
|]
|5
|]
|1
|2
|
|- |-
|Matarisvan
|]
|6
|]
|1
|1
|
|- |-
|Hog Farm
|]
|6
|]
|
|1
|
|- |-
|Aoba47
|]
|3
|]
|2
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
|
|
|-
|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)
>>>


== Input from FA-experienced editors requested regarding quality of an existing featured article ==
== Referring to peer review ==


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 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)


== On source reviews for foreign language sources ==
:Addendum: I have referred the ] and ] FACs to peer review. ] | ] 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


] came down to three sources that were offline and in Farsi. I know that ] to get at offline sources, but I wonder if anyone's sitting on a way to handle spotchecks or sourcechecks when the source to be checked is in a foreign language. Folks vouched for DeepL on Hungarian sources and I think Polish sources too, but is Google Translate reliable for translating Farsi? I don't feel comfortable with skipping certain sources just because it's too hard to verify them, so these need to be checked as well. ] (]) 11:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::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).
: found that GT was 67.5% reliable for translating medical phrases into Farsi. If the sources are linguistically complicated, I would expect the reliability to be around the same; if they are linguistically simple, the reliability will go up. GT has also improved since 2021. ] (]) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::I would assume good faith if other sources' spot-check did not indicate unverified statements or close paraphrasing. In this case, the nominator could also be requested to provide a translation. ] (]) 05:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Archive problem ==
:::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).


There seems to have been a problem with the bot archiving ]. The bot has not added ] or ] to the page or updated ]. ] (]) 04:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
===] has some standards===
:Tks, I think I've located so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI {{u|Hawkeye7}}. Cheers, ] (]) 07:27, 30 December 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.
::Yes. It has run now. ] ] 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== Tools to scan article for a quality check? ==
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)


I seem to recall there were some tools an editor could run on an article that would scan it and identify some errors, particularly with citations. The tools that I'm thinking of were more-or-less part of the FA process, I seem to recall. I'm looking for these tools (in ]) but cannot find them. Am I dreaming, or are there such tools? ] (]) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (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)
*{{re|Noleander}} ] highlights unreferenced statements in articles. It's not perfect, but it helps a lot. Usually, FAC candidates do not have this concern. ] highlights sources of concern, including unreliable, potentially unreliable, or blacklisted sources. ] will highlight sources listed as a reference, but not used as an inline citation. Entries have to be double-checked because citations that are formatted differently might produce false positives. Hope this helps. ] (]) 20:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Nice info, thanks! ] (]) 20:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2024 ==
::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)


Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2024; thanks to Hog Farm for doing the analysis on these. 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. ] (] - ] - ]) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with Allen and Tsavage. I have published a more detailed explaination of my opinion below. ] 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for December 2024}}

{| class="wikitable sortable"
::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''
!'''# reviews'''

! colspan="4" |Type of review
:::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)
|-

!Reviewer
=== My opinion ===
! data-sort-type="number" |Content

! data-sort-type="number" |Source
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).
! data-sort-type="number" |Image

! data-sort-type="number" |Accessibility
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.
|-

|Nikkimaria
] 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
|2
: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)
|

|18
**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)
|

|-
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)
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
:I agree with ]. &mdash;] | ] 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
|1

|14
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)
|4

|
: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)
|SchroCat

|15
==Archiving==
|4
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)
|
:Think of the poor 56k people who had to load a 130kb page =). —]<sup>]]</sup>&nbsp;<small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
|

|-
== Recommendation ==
|Crisco 1492

|9
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".
|

|1
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.
|

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

|9
:I like it. I agree that a lot of people who nominate articles are fans who think the subject "deserves" to be featured, and even though the link to the requirements is in the intro, it's obviously not being clicked by enough nominators. Adding this request in hidden text certainly wouldn't hurt. ] 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
|

|
==] is banned from ] for three weeks==
|
''Crossposted to ]''<br>
|-
I'm banning ] from ] for three weeks from today for bad behavior and bullying of voters on . EE, "banned" means that you mustn't nominate pages nor take part in discussions of pages you have contributed to. If you do, you can be blocked by any admin, first for 24 hours and then progressively for longer. But I hope you won't. Please instead learn something from this about the culture the community wants on FAC. Don't, when you return, try again to force articles through FAC by wearing down the opposition. You'll be welcome back if you resolve to be courteous to Oppose voters, and above all, if you change your mindset to trying to fix, and learn from, objections, rather than trying to argue them into the ground.
|Generalissima

|5
Remember that you'll be free to work on improving articles during those three weeks. If you wish, you may also vote support or oppose on other FACs, that you have not edited, but please make sure you don't abuse this concession in any way. If you use it to post disruptively or in bad faith on FAC, you'll be blocked. Oh, and if you try to get round any of this by using sockpuppets, you'll be in ''real'' trouble. ] | ] 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
|1

|3
:Per ], I reverted all of the edits left by anonymous editors because I felt as though they were vandals who were attempting to distort the discussion, and both edits were ''not'' to avoid the controversy surrounding the article. Both users Bcrowell and Tsavage should have edited while accessing their accounts because other registered contributers may or may not know, such as in this case, where I did not know that the actual editors had written the comments. I feel as though my edits were in good faith, and I do not feel that is definitely based on previous accusations of being ] (which ] is able to back me up on). I would also appreciate it if ] did not analyze my every move, which she has obviously been doing. I've notified other administrators. &mdash;] | ] 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
|
::Do you see any mention of Hollow Wilerding in my ban message? No. Do you see any mention of Tsavage or Bcrowell? No. You're the one that keeps going on about Hollow Wilerding, as if you insist on being identified with her. For my part I don't care who you are, only how you behave. Please don't, in your rebuttals of accusations I have not made, miss the actual reasons for your ban. They're important. You've been banned for bad behavior and bullying of voters, for trying to force articles through FAC by wearing down the opposition, for not trying to fix or learn from objections but instead trying to argue them into the ground, and for disrespecting the FAC culture. I'll add, though, that neither the letter nor the spirit of ] has any encouragement to revert people's edits because you "felt as though they were vandals". On the contrary, you're supposed to be extremely slow and cautious to assume vandalism. ] | ] 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
|-
:::Ridiculous. I absolutely did not "try and force the FAC through by wearing down the opposition". Where do you get off at? How do you know this? Do you have any proof of such an accusation? Please indicate where I was bullying the voters, when I was the one being accused of voting on other FACs for poor judgement of quality and whatever else they had mentioned. "Disrespecting the FAC culture" is incredibly vague &mdash; there is a culture here that I'm not following? Could you someone please point me in the direction of a guideline because I didn't read up on such thing. The ] step was the most logical step to take because when IP addresses edit an FAC because the process is supposed to be concise and productive. I can't "assume" that they are the editors expanding their votes; this is why we have registered accounts. Again, I believe that you've conducted such an action due to your belief of my true identity and will continue to stand by what I believe until you refrain from spreading the rumours. Apparently ] ] ] (which likely includes other whom I have not been acquainted with) are also aware of the situation. Why do you persist in following me? If I was not related to Hollow Wlerding in even the most vague way, I believe that you would not have conducted such a confusing action. We are all humans on Misplaced Pages, all the same users editing the same articles, and there is nothing that I acknowledge of which I did incorrectly by breaking any "culture" or "standards". &mdash;] | ] 03:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
|Gog the Mild
|9
|
|
|
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|7
|
|
|
|-
|Tim riley
|7
|
|
|
|-
|750h+
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Aoba47
|5
|
|
|
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Borsoka
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Dudley Miles
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Graham Beards
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Medxvo
|2
|2
|
|
|-
|Mike Christie
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|2
|1
|1
|
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|3
|1
|
|
|-
|Ajpolino
|2
|1
|
|
|-
|Epicgenius
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Heartfox
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Arconning
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|Ceoil
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Edwininlondon
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Eewilson
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|FrB.TG
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Hurricanehink
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Johnbod
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Lee Vilenski
|2
|
|
|
|-
|MaranoFan
|2
|
|
|
|-
|MSincccc
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Mujinga
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|2
|
|-
|Rodney Baggins
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|RoySmith
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Apoxyomenus
|1
|
|
|
|-
|AstrooKai
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Averageuntitleduser
|1
|
|
|
|-
|BennyOnTheLoose
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Biz
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Buidhe
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Caeciliusinhorto
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Casliber
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Choliamb
|1
|
|
|
|-
|David Fuchs
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dreameditsbrooklyn
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Dxneo
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dylan620
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Eric Idle's Cat
|1
|
|
|
|-
|FunkMonk
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ganesha811
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ian Rose
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Iazyges
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ibjaja055
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Ippantekina
|1
|
|
|
|-
|It is a wonderful world
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Jon698
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|1
|
|
|
|-
|KJP1
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Lazman321
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Llewee
|1
|
|
|
|-
|MadonnaFan
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Matarisvan
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Mikenorton
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Nick-D
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Pendright
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Reading Beans
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Rjjiii
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Sawyer777
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Sgubaldo
|1
|
|
|
|-
|SounderBruce
|
|1
|
|
|-
|ThaesOfereode
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Tkbrett
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Trainsandotherthings
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|-
|ZKang123
|1
|
|
|
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''178'''
|'''32'''
|'''30'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for December 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
|
|
|
|
|1
|19
|20
|-
|SchroCat
|9
|
|
|
|4
|6
|19
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1
|
|
|
|
|18
|19
|-
|Crisco 1492
|9
|
|
|
|
|1
|10
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|7
|
|
|
|2
|
|9
|-
|Generalissima
|5
|
|
|
|
|4
|9
|-
|Gog the Mild
|5
|
|
|
|3
|1
|9
|-
|Tim riley
|7
|
|
|
|
|
|7
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|3
|
|
|
|1
|3
|7
|-
|Aoba47
|3
|
|
|
|1
|1
|5
|-
|750h+
|5
|
|
|
|
|
|5
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|3
|
|
|
|1
|1
|5
|-
|Graham Beards
|3
|
|
|
|1
|
|4
|-
|Mike Christie
|1
|
|
|
|1
|2
|4
|-
|Hog Farm
|3
|
|
|
|
|1
|4
|-
|Serial Number 54129
|
|
|
|
|
|4
|4
|-
|Medxvo
|2
|
|
|
|
|2
|4
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|2
|
|
|
|
|2
|4
|-
|Dudley Miles
|4
|
|
|
|
|
|4
|-
|Borsoka
|3
|
|
|
|1
|
|4
|-
|Epicgenius
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|1
|
|
|
|
|2
|3
|-
|Heartfox
|
|
|
|
|3
|
|3
|-
|Ajpolino
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Lee Vilenski
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Arconning
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|FrB.TG
|
|
|1
|
|1
|
|2
|-
|Johnbod
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|MaranoFan
|1
|
|
|
|1
|
|2
|-
|Eewilson
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|RoySmith
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Mujinga
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Hurricanehink
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Rodney Baggins
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Edwininlondon
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|MSincccc
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Ceoil
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Rjjiii
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Nick-D
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Buidhe
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|MadonnaFan
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Eric Idle's Cat
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|KJP1
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Dreameditsbrooklyn
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Reading Beans
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|It is a wonderful world
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Ippantekina
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Sgubaldo
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Lazman321
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Pendright
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|SounderBruce
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Jon698
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Iazyges
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Apoxyomenus
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|David Fuchs
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Trainsandotherthings
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ibjaja055
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Matarisvan
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Dylan620
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Ganesha811
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|ThaesOfereode
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Sawyer777
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ian Rose
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Choliamb
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Biz
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|BennyOnTheLoose
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Tkbrett
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|ZKang123
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Kavyansh.Singh
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Llewee
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Dxneo
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Casliber
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Mikenorton
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|AstrooKai
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|FunkMonk
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Caeciliusinhorto
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Averageuntitleduser
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''121'''
|
|'''1'''
|
|'''23'''
|'''95'''
|'''240'''
|}
{{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. ] (] - ] - ]) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for October 2024 to December 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!Nominations (12 mos)
!Reviews (12 mos)
!Ratio (12 mos)
|-
|750h+
|7.0
|56.0
|8.0
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|7.0
|46.0
|6.6
|-
|Amir Ghandi
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|BernaBotto
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Boneless Pizza!
|2.5
|9.0
|3.6
|-
|Chrishm21
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9.0
|71.0
|7.9
|-
|Crisco 1492
|2.0
|25.0
|12.5
|-
|Darkwarriorblake
|6.0
|3.0
|0.5
|-
|Dudley Miles
|6.0
|33.0
|5.5
|-
|Dugan Murphy
|3.0
|13.0
|4.3
|-
|Dxneo
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Eem dik doun in toene
|3.0
|10.0
|3.3
|-
|Epicgenius
|8.5
|20.0
|2.4
|-
|Eric Idle's Cat
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Ganesha811
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|Generalissima
|10.0
|70.0
|7.0
|-
|Gog the Mild
|2.0
|82.0
|41.0
|-
|Hawkeye7
|5.0
|6.0
|1.2
|-
|Heartfox
|5.0
|28.0
|5.6
|-
|Hog Farm
|7.0
|53.0
|7.6
|-
|Hurricanehink
|2.5
|20.0
|8.0
|-
|Ippantekina
|6.0
|7.0
|1.2
|-
|Jenhawk777
|2.0
|3.0
|1.5
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|2.3
|29.0
|12.4
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0
|228.0
|38.0
|-
|Joeyquism
|3.0
|17.0
|5.7
|-
|Kyle Peake
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Lee Vilenski
|4.0
|4.0
|1.0
|-
|Llewee
|2.0
|8.0
|4.0
|-
|M4V3R1CK32
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|MaranoFan
|5.0
|14.0
|2.8
|-
|Mike Christie
|6.0
|55.0
|9.2
|-
|NegativeMP1
|3.0
|11.0
|3.7
|-
|Noorullah21
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Peacemaker67
|6.0
|2.0
|0.3
|-
|Phlsph7
|5.0
|18.0
|3.6
|-
|Pollosito
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|9.3
|38.0
|4.1
|-
|PSA
|3.0
|4.0
|1.3
|-
|Relayed
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Royiswariii
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Sammi Brie
|3.0
|12.0
|4.0
|-
|SchroCat
|16.5
|169.0
|10.2
|-
|The Green Star Collector
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|5.0
|3.0
|0.6
|-
|Thuiop
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|7.0
|92.0
|13.1
|-
|Volcanoguy
|5.0
|7.0
|1.4
|-
|Wehwalt
|7.5
|26.0
|3.5
|-
|XR228
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|ZKang123
|5.0
|12.0
|2.4
|}
{{cob}}
One interesting statistical note: the annual overall oppose percentage (number of opposes divided by the sum of opposes and supports) is 13% for 2024; that's higher than for any year in the last eleven years. It's only once been over 9% since 2014. ] (] - ] - ]) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)


==Requested move==
:*Well, that's the problem when the FAC subject matter deals with fandom; you'll get the most ardent support and the most ardent tearing down of opposition, whether attacking the objector or the objection. I took a cursory reading of the FAC, and all I can say is that Eternal is trying very hard to tear down any opposition while addressing the issues very minimally. That being said, however, I think banning for three weeks is too drastic, maybe a few days or a reprimand is enough, just as a warning to fancruft. And plus, bishonen, if you think he's rude, considering reading Bulbasaur FAC a few weeks ago, in which the supporters did exactly what the supporters here did: wearing and tearing down the opposition while addressing the issues minimally. The objectors were called "preposterious," "ridiculous," and one was threatened to be called names (which is equivalent to calling names actually) ] 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
A Featured Article move request is ] and may be of interest to this project. ]'']''] 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Temporary account, I don't profess to follow all the nominations; I haven't been following Bulbasaur. If people who have been doing that have seen behavior as bad and as persistent as on ] (and, note, on previous nominations by the same users), from editors who have been extended this much patience by Raul and the community, then they might want to try to initiate action, the way I've done.
:::About the three weeks, I'm glad you brought it up: it sounds long, and being banned for three weeks from contributing to say an article would ''be'' long: but consider the contribution pattern to FAC, with normally some weeks between each nomination. Indeed, EE's first response to me implied that a mere three weeks wouldn't even inconvenience her! It's this contribution pattern I was thinking of when I made it three weeks—I agree that a few days would have been the way to go if it had been a question of banning from an article, or, say, WP:ANI. ] | ] 09:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
::::Well, for my part, I have not been trying to wear anyone down on any FAC in which I participate. If I raise objections, I expect to see them addressed or reasons given why they are not valid; if someone raises objections with which I disagree, I may point out why I think the objections are not valid. But the recent trend towards long-drawn-out debates on FAC over contentious nominations have not, to my mind, been entirely satisfactory, particularly the increase in ''ad hominem'' attacks on objectors or people who comment on objections. All we need is "this is why I am objecting" and "this is why I think you are right/wrong". I hope the short summary that I added to the top of the Bulbasaur FAC was helpful as way of crystallising the points of contention in a neutral manner (perhaps this would be a helpful approach for other contentious FACs?). -- ] ] 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:The behavior in this case was outrageous, so I'm fine with the three weeks after thinking about it. Good faith edits are never vandalism, so reverting them is not right, even moreso given it should have been obvious who was making the comments. Beyond that we should have civility and cooperation, not this type of brow beating. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How on earth can Bish just decide this herself? I don't agree with it. If EE would like to nominate any other articles for FAC, or express anything about a nom (replying to a vote, for instance, or notifying voters of some change in the article), I would be happy to act as a proxy for that if he or she would like. ] 14:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why you would try to defend EE's actions (or if you really are I guess), but acting as a proxy would be perfectly acceptable since you likely wouldn't have the same emotional investment in the issue and could keep the discussion civil and productive. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::Per ], "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." I have removed his violation of this ruling above. &mdash;] (]) 15:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 15:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
::] | ] 16:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

Latest revision as of 12:25, 15 January 2025

    Shortcut
    Pages, tools and templates for
    Featured articles
    Articles seeking peer review
    before featured article candidacy
    Unanswered peer reviews
    FACs needing feedback
    view • edit
    2007 Greensburg tornado Review it now
    Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse Review it now
    Featured article removal candidates
    Boogeyman 2 Review now
    Shoshone National Forest Review now
    Northrop YF-23 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. Cane toad 2022-12-09
    68. Boeing 777 2022-12-09
    69. Second Crusade 2022-12-09
    70. Delichon 2022-12-10
    71. Rock martin 2022-12-10
    72. Lion 2022-12-10
    73. Victoria Cross for New Zealand 2023-01-01
      Work ongoing January 2023
    74. Bengali language movement 2023-01-15
    75. USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23
    76. West Wycombe Park 2023-01-25
    77. Holkham Hall 2023-01-25
    78. Redshift 2023-01-26
    79. Angkor Wat 2023-01-28
    80. Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02
    81. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia 2023-02-12
    82. Guy Fawkes Night 2023-02-14
    83. Marcus Trescothick 2023-02-22
    84. Moe Berg 2023-03-10
    85. Falaise Pocket 2023-03-29
    86. James Nesbitt 2023-03-29
    87. Johnstown Inclined Plane 2023-04-23
    88. Dengue fever 2023-04-30
    89. Wood Badge 2023-05-15
    90. Hurricane Claudette (2003) 2023-05-16
    91. Cleveland 2023-05-16
    92. Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20
    93. Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02
    94. Surrender of Japan 2023-06-30
    95. Felice Beato 2023-08-04
    96. Augustus 2023-08-08
    97. Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13
    98. Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01
    99. Ancient Egypt 2023-11-18
    100. Acetic acid 2023-12-8
    101. Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02
    102. Adelaide Anne Procter 2024-01-30
    103. Boston 2024-04-15
    104. Borscht 2024-06-15
    105. Khan Noonien Singh 2024-07-03
    106. Taylor Swift 2024-08-02
    107. Nahuatl 2024-08-04
    108. Carnivàle 2024-08-09
    109. Your Power 2024-08-16
    110. Washington, D.C. 2024-08-27
    111. George Washington (inventor) 2024-08-30
    112. Alien vs. Predator (film) 2024-10-26
    113. Mom and Dad (1945 film) 2024-10-26
    114. A Cure for Pokeritis 2024-10-26
    115. Zombie Nightmare 2024-10-26
    116. Naruto Uzumaki 2024-12-31
    117. Oxygen 2025-1-14
    Find more: Unreviewed featured articles
    Scripts and tools
    Article alerts
    Guidance
    Advice pages
    Writing
    Image and source reviewing
    Archiving icon
    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 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) >>>

    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)

    On source reviews for foreign language sources

    Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 came down to three sources that were offline and in Farsi. I know that there are ways to get at offline sources, but I wonder if anyone's sitting on a way to handle spotchecks or sourcechecks when the source to be checked is in a foreign language. Folks vouched for DeepL on Hungarian sources and I think Polish sources too, but is Google Translate reliable for translating Farsi? I don't feel comfortable with skipping certain sources just because it's too hard to verify them, so these need to be checked as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    This 2021 paper found that GT was 67.5% reliable for translating medical phrases into Farsi. If the sources are linguistically complicated, I would expect the reliability to be around the same; if they are linguistically simple, the reliability will go up. GT has also improved since 2021. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would assume good faith if other sources' spot-check did not indicate unverified statements or close paraphrasing. In this case, the nominator could also be requested to provide a translation. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    Archive problem

    There seems to have been a problem with the bot archiving Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1. The bot has not added Template:Fa top or Template:Fa bottom to the page or updated Talk:Corleck Head. Steelkamp (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Tks, I think I've located the issue so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI Hawkeye7. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. It has run now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Tools to scan article for a quality check?

    I seem to recall there were some tools an editor could run on an article that would scan it and identify some errors, particularly with citations. The tools that I'm thinking of were more-or-less part of the FA process, I seem to recall. I'm looking for these tools (in Help:Citation tools) but cannot find them. Am I dreaming, or are there such tools? Noleander (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2024

    Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2024; thanks to Hog Farm for doing the analysis on these. 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) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Reviewers for December 2024
    # reviews Type of review
    Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility
    Nikkimaria 2 18
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 14 4
    SchroCat 15 4
    Crisco 1492 9 1
    ChrisTheDude 9
    Generalissima 5 1 3
    Gog the Mild 9
    AirshipJungleman29 7
    Tim riley 7
    750h+ 5
    Aoba47 5
    UndercoverClassicist 5
    Borsoka 4
    Dudley Miles 4
    Graham Beards 4
    Hog Farm 4
    Medxvo 2 2
    Mike Christie 4
    Premeditated Chaos 2 1 1
    Serial Number 54129 3 1
    Ajpolino 2 1
    Epicgenius 3
    Heartfox 3
    Jens Lallensack 3
    Arconning 1 1
    Ceoil 2
    Edwininlondon 2
    Eewilson 1 1
    FrB.TG 2
    Hurricanehink 2
    Johnbod 2
    Lee Vilenski 2
    MaranoFan 2
    MSincccc 2
    Mujinga 2
    Phlsph7 2
    Rodney Baggins 1 1
    RoySmith 2
    Apoxyomenus 1
    AstrooKai 1
    Averageuntitleduser 1
    BennyOnTheLoose 1
    Biz 1
    Boneless Pizza! 1
    Buidhe 1
    Caeciliusinhorto 1
    Casliber 1
    Choliamb 1
    David Fuchs 1
    Dreameditsbrooklyn 1
    Dugan Murphy 1
    Dxneo 1
    Dylan620 1
    Eric Idle's Cat 1
    FunkMonk 1
    Ganesha811 1
    Ian Rose 1
    Iazyges 1
    Ibjaja055 1
    Ippantekina 1
    It is a wonderful world 1
    Jon698 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1
    KJP1 1
    Lazman321 1
    Llewee 1
    MadonnaFan 1
    Matarisvan 1
    Mikenorton 1
    Nick-D 1
    Pendright 1
    Reading Beans 1
    Rjjiii 1
    Rollinginhisgrave 1
    Sawyer777 1
    Sgubaldo 1
    SounderBruce 1
    ThaesOfereode 1
    Tkbrett 1
    Trainsandotherthings 1
    Wehwalt 1
    ZKang123 1
    Totals 178 32 30
    Supports and opposes for December 2024
    # declarations Declaration
    Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total
    Nikkimaria 1 19 20
    SchroCat 9 4 6 19
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 18 19
    Crisco 1492 9 1 10
    ChrisTheDude 7 2 9
    Generalissima 5 4 9
    Gog the Mild 5 3 1 9
    Tim riley 7 7
    AirshipJungleman29 3 1 3 7
    Aoba47 3 1 1 5
    750h+ 5 5
    UndercoverClassicist 3 1 1 5
    Graham Beards 3 1 4
    Mike Christie 1 1 2 4
    Hog Farm 3 1 4
    Serial Number 54129 4 4
    Medxvo 2 2 4
    Premeditated Chaos 2 2 4
    Dudley Miles 4 4
    Borsoka 3 1 4
    Epicgenius 3 3
    Jens Lallensack 1 2 3
    Heartfox 3 3
    Ajpolino 2 1 3
    Phlsph7 2 2
    Lee Vilenski 2 2
    Arconning 2 2
    FrB.TG 1 1 2
    Johnbod 1 1 2
    MaranoFan 1 1 2
    Eewilson 1 1 2
    RoySmith 2 2
    Mujinga 1 1 2
    Hurricanehink 2 2
    Rodney Baggins 1 1 2
    Edwininlondon 1 1 2
    MSincccc 1 1 2
    Ceoil 2 2
    Rjjiii 1 1
    Nick-D 1 1
    Buidhe 1 1
    MadonnaFan 1 1
    Eric Idle's Cat 1 1
    KJP1 1 1
    Dreameditsbrooklyn 1 1
    Reading Beans 1 1
    Boneless Pizza! 1 1
    It is a wonderful world 1 1
    Ippantekina 1 1
    Sgubaldo 1 1
    Lazman321 1 1
    Pendright 1 1
    SounderBruce 1 1
    Jon698 1 1
    Rollinginhisgrave 1 1
    Iazyges 1 1
    Apoxyomenus 1 1
    David Fuchs 1 1
    Trainsandotherthings 1 1
    Ibjaja055 1 1
    Matarisvan 1 1
    Dylan620 1 1
    Ganesha811 1 1
    ThaesOfereode 1 1
    Sawyer777 1 1
    Ian Rose 1 1
    Wehwalt 1 1
    Choliamb 1 1
    Biz 1 1
    BennyOnTheLoose 1 1
    Tkbrett 1 1
    ZKang123 1 1
    Kavyansh.Singh 1 1
    Dugan Murphy 1 1
    Llewee 1 1
    Dxneo 1 1
    Casliber 1 1
    Mikenorton 1 1
    AstrooKai 1 1
    FunkMonk 1 1
    Caeciliusinhorto 1 1
    Averageuntitleduser 1 1
    Totals 121 1 23 95 240

    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) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Nominators for October 2024 to December 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months
    Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos)
    750h+ 7.0 56.0 8.0
    AirshipJungleman29 7.0 46.0 6.6
    Amir Ghandi 3.0 None 0.0
    BernaBotto 2.0 None 0.0
    Boneless Pizza! 2.5 9.0 3.6
    Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0
    ChrisTheDude 9.0 71.0 7.9
    Crisco 1492 2.0 25.0 12.5
    Darkwarriorblake 6.0 3.0 0.5
    Dudley Miles 6.0 33.0 5.5
    Dugan Murphy 3.0 13.0 4.3
    Dxneo 2.0 1.0 0.5
    Eem dik doun in toene 3.0 10.0 3.3
    Epicgenius 8.5 20.0 2.4
    Eric Idle's Cat 2.0 1.0 0.5
    Ganesha811 3.0 2.0 0.7
    Generalissima 10.0 70.0 7.0
    Gog the Mild 2.0 82.0 41.0
    Hawkeye7 5.0 6.0 1.2
    Heartfox 5.0 28.0 5.6
    Hog Farm 7.0 53.0 7.6
    Hurricanehink 2.5 20.0 8.0
    Ippantekina 6.0 7.0 1.2
    Jenhawk777 2.0 3.0 1.5
    Jens Lallensack 2.3 29.0 12.4
    Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 228.0 38.0
    Joeyquism 3.0 17.0 5.7
    Kyle Peake 4.0 None 0.0
    Lee Vilenski 4.0 4.0 1.0
    Llewee 2.0 8.0 4.0
    M4V3R1CK32 2.0 None 0.0
    MaranoFan 5.0 14.0 2.8
    Mike Christie 6.0 55.0 9.2
    NegativeMP1 3.0 11.0 3.7
    Noorullah21 4.0 None 0.0
    Peacemaker67 6.0 2.0 0.3
    Phlsph7 5.0 18.0 3.6
    Pollosito 2.0 None 0.0
    Premeditated Chaos 9.3 38.0 4.1
    PSA 3.0 4.0 1.3
    Relayed 2.0 1.0 0.5
    Royiswariii 2.0 None 0.0
    Sammi Brie 3.0 12.0 4.0
    SchroCat 16.5 169.0 10.2
    The Green Star Collector 3.0 None 0.0
    Thebiguglyalien 5.0 3.0 0.6
    Thuiop 2.0 1.0 0.5
    UndercoverClassicist 7.0 92.0 13.1
    Volcanoguy 5.0 7.0 1.4
    Wehwalt 7.5 26.0 3.5
    XR228 2.0 None 0.0
    ZKang123 5.0 12.0 2.4

    One interesting statistical note: the annual overall oppose percentage (number of opposes divided by the sum of opposes and supports) is 13% for 2024; that's higher than for any year in the last eleven years. It's only once been over 9% since 2014. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requested move

    A Featured Article move request is being discussed and may be of interest to this project. SerialNumber54129 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)