Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michele Scarponi/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2024 [1].

Michele Scarponi

Nominator(s): Craig (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today (22 April) marked the seventh anniversary of the death of Italian cyclist, Michele Scarponi. His greatest success, at the 2011 Giro d'Italia, came as a result of another rider's results being expunged eight months after the conclusion of the race. His career was not without its problems, with two separate doping suspensions. The article has been a GA since 2022 and went through GOCE last year; WP:CYCLING currently has only two biographical FAs – Tom Simpson and Bernard Hinault – so if this article was to be promoted to the highest level, it would be in rarified company. Admittedly, I am a first-time nominator at FAC, so looking forward to going through the process. Craig (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has attractted no interest at all. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: When the majority of the other FACs were picking up interest, I became more and more concerned, and it was sadly inevitable that it is liable to be archived. The welcome to the FAC process (on the talk page) was very much appreciated, and when (rather than if) this is archived, I hope to bring back at a later date – cannot do any worse than my first attempt though... Craig (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you are right. It may or may not help, but below is my standard boilerplate on finding reviewers, which might assist for next time around.

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Appreciate the tips that have been provided – definitely given me food for thought for future instances, how to better engagement and the QPQ aspect. Craig (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A month in and no indication of movement towards a consensus to promote, so I am going to archive this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.