Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination

Algebra

Greetings all. Is anyone up to speed enough with maths/math to have an opinion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Algebra/archive1#D.Lazard? If not, I propose to dive in in my usual thumb-fingered way. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I hold a BFA, I will let that be my answer :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This nomination is approaching the three-months mark. What would be the next step? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Shortly after starting this thread I went down with a nasty dose of covid - I am still not fully recovered. Coming back to Wikipedia I forgot that this was tentatively on my to do list. Apologies. Having gone through the review page (and, obviously, the article) it seems to me that there is a consensus to promote. @FAC coordinators: (only), anyone care to object to that? Which would be fine with me - it is not straight forward, but we need to call it one way or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my minimal participation in this. I shied away from this a bit, waiting for a clear consensus for promotion but this doesn't seem to be forming anytime soon. The overall consensus seems to be in favor of promotion depsite the (minor) concerns around rigor, stylistic preference, and interpretative nuances. Thankfully, we have a subject expert supporting for promotion. In short, no objection from me regarding promotion. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll do the biz. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Starship Troopers (film)

And good day to all again. This one seems straight forward except for a niggle Jo-Jo has with the images. I would feel happier if someone more familiar with films opined on that on our collective behalf. Is there a fine art expert in the audience? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to take it. Far from a fine art expert but I have my fair share of experience in writing film-related articles. FrB.TG (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Without wishing to step on any toes

There hasn't been a promotion/archival of any sort in almost a week, and some nominations are getting pretty stale. Could someone please have a look? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye, Airship. I had connection problems in the last few days. Now that everything is working again, I expect to be more active now. FrB.TG (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also a few recent first-timer nominations which I think deserve the welcome message now handed out? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Toes are fine, tks AJ. FAC does have its quiet periods where several noms are on the cusp of promotion (or archiving) and can use a bit more time. Since my last walk through of the older noms not long before you posted, apart from a couple that have been actioned I think only Battle of Saipan has reached consensus for promotion, and I'll get to that one shortly. Also I see a couple of new ones that might be ill-prepared. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

And back

... from a nasty, six-day dose of Covid. Or on my way. At least everything I eat no longer tastes rancid - apart from some milk, which was rancid - and the hallucinations go away now when I switch on the light and open my eyes. Or, if they don't, they're at least familiar hallucinations. I need to schedule November for TFA with some urgency, but once that is under way I'll settle don't here with my machete for a while. (Unless I go radio silent again, in which case keep counting.) Anything happen I need to know about? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Infant school/History of infant schools

I note that Infant school has just had its name changed to History of infant schools. Now it is not unusual for articles to have their names changed during FAC. But this has always, AFAIR, been by consensus of the reviewers that the new name more appropriately summarises the article. (And with any change not actioned until after FAC so as not to upset the bot.) There would seem to me to be a line - probably difficult to define - where we don't want reviewers to all support an article, then after 5 supports have it changed to something different. I am unsure if that is what has happened here and note that I am late to the party with FrB.TG having taken the lead on trying to resolve this.

I am concerned that there doesn't seem to have been a clear consensus of the reviewers to date for the change, which may mean that their supports may not stretch to supporting the "new" article. Perhaps especially the source review? Eg, I note UC's comment on this [1]. (My query was made before the move.) Essentially I am notifying for information and asking for any thoughts as to how we move this on. So, anyone got any? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Without going through it extensively, my first thought is that such a change indicates an undercooked nom. This isn't a subtle name change like "Raid on such-and-such" to "Attack on such-and-such" but a pretty fundamental difference of focus. I think any existing support has to be re-validated, and we're probably better off archiving and starting again, via PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Having read through the nom I think there's a solid argument that it's mostly making the name match what the article already was, rather than a significant change in scope in practice, but I agree that for the purposes of the FA criteria where this stuff being settled is a very important part of evaluation, it should be archived and everyone pinged back to reevaluate on the current context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's a consensus, unless FrB.TG disagrees. Any volunteers to be bad cop? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with archiving (and can do it) although I'd waive the usual two-week wait so that it can immediately be restarted. FrB.TG (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks FrB.TG. (A timely input from SN.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

GTG?

• It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water, regarding which I am recused, may be ready for a look over.
• Boot Monument likewise.
• Benjamin F. McAdoo might also benefit from someone looking at it. They would do well to start at the bottom, with HF's interesting summary.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Boot Monument, I don't see spot-checks for source-to-text integrity since the nominator is a first-timer. Let me request one at WT:FACSR. FrB.TG (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops. Good point. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

This is up to nearly three months and discussion has mostly stalled in the FAC; there are unresolved opposes that people haven't followed up on and Piotrus is continuing to agitate for more changes. I think at this point the text might have been adjusted so much (and with additional talk page discussions) that it might be better to archive at this point, unfortunately. Any thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree (not to mention that the article also somewhat fails the stability criterion). FrB.TG (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)