Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive90

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for December 2022

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December 2022. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for December 2022

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Mike Christie 7 13 Nikkimaria 1 4 14 ChrisTheDude 8 HJ Mitchell 6 Gog the Mild 6 Aoba47 3 2 Hog Farm 1 2 2 Hawkeye7 2 1 2 A455bcd9 4 FrB.TG 3 1 Wehwalt 3 1 Nick-D 3 JennyOz 3 Eddie891 3 Gerda Arendt 2 HAL333 2 SnowFire 1 1 AirshipJungleman29 2 Unlimitedlead 2 Trainsandotherthings 2 Your Power 2 Sammi Brie 1 1 Borsoka 2 Kusma 1 1 Dudley Miles 2 AhmadLX 1 1 Iazyges 2 Ceranthor 2 Rschen7754 1 Cplakidas 1 Fredddie 1 MaranoFan 1 Moabdave 1 Abebenjoe 1 SusunW 1 Ian Rose 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 SounderBruce 1 Balon Greyjoy 1 Dream out loud 1 Pendright 1 Dough4872 1 FunkMonk 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 Tim riley 1 Anarchyte 1 Pseud 14 1 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 Ceoil 1 ViennaUK 1 Smerus 1 Thryduulf 1 Ovinus 1 Moisejp 1 Phlsph7 1 The C of E 1 Heartfox 1 Al Ameer son 1 Epicgenius 1 Vanamonde93 1 Aza24 1 Totals 107 24 24 1

Supports and opposes for December 2022

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Mike Christie 6 1 13 20 Nikkimaria 19 19 ChrisTheDude 8 8 Gog the Mild 6 6 HJ Mitchell 6 6 Aoba47 3 2 5 Hawkeye7 2 3 5 Hog Farm 1 1 3 5 FrB.TG 3 1 4 Wehwalt 3 1 4 A455bcd9 1 3 4 JennyOz 3 3 Nick-D 1 1 1 3 Eddie891 2 1 3 Gerda Arendt 2 2 Iazyges 2 2 AhmadLX 1 1 2 Your Power 2 2 Dudley Miles 2 2 Trainsandotherthings 1 1 2 Kusma 1 1 2 Unlimitedlead 2 2 AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2 SnowFire 1 1 2 Borsoka 2 2 Sammi Brie 1 1 2 HAL333 1 1 2 Ceranthor 2 2 Dream out loud 1 1 Rschen7754 1 1 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 1 Balon Greyjoy 1 1 SounderBruce 1 1 Aza24 1 1 Pseud 14 1 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 Vanamonde93 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Al Ameer son 1 1 Anarchyte 1 1 Heartfox 1 1 The C of E 1 1 Tim riley 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 SusunW 1 1 Phlsph7 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1 Abebenjoe 1 1 Moabdave 1 1 Ovinus 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 MaranoFan 1 1 Thryduulf 1 1 Dough4872 1 1 Fredddie 1 1 Smerus 1 1 ViennaUK 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 Totals 88 0 1 0 4 63 156

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) 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for October-December 2022 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) Amir Ghandi               3 0 0.0 Amitchell125               2 2 1.0 Aoba47                     7 71 10.1 AryKun                     6 18 3.0 Balon Greyjoy             1.5 7 4.7 BennyOnTheLoose           6 15 2.5 Ceoil                     2 17 8.5 ChrisTheDude               14 98 7.0 Cplakidas                 5 6 1.2 Czar                       2 13 6.5 Darkwarriorblake           5 6 1.2 Dudley Miles               5 32 6.4 Epicgenius                 7 9 1.3 ErnestKrause               1.66666 17 10.2 Floydian                   2 0 0.0 FunkMonk                   4 40 10.0 Georgejdorner             3 1 0.3 Gog the Mild               8.5 91 10.7 Hawkeye7                   6.5 30 4.6 HJ Mitchell               3 22 7.3 Hog Farm                   9.5 40 4.2 Iazyges                   1.5 12 8.0 Ippantekina               6 14 2.3 John M Wolfson             2 0 0.0 Jo-Jo Eumerus             6 29 4.8 Juxlos                     2 0 0.0 Kaiser matias             3 3 1.0 Kyle Peake                 2 2 1.0 Lazman321                 3 2 0.7 Lee Vilenski               7.5 31 4.1 LittleJerry               3 1 0.3 MaranoFan                 9.5 24 2.5 Mike Christie             10 174 17.4 Mujinga                   2 15 7.5 Nick-D                     3 15 5.0 Peacemaker67               5.0 5 1.0 Pickersgill-Cunliffe       2.0 3 1.5 PresN                     2.0 2 1.0 Sammi Brie                 2.0 7 3.5 TheJoebro64               2.5 7 2.8 Tkbrett                   2.0 1 0.5 Unlimitedlead             2.5 3 1.2 Volcanoguy                 2.0 2 1.0 Wehwalt                   10.3 52 5.0 Your Power                 4.0 15 3.8 Zmbro                     2.0 5 2.5

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for USS Missouri (BB-63)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm _Talk 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Is a source needed for film casts?

I'm doing a source review for High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, which has no separate source for the cast list. I'm aware that a plot summary is regarded as implicitly sourced by the work that the article is about, but I have never heard that for casts. I checked some of the films in WP:FA and about half the ones I checked do not source the cast list, so apparently at least some reviewers think it's OK not to source it. Is there a guideline that says this somewhere? Or is this an oversight in those articles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• MOS:FILMCAST is the key one: only uncredited actors need a citation - the rest are on the primary source of the film. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's what I was looking for. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles: year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination viewer wonky ??

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FARC header not showing on WP:FAR SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• There appears to be a related issue on this page (the “older nominations” header doesn’t appear on the page, even though it’s in the contents). This only appears to be the case if you have the nominations viewer script installed. (I’ve commented at FARC too, but flagging here). - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

See discussion at FAR for a solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Templates and transclusion

I made this edit to a FAC subpage to resolve a floating reference issue. Does anyone know if this will cause issues with templates and transclusion issues? @Mike Christie:? Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine -- I'm not aware of any problem that could cause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeking mentoring for FAC with my work on the "David Bentley Hart" article

Would any mentors be willing to consider mentoring me with my recent work on the David Bentley Hart article as I hope to put it forward as a featured article candidate? Thank you for considering. Jjhake (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt is willing to offer me some mentorship with this, so should be all set here. This kind of community help is much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Donaldson (snooker player)/archive2

Looks like this one was opened erroneously. I'm happy to delete the page, but I'm not sure if FACBot needs to be involved. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That should be a housekeeping delete (or at least, it was in my day), that doesn't belong in articlehistory. Since it hasn't been transferred to FAC archives, it should not engage FACbot. Best I can tell, it can be housekeeping deleted, FAC template removed from article talk, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And this, too: Draft:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Donaldson (snooker player)/archive2. I'm not up on the various user rights, but it looks like something needs to be removed from that editor, who first created a FAC in Draft, then moved it, then indicated it was promoted by FACbot when it wasn't. Should that editor be able to move pages ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my: [1]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: the wp:page mover right is what allows the move with no redirect (among other things); lacking that right you always leave behind a redirect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; someone told me that once before, and it didn't stick :) OK, I removed the FAC template from the article talk page. Now we just need an admin to delete the two pages, and WikiCup to deal with things on that end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, although now I suppose that was probably a job for @Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth:. Apologies! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor could benefit from a mentor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And a {{whale}} while we're at it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no whale. To a new user presumably unfamiliar with wikihumor I don't think that would seem helpful or funny. Hog Farm _Talk 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you say that, but they've successfully gamed obtaining ECP status, and now they've tried gaming the Wikicup. Anyway, a squish is always better than a bite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Well ... they did significantly improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've issued a contentious topics alert (an uncited edit to Feminism), posted to WP:PRIMATES for help with OR, and made a first attempt to get their attention here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone else be willing to start following User talk:20 upper to help answer questions and provide guidance ? I see it may take more time than I can invest alone. Preferably a biology editor, but anyone could help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked (that was exhausting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In-depth sourcing spot check for first-time nominators

Pages for February 2023 GAR reassessment and Copyright contributor investigation
Main pages DC Good article reassessment Copyright contributor investigation Lists Master GA list Reviewer list Intent to open independent GAR Sdzerobot list Notices Article talk notice MMS targets User talk notice MMS targets GAR delisting page Scripts and bots GAN Review Tool Bot instruction Petscan 23790505

Why is this no longer happening ? In the wake of WP:DCGAR (Doug Coldwell Good Article Reassessment), I'm surprised to see this falling by the wayside. Are Coords remembering to check for this and request that one be done? Checking for citation formatting and reliability of sources only is not the same as a check for copyright issues or source-to-text integrity. And now that it hasn't been done, how will you all know who was missed when checking WP:WBFAN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• User:SandyGeorgia, sorry, can you clarify who or what WP:DCGAR is or was? The page contains no material and I've not been around for a couple of years so don't know the background. (I make no comment on your main point re reviews except that I hope first timers are facing a full and rigorous source review, including spot checks - that's certainly how it should happen) Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  In a nutshell, multiple issues with close paraphrasing and source-text integrity were discovered in articles written by one editor, who has dozens (hundreds?) of GAs to his name most of which ostensibly rely extensively on offline sources but the extent to which they support the claims made in the articles is ... ambiguous at best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  And blatant OR, POV, and all manner of source-to-text integrity issues. The more you process through Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, the more you see just how bad it is. If everyone would pick one diff a day in there, the cleanup could be faster ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, DCGAR is the sidebar shortcut that contains links to the Copright contributor investigation, the community ban per AN, the SPI for socking, and the massive cleanup of GAs needed in the wake of DC (click on the main page in the sidebar which takes you to the AN) -- Doug Coldwell and socks. With over 200 GAs and over 500 DYKs, he never showed up around FAC, and presumably if he had, the copyvios would have been detected here as all new nominators used to be subject to an in-depth spot check of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  PS, it may be less than clear as I avoided spelling out in the sidebar that DC = User:Doug Coldwell because the CCI folks point out they don't like to impugn all the other Doug Coldwells of the world, which is part of why CCIs are named by date rather than editor name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks to you both. Oh dear... that's very bad. Good to know it's not touch FAs, but still terrible. Any help needed on the clear-up, or has that all been done now? - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I linked the CCI above, the sidebar contains info on the planned mass delisting of GAs, and the cleanup will take years. That's why I ask that others do one diff a day at the CCI. Most diffs you check are just messy as all heck to track down, as you have to determine if the source is accessible, and then it becomes not just a matter of copyvio, but all manner of source-to-text problems. WP:PDEL applies, but the AN agreed to hold off until the planned GAR merger is completed, so you unfortunately really have to read the main page that I link in the sidebar to get the full picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  PS, and because one of DC's main problems was too-close paraphrasing, you unfortunately have to read through archaic and hard-to-read pages like newspaper.com clippings ... very hard on old eyes ... to find the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Which recent first-time FAs did not go through spotchecks? I am willing to do them once I am done with my FAC -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Not to worry, Guerillero; I'll check the ones I know of myself. Per my usual habit, I'm not naming innocent nominators ... not their fault if the process here glitched, and I don't want to offend first-time nominators by singling them out. In the event I find problems, only then will I name the nom.

I am pointing out that everyone should be checking WP:WBFAN, and now since some have been missed, if you encounter a second- or third-time nominator at WBFAN, it will be necessary to go back to the first nom and double-check if an indepth source check actually occurred. Checking citation formatting and reliability of sources only is NOT the indepth spotcheck needed to determine source-to-text integrity or copyright issues. That's what we're supposed to watch for on first-time noms.

DC could have been stopped sooner at GAN if there had been a process like this, but none of the subsequent GA reviewers had any way of knowing the first had copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You can name the articles without pointing the finger at the authors. This thread isn't very helpful without knowing which articles are affected. It makes it hard to tell whether the practice has fallen into abeyance or there has been an isolated oversight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm now going through archives to see how many there are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I know this is probably not a popular action, but I perform spot-checks on every FAC I do a source review on. It's easy even for unintentional mistakes to crop up, particularly if an article was heavily edited by copyeditors or other outside editors prior to submission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It may or may not be popular, but I think it's good practice. Even long-term editors with multiple FACs can have off moments when rephrasing a source. I wouldn't be offended if people did it on my noms - it would give me confidence that the system of reviewing is working as it should. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were any FACs that didn't go through at least some spot-checking. If even the recent GA drive required spot-checks I'm amazed that any FA could get away without it. I certainly submit my FACs in the expectation that my sources will be checked. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

When I do source reviews it is unusual for me to not do at least some spot checking, no matter how experienced the nominator. This is not mandatory, but I commend the practice to all source reviewers. Indeed, to all reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm now halfway through one that did not get a source check, and very disappointed. I've found some very minor close paraphrasing, but most of the sourcing is not available online, so can't be checked. A good-faith, good editor did not get the review they should have at FAC, and I'm not going to ruffle feathers at this late stage. But this ball was dropped, quotes from the offline source should have been requested, the nominator even indicated twice it was their first FAC, and I hope reviewers will doublecheck WP:WBFAN going forward (and now go back and check if there was ever a source check done for any nominator). I don't want to tilt at this windmill; the nominator doesn't deserve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

From the past two weeks: [2], [3], [4]. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As a coord I agree this is good practice and should be encouraged. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as Gog points out and as I'll tell anyone who listens, the practice of requiring spotchecks of first-time nominators is ongoing -- if we've missed any it's through oversight (we are human, believe it or not) rather than intent. I also like to see checks of random experienced editors, and this is not uncommon -- I do so myself sometimes when reviewing, especially if I find the prose difficult to comprehend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I believe it is still happening—I got a very good (to my mind) source spot-check on my first nomination from Tim riley a couple of months back, and I have certainly seen requests for it on other FACs from Gog and the other coords. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is definitely a very good practice, not just for first-timers but also experienced ones. By the time I had already reached 10 FAs, one of my own FACs showed an insane amount of text-to-source-integrity issues because I didn't thoroughly scan the already-used sources, being under the impression that a GA wouldn't have such issues. Since then, I have grown much more careful of not only the sources already used in the article but also the ones I use myself. Although my number of errors has since decreased, I always appreciate when a source reviewer also spot-checks a few sources. It gives me the confidence that things are in order. FrB.TG (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Who Wrote That can help you pick out other editor stuff in your noms ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's one month. I apologize for not having finished (I stopped at No. 16), because a) this is hard editing from a iPad, and b) I found enough to convince me that more care might be needed. We don't want a repeat of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page just as GA is under scrutiny. I sincerely hope no one feels I am pointing fingers, as that is not my intent :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe someone will finish 17 through 24 ... just for the sake of completeness of one month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Random month, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2022, known/repeat nominators struck

1. Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King
2. Coventry ring road
3. WBPX-TV Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WBPX-TV/archive1 Where's the spot check?
4. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles/archive1 Got a small spot-check here, but ... same editor ...

   Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Streets (song)/archive1 (July 2022: Gerald says they did a spot check, but where is it?)

5. Kathryn D. Sullivan
6. Battle of Ticinus
7. Homo antecessor

   But noting it is not clear to me whether one was ever done, apparent first nom was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baleen whale/archive1

8. 1997–98 Gillingham F.C. season
9. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bleed American/archive1 and 2 are unclear ... says Guerillero did spot check, but Guerillero says spot check should be done, confused? Further, that editor's first nom;

   Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tell All Your Friends/archive1 got an Ealdgyth reliability check, but unclear it got a source-to-text integrity or copyvio spot check.

10. Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine Second nom, but on the first nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive2 Ian asked for a source-to-text integrity/copyvio check, which was not done (a formatting reliability check was done).

    The source reviewer stated that they "spent some time checking the sources to make sure they back up what is mentioned in the article" and that they were satisfied with the result. Not every spotcheck of sources is labelled as such, checking comments themselves rather than just keywords like 'support', 'oppose', 'spotcheck' and so on is why the coords are, as someone once said, paid the big bucks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

11. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gurl.com/archive1 specifically mentions spot checks not done.

    Yes I don't think we requested or received a spotcheck for this first-timer's, so trout me for that one as closing coord... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

12. W. Somerset Maugham
13. 2022 Welsh Open (snooker)
14. The Boat Race 2022
15. Louis H. Bean As I have found and documented considerable source-to-text integrity issues in past FACs and FAC reviews from this nominator, Coords might keep in mind that a spot check should always be required. That's why they get the big bucks.

    I did spot-checks on this one. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

16. R2K: The Concert found spotcheck back at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regine Velasquez/archive3 (fairly brief though)
17. Our Song (Taylor Swift song)

    Nom has five FAs. Spot checks weren't done on this one but were at their first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

18. I Drink Wine
19. Dance in the Dark

    At least some spot checking was done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

20. Wizards of Waverly Place

    Spot check was requested and done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

21. Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington)
22. 1963–64 Gillingham F.C. season
23. 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season

    Mike Christie mentions checking references to The Times; not sure if this was done or counts as a spot check. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

24. BioShock 2

    Quoth the FAC: Spotchecks performed on a sample of sources: citations 4–6, 12, 31, 44, 55, 56, 58, 118, and 124. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Script to highlight unreferenced passages

Unreferenced passages are highlighted in red.

I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to highlight unreferenced passages. It may be useful to FA reviewers to get a first quick impression of whether a nomination lacks references and where the problems may be. Nominators may use it to make ensure that their nomination is well-sourced. It does not understand articles and is only meant to assist editors, not to replace their judgment. More information can be found at User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages, including instructions on how to install and use it as well as information on its limitations. Questions and feedback on problems or new ideas are welcome. See also Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Script_to_find_unreferenced_passages for a similar discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That's amazing! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Holy smokes: this is nothing short of a godsend. Thank you kindly for this script. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Manganese, Minnesota

Already a featured article. Edit war with User:Magnolia677 has removed both content and images previously requested during GA and FA review. I would like to have the article reassessed to determine if it still meets FAC. There used to be a link to have the article reassessed, but I cannot seem to find it. I have twice put in requests for page protection of this article while it undergoes reassessment, but the requests continue to be deleted (probably by this user). DrGregMN (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

DrGregMN, if you are seeking to have the article's FA status reassessed, WP:FAR outlines the process for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Although keep in mind that FAR isn't a good place for dispute resolution. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. DrGregMN (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

DrGregMN it's deja vu all over again; I've despaired at seeing same at Minneapolis. I'm not sure WP:FAR is the way to go, since it is such a recent promotion by Gog, and should still be sound. This is more of a WP:DR issue, and FAR isn't the place for solving what is going on with an editor overly focused on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, if I had any good advice to give you, I would have solved same problem at Minneapolis by now :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Gog did promote the article, but content regarding stratigraphy, maps and photos that had been requested during GA and Fa review were deleted. I can't be sure the article still meets FA criteria with the deleted content, hence the request for reassessment. The edit war created is going nowhere on the Talk page. DrGregMN (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean where you leveled vicious personal attacks, for which you should be blocked? Yeah, no wonder it's going nowhere. Were I an admin, you'd be blocked for a week after personal attacks that extreme. You shouldn't be surprised nobody wants to work with you after such an appalling display of ownership and incivility. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

DrGregMN, It may be worth trying to discuss things on the talk page as a first step to see what common ground there is. If you cannot reach an agreement, third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard or an RfC are better than getting locked into an edit warring cycle, and a much better option than going to FAR. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There's been a cycle of that at Minneapolis over images for two years now, and the one editor who is trying their best to maintain the article to FA standards has had to engage in endless discussion of ... image preferences ... zapping all time to work on content issues, and getting no help. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, your disparaging comments--again--are disappointing. My edits at Minneapolis were a Herculean effort to remove the truckload of puffery that made the article read like a tourist brochure. Again and again, RFCs were initiated and dispute resolution was sought to stop my edits, and over and over support was nearly always in my favor. Regarding User:DrGregMN, I started a discussion at Manganese, Minnesota, but User:DrGregMN chose not to respond. Instead, they tried to have the article protected, until two editors told them to discuss their dispute on the talk page. DrGregMN instead left this vulgar message for me. Am I missing something? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You know, it's possible for one to be sometimes right on an individual issue and still be wrong in approach. That shouldn't happen to a point that content suffers while discussions over one hamburger/restaurant image versus another take over while one editor is struggling to bring content to standard. I hope you'll take that observation on board.

DrGregMN, while I missed the vulgarity in the message Magnolia links, the personalization is highly highly inappropriate (indeed, blockworthy and beyond anything I've ever seen from Magnolia), and if that's how you proceed, you're unlikely to gain support.

So now, the gang's all here, and this needs to go elsewhere. The choices are up to both of you. Starting with some striking, apologizing, acknowledging on talk pages would be good. This is now in ANI territory and doesn't belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There was no vulgar or profane language used in my message to Magnolia677. There were comments made regarding my personal psychological observations based upon conversations with this user that may have been inappropriate. I am sorry if they hit a little too close to home. I had offered him and olive branch to assist in the Peer Review of Withrow, and instead he figuratively snapped it in two. He did not even give a response to a legitimate question I had asked of him earlier with regard to what he believes to be the definition of a ghost town. I received his warning regarding personal attacks on my UserTalk page. I will refrain from making comments of this nature in the future, but I also gave him fair warning that I apply for page protection and seek to have Manganese reassessed if kept gutting edits after I reverted them. Regardless, Wikipedia has lost another editor (see my response to SchroCat below. DrGregMN (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. I may decide to go in that direction. Right now I'm beyond the point of caring. I've developed some very comprehensive articles with all of the references in one location making it easy for anyone wanting to do research about these communities. It's too bad they're all buried in previous reversions of the articles. Withrow never even got the chance for a decent Peer Review. I've done my part to make sure posterity remembers these communities. I literally do not have time to get into an edit war over two articles with this user. I am done editing for Wikipedia. Assuredly, I will no longer be making contributions to the Wikimedia foundation over these incidents either. DrGregMN (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DBHM. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a little unhelpful. We've all been in positions where articles we've worked on have come in for rough treatment, and a little compassion wouldn't go amiss. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd have a lot more sympathy if it weren't for [6]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw it too, and it goes well beyond the bounds of what is acceptable, but it shows that someone is angry and upset. Winding them up further isn't helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Manolia677, I apologize. Ladies and Gentlemen, Goodbye. DrGregMN (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to quit. What you said was unacceptable, but it does not mean you're persona non grata on Wikipedia. I've said things I shouldn't in the past. But you are a volunteer and can join or leave whenever you choose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to see an apology; perhaps things will look better in a day or more. I agree with SchroCat about how frustrating this sort of thing can be, and we've all been there (I called someone an asshole thirteen years ago), but we have to deal with "stuff" that happens on Wikipedia without letting it get to us. I hope you will rethink and come back refreshed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

DrGregMN You indicated above you were leaving Wikipedia; two of us encouraged you not to quit, and I added that I hoped you would "come back refreshed". That means take a break to sit out what could have been a lengthy block for a significant personal attack. The timing for this is not ideal. I do suggest you take a long enough break to truly reflect on one of the ugliest personal attacks I've seen and then come back to deal with the issues at these articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Z1720 do you know how to get the PR linked in my post above properly closed, archived, and recorded at article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I've closed the PR using the script listed in step 4 at WP:PRG. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Z; I used to do a lot of that, but it's been so long that I had forgotten how. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What has slowed the improvements at Minneapolis is stuff like this... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis. It's the continuation of a failed RFC about a picture of a restaurant. And this lengthy NPOV discussion is about...are you ready...the unfair bias of adding the picture of one purported inventor of a greasy cheeseburger over another purported inventor. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Swamped right now, will look when I have time, pls reping if I forget and have not gotten there within the next 24 hours ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Never mind (sigh); thanks for the ping, going there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Noting that this appropriate use of the NPOV message board (to establish broader consensus beyond a five-person local consensus) started before this discussion. An excellent example of the problem, indeed; thankfully, SusanLesch hasn't given up or responded as DrGregMN did, and trudges on, trying to get Minneapolis back to FA standard. The statement "are you ready...the unfair bias of adding the picture of one purported inventor of a greasy cheeseburger over another purported inventor" reflects not only disdain for a fellow editor and local small business owners, but a lack of understanding of Minneapolis, NPOV, sourcing, and DR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

FAs by prose size?

I know about WP:Featured articles/By length but that's sorted by total length including markup. I'm looking for a list of FAs by readable prose size if such exists? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There's on old one over at the talk page of WP:FAS. It's probably no longer useful, but as you can see there, Dr Pda used to do that for us, and we no longer have the good Doc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Had a peek over there, and best I can tell, none of the stuff I used to track is being updated there. FWIW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a petscan report somewhere I think. Hog Farm _Talk 17:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There's one linked from /By length but that's sorted by wikitext size, not readable prose size. Sandy's link has the sort of thing I'm looking for, along with User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, but it hasn't been updated in some years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

We now have Wikipedia:Database reports/Featured articles by size, thanks to Legoktm, which lists FAs by word and character count (ie excluding markup). Our longest five FAs by character count are Ulysses S. Grant (119,339 chars, 18,782 words); History of Poland (1945–1989) (116,336 chars, 17,491 words), Douglas MacArthur, (115,698 chars, 18,674 words), Elvis Presley (115,237 chars, 18962 words), and Manhattan Project (112,049 chars, 17,808 words). Apparently mathematics articles throw it off because it thinks our longest FAs by word count are Group (mathematics) and Binary search algorithm, after which the order is more or less the same. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a bug in how <math> formulas are being counted, inflating the word count. Let me get back to you on that... Legoktm (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I updated the report, it now no longer counts <math> formulas at all, dropping those two articles significantly. I'm not sure that is the ideal behavior (maybe each formula should count for one word?), but it's certainly better than grossly overcounting. Legoktm (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Without the two mathematics articles, the top five by word count and character size are the same articles but the order changes slightly. @Legoktm: Thank you very much for your help with this! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ulysses S. Grant (119,339 chars, 18,782 words)
  • Promoted in 2016 at 13,541 words
• History of Poland (1945–1989) (116,336 chars, 17,491 words)
  • Promoted in 2005 and last reviewed in 2007 at 7,893 words
• Douglas MacArthur, (115,698 chars, 18,674 words)
  • Promoted in 2012 at 12,309 words
• Elvis Presley (115,237 chars, 18962 words)
  • Promoted in 2010 (not by me) at 15,412 words, last reviewed in 2018
• Manhattan Project (112,049 chars, 17,808 words)
  • Promoted in 2011 (not by me) at 15,235 words SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for January 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for January 2023. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for January 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 8 18 SchroCat 11 1 Mike Christie 2 9 ChrisTheDude 11 HAL333 9 Wehwalt 8 1 Ian Rose 5 3 Gog the Mild 4 1 1 Buidhe 2 4 Ceranthor 5 Hawkeye7 1 3 1 Unlimitedlead 4 FrB.TG 3 1 Epicgenius 3 1 Vanamonde93 3 Iazyges 3 Tim riley 3 Lee Vilenski 3 Dudley Miles 3 Mujinga 3 Trainsandotherthings 3 SNUGGUMS 2 Z1720 2 MaranoFan 1 1 JennyOz 2 Gerda Arendt 2 HJ Mitchell 2 David Fuchs 2 Vami IV 2 John M Wolfson 2 ReaperEternal 1 1 Steelkamp 2 AirshipJungleman29 2 Hog Farm 1 1 Aoba47 2 Shooterwalker 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 Amakuru 1 Balon Greyjoy 1 John Quiggin 1 Nick-D 1 Guerillero 1 KJP1 1 SnowFire 1 WereSpielChequers 1 LM150 1 LittleJerry 1 Ceoil 1 Arsonal 1 Dunkleosteus77 1 A455bcd9 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 Randy Kryn 1 Borsoka 1 Pamzeis 1 Andrew Davidson 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 SL93 1 Moisejp 1 Cplakidas 1 FunkMonk 1 Jimfbleak 1 RL0919 1 Czar 1 Graham Beards 1 Panini! 1 Umimmak 1 Indy beetle 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 Mitchazenia 1 Dwaipayanc 1 Henni147 1 TheJoebro64 1 The Night Watch 1 Pendright 1 Display name 99 1 Eddie891 1 ErnestKrause 1 DecafPotato 1 Richard Nevell 1 Totals 152 32 30 0

Supports and opposes for January 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 26 26 SchroCat 9 2 1 12 Mike Christie 2 9 11 ChrisTheDude 11 11 HAL333 9 9 Wehwalt 8 1 9 Ian Rose 4 4 8 Gog the Mild 3 3 6 Buidhe 6 6 Ceranthor 5 5 Hawkeye7 1 4 5 FrB.TG 3 1 4 Unlimitedlead 4 4 Epicgenius 2 2 4 Lee Vilenski 3 3 Vanamonde93 3 3 Tim riley 3 3 Trainsandotherthings 2 1 3 Mujinga 3 3 Dudley Miles 3 3 Iazyges 3 3 David Fuchs 1 1 2 HJ Mitchell 2 2 SNUGGUMS 1 1 2 Gerda Arendt 2 2 JennyOz 2 2 Aoba47 2 2 MaranoFan 1 1 2 Steelkamp 2 2 Hog Farm 1 1 2 ReaperEternal 1 1 2 Z1720 2 2 John M Wolfson 2 2 Vami IV 2 2 AirshipJungleman29 2 2 Eem dik doun in toene 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Mitchazenia 1 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1 Randy Kryn 1 1 Indy beetle 1 1 Umimmak 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 Panini! 1 1 A455bcd9 1 1 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 DecafPotato 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 Czar 1 1 Arsonal 1 1 ErnestKrause 1 1 Eddie891 1 1 RL0919 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Jimfbleak 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 LittleJerry 1 1 Display name 99 1 1 Pendright 1 1 LM150 1 1 WereSpielChequers 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 The Night Watch 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 KJP1 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 TheJoebro64 1 1 Henni147 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 SL93 1 1 Andrew Davidson 1 1 John Quiggin 1 1 Balon Greyjoy 1 1 Pamzeis 1 1 Borsoka 1 1 Amakuru 1 1 Dwaipayanc 1 1 Totals 130 1 0 0 6 77 214

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) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for November 2022-January 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) Amir Ghandi                             3 0 0.0 Amitchell125                             3 1 0.3 Aoba47                                   7 69 9.9 AryKun                                   5 14 2.8 Balon Greyjoy                           1.5 8 5.3 BennyOnTheLoose                         6 16 2.7 Ceoil                                   2 16 8.0 ChrisTheDude                             14 106 7.6 Cplakidas                               5 7 1.4 Czar                                     2 12 6.0 Darkwarriorblake                         5 6 1.2 Dudley Miles                             5 34 6.8 Epicgenius                               7 13 1.9 ErnestKrause                             2.16666 17 7.8 Floydian                                 2 0 0.0 FrB.TG                                   6 63 10.5 Georgejdorner                           3 1 0.3 Gog the Mild                             9.5 89 9.4 HAL333                                   2 14 7.0 Hawkeye7                                 8.5 33 3.9 HJ Mitchell                             3.5 24 6.9 Hog Farm                                 9.5 36 3.8 Iazyges                                 2.5 15 6.0 Ippantekina                             5 14 2.8 John M Wolfson                           2 2 1.0 Juxlos                                   3 0 0.0 Kyle Peake                               2 2 1.0 Lee Vilenski                             7 33 4.7 LittleJerry                             4 2 0.5 MaranoFan                               9.5 26 2.7 Mike Christie                           10 182 18.2 Nick-D                                   3 14 4.7 Peacemaker67                             4 4 1.0 Pickersgill-Cunliffe                     2 4 2.0 PresN                                   2 2 1.0 Sammi Brie                               2 7 3.5 SatDis                                   3 3 1.0 SchroCat                                 2 12 6.0 SounderBruce                             4 4 1.0 TheJoebro64                             3.5 8 2.3 Trainsandotherthings                     3 9 3.0 Unlimitedlead                           2.5 7 2.8 Wehwalt                                 10.33333 57 5.5 Your Power                               4 15 3.8 ZKang123                                 4 5 1.3 Zmbro                                   3 4 1.3

• I'm a bit confused at the table methodology. Per the listed criteria, I should be in the last table, as I have a nomination from the last 3 months (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Providence and Worcester Railroad/archive1) and two other nominations within the last 12 months (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Branford Steam Railroad/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cedar Hill Yard/archive2). Am I missing something? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  I just checked and I had a typo in the date range I used; I make the changes to the queries manually each month. I really need to automate this report so that doesn't happen. Well spotted; I will post corrected numbers in a few minutes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Updated; I think these numbers are correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Mike, what's the date range you used? I could've swore I did more than 14 reviews in the last 12 months. Hog Farm _Talk 03:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  You definitely did more reviews than 14. Taking another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Found it; this time it was a cut-and-paste error. I definitely need to automate this. I think it's correct now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Option to display nomination and reviewing stats at top of each FAC

Recently, GAN began displaying the number of reviews and GAs for each nominator -- e.g.

Teikō Shiotani (talk | history | start review) – Japanese photographer (1899–1988) – (3 reviews, 2 GAs) Hoary (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Something like that would be possible at FAC -- e.g.

Nominator(s): (46 FAC nominations, 177 reviews) ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC) at the top of the individual FAC pages, where the nominator signature is.

The goal at GAN is so that those who prefer to review articles by frequent reviewers can do so, without preventing those who don't care about review stats from reviewing whatever they want to. Does anyone think this would be worth doing here at FAC, with the same goal? The numbers I quoted for Chris above are all-time, but it could be a 12 month window if we prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think this could be a good idea. First-time nominators would be able to find experienced FA veterans to consult, and if they have reviewed some articles in the past but not nominated any articles, it would help built trust between them and reviewers. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I think this is a workable idea, but am unsure on the detail and implementation. Would it be possible at the same time to clean up the Toolbox there now, and maybe do some consolidation (add this to that?). My impression is that there is a lot of stuff in the toolbox that is no longer working, so maybe there could be one updated toolbox, with this info rolled in to it.
  One downside/reminder is the need to maintain vigilance that FAC not succumb to the Coldwell Factor (oh, he's already got 200 GAs so I don't need to check). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I think this would be a net-positive as it will (hopefully) encourage nominators to review more articles, and is an easy stat to reference if nominators complain about the lack of reviews for their articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I suppose it's worth trying for a limited-time trial, and we can see what impacts if any it has? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, could trial it. Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• A trial sounds good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on the feedback so far I'll put in a BRFA some time in the next couple of weeks. It will require a bot since it means editing Wikipedia pages so I think it will be several weeks before I can do a trial. If opposition to the idea shows up here in the meantime we can defer or stop the trial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks Mike. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yep, like this. But suggest strictly time-limited; a few months perhaps. 'All time' could be misleading (did 100 FACs...but from ten years ago?! e.g.) and imprecise, while one month would be too short (cf. anything by me :p ) and wouldn't allow for overlaps. Six months, a year? SN54129 13:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think a year is good -- FACs can take two months to complete so we want a long enough time to allow for several cycles. Maybe even eighteen months would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I would personally go for two years. Or even longer. I mean, total reviews in, say, the past three years hardly falls into the "did 100 FACs...but from ten years ago" category. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Three to five; holy moly, when I put up Dementia with Lewy bodies, I had to beg for reviews in spite of my past contribs here, whether ancient history or more recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Even if someone were to argue that there were no benefits to this, I can't see any possible harm it could cause. Hopefully it will encourage more nominators to review. I understand why we discourage "quid pro quo" reviewing but nominators are the burden on the system so, where possible, they should try to relieve the burden. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• I think listing review and nomination numbers would be an improvement. It has certainly inspired me to make more of an effort to review at GAN and I can imagine it would have a similar effect at FAC. I for one would like to know when nominators who have multiple FACs have done no reviewing, as I would be strongly disinclined to review such nominations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• There was a concern raised (not sure by who or when, I'd have to comb through the archives but I don't think it's important) about how listing Doug Coldwell's many GAs at GAN caused some editors to review his nominations with more relaxed standards. Perhaps, instead of displaying the number of reviews and FAs, the system displays the ratio of reviews to FAs? This might remove the "many FAs so they must know what they are doing" bias that some editors might have but still let editors know who is and is not reviewing. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I could support that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer that the actual numbers be shown. In the (unlikely?) event that this leads to more relaxed reviews, I imagine that the coordinators could be trusted to pick this up and react appropriately. Very anecdotally, there seems to be a slight tendency to give experienced nominators a marginally harder time at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for mentor review: Joseph Smith article

I have been working for the last several months, in conjunction with a few other editors, to prepare the Joseph Smith article for FAC. This represents my third attempt, although my first in almost 10 years. Many editors have been working throughout this time to improve this article. It is very thorough, well-researched, and neutral - no mean feat for a subject as complex and controversial as Smith.

After we neared the home stretch and got it ready to go, I started reviewing WP:FAC and I’m not ashamed to admit I am a little intimidated. The reviewers (t)here are veeeery thorough.

I notice that the first question posed for nominators without a successful nom internet their belt is basically “did you get the help of a mentor in preparing this for nomination? And if not, why not?”

To head off this question - and to make sure the article is as great as possible before going through the wringer - may I ask for the help of a willing mentor to review the article and suggest any changes?

I think that you may be pleasantly surprised by the high standards that we have obtained at the article. I hope this step ends up as little more than a formality. But if it’s not - well then that just means I must have some blind spots concerning the article that can be fixed, and so much the better. Trevdna (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

FA newbie question

Hi there, I wondered whether some regulars here could cast their eye over the Lucien Brouha article as to whether it's worthwhile to submit it for FA review. His later life is somewhat unclear, but certainly not from a lack of trying to find sources. Schwede66 10:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Schwede66, per guidelines at the top of the FAC page, it would be a very good idea to take the article to Peer Review to try and get feedback before a FAC nomination. As a newbie, you could also seek the involvement of a mentor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a newbie as far as FAs are concerned. I've otherwise been around the block a bit. Schwede66 11:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the mentoring option is for people new to FAC, no matter how experienced in general. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:V

Since interpretation of verifiability is an integral part of WP:WIAFA, editors here might want to follow Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Change is hard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Poll now open for the election of Good Article Reassessment coordinators

A poll to select coordinators for the good article reassessment process is now open; please contribute to the discussion and !vote if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Two week waiting period

Hello @FAC coordinators: as I am participating in the WikiCup this year, I would like to know if the two week waiting period still applies if the article you want to nominate is a co-nom. Just want to make a productive use of my time. Thanks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The two week waiting period only applies after an archived nomination, which I'm not seeing evidence that you've had within the last two weeks. However, I've always understood the two nominations with a co-nom to be a hard cap, even if both are co-noms, and it looks like you're currently co-nominator on both Thekla and Government of Macedonoia. Hog Farm _Talk 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. I was just wondering if the two week thing still applied to co-noms (for when Thekla and Macedonia are archived). Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure on this one - will want to see what the other two coordinators think on this. I'd say part of it would be for what reason the nomination was archived. Hog Farm _Talk 00:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Hog Farm. I was just asking because I've seen people co-nom articles despite having a successful solo-promotion before the two week wait expired. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Successful promotions aren't an issue -- it's only when a nomination is archived that the two-week wait rule is (or may be) invoked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait. What? You're telling me the whole two week thing doesn't apply to promoted FACs? Well, this would've saved my past self so much time... Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Course! And even then, the two week hiatus only applies to articles needing extra work—such as at PR—that it would otherwise hold up the process. FACs that merely fail by timing out—not attracting a sufficient number of reviews—are also presumably not held up that way. SN54129 12:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback." Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A proven way around the exemption being to ping the previous fifty participants to one's FACS :p SN54129 14:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Coordinator may exempt"; in that scenario, SN, presumably brains engage and discretion applies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

True—a close textual reading of the rules is always profitable. As is, as only speaking if you can speak nicely to people, me old mum says!  :) SN54129 19:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rethinking the "two-week hiatus" after unsuccessful nomination

I've been in the FAC-verse since 2019, and have long understood the "two-week hiatus" of FACs to apply only to the unsuccessful candidate article in question. This is especially true since the relevant part of the instructions state that If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. (emphasis added), which strongly suggests that this applies to specific articles rather than contributors. I was recently proven wrong in this assumption, but I think it bears some discussion.

For backstory, suffice it to say that I nominated someone else's article (with his blessing), for FAC. That nom ran its course and found issues that precluded promotion and for which I lacked the requisite qualifications to address in any meaningful timeframe. Not believing I'll ever really touch that article again (it's not my cup of tea in any case), I nominated an article that I had been working on for months and had it closed by Gog the Mild in a few hours before receiving any feedback. For full disclosure, he had said the hiatus would apply when closing the previous nom, and the misunderstanding was all mine. That said, I had a British level of being not especially pleased with the situation, and even after that has subsided I think the present "author-based hiatus" bears some rethinking.

I am unaware of when, how, or why the precise current rule was adopted, and given the decades in which FAC has been around in some form or another it doesn't really matter. That said, my thought for why some form of hiatus would exist would be to ensure that an article gets its nom's feedback properly considered and incorporated (GOCE'd, PR'd, reflection and prose overhauling, etc.) before the article is renommed, and more significantly to prevent a vexatious immediate renom of the article. This is proper good sense, and I have no qualms with having an article-based hiatus. Less justifiable is the author-based hiatus, but even then I can see a plausible "use case" of some FAC-vandal just whipping out vexatious FACs and thereby flooding the candidacy page and wasting coordinator time. A similar, more common, scenario would be someone who just really can't write but who is making article after article to submit to FAC and similarly wasting people's time except with some good faith involved. The best argument for the status quo that I can think of, as far as I understand it, is that a nominator of a failed article likely has similar problems in his/her/etc. other articles that would preclude them from FAC promotion; I'll address that point later. (Another argument could be that one isn't supposed to work on multiple FACs/FACables at the same time, but such a view doesn't accurately reflect how I've "scheduled"/created articles in years, if ever, and I'm sure many WikiCup participants are much the same.)

The author-based hiatus is too punitive and goes against the spirit of WP:content not contributor, and is almost a topic ban of sorts. Yes, "almost" and "of sorts" are doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but the hiatus is a restriction on editors from making edits from certain parts of the site (namely, FAC nomination), like a real topic ban. I won't argue that the hiatus is such a ban – the coordinators can do largely as they please subject to global consensus, and hiatized editors can still review FACs – but they're comparable enough to make meaningful arguments from their similarities. For one, bans are only done when an editor has acted disruptively in a certain area of the site; the hiatus thereby sends a message that an unsuccessful nom is "disruptive" to the FAC process, and that the editor really needs to think long and hard before attempting to sully WP:FAC again. (Also, incidentally, the "lost" two weeks matter when something time-sensitive such as WikiCup is going on.)

I suggest we change the current hiatus rule/instruction, as follows:

If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. (I actually had to add the emphasis myself after this incident.)

To this, or at least something to the effect of:

If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. An article that has not been promoted after an FAC may not be renominated for at least two weeks. After an unsuccessful FAC, a nominator who has not yet received a successful promotion at FAC may not nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks. If a nom is made in spite of these restrictions, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Coordinators may grant leaves from these restrictions as seen fit, such as after a nomination that attracted no or minimal feedback.

I suggest the possibility of maintaining FA "virgins" under the current scheme, as they're more likely to be trolls or needing more assistance (we already strongly recommend such "virgins" seeking mentoring, an excellent idea that I availed myself with my first successful FA). As to the earlier point of the failed nominator having similar problems in other articles, such a problem of persistent FA-failable articles is less likely if the person already has an FA under his/her/etc. belt; previous FA writing is certainly no guarantee for promotion, but it makes it much less likely that a nom should be a priori closed – since my first promotion, my articles have been archived, promoted, archived, etc., in various patterns and orders.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen coordinators are quite willing to grant exemptions where nominations are archived due to inactivity rather than "for cause", so to speak; if we wanted to alter the instructions to more explicitly allow this I might consider supporting that, although I could also see an argument that editors should spend that time reviewing. But in the case that a nom is archived because there are actual problems with it, it seems far more likely that another article written by the same editor might have similar issues. I appreciate there may be an impact on Cup editors, but frankly those who feel under pressure to push things through may be more likely to push things through when they shouldn't. (I also really don't think the topic-ban comparison is appropriate, even with the framing given). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of that exemption, and have indeed been granted it in the past; I'm only talking about noms closed for cause. I think the "other articles written might have the same issues", even if true statistically, should not be enough justification to create a "force close" of a subsequent FAC by an established FACer. It's essentially a "maybe even" conjecture that wouldn't be enough to pass muster on what is a mild "topic ban" (I am aware of your objections to that comparison but still think it's appropriate to the points I'm making and will continue making it). The "resolve possible issues" language should be for articles only rather than imply that any contributor, especially one with a successful FA or more, is somehow "problematic" in a sort of Minority Report "pre-crime" sense. (And fair point with the WikiCup; I personally think it's unlikely that the hiatus would swing a WikiCup in any substantial direction, even late in the matchup, and thus don't base any of my objections on it. I simply think the current rule is stodgy and bothersome, rather than having anything really to do with the Cup.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Sigh. If you'd just refocussed the title's direction during its FAC, you wouldn't be in this mess now. SN54129 12:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• I can't find my way through that wall of text, but the current system works; anyone who warrants an exception is granted one by the Coords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Not that it would have made a difference to my review, but I see John refers to the Wikicup. It always used to be that Wikicup reviews were flagged as such in the review blurb. Has that now changed? (Not suggesting you've done anything wrong here, John, I'm just asking for the wider frame on reference). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Search FAC archives. When I pressed on why that long practice had suddenly gone missing, I was ... hmmmmm, what is the word here ... encouraged to re-focus my love of all things FAC elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to disagree with this proposal. The two-week hiatus for with-cause archivals here is to prevent rapid re-submittals of articles with problems until a new set of reviewers is attracted - anyone remember that series of Billie Eilish FACs awhile back where the articles kept being submitted with no fixing of problems? As to the WikiCup portion, I don't think it is a good idea for us to tweak our rules to make things easier for contests - that'll just open up gaming the FAC system. Hog Farm _Talk 15:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  HF, what we used to have was simply a requirement to declare WikiCup participation; it helped Coords be on the lookout for stuff like, but not limited to, involved reviewing. Without that declaration, the onus is on the Coords to be sure they check and know if they are getting uninvolved reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why that stopped happening - my only guess is that people are like me and forget that the WikiCup is a thing. I'll try to remember to keep an eye out for this, it's easy for me to forget that the WikiCup exists.

  At this point with how busy I often am for work I'm not sure if my activity levels warrant me being an FAC coord anymore. I'm more than happy to stay on, but to be frank we're getting to the point where with RL stuff for me I'm only going to be heavily active on Wikipedia on weekends and a few stray evenings. @FAC coordinators: for thoughts. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My, quite possibly mistaken, memory is that that was a WikiCup requirement. I don't think any coordinators are in favour of either nominations or reviews which are subsequently used to score WikiCup points having to make some sort of declaration. We are content to take each nomination and review on its merits. (Of course, this may change if persistent abuses are identified, but to date they haven't been.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this has always been problematic. We treated it as a nominator's responsibility to declare. At the same time, I'm hard-pressed to recall a serious issue related to it. We do, as Gog says, try to treat noms and reviews on their merits, and a drive-by of any sort is generally noted and ignored.

HF, given I have more time available these days, I don't think a reduction in yours would result in a net loss of coord time, so AFAIC it'd be fine for you to stay on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ian, I'm not sure if you meant to say you're hard pressed to recall a recent issue, or if you've forgotten the original issues, or if they pre-date you?? (In fact, even on the "recent" there have been issues within very recent memory.)

Hog Farm even if you aren't able to be fully active here, having an extra Coord allows you to step in on the rare occasions where everyone else has had to recuse or is not available; I hope you'll stay on. Consider as an example how FAR works, where Cas and Dr Kay are available as backup.

Gog, re what Coords want, keep in mind reviewers count, too; there are still reviewers who won't review WikiCup articles and would like to know which they are, so they don't get tangled up in reward culture stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, that it was also a WikiCup requirement at one time does not mean FAC has to hew to WikiCup requirements; FAC had it's own reasons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You're more active than I am by a lot and I'm still a coord despite my standing offer to step down in favor of another qualified editor. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe. Don't be silly :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

please stay, buidhe -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• The two-week hiatus is about respecting reviewers' time. Posting a 1,000-word wall of text does not instil confidence in that regard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• It's one thing not renominating the same article immediately without fixing problems. It's quite another to forbid nominating a different article. Often I would like to pull an article so I can nominate a different one, but that forces a two-week delay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Have you ever been denied a second nom by a Coord? If so, why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• I meant to post here when JMW did, but as Harry points out the solidity of the prose is a little TLDR. I'm not too concerned about the Wikicup issue (if indeed it is an issue) either, as noted, if we do our job of judging on its merits then the WC literally can have no input into our systems.
  So back to the original query, and to keep it simple, the only reason the two-week haitus 'rule' exists is so the nom list isn't spammed by the same underdeveloped article over and over, when an extra couple of weeks at the workbench could resolve the issues out of the spotlight. Conversely, it would be unfair if articles were put into haitus purely on account of receiving a lack of reviews, but I'm sure our mods regularly ignore the rule in those cases as a matter of course; after all, if there's nothing fundamentally needing to be improved, a two week wait would achieve little. SN54129 15:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  SN, "the only reason the two-week haitus 'rule' exists is so the nom list isn't spammed by the same underdeveloped article over and over" is not entirely accurate. It also exists to keep the same nominator from repeatedly bringing forward different articles after one was just removed. If one nom has issues, another usually has similar, so they need to take time to absorb problems and adjust articles to FA standards. (And just to add some history, it was originally WikiCup issues that led to the rule; several nominators putting up FACs in succession to achieve cup points, and one after the other, the articles had the same problems). The two-week rule does not impede healthy nominations; the Coords can and do grant exceptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Aye, and the WikiCup can go pound sand, of course. But we give em too much credit. The important thing is that JMW is reassured that it was a reflection on the article quality not the number or the nature of the reviewers—or coords for the matter—that led to the result it did. Rally! SN54129 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikicup & FAC

Splitting this off as the above thread is now dealing with the two-week hiatus; Buidhe's offer to step down (I hope they stay on, btw) and the Wikicup.

I would feel more comfortable if we returned to the long-standing requirement that Wikicup FACs were declared by nominators. As far as I am aware this long-standing practice was never changed from the FAC side of the fence, and I think it should still be part of the requirements. Obviously nominations and reviews should not use different standards, but I do remember some years ago being (mildly) badgered into speeding up a review so the article could qualify for points by a deadline: I want to know in advance of me agreeing to do a review if there is to be some time constraint.

While I'm happy to hear the co-ords have not seen any recent abuses of the process, are they sure they are aware of which nominations are in the Wikicup if there is nothing to flag up which nominations are actually part of that process? There is no downside to an FAC nominator declaring their Wikicup involvement, and it would help retain clarity in ensuring standards. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive84#Quid pro quo reviewing taking hold at FAC (I am sure there was much more, but that may be the starting place). You would have to examine archive84, 85, and 86 at least.

Although memories may be lagging, there was in fact quite a kerfuffle after that thread, involving even the revert of a Coord close by a WikiCup participant.

Separately, even though unrelated to FAC, you can examine the reviewer numbers at WP:DCGAR to ask yourself whether WikiCup points contributed to the problem with Doug Coldwell's GAs advancing too quickly (I don't know, as I don't follow those pages closely enough).

Obviously, I have always believed it was wrong for this long-standing convention to be removed, and hope it is re-instated, and promote maintaining high standards at FAC so we don't find ourselves in the unfortunate DC/GAR/CCI position. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I took a brief look at the reviewers involved to see if I was one of them and didn't recognize any names from the WikiCup. Doesn't mean that there weren't any, but we only started giving points for reviews a few years ago and I don't know when Coldwell was most ardently pursuing his GAs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, Sturmvogel 66; good to know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want people to declare when they're claiming WikiCup points for FAs, I don't see a problem with that being a rule. But since you're demanding it because you want to boycott any such FACs (such as any I do, for instance), don't be surprised when other people are unwilling to review your own nominations. I am not a fan of the implication that my nominations are liable to be inferior or rushed just because I claim them for WikiCup points (in fact, my last one took three months). Do you have any evidence that this has been a problem in the past year? As has been said above, Doug never even touched FAC, so why is this at FAC talk anyways? It seems to me you are conflating two separate issues here. I will note that I started editing in July 2021 and the stuff you're linking is before my time on Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not 100 per cent sure who you’re responding to, but I’m not seeing anyone threatening to boycott anyone’s nominations, nor do I see any accusations of such nominations being inferior. I am, however, glad that you don’t see a problem with the rule being brought back into force. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not sure who TAOT is responding to, but if I weren't up to my eyeballs at CCI, I would always review FACs from any serious nominator who I know is not the type to rush a nom through or exert pressure to close in time for points -- and from what I know, that includes TAOT!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

From the archive you linked: My concern is the FACs that DON'T get reviewed, while those who advertise quid pro quo take our limited reviewing resources. That is why I won't knowingly review a WikiCup nomination, and want to know which are. I want to be sure my limited time does not go to a competition, rather is spread as equally as I can make it. (I usually end up with the hurricanes, because no one else will review them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC) So you're saying this no longer reflects your views? (granted it was 2 years ago) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Trainsandotherthings, I lost track of this thread because I had visitors. When I was reviewing, I always looked at WikiCup entries from reviewers I knew to not be "in it" only for the reward culture, even if it was a Wikicup entry. For example, Ealdgyth participates regularly in WikiCup, and IIRC, Hog Farm once did, too.

As to whether that statement from two years ago reflects my current views: no, it is no longer relevant at all. I hardly review at FAC anymore at all, and my departure was because of the deteriorating talk page environment that discourages frank discussion of issues that could lead to improvements. It became impossible to raise a question or issue without being assaulted to an extent that it began to feel like FAC had become another part of the same reward culture that leads to problems like Doug Coldwell, where the drive for the bling becomes more important than quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat's proposal above. We used to do this and it was helpful. I believe there are Wikicup points available for successful nominations and for reviews? Victoria (tk) 14:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes; full details can be found here. It mostly gives points for involvement in main page processes. SN54129 15:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Transcluding subpages

Is there a functional reason why FAC nomination subpages are transcluded into one megapage? From the talk page archives, it seems like I'm not alone in this page load hanging my browser. We have enough bot support here that it would seem sufficient to use the FAC page as an index with regularly updated summary stats (length of time opened, names of nominators, participant/support count, etc.) pointing to subpages, akin to the GAN listing. czar 01:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Having everything on one page makes it very easy for coordinators to go through and see if things are moving along, stalling, ready to close, or in need of intervention - without having to go to each nom page individually. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The current system is alright to me, although I will note that with the new 2022 Vector, the table of contents appears on the side of the web browser and includes not only the nominations, but also reviewer's subsections, thus making it quite jumbled. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As the FAC instructions (still) state, subsections are supposed to be rare and only for lengthy commentary (which by the way is better placed elsewhere anyway). Those instructions are no longer enforced, and in fact, when following them once, I was reverted by a Coord who insisted on creating a subsection for my short comment. So we seem to be stuck with the jumble unless FAC goes back to the days when "FAC is not peer review" (enter a Support, Oppose or Comment, or take it to another page). It seems that highlighting !votes via a sub section is the new trend as it makes for easier counting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:VPT whether someone has an idea how to fix this. (The simple solution is to use a different skin). —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

From the answer I got, it seems that TOC limits do not work in Vector2022, which in general doesn't seem like a good skin to use outside of article space. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Could have shortened that to "which in general doesn't seem like a good skin"... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it just seems particularly unsuitable to project space. —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks fantastic for casual readers of articles, but is a royal pain in the bottom for anyone involved in content creation and expansion. Such a shame, because I rather like the new look, but I'm forced to switch back to the old one for convenience at FAC. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I seem to recall that there is, or used to be, a page where the current FACs are listed without being transcluded. Does anyone else recall this? Or am I imagining it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be convenient to have a summary page where current FACs, nominators, support/oppose status, and any other important information can be found without trawling or searching through a rather lengthy page. Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that what the nominations viewer does ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

To a degree, but my laptop also briefly explodes while the nominations viewer is working to change the huge amount of content to a short list; mayhaps a list page for civilian usage would be good, if it does not already exist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia featured article candidates? DrKay (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As it is now the TOC can't be navigated for V22 users and it's practically impossible to get to the bottom of the page. This Village pump thread is relevant: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Template:TOC limit does not appear to work with Vector 2022. Since it's not possible to see a TOC that shows the articles, it might be worthwhile discussing eliminating sectioning within each review. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sectioning within reviews seems useful to me, and I would suggest to ask people to use a working skin until Vector2022 gets fixed instead of decreasing the functionality for everyone. —Kusma (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If it does get fixed, though, I will likely be the last to know :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the problem with Vector 2022 and FAC? I use V22 and haven't had any problem on iPad or PC; in fact I find it easier than the old skin in some ways. Having the ToC (optionally) at left has saved me a lot of scrolling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie The sidebar ideally would just list the names of the nominations (like "Battle of Cirta"), but it also lists the subsections (like "Support by Unlimitedlead"). This makes the sidebar almost impossible to navigate. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I had noticed that you couldn't collapse the lower level sections but I haven't found it to be a problem. Thanks for explaining. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, to your unanswered question, would your bot be able to keep a separate, summary page for FAC with some common details: the nomination, its short description, the nominator and their stats, its length of time open, number of participants and supports, like that of Wikipedia:Nominations viewer without running on every page load? The bot/script already ingests those details, right? It would be much easier to browse. czar 20:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The facstats tool can't do it, because I only gather the data for that once the nomination is archived or promoted. I think in theory it could be done (though the short description would be difficult to get) by anyone who runs a bot. I'm not likely to take this on, I'm afraid; I have too much else on my plate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion

In what maybe of intetest to this project, a featured article is up for deletion. SN54129 22:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for February 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 2023. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for February 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 2 8 22 SchroCat 17 ChrisTheDude 12 Gog the Mild 9 HJ Mitchell 8 Buidhe 2 4 Harrias 2 3 Serial Number 54129 2 3 Jimfbleak 5 Ian Rose 3 2 Unlimitedlead 4 Borsoka 4 AirshipJungleman29 3 David Fuchs 2 1 Vami IV 3 Dugan Murphy 1 2 Iazyges 3 A455bcd9 3 Guerillero 3 FunkMonk 3 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 1 Steelkamp 3 Hawkeye7 2 1 Wehwalt 3 Dudley Miles 3 Tim riley 3 Mike Christie 2 Phlsph7 1 1 RL0919 1 1 Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 Kusma 2 Hog Farm 1 1 Henni147 1 1 ErnestKrause 2 SNUGGUMS 2 2 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Ceoil 2 Mujinga 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 WhatamIdoing 1 FrB.TG 1 JennyOz 1 Furius 1 TompaDompa 1 KJP1 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 MadonnaFan 1 Czar 1 P. S. Burton 1 Dabberoni15 1 Alanna the Brave 1 Vanamonde93 1 Cplakidas 1 Horsesizedduck 1 Apoxyomenus 1 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8835:D36B:F718:19A2 1 Shooterwalker 1 Asilvering 1 Pendright 1 TarkusAB 1 A. Parrot 1 Aoba47 1 Epicgenius 1 HAL333 1 Aa77zz 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 Totals 144 31 32 0

Supports and opposes for February 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 1 31 32 SchroCat 12 5 17 ChrisTheDude 12 12 Gog the Mild 9 9 HJ Mitchell 5 1 2 8 Buidhe 2 4 6 Ian Rose 1 4 5 Jimfbleak 4 1 5 Serial Number 54129 1 4 5 Harrias 1 4 5 Borsoka 4 4 Unlimitedlead 4 4 FunkMonk 3 3 Vami IV 3 3 David Fuchs 2 1 3 Hawkeye7 2 1 3 Guerillero 3 3 AirshipJungleman29 1 2 3 Tim riley 3 3 Steelkamp 3 3 A455bcd9 3 3 Iazyges 2 1 3 Dugan Murphy 1 2 3 Dudley Miles 3 3 Wehwalt 3 3 Sturmvogel 66 1 2 3 Phlsph7 2 2 ErnestKrause 2 2 Mike Christie 2 2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 2 2 Henni147 1 1 2 RL0919 1 1 2 Ceoil 2 2 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 2 Hog Farm 1 1 2 Kusma 1 1 2 2 2 SNUGGUMS 1 1 2 MadonnaFan 1 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 KJP1 1 1 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8835:D36B:F718:19A2 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 Apoxyomenus 1 1 Horsesizedduck 1 1 Furius 1 1 HAL333 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Aoba47 1 1 Vanamonde93 1 1 Alanna the Brave 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 A. Parrot 1 1 TarkusAB 1 1 Dabberoni15 1 1 Pendright 1 1 P. S. Burton 1 1 WhatamIdoing 1 1 Asilvering 1 1 Czar 1 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 1 Mujinga 1 1 Totals 107 1 0 0 11 88 207

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) 12:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for December 2022-February 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) Amir Ghandi 3 0 0.0 Amitchell125 3 1 0.3 Aoba47 6 62 10.3 AryKun 3 11 3.7 Balon Greyjoy 1.5 7 4.7 Buidhe 6 123 20.5 Ceoil 2 18 9.0 Chrishm21 2 0 0.0 ChrisTheDude 14 108 7.7 Cplakidas 6 8 1.3 Czar 2 11 5.5 Darkwarriorblake 6 6 1.0 Dudley Miles 5 34 6.8 Dugan Murphy 2 8 4.0 Epicgenius 8 12 1.5 ErnestKrause 2.2 19 8.8 Figureskatingfan 2 3 1.5 Floydian 2 0 0.0 FrB.TG 5.5 58 10.5 Gog the Mild 10.5 90 8.6 HAL333 2 15 7.5 Hawkeye7 9.5 35 3.7 HJ Mitchell 3.5 32 9.1 Hog Farm 9.5 32 3.4 Ian Rose 2 37 18.5 Iazyges 4.5 17 3.8 John M Wolfson 4 2 0.5 Juxlos 4 0 0.0 Kyle Peake 2 2 1.0 Lee Vilenski 6 32 5.3 LittleJerry 5 2 0.4 MaranoFan 9.5 26 2.7 Midnightblueowl 2 1 0.5 Mike Christie 10 169 16.9 MyCatIsAChonk 2 0 0.0 Nick-D 2 14 7.0 Peacemaker67 4 3 0.8 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2 4 2.0 Premeditated Chaos 3 8 2.7 SatDis 2 3 1.5 SchroCat 3 29 9.7 SounderBruce 3 4 1.3 TheJoebro64 4.5 7 1.6 Tim riley 5 41 8.2 Trainsandotherthings 3 8 2.7 Unlimitedlead 3.5 11 3.1 Vami IV 5 12 2.4 Wehwalt 8.8 53 6.0 Your Power 4 15 3.8 ZKang123 3 4 1.3 Zmbro 3 4 1.3

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, I'm probably confused, but shouldn't I be somewhere (embarrassingly low I'm sure!) on this hit list? :) SN54129 01:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's correct, though I've made mistakes putting this together in the past so please do point out any omissions. The list only includes editors who've had an article promoted or archived in the last three months -- you have a current nomination, so if that were to be promoted this month, you would show up in the next month's statistics. (You're in the two reviewer lists, of course; those just cover the previous month.) The idea of this third list is to let reviewers know which of the current nominators are putting time into reviewing as well -- not all reviewers care, but some like to review nominators who are prolific reviewers. But someone who has not been a recent or prolific nominator (specifically including brand new nominators) shouldn't be put under the microscope like that, so to be included on the list you have to have both had a nomination completed in the last three months, and had more than one nomination completed over the last year. Per this query your previous nominations were promoted last March and April, so the April one will still count at the end of this month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review for non-English articles

Hi! I just had a question. I've been working on getting 1919 Copa del Rey Final to GA and realized both during the nomination process (currently ongoing, fingers crossed) and a recent discussion with PMC that it's somewhat hard for non-Spanish speakers to look through some of the old Spanish sources I use. If I ever manage to nominate a First Carlist War-related article that would be a concern as well. Thus my question: how are source reviews done for non-English subject articles? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Dedicated and reliable volunteers seems to be the answer, I see, SandyGeorgia! I'll keep that in mind if any of my articles pass GA and I consider them worthy of nominating for FA. Hope your health is doing better and you had a good February. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Growin' old ain't for sissies :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

But what if the language is Farsi, or official mandarin? We cant guarantee having FAC regulars fluent in those languages (and we've had a couple of Indonesian noms lately), indeed, Spanish is the 4th most common language in the world, so there are plenty of others we could use. Yet we (or rather, the coords) are forced to demand high quality sources with precision in text to verifiability. "Catch 22—it's the best there is" SN54129 00:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. Reviewers are within their right to oppose on the basis that they can't state that an article meets WIAFA, because they can't do a source check. Assumption that an article meets the criteria, including 1f, is not the default. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tricky one; after all, we are told thar FACs must follow MOS, yet we are also told FOREIGNSOURCE. Or whatever er that one is. SN54129 02:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it fair to oppose on 1f any FAC you can't do a copyvio check on; even more so considering how often translations are by machine and then pasted in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The source review requests at the top of this page could mention any necessary foreign language skills (if applicable). I am happy to review anything in German, most things in French and can be persuaded to check not-too-long bits in Mandarin. For most languages, there are people with relevant language skills around who can be drafted in to help if needed. —Kusma (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Double query Ignace Tonené

In trying to sort out why Ignace Tonené is listed at FA mismatches (I haven't), I initially thought it wasn't an FA because:

• Why is Fur trader upper case in the lead? [7]
• This repetitive prose: Tonené was concerned about the impact of lumberjacks and their impact on the natural resources.
• There is a mixed citation style wrt page numbers.
• Where are the two sons and two daughters in this source (I see only four children):

  In 1860, Tonené married Angèle, the daughter of former Temagami band chief Nebenegwune. They had two sons and two daughters and she died in childbirth in 1869. In 1871, Tonené married Elisabeth Pikossekat of Timiskaming band and they had three daughters.

• Did the first-time nominator spotcheck specifically query this offline source?

  a b c d e f g Hodgins, Bruce W.; Benidickson, Jamie (1989). The Temagami Experience: Recreation, Resources, and Aboriginal Rights in the Northern Ontario Wilderness, Canada: University of Toronto Press, ISBN 9780802067135 pp. 35, 40–48, 66, 299

• In lead, but not in body and not sourced:

  (translating as "right/correct sun")

So I can't sort why it is appearing on the mismatch report (everything looks to be in order), but neither am I clear why it is an FA. It reads like a GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

One solved -- crossed in the mail with Hog Farm (but FACbot processed it, so why was template missed?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 you might want to see this oddity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem was fixed in the previous edit by Yuchitown (talk) [8] (which also caused your mismatch by removing the {{Featured article}} template) The Bot expects the {{short description}} template to appear at the top (MOS:LAYOUT) but, unlike good articles, featured articles do not have to comply with MOS:LAYOUT. I have instructed the Bot on how to handle this anomaly better; the template will not appear in the text, but will still appear after the last short description or hatnote, wherever it may be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Hawkeye7; I got lost in the mess on that one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I can help with point #4 (Where are the two sons and two daughters in this source (I see only four children)). The next sentence explains that both (=2) sons died and three (2+1 by two mothers) survived. This adheres to the source (CDNB, third para), which states that In 1871, two years after she died giving birth to their fourth child, he married Elisabeth Pikossekat from the Timiskaming band; they had three daughters. Although neither of Tonené’s sons reached adulthood, his five daughters married and had numerous progeny. The last sentence shows that if 5/7 of his children were daughters, the remaining two must have been sons. HTH. SN54129 14:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Got it, thx :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Core Contest returns!

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Help!

I nominated the Hungarian nobility article, but something went wrong. Could you fix the problem? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Because you didn't follow the instructions, when you went back to try to add it to the article talk page (which is the first step), the script thought it was the second nom. I've fixed it to archive1; next time be sure to subst the FAC template to the talk page first. But you also failed to close the peer review correctly, and I've forgotten the steps to do that; maybe Z1720 will correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article's PR was closed successfully and removed from the list at WP:PR. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

TFA nuisance edits

Anybody else think this is that? JennyOz (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, almost certainly. Changing spaces, unnecessary changes to capitalisation and using space templates is typical Brogo. The name suggests it is almost certainly ‘another one’ too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Where have FA article assessments gone ?

Does anyone know why the FA icon is gone from edit count and why it's a question mark now with a Y? For example, I checked Casliber to see if his showed the same weird way as mine ... what is with the Y and the question mark ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Even weirder, a few still have the FA icon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

How very odd. Only a handful of yours have retained the symbol, while only a small minority of mine have lost it. I dunno. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've searched high and low for info ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, according to people on WP:DISCORD, some legacy stuff getting removed might have had an unexpected impact. If anyone understands code better, then they might be able to help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean someone messed up the coding? Does this need a post at WP:VPT then to get more eyes on it, or is that accomplished via Discord? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no clue, sorry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thx; will post at VPT then ... [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think someone was messing around with the assessment coding - I remember seeing something about it creating a bunch of bogus categories. I sometimes wonder if major coding changes ever get tested around here. Hog Farm _Talk 12:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just looked at both yours and Gog's top edited pages, and this is too weird for words. The only thing that occurs to me, as I first saw this issue because of working on WP:DCGAR, is that the commonality is that Cas, Coldwell and I are much older editors than Hog and Gog ... is the coding error related to the age of the article or the age of the assessment ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's a fun one - [10] one of my FAs renders as normal, but the other two don't! This bug also affects GA icons. I can't seem to find any clear pattern that explains why some appear as normal and some don't. GE 25-ton switcher was promoted to GA in January 2022 and shows up normally, ditto for Nashua and Lowell Railroad. Train was promoted in January 2022, and the icon doesn't show up properly. Only thing I could think of is maybe length? Train is the longest of the three. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it related to whether the FAs/GAs have appeared at DYK? (Looks like that for some on my contributions list). —Kusma (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I have never been to DYK, and some of mine are showing while others aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I reported this here and was told it should now be fixed. (I'm still seeing the errors but presumably this is a caching isssue?). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm. Articles on my list created in 2002 and 2023 seem similarly unaffected. My first GAN, from February 2018 - created in the same month - is similarly unaffected. Stubs, starts, C class and B class have all been affected. I am struggling to see any commonality linked to the dates of anything happening. Interestingly, not a single article which I have nominated for FAC has been hit by this bug, while many others which I have edited and have gone to FAC have - apparently regardless of when, the age of the article or the age of the nominating editor's account. I can only find two of "my" 105 GANs affected, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about them, other than being promoted to GA in May and June 2018. (Zoë Porphyrogenita and Typos of Constans.) But so were several others which have retained their symbol. (Zoë Porphyrogenita and Typos of Constans.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing from Nikkimaria's post that it was related to the banner shell ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Skullgirls

I'm looking to bring Skullgirls to FAC eventually. Are there any mentors available? Any advice or help is greatly appreciated! Wani (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Death_of_Kevin_Gately#Article_accidentally_makes_it_look_like_Gately_was_a_fascist

Just a little heads up on one of the worst accidental implied errors to slip into an FAC I've seen in a while. Because the actual fact of what Gately was protesting for was mentioned pages and pages into the article, there was a strong implication that he was part of the first-mentioned group, when he was actually protesting them, and even the section on Gately doesn't state what he went to protest.

I've made a tweak to the start of paragraph two that adds the context back in, but... just keep an eye out, aye? This is a good example of the hopefully rare sort of situation where an expert knows what the facts are already and thus won't see the false implication, and a non-expert will simply presume the implied fact is true, and not catch the mistake. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 11:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make him look like a fascist: the paragraph is very clear that the only violence was between the police and the anti-fascist organisations. At no point does it say that there was any violence between the police and the National Front (if there was, then there may have been a question over where Gately was) and there is zero implication that Gately was a fascist. To describe this as "one of the worst accidental implied errors to slip into an FAC" is veering into hyperbole, as is the claim that what Gately was protesting was "pages and pages into the article". Considering the reviewers at FAC were, like you, not experts who already knew the facts, it's all a bit of an over-reaction to point to where there is any presumption taking place. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the "He was not a member of any political organisation" in paragraph one. Perhaps the article could have stated, as it now does, that he was protesting against the NF, but I don't think there was any implication as you suggest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for March 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March 2023. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for March 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 7 30 SchroCat 21 Gog the Mild 14 1 1 ChrisTheDude 15 Mike Christie 3 6 Serial Number 54129 5 4 Buidhe 2 6 Hawkeye7 2 4 1 HJ Mitchell 7 Tim riley 7 Iazyges 5 1 Heartfox 1 1 4 Ian Rose 5 1 Unlimitedlead 6 Harrias 2 3 Jimfbleak 5 Kusma 4 1 Borsoka 5 PCN02WPS 3 1 Ceoil 3 Aoba47 3 AirshipJungleman29 3 Vami IV 3 FunkMonk 3 Wehwalt 2 1 Valeree 2 MaranoFan 1 1 Jens Lallensack 2 JennyOz 2 Indopug 2 Victoriaearle 1 1 Cplakidas 2 Gerda Arendt 2 Z1720 2 WereSpielChequers 2 Premeditated Chaos 2 John M Wolfson 2 Johnbod 2 Hog Farm 1 WhatamIdoing 1 Guerillero 1 ErnestKrause 1 Figureskatingfan 1 Location 1 FrB.TG 1 From Hill To Shore 1 Your Power 1 A455bcd9 1 GuardianH 1 Dudley Miles 1 Shooterwalker 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 Freoh 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 NotOrrio 1 Tintor2 1 Pendright 1 Buckshot06 1 KJP1 1 ProtoDrake 1 Epicgenius 1 Srnec 1 Indagate 1 Dugan Murphy 1 Richard Nevell 1 Zawed 1 Tkbrett 1 Graham Beards 1 Therapyisgood 1 TompaDompa 1 Totals 179 36 42 4

Supports and opposes for March 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 37 37 SchroCat 16 3 2 21 Gog the Mild 12 1 3 16 ChrisTheDude 14 1 15 Mike Christie 2 1 1 5 9 Serial Number 54129 5 4 9 Buidhe 1 7 8 Tim riley 7 7 HJ Mitchell 5 1 1 7 Hawkeye7 1 6 7 Iazyges 5 1 6 Ian Rose 3 2 1 6 Heartfox 6 6 Unlimitedlead 5 1 6 Kusma 3 2 5 Borsoka 5 5 Harrias 1 1 3 5 Jimfbleak 5 5 PCN02WPS 3 1 4 Aoba47 2 1 3 Wehwalt 2 1 3 FunkMonk 1 2 3 Vami IV 3 3 AirshipJungleman29 1 2 3 Ceoil 3 3 Indopug 2 2 Victoriaearle 1 1 2 JennyOz 2 2 Cplakidas 2 2 MaranoFan 1 1 2 Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 Valeree 2 2 WereSpielChequers 2 2 Premeditated Chaos 2 2 Gerda Arendt 2 2 Johnbod 1 1 2 John M Wolfson 1 1 2 Z1720 2 2 Dudley Miles 1 1 Indagate 1 1 Buckshot06 1 1 Figureskatingfan 1 1 KJP1 1 1 Location 1 1 Hog Farm 1 1 Dugan Murphy 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Zawed 1 1 From Hill To Shore 1 1 ProtoDrake 1 1 NotOrrio 1 1 WhatamIdoing 1 1 Tkbrett 1 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 1 Your Power 1 1 A455bcd9 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 GuardianH 1 1 Srnec 1 1 ErnestKrause 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Therapyisgood 1 1 Freoh 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 Totals 133 0 1 1 16 110 261

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) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for January-March 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 2 17 8.5 Amitchell125 3 1 0.3 Aoba47 5 65 13.0 Buidhe 5 110 22.0 Ceoil 2 20 10.0 Chrishm21 2 0 0.0 ChrisTheDude 14 116 8.3 Cplakidas 7 10 1.4 Czar 2 10 5.0 Darkwarriorblake 5 6 1.2 Dudley Miles 6 33 5.5 Dugan Murphy 2 9 4.5 Dunkleosteus77 2 4 2.0 Epicgenius 7 12 1.7 ErnestKrause 2.2 20 9.2 Figureskatingfan 2 4 2.0 FrB.TG 5.5 49 8.9 Friendofleonard 2 0 0.0 Gog the Mild 12 99 8.3 Guerillero 2 18 9.0 HAL333 3 15 5.0 Hawkeye7 9.5 42 4.4 Henni147 1.3 6 4.5 HJ Mitchell 4.5 37 8.2 Hog Farm 9.5 29 3.1 Ian Rose 3.0 43 14.3 Iazyges 6.8 23 3.4 Ichthyovenator 1.3 0 0.0 Ippantekina 5 14 2.8 Jimfbleak 2 13 6.5 John M Wolfson 4 4 1.0 Juxlos 3 0 0.0 Lee Vilenski 6 28 4.7 LittleJerry 4 2 0.5 LunaEatsTuna 2 0 0.0 Midnightblueowl 2.0 1 0.5 Mike Christie 10 160 16.0 MyCatIsAChonk 2 0 0.0 Pamzeis 2 2 1.0 Premeditated Chaos 4 10 2.5 Pseud 14 4.0 21 5.3 SatDis 2.0 3 1.5 SchroCat 5 50 10.0 Serial Number 54129 2 22 11.0 SounderBruce 3 3 1.0 Steelkamp 2 10 5.0 TheJoebro64 4.5 7 1.6 Therapyisgood 2 2 1.0 Tim riley 6 45 7.5 Trainsandotherthings 3 9 3.0 Unlimitedlead 5.3 17 3.2 Vami IV 5 14 2.8 Wehwalt 8.8 53 6.0 Your Power 5 16 3.2 ZKang123 2 3 1.5 Zmbro 3 4 1.3 Zwerg Nase 2 0 0.0

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Bishan MRT station

I’d like to look for a mentor to help me bring Bishan MRT station to FAC status. Thanks.Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 00:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a PR open for the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bishan MRT station/archive1; those who want to leave comments without officially mentoring are also welcome. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Pleurotus ostreatus

@FAC coordinators: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pleurotus ostreatus/archive1 is a nomination by an editor with no involvement in the article. FACBot is complaining because the nomination was not transcluded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Mars in fiction

I intend to nominate Mars in fiction for WP:Featured article status. I previously overhauled the article completely and brought it to WP:Good article status, and the article is currently at WP:Peer review (which will probably be closed soon). First-time nominators are encouraged to get help from a mentor, so I'm looking for someone to take on that role. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll give it a look, though probably I don't have time to do more than review it. I will say that the ref strings, four and five references citing relatively simple statements (say, regarding Stranger in a Strange Land) seems at first glance a little unnecessary. Also, do you need so many redlinks? Have you looked at the MOS? I'll weigh in further either at the PR, or if that closes, on the article talk. Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I just realized that you might be expecting a reply here (as opposed to at the peer review/talk page later). The ref string thing was brought up at the peer review; I'll link to my response at the relevant section here. As for redlinks, I err on the side of inclusion. My general view is that since WP:REDLINK says "Only remove red links if you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." (emphasis in original), the threshold for adding them should similarly be low. TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, great, I'll try to start next couple of days. Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Knock knock. Anyone wanna tell me which of these we care about (see James Madison)

Hi. Please see my comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Madison/archive2. Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• P/PP error? 2 instances
  • Yes.
• Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.) 13 instances. [Some of these may be in Further Reading]
  • As long as at least one is provided, we generally don't get too worked up about having them all.
• Missing archive link 33 instances
  • Nice to have, but not required.
• Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; 4 instances
  • As above, if nothing is provided, we generally like to have these, but they aren't always available.
• Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (46 with; 7 without);
  • Not generally required for journals, but citations should be consistent, so if given for one book/news source, should really given for all (although generally we don't mind papers with the location in the title skipping them, such as New York Times
• Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year= 2 instances
  • Yes.
• Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? 3 instances
  • Nice to have, but ultimately as long as the specific page numbers are given, it's not the end of the world. Again though, consistency is key. If provided for some, should be for all.

@Lingzhi.Renascence: Copied across, and put my thoughts on each. I do a fair number of source reviews, but am open to corrections from others. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: This warning (and all the warnings, IIRC) means that NONE are provided for that specific source: "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)" § Lingzhi (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lingzhi.Renascence: Where are you getting these warnings from? An external tool, a script? It'd be compare notes if we could see the information directly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This editor uses reviewsourcecheck to find errors in the references and notes. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, that's a great tool that is going to make my life a lot easier! Secondly, on a quick run through, I'd say that most of those are genuine issues. I notice that it has flagged up a Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); for newspaper sources, for which we don't generally require an ISSN. There are quite a few additional typographical issues among the citations that need tidying up too. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah I've been trying out that tool since seeing it mentioned here and it does indeed seem useful! Mujinga (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review check

I've done a source review over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weesperplein metro station/archive1 and also some spotchecks since Gog the Mild said "Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a check for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion". It's my first time doing spotchecks and a source review at FAC so I'd be grateful if someone could tell me if I need to do more or if what is already done is enough. Thanks Mujinga (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Mostly looks good. It appears that one of the references is a master's thesis - see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ach yes I should've clocked that. Cheers Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources spot check for Black Monday (1987)

Hi. Apparently Harrias is busy in real life. If anyone is free to do a spot check of sources on Black Monday (1987), you would earn my undying gratitude. [For whatever that's worth...]. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lingzhi.Renascence Sigh. I suppose I can... Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If you're sure, then I'd be sincerely grateful... I still have many of the sources, and many of the books are available via archive.org... Thanks!! § Lingzhi (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: Cherry Valentine image

Hello! I've submitted Cherry Valentine for FA status. Multiple support votes have been cast based on the prose, but there's an issue with the image which I'm not sure how to resolve.

Can anyone please help here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for April 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April 2023. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for April 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 2 11 SchroCat 10 1 ChrisTheDude 9 Unlimitedlead 8 Aoba47 4 1 2 Gog the Mild 4 1 2 Heartfox 4 1 1 Kusma 3 2 1 Tim riley 5 1 FrB.TG 1 3 Hawkeye7 2 2 Pseud 14 3 1 Serial Number 54129 4 Borsoka 3 Cplakidas 3 Harrias 2 1 HJ Mitchell 3 Hog Farm 2 1 Ian Rose 2 1 MaranoFan 2 1 Your Power 3 Bilorv 1 1 Buidhe 2 Dudley Miles 2 Eddie891 2 Epicgenius 2 ErnestKrause 1 1 Lee Vilenski 2 Mike Christie 2 Shshshsh 1 1 SNUGGUMS 2 Steelkamp 2 Wehwalt 2 Z1720 2 1 AhmadLX 1 Caeciliusinhorto 1 Ceoil 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 Esculenta 1 Fanboyphilosopher 1 FunkMonk 1 GagaNutella 1 Gerda Arendt 1 Guerillero 1 Henni147 1 Horserice 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 Hurricanehink 1 Indopug 1 Ippantekina 1 JennyOz 1 Jens Lallensack 1 KJP1 1 KN2731 1 Modussicandi 1 Mujinga 1 PCN02WPS 1 ResolutionsPerMinute 1 Richard Nevell 1 Rschen7754 1 SilverTiger12 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 TompaDompa 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 Totals 123 23 23 1

Supports and opposes for April 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 13 13 SchroCat 7 3 1 11 ChrisTheDude 9 9 Unlimitedlead 5 2 1 8 Gog the Mild 4 3 7 Aoba47 4 3 7 Heartfox 3 3 6 Kusma 3 3 6 Tim riley 4 2 6 FrB.TG 1 3 4 Hawkeye7 2 2 4 Serial Number 54129 4 4 Pseud 14 3 1 4 Borsoka 2 1 3 Ian Rose 1 2 3 Your Power 3 3 HJ Mitchell 3 3 Cplakidas 3 3 Hog Farm 2 1 3 MaranoFan 2 1 3 Harrias 3 3 Wehwalt 2 2 Z1720 2 2 SNUGGUMS 2 2 Mike Christie 2 2 Buidhe 2 2 ErnestKrause 1 1 2 Epicgenius 2 2 Bilorv 1 1 2 Steelkamp 1 1 2 Eddie891 2 2 Dudley Miles 1 1 2 Lee Vilenski 2 2 Shshshsh 1 1 2 Eem dik doun in toene 1 1 Mujinga 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 1 SilverTiger12 1 1 PCN02WPS 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Esculenta 1 1 Horserice 1 1 KN2731 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Henni147 1 1 1 1 GagaNutella 1 1 AhmadLX 1 1 Indopug 1 1 KJP1 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Fanboyphilosopher 1 1 Modussicandi 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 ResolutionsPerMinute 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 Caeciliusinhorto 1 1 Rschen7754 1 1 Totals 97 ' ' ' 9 64 170

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) 20:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for February 2023 to April 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 2.0 16.0 8.0 BennyOnTheLoose 6.0 18.0 3.0 Buidhe 4.0 85.0 21.2 Ceoil 2.0 16.0 8.0 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 13.0 117.0 9.0 Cplakidas 7.0 11.0 1.6 Cyclonebiskit 2.0 None 0.0 Czar 2.0 10.0 5.0 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 4.0 0.8 Dudley Miles 6.0 32.0 5.3 Dugan Murphy 2.0 9.0 4.5 Dunkleosteus77 2.0 4.0 2.0 Epicgenius 6.0 14.0 2.3 Figureskatingfan 3.0 4.0 1.3 FrB.TG 5.5 47.0 8.5 Friendofleonard 2.0 None 0.0 FunkMonk 3.0 30.0 10.0 Gog the Mild 12.0 97.0 8.1 Guerillero 2.0 19.0 9.5 HAL333 3.0 15.0 5.0 Hawkeye7 10.5 43.0 4.1 Heartfox 2.0 21.0 10.5 Henni147 1.3 7.0 5.2 HJ Mitchell 5.5 33.0 6.0 Hog Farm 7.5 24.0 3.2 Ian Rose 3.0 46.0 15.3 Iazyges 6.8 23.0 3.4 Ippantekina 6.0 15.0 2.5 Jimfbleak 2.0 13.0 6.5 John M Wolfson 5.0 4.0 0.8 Juxlos 3.0 None 0.0 LittleJerry 3.5 2.0 0.6 MaranoFan 11.5 31.0 2.7 Midnightblueowl 2.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 8.0 136.0 17.0 MyCatIsAChonk 2.0 None 0.0 Pamzeis 2.0 2.0 1.0 Peacemaker67 4.0 3.0 0.8 Premeditated Chaos 4.0 10.0 2.5 Pseud 14 4.0 23.0 5.8 SchroCat 6.0 61.0 10.2 Steelkamp 2.0 10.0 5.0 TheJoebro64 4.5 7.0 1.6 Therapyisgood 2.0 2.0 1.0 Tim riley 5.0 46.0 9.2 Unlimitedlead 5.3 25.0 4.7 Vami IV 4.0 14.0 3.5 Wehwalt 8.8 51.0 5.8 Your Power 6.0 18.0 3.0 Zmbro 4.0 4.0 1.0 Zwerg Nase 2.0 None 0.0

I've written some code to generate this monthly report, and this is the first month I've used it. I hope that will avoid some careless errors, but it's also possible I've introduced a bug or two, so if anything looks wrong, please say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike, the caption for the first table is wrong. It should say "Reviews for April 2023". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

D'oh. Fixed; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for lung cancer

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Lung cancer/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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 mentor request for Thanos (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

I plan on nominating the article for FAC since I brought it to GA recently, but I'm looking for some feedback on things that may need to be cleaned up first. I didn't have much luck with a peer review, so I'm hoping I can get some comments here. -- ZooBlazer^talk 20:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey ZooBlazer, I'll try and leave some comments on the talk page next week. Hit me up if I forget. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, just a reminder notification since it's been a week and you told me to remind you. -- ZooBlazer^talk 03:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy reminder about template use

The page load time is beginning to slow down again - let's please remember to avoid using {{xt}} and similar templates as per the FAC instructions, in order to keep the page load time from breaking down or in worst case scenario, the page to hit its transclusion limit. Hog Farm _Talk 05:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A week later, the page is still straining to load. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Script to highlight reading difficulty

I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to highlight sentences by their reading difficulty with different colors. It goes through articles sentence by sentence. Difficult sentences are colored red and easy sentences are colored green. The script also shows the readability score of the article as a whole at the top. It includes a list of sentences ordered by lowest readability to help identify where the most attention may be needed. The script is found at User:Phlsph7/Readability.js and the documentation is at User:Phlsph7/Readability.

The script measures readability using the Flesch reading ease score. It only considers two factors: words per sentence and syllables per word. According to it, texts with long sentences and long words have low readability. This measure is very superficial and often does not reflect the actual difficulty of the text. For this reason, the script should only be used as a rough guide for potential improvements. It cannot replace human judgment.

The script can help FA nominators to identify potential problems with their articles. This concerns specifically criterion 1a, i.e. that the article is well-written. The script can also be used by reviewers to get a quick overview. However, they should be very careful when interpreting the readability score. This script has many limitations and can easily lead to false conclusions. It is no shortcut for assessing whether an article is well-written.

I hope to get some feedback on potential problems and how the script may be improved. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Colin will comment here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would caution anyone not to lean on too heavily on using this as a prose reviewing tool; it reminds me a bit of the Accelerated Reader program from elementary school that listed The Sound and the Fury and To Kill a Mockingbird as "easier" than Harry Potter. Hog Farm _Talk 13:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it can easily lead to false conclusion if used uncritically. I've tried to point out the drawbacks and limitations in the documentation. But I could put more emphasis on it if it is not yet clear enough. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed writing it as a challenge but imo such things are a strange kind of American pseudoscience. I appreciate you note the flaws both in the scoring scheme used but also the script's ability to discover sentences. But I am worried that such a tool might encourage some editors to rewrite red text to green text as some kind of game or challenge. We used to have a problem in the medical project with some editors targeting readability scores. So we ended up with prose using baby words and tediously boring sequences of short stubby sentences, often starting with "It". IIRC some even wrote papers boasting about reducing the reading level score. Explaining a complex subject in a way that is easy to understand and also engaging and enjoyable requires talent and ability. Whereas chopping up sentences to lower the Flesh reading ease score is brainless. I think the whole idea is scientifically flawed. There is a correlation between long snake sentences with long words and text that is hard to read. But targeting a lower score is like thinking that calling your child Bernard, Elon, Jeff, Larry or Warren might make them billionaires. Colin°^Talk 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the lead that resulted in one medical article, whose staccato stubby sentences were later described by another editor as "headache-inducing". The concern is that using such tools will lead to this kind of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and your detailed explanation! I agree with your concerns about how the script can be misused. Blindly following this algorithm with the goal of maximizing readability scores would indeed be a bad idea. But it does not follow that every potential use of this script is a misuse. It can't tell you what to write or how to judge. But it can indicate where it may be good to look and check for yourself.

I think it is very important for the documentation to point out the limitations and discourage misuse. I've tried to do that but I'm not sure that I've succeeded. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the danger Sandy and I see is when people who don't really understand what they are writing about and who also have no gift for writing end up thinking this is a way for them to generate great prose for the general reader. For example, if we got students being directed to use your tool as a way for them to check what they wrote, or identify text that needs fixing, or to peer-review each other's work. The talented writers who hang out on this talk page might find the tool useful but might also be frustrated by it. They are not the editors I fear. -- Colin°^Talk 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your description of what happens when editors blindly try to maximize the readability score is quite helpful. I'll see if I can find a way to include this point in the documentation. Do you or Sandy have other ideas about how the documentation should be changed to forestall such dangers? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The opening sentences need some work (or removed). They claim the script actually measures "reading difficulty" and colours the text based on low or high readability. Really it is just a script to generate a Flesch reading-ease score for each sentence and the whole article.

I'd also drop the evangelism about wide readership and non-native English speakers. These reading ease scores try to fit readability round an idea that school children get more comfortable with longer words and sentences as they get older. But non-native English speakers can be fully grown adults like you and me and aren't at all like the "curious 12-year-old" that some people are thinking of aiming for. They know about complex things like mortgages and inflation and liberalism and conservatism. They way we talk about such readers is often patronising, as if foreign people don't also have degrees and doctorates and know how babies are made and want to know the proper words for things.

I wouldn't say "It is usually beneficial to replace very long sentences with several shorter ones". This is very much a mechanical mindset we don't want to encourage. Instead it would be better to say that many over long sentences are probably trying to explain too many things, or got distracted with a big parenthetical remark. What is the actual problem with the sentence? The length is just a clue. So best to just say this tool might identify sentences that aren't your finest work.

It may be worth adding an explicit warning about student editing and class assignments, that they should not use this tool as part of their writing or to assess student's work. That it is a tool that advanced writers, who understand its limitations, may find useful. -- 16:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 16:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the detailed review and actionable suggestions! I've tried to implement most of them. In regard to student editing and class assignments, I've only added a mental note since they are not the typical script users. I'll keep an eye on it and I'll add an explicit warning if this should become a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on this point. Please have a look if this is roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph you added may help, but as Colin mentions, it's not the kinds of editors who frequent WT:FAC that are of concern; I would say keep an eye out for where the tool is used (particularly, for example, that it not be mis-used by student editors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. Student editors by themselves are unlikely to use it since script users are mostly experienced editors. But they may well do so if their instructor recommends it. So its a good idea to monitor how this develops. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that this script can be quite useful, assuming that it is used with care. I have used similar tools to catch unnecessarily convoluted sentences, and can see myself making use of this script in a similar way. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think we benefit from having all short sentences, good prose is made up of a combination of simple, complex and compound sentences. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be more useful for people writing Help: pages than people writing our best articles. Maybe the editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Help or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be interested in it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: ...you forgot the 4th type: compound-complex. :-) § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The idea about the help pages is good. I modified the script to enable it in the help namespace. However, many help pages have a different format. Some use long templates or lists to present the information. The script only covers regular paragraphs. It could be modified but I'm not sure how much work this would be and how active the help editor community is. If it doesn't work for a particular text, the following workaround can be used.

1. Copy the text into your sandbox.
2. Make sure that the text is not presented inside a list, table, or template.
3. Click "Preview" or "Publish".
4. Use the script.

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly not a magic bullet, but no automated tool is. Thanks Phlsph7 for your work on the tool. I'm not too concerned about misuse given user scripts are basically a "pro" feature that's not likely to be used by average readers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Perry County, Tennessee

Good day! The article Perry County, Tennessee was brought up to GA status in December 2022. I've done some additional expansion on it, and I think it's getting close to where it needs to be for FA status. While this isn't the first GA I've worked on, this would be the first FAC nomination for me. I would greatly appreciate any guidance on the process or feedback on the article itself to correct any glaring mistakes I've missed before putting it up for submission. Tagging @Hog Farm, @Nick-D, and @Dudley Miles, as this seems to be at least tangential to the topics they have listed in their mentor list entry! Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• nf utvol Some parts of the article don't appear to meet FA inline citation requirements such as Major highways, list of radio stations, and the lists of schools. Personally I would prosify these, which would lead to a less jarring article structure. (t · c) buidhe 14:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've found it best to minimize reliance on tables at FAC. Sometimes they are needed, but when you can prosify them that's usually the better option. Large tables like presidential election results can be defaulted to the collapsed state for a better reading experience. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm hitting a very busy stretch in real life and will probably not be able to find the time to get around to doing a thorough review of this in a timely manner. Hog Farm _Talk 19:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, @Hog Farm! Regarding the initial comments, I prosified the radio stations/newspaper and schools. My understanding is that it's standard practice to leave highways listed in the format used for county articles, though I could certainly be mistaken on this part. Regarding the presidential table, unfortunately that is a template that does not have a collapse feature...I certainly wish it did. Another user added it to the article and I haven't taken the time to convert it to a standard table where it can be collapsed. Think it's worth doing? nf utvol (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Help on Samarium FAC

I've currently fixed most of the comments; however, I'm struggling to do the Source review and two of the comments made by Ling. Please can someone help me fix this? Thanks! ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 10:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Responded on FAC It's just... the same as washing dishes. Stuff you need to learn to do, and get used to doing. It's bothersome, perhaps, but it's stuff you need to do. Tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 16:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOS on changing guidance on duplicate linking

There is a discussion here about changing the guidance in the MoS for repeating links that people here may be interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

BF43, an important question. Need an authoritative response.

• In the past FACs of Bengal famine of 1943, if IIRC, there were 4 and only 4 genuine and unquestioned errors I made (I mean, errors in the article). I'm only gonna mention 1, not because I'm trying to hide the others, but because they have all been fixed and I don't want to bore you (too late!). And also, most of the other errors were small and localized to a brief passage of text... The one I will mention is this: People said it was too long, and had too many notes (closely related complaints). I still disagree because it is a really, really, really, huge and complex topic, but nevertheless, we trimmed the sh*t out of it. Special honor to the late Brianboulton. Also, I identified FACs that were even longer than that one (back in the day), and I think I found FACs with more notes, IIRC. IMHO, length requirements are subjective, flexible, case-by-case. The article is not too long.
• I think I have found all or most of the sources that I thought I had deleted. I found them on an external drive. I'm willing to spend another several months of my life verifying every single damn cite, even though they have been verified multiple times by multiple editors, such as Worldbruce and Mr rnddude. I am even willing to do it all by myself. It will take a very long time.
• Here's my problem: No matter what I do, there's really nothing I can do about 2 things:

1. The length (see above). If anyone says "OPPOSE FA, too long", I will say "Thank you, but I decline to remove entire sections. The article is more important than any FAC reviewer's opinions."
2. The argument that it relies too much on primary texts. There just ain't jack sh*t I can do about that. Documents such as "Famine Inquiry Commission (May 1945). Report on Bengal" are the ur-texts here. They are indispensable and irreplaceable. And yes that particular document takes a very very POV stance, but the WP article clearly acknowledges that, and strives to separate POV editorial stances from NPOV statistics etc. Many details in that POV doc are NPOV.

• So my questions are obvious: I would really like some authoritative statements about length and about usage of primary sources in that article. I know what you're thinking: "That should be answered in a FAC." But look at it from my perspective: I don't want to spend months of my life grinding through every damn cite if someone can pop off an "OPPOSE, TOO LONG" or "OPPOSE, TOO MUCH RELIANCE ON PRIMARY SOURCES" within, for example, 16 hours of the initiation of the FAC. That kind of thing happens sometimes. And in this case, there's just no way to answer those Opposes other than "Thank you, but I disagree with your opinion."
• Thank you for your time & trouble. Any and all responses warmly received. One person whose input I value in this context would be @Buidhe:; any others appreciated as well. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  At 13275 words I, and likely other reviewers, would certainly oppose on length. Even if that weren't an issue, you cannot guarantee in advance what comments FA reviewers are going to make. The coords try their best to weigh reviews according to their relevance to the criteria, but honestly if you require a specific response to a FAC I would not submit it at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hey thanks! Hmmm. First, thanks for your reply. Your honesty in saying that you would leap to Oppose without considering context/content may have just saved me months of pointless work. It is good. :-) Second, (and given your remark about your own Oppose, this is kinda moot anyhow) I don't know what "if you require a specific response to a FAC I would not submit it at all" means. I wanted a general principle: if someone says "Oppose too long" or "oppose too much reliance on primary sources", does that automatically kill it? But it probably doesn't matter, see above... Third, I think your viewpoint on length is morbidly cookie cutter/Procrustean. [I chose those words carefully.] Offering all the salient information is far more important than following a rigid rule about the more formal (in the sense of "related to form") aspects of presentation (please see ref: prepositions at the end of a sentence)... But ya know what? That's OK. It doesn't matter. You're the FAC coord; I'm not. Life goes on. Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 05:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  I mean if someone says "oppose on length" for a 2,000 word article when they cannot point to specific examples of excess detail, excess verbiage, or otherwise excessive content then that is likely to be disregarded, but if they write "oppose on length" and explain why the article doesn't fit with community consensus of the right length for articles and suggest ways to reduce the length with summary style, copyedits, etc. that comment will be given much more weight. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Half the article is on the background to the famine, and pre-famine shocks and distress. I suspect such content could sustain its own article. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandbh. Have I met you before? I know I've seen that painting on someone else's user page... If we have met, I'm senile; if we haven't, nice to meet you. You know, years ago I was strongly opposed to the idea of splitting the article in half, pre-famine for one, during/after for another. I have no idea why, but for some reason, I am not so opposed now. I dunno. I'll ask @Fowler&fowler: about that (tho he's often busy). But that still leaves the "I'm gonna oppose because too many primary sources" door open. I refuse to work my butt off once again just so someone can pop in with a grin for 2 seconds and destroy years of work. Building things is costly and requires immense effort; destroying them is quite nearly cost-free and effortless... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 06:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

At its current length, it'd be somewhere in the 40th-50th longest FA by prose length looking here. It's more than 1,000 words shorter than the FA on a subject as niche as the Spanish conquest of Peten. To reflexively oppose on length strikes me as... inconsiderate of both the content and the context. This is an article on a particularly difficult subject where both the British and Indian people hold strong beliefs/views. It is reasonable for the article to be on the longer side of the FA spectrum. I know F&f expressed interest in working on the article with hope of it obtaining a TFA spot to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the publication of images of the famine in The Statesmen. Re-verifying the article with over 400 cites, many of them bundled, is a daunting prospect. If there's content to be shortened or split, they might be able to help identify it. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, "what he said". That 40–50th stat and following argument is truly awesome, tks. I would much rather leave it in its current size. That way, people get the whole picture, IMHO... But... I would not... retire again if it were split. But only if it were split only once. :-) § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 07:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We have many FAs that are not compliant with the criteria and we're working to delist them. The difficulty and complexity of a topic can be a reason for extra length but more often it is a reason to strive for conciseness and appropriate use of summary style. For example, my FA on the Armenian genocide is about half the length of this article. Personally, I look at the Bengal famine article and I see what Sandbh did—what looks like excessive background information that could be moved to a separate article and summarized. (t · c) buidhe 07:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"not compliant with the criteria"... while I was gone, did someone put a word count limit in WP:WIAFA? If not, then there ain't no criteria, and ain't no argument for cookie cutters. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 07:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

See criterion 4, length. Exactly what length is acceptable in a certain case can be debated but many editors, based on the article size guideline, routinely oppose articles over 10,000 words because this is strongly indicative of insufficient use of summary style. (t · c) buidhe 07:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Shameless plug for my essay on the subject. In general, I'm a bit dismayed at the battleground mentality on display here. Length is absolutely a concern and articles too long absolutely do need to be split and/or condensed. In my opinion, this article is long enough that a split or condense argument would be valid. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, "length" is in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, although yeah not as a word count limit. I think in practice there will be tension between that criterium and the "places the subject in context;" in 1c; there has to be enough detail to make context and no more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary style: The problem here is that this ain't a battle article with a clear beginning on one day and a clear end on another day. The famine and its "context" are largely coterminous; that is, the "context" is part of the famine. The only section I could happily move elsewhere would be the "Background" and emphatically not the "Pre-famine shocks and distress". The background is 9542 B (1456 words) "readable prose size". My calculator tells me that 13275 minus 1456 is 11819, and we still get a knee-jerk Oppose from Buidhe... oh it would be more than that 'cause you need a couple sentences to summarize what's in "Background"...try 11900 § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We have many FAs that are not compliant with the criteria and we're working to delist them. This needs to be rephrased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi. I'm not sure we've met before; it's nice to meet you.

As a reviewer, article length would not concern me so much; nor the number of footnotes. In my experience of seeking promotions to FA status I was twice advised to shorten my articles by spinning off the removed content into their own articles. This worked quite well and both parent articles were promoted. The other thing about spinning off content was that it reduced my workload a lot, since I only had to work on the remaining parent article, rather than being concerned about the child articles.

Personally I feel that 433 citations is not so much work, having had experience with a 536 citations article. Yes, it is a slog but not unduly burdensome presuming you have some familiarity already with the citations in the course of developing the article.

Looking closely at your sources, there are about 17 of these that are cited multiple times e.g. The Famine Inquiry Commission of 1945 is cited about 55 times. That leaves "only" about 183 other sources.

I see from the article history that you have been to FAC already four times, without success. I understand the situation, having been to FAC unsuccessfully five times with another article, now up for the sixth time.

On primary sources, I try to keep WP:PST in mind:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So, primary sources used judiciously can be OK.

I'd be surprised if your article was based primarily on primary sources. --- Sandbh (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I took a look through the beginning of the article, to see if there are places where text can be cut. I am mindful that longer articles are less likely to be read, and are barriers to success at FAC because many reviewers find reading through long articles daunting. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be starting points for introducing topics, not repositories of all information, and that is the starting point of what I look for in articles. I don't want this to become a PR, and perhaps if you are looking for opinions on the length a PR might be the best place to go. Nevertheless, here are some of my observations:

• Note B doesn't need the quote from the text. If someone is interested in verifying the information, they can go to the source themselves.
• "There are three seasonal rice crops in Bengal..." In my opinion, this paragraph can be summarised as "The debated shortfall of rice production occurred during the aman harvest in November and December, which in most years produces about 70% of the total annual crop." I also think this can be moved to another section, perhaps the famine section.
• I don't think the quote in note E is necessary.
• "The combination of these factors caused stubbornly low agricultural productivity." I don't think this sentence is necessary, as the reader already knows what the paragraph is about. If this was an essay, it would belong here, but I think as an encyclopedia article we don't need concluding sentences.
• "Prior to about 1920, the food demands..." could be shortened to "The food demands of Bengal's growing population were met in part by cultivating unused scrub lands,[40] but in the 1920s Bengal experienced shortages of such land,[41] leading to a shortage of rice." By removing and merging some words, the reader will be able to access information in a shorter period of time, reducing redundancies.
• "Its inability to keep pace with rapid population growth changed it from a net exporter of foodgrains to a net importer. Imports were a small portion of the total available food crops, however, and did little to alleviate problems of food supply." -> "Its inability to keep pace with rapid population growth changed it from a net exporter of foodgrains to a net importer, but this did little to alleviate food supply problems."
• "Bengali doctor and chemist Chunilal Bose, a professor in Calcutta's medical college," -> "Bengali doctor and chemist Chunilal Bose" or "Chunilal Bose, a professor in Calcutta's medical college," The article does not need all of this person's credentials.
• "made it among the least nutritious in India and the world, and greatly harmful to the physical health of the populace." I don't have a medical degree, and I suck in science, but I can deduce that if India did not have a nutritious diet, it would be harmful to the health of the population. The second part of the sentence after the comma is probably not necessary.

While these may seem like small, nitpicky suggestions, reducing the number of words in sentences will help reduce the length of the article, mitigating oppose comments. WP:REDEX is also an excellent read and I think there are some individual redundant words in this article that can also be removed. I won't give more comments here, nor will I respond to arguments about specific points here, but I am happy to comment further if a PR is open. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• 10k cutoff: Your minds are still in the paper-medium mode. So I took the BF43 article to WP:PR and immediately received advice that each subsection of "Pre-famine shocks and distress" should be spun off into its own article. Ummmmm. Instead of reacting reflexively with this "10k only" mantra, can we just engage our brains for a moment? That section has 12 subsections. Split those off into 12 articles (or 11, possibly, assuming you could move the "Japanese invasion of Burma" into Japanese invasion of Burma without some WP:OWNers of the latter article throwing a dustup, which certainly not a straightforward assumption, since I tried to add text years ago and was brushed back). Having done that, which articles would you wikilink to those 11 or 12? All of them would link back to BF43, presumably... that's one wikilink. You might be able to find 1 more for each one (though I am skeptical). That would be 2 wikilinks, assuming you could find one more for each (which I do not assume). I ask you: what is the meaningful difference between an article with 1 or perhaps 2 wikilinks, and a subsection within a larger article? We are forgetting the power of the hypertext TOC. If anyone wants to skip over those sections, the wikilinked TOC gives them the power to do so. Asserting that "the article is too long, it must be split" is operating within a "printed on paper" paradigm. However, it is not printed on paper; it is in hypertext, and thus it is very easy to click past things... Let's even assume instead that we split the whole "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" sections together into ONE relatively larger spun-off-article. How many articles would you wikilink THAT to? It is very, very specific to BF43. I think the number is "one", and that one is BF43. What is the difference between an article with 1 wikilink and text within a larger article? Please be BF43-specific in replies... Oh, after walking away for a moment, it occurs to me that I am making a larger, more general point here: broader articles are (counterintuitively) easier to keep below 10k words, because in that case, subsections are far, far easier to make meaningful wikilinks to... which makes The Earth Test by User:Trainsandotherthings a somewhat paradigmatic essay, but it is in fact making precisely the opposite point that its author intends... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Section break

• Thanks for all the comments about length. So am I wasting my time because someone will set down his/her sandwich, chew for a couple moments, take a drink of milk, type "TOO MUCH RELIANCE ON PRIMARY SOURCES", and go back to watching TV? I note that Sandbh didn't think so. Thanks § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 00:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you don't have convincing answers when you go to FAC and get a source review, querying why the content is WP:DUE when it's found in just one primary source. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for May 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 2023. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for May 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 3 3 19 ChrisTheDude 15 Jo-Jo Eumerus 9 4 Gog the Mild 8 2 SchroCat 9 Harrias 5 1 1 Aoba47 3 3 Ceranthor 5 1 Buidhe 5 Heartfox 2 1 2 Kusma 3 2 Lingzhi.Renascence 5 Unlimitedlead 4 1 Hawkeye7 1 2 1 Ian Rose 3 1 MaranoFan 3 1 Z1720 4 Epicgenius 3 FunkMonk 3 Gerda Arendt 3 HJ Mitchell 3 Hog Farm 3 Lee Vilenski 3 Mujinga 1 2 Pseud 14 3 Serial Number 54129 3 Tim riley 3 Wehwalt 3 AirshipJungleman29 2 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Borsoka 2 Casliber 2 Ceoil 2 Cplakidas 2 Cyclonebiskit 2 Guerillero 2 Jimfbleak 2 John M Wolfson 2 MaxnaCarta 2 Mike Christie 2 PCN02WPS 2 SandyGeorgia 1 1 SNUGGUMS 2 Sturmvogel 66 2 The Night Watch 1 1 Trainsandotherthings 2 2A02:C7C:36B1:FB00:8020:995F:DCEA:D15F 1 A09 1 A455bcd9 1 AhmadLX 1 Allreet 1 Apaugasma 1 Axem Titanium 1 BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 1 Brachy0008 1 Brainulator9 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 Chompy Ace 1 Cmguy777 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 DePiep 1 Dudley Miles 1 Floydian 1 FrB.TG 1 Glrx 1 Graham Beards 1 Gwillhickers 1 Hdog1996 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 In actu 1 InterstellarGamer12321 1 Iry-Hor 1 JennyOz 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Johnbod 1 Kavyansh.Singh 1 Keresluna 1 KoA 1 Magiciandude 1 Merko 1 Moabdave 1 Nick-D 1 Onegreatjoke 1 PericlesofAthens 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 Rockhead126 1 Rschen7754 1 Sammi Brie 1 Sandbh 1 SilverTiger12 1 Spinixster 1 Steelkamp 1 The person who loves reading 1 Theramin 1 Tkbrett 1 UndercoverClassicist 1 Valereee 1 Vaughan J. 1 Viridiscalculus 1 악준동 1 Totals 191 31 31 3

Supports and opposes for May 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 1 24 25 ChrisTheDude 13 2 15 Jo-Jo Eumerus 13 13 Gog the Mild 5 1 4 10 SchroCat 6 2 1 9 Harrias 4 3 7 Ceranthor 4 1 1 6 Aoba47 3 3 6 Unlimitedlead 4 1 5 Heartfox 5 5 Lingzhi.Renascence 1 4 5 Buidhe 5 5 Kusma 2 3 5 Ian Rose 1 1 2 4 Z1720 4 4 Hawkeye7 4 4 MaranoFan 2 2 4 Pseud 14 3 3 Serial Number 54129 3 3 Wehwalt 3 3 Lee Vilenski 3 3 FunkMonk 3 3 Epicgenius 1 2 3 Tim riley 3 3 Mujinga 1 2 3 Gerda Arendt 3 3 HJ Mitchell 3 3 Hog Farm 3 3 PCN02WPS 1 1 2 The Night Watch 1 1 2 John M Wolfson 2 2 SNUGGUMS 2 2 Cyclonebiskit 1 1 2 BennyOnTheLoose 2 2 Jimfbleak 2 2 MaxnaCarta 1 1 2 Guerillero 1 1 2 AirshipJungleman29 2 2 Mike Christie 2 2 Sturmvogel 66 2 2 Casliber 2 2 Cplakidas 2 2 SandyGeorgia 1 1 2 Trainsandotherthings 2 2 Borsoka 2 2 Ceoil 2 2 Glrx 1 1 2A02:C7C:36B1:FB00:8020:995F:DCEA:D15F 1 1 Brachy0008 1 1 KoA 1 1 Iry-Hor 1 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 1 AhmadLX 1 1 Premeditated Chaos 1 1 Keresluna 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Dudley Miles 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 DePiep 1 1 Theramin 1 1 Kavyansh.Singh 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Rschen7754 1 1 A455bcd9 1 1 Magiciandude 1 1 Cmguy777 1 1 Chompy Ace 1 1 Merko 1 1 UndercoverClassicist 1 1 Brainulator9 1 1 The person who loves reading 1 1 Spinixster 1 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 1 Axem Titanium 1 1 Tkbrett 1 1 Apaugasma 1 1 A09 1 1 InterstellarGamer12321 1 1 Rockhead126 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 Viridiscalculus 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Gwillhickers 1 1 Hdog1996 1 1 Moabdave 1 1 Vaughan J. 1 1 악준동 1 1 PericlesofAthens 1 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 1 SilverTiger12 1 1 Sammi Brie 1 1 BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4 1 1 Valereee 1 1 Sandbh 1 1 Onegreatjoke 1 1 Floydian 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 Allreet 1 1 In actu 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Totals 125 ' 1 ' 7 123 256

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) 14:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for March 2023 to May 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 3.0 18.0 6.0 Amitchell125 4.0 1.0 0.2 BennyOnTheLoose 6.0 18.0 3.0 Bneu2013 2.0 None 0.0 Ceoil 2.0 15.0 7.5 ChrisTheDude 13.0 127.0 9.8 Cplakidas 6.0 11.0 1.8 Cyclonebiskit 2.0 2.0 1.0 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 5.0 1.0 Dudley Miles 5.0 29.0 5.8 Dunkleosteus77 2.0 4.0 2.0 Epicgenius 7.0 16.0 2.3 ErnestKrause 2.2 21.0 9.7 Figureskatingfan 3.0 4.0 1.3 FrB.TG 5.5 46.0 8.4 Friendofleonard 2.0 None 0.0 FunkMonk 3.0 32.0 10.7 Gog the Mild 11.0 100.0 9.1 HAL333 3.0 15.0 5.0 Hawkeye7 8.5 44.0 5.2 Heartfox 3.0 26.0 8.7 Henni147 1.3 7.0 5.2 HJ Mitchell 5.5 36.0 6.5 Hog Farm 8.5 27.0 3.2 Horserice 2.0 1.0 0.5 Ian Rose 4.0 49.0 12.2 Iazyges 6.8 23.0 3.4 Ippantekina 7.0 15.0 2.1 Jimfbleak 2.0 15.0 7.5 John M Wolfson 6.0 6.0 1.0 Kusma 2.0 28.0 14.0 Lee Vilenski 5.0 27.0 5.4 LittleJerry 4.5 2.0 0.4 MaranoFan 9.5 33.0 3.5 Mike Christie 7.0 114.0 16.3 MyCatIsAChonk 3.0 None 0.0 Pamzeis 2.0 1.0 0.5 PCN02WPS 2.0 7.0 3.5 Peacemaker67 4.0 3.0 0.8 Premeditated Chaos 4.0 10.0 2.5 Pseud 14 4.0 25.0 6.2 SchroCat 8.0 70.0 8.8 Steelkamp 2.0 11.0 5.5 TheJoebro64 5.5 6.0 1.1 Therapyisgood 2.0 2.0 1.0 Tim riley 4.0 43.0 10.8 Trainsandotherthings 4.0 12.0 3.0 Unlimitedlead 6.3 30.0 4.7 Vami IV 4.0 12.0 3.0 Wehwalt 7.8 51.0 6.5 Your Power 6.0 17.0 2.8 ZKang123 3.0 3.0 1.0 Zmbro 4.0 4.0 1.0 Zwerg Nase 2.0 None 0.0

This month I have spent some time automating the collection of this data. As far as I can tell the results are accurate, but if anyone spots any errors please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am interested in learning how I have 3.1 nominations in the past 12 months. Where does that .1 come from? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Fractions are possible because co-nominations are counted as fractions, but in this case as far as I can see all your nominations are solo, so it looks like a bug. I'll take a look when I'm next near the relevant computer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Thanks for spotting that; please let me know if anything else looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix and for doing this every month, Mike. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Big Up Mike Christie!

Thanks

Thanks, y'all; I appreciate this but am way too British not to be a bit embarrassed too, so I am hatting it. Thanks for the nice comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) In the words of Trainsandotherthings, "for doing this every month". SN54129 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Support, as proposer. SN54129 15:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Support: I thought this was already a monthly occurance, but if it is not, it should be! Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Strong support, as someone who agrees with the proposer. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Mike Christie for FAC coord. +S § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Congratulations, felicitations, and all standard obeisances & salutations ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

MoS guidance on duplicate links has been changed

Since FAs have to follow the MoS, nominators and reviewers should be aware that multiple links in an article are now allowed, at editor discretion, up to one link per section. See this edit, per the consensus here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that editors and reviewers read the new MoS wording carefully, as my interpretation of it is not quite what Mike writes above, given that the amended sentence still starts "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers ..." [The emphasis is in the original.] Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

Wrong forum; pls take to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eltomas2003

I hate to point fingers at people, especially since this is just a hunch, but based on my experience at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive2, its nominator, User:Therealgamer1234, has displayed sockpuppet-like activity. For an account that was only created a day ago, the user seems to have a reasonable understanding of the FA and DYK processes, with their second edit after account creation being the creation of a FAC. As @ChrisTheDude said, "Probably not relevant here, but the history of the nominator is a little odd. Nominated an article at FAC with only their second ever edit, only created their account today but knew how to find the TFA queue, and within 16 minutes of creating an account posted on their user page 'Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I have made numerous contributions to various articles'. I suppose they could previously have edited as an IP but it just looks a bit fishy......". User:Yoichi Tachibana, who is now globally-locked, previously took the article in question to PR, citing the reason as: "I've listed this article for peer review because… Let's make it worthy of being featured in the main page! I think it fulfills all criteria of an FA!". This line of reasoning is similar to Therealgamer1234's logic at the FAC: "...let's make it quick so that it can be featured in June 24, 2023...I only want this to be an FA so that it can be part of the main page of June 24th". Yoichi Tachibana also had an irregular familiarity with Wikipedia's inner workings upon account creation, and most of their edits revolved around Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE as well. When I "confronted" the user about this matter, they cryptically responded that it is "Probably just Coincidence". @Aoba47 said that they "...think the sockpuppet aspect deserves more discussion and should not just be completely dismissed as without merit or just a coincidence". I am not sure if this case warrants a full-on investigation, but I would like to make FAC regulars and coordinators aware of the situation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the ping. To be completely honest, I am not really knowledgeable about the procedures regarding sockpuppets so I would defer to someone with more experience and trust their perceptive more so than mine. I just wanted to voice support that this was odd and that it shouldn't just be written off as a coincidence. Apologies for not being much help here. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC) I'm actually not a sock, it genuinely is not a coincidence. I don't want this situation to get any further out of hand. Therealgamer1234 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC) The reason why I know FAC beforehand is because I had read about it before I created my account and started editing. The only reason why I want this article featured because I genuinely enjoy the game it was based on, I wanted to spread the word of it to everyone! Therealgamer1234 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) My response when this sort of thing comes up, as it has at FAR as well: if there is evidence, take it to SPI; this isn't the venue to evaluate that. If there's not evidence, AGF and evaluate a nom on its merits. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Yep, per Nikki. Unlimitedlead, you can't do this here; if you suspect someone is a sock, you have to present evidence at SPI. In this case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eltomas2003. @Beeblebrox:, arbcom block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC) See 14 July 2018, for example, in archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Quine-Putnam indispensability argument

Hi, looking for a mentor to help with making sure the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument is up to scratch before hopefully nominating it for FA status, and for help with the FAC process itself as I've never nominated an article before. The article was initially a redirect which I converted into a full article in August 2021 and have been working on on-and-off since then. It received GA status in May 2022 and underwent peer review in September, and then went to GOCE for copyediting in January. Since then I've made a few big improvements to the comprehensiveness/structure/wording and think it may be close to ready for FAC. I would have went straight to individual mentors but I'm not sure who would be interested in helping with philosophy articles in general and so thought a request here would be better. Thanks! :) Alduin2000 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Here's one place to start: Five instances of P/PP error; eight instances of "Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?"; seven instances of Missing ISBN; one instance of "Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC"; three instances of ISBNs on books that are "Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; you've got a section described as "This section provides a list of the primary sources that are referred to or quoted in the article but not used to source content" but apparently several (quick eyeball count: 14) of them actually are. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if you don't have a mentor, may I suggest just going for it anyway? I don't notice any glaring deficiencies and the worst thing that can happen at FAC is the article doesn't pass. (t · c) buidhe 00:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 01:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks buidhe, I definitely will. Also thanks for pointing those errors out Lingzhi, I'll have a look. Alduin2000 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Alduin2000: if you're not aware of the excellent reviewsourcecheck script, click on the "check refs" in Lingzhi's signature. I can see that the article has been improved since being passed as a GA, and agree with buidhe above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Frances Cleveland source review

I notice at the top of this talk page it says that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frances Cleveland/archive2 needs a source review, but I completed such a review with Alanna the Brave on June 7.

As a side note, I initially came to this page to ask whether there was a list of urgent candidates needing reviewing, and I see the tiny WP:FACURGENT box in the corner of this page. I wonder if there might be a more efficient way to display the high priority nominations (like at WP:GAN where they're listed in a red box at the top of the page). In the meantime, I notice that FACURGENT isn't updated very often; are non-coordinators encouraged or discouraged to edit it and keep it updated? The page doesn't say. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien anyone can update "Image/source check requests" (although requesting one for your own nomination should only be done if it meets the rules) and it's encouraged to remove the request if you fulfilled it. Sometimes coordinators do miss a review, but for the "Frances Cleveland" article no editor mentions that they have done a "source review" so it is not clear that you intended it to count as such. Not all comments on sources are a comprehensive review so we can't assume they are. (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The big box at WP:GAN may be more visible but it certainly isn't "efficient"—I note that none of the articles in the oldest nominations box have been picked up in 12 days. Anyway, at FAC "high priority" nominations are really quite easy to find for yourself—either you look at the source and image request box, or you find an article at WP:FAC#Older nominations with less than three reviews and review it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Usage of tertiary sources in the article Logic

I was thinking about nominating the article Logic for FAC (would be my first nomination). Before that, I was hoping to get some feedback. The article uses various tertiary sources (mostly high-quality, philosophy-specific encyclopedias, like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Lingzhi.Renascence pointed out in their GA review that this could be an issue for FAC. One of the reasons for using them is that this article is on a very general topic where the key point is to summarize and provide an overview of a huge field. Is this a problem that should be addressed before a nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The policy WP:TERTIARY summarises the situation. I don't see any major issues, although - as always - the devil is in the detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment! I'll give it another round of peer review before the nomination, see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Logic/archive3. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for June 2023

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2023. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviewers for June 2023

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 2 1 8 ChrisTheDude 9 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 6 2 Unlimitedlead 7 1 1 Buidhe 2 1 4 MaranoFan 4 3 Aoba47 6 SchroCat 5 Tim riley 5 AirshipJungleman29 4 Serial Number 54129 4 BennyOnTheLoose 2 1 Graham Beards 3 HAL333 3 Heartfox 2 1 In actu 2 1 Ippantekina 3 Lingzhi.Renascence 3 MyCatIsAChonk 2 1 ProtoDrake 1 1 1 Pseud 14 3 Sturmvogel 66 2 1 UndercoverClassicist 3 Aza24 2 Ceranthor 2 Dudley Miles 2 Femke 2 Gog the Mild 1 1 Guerillero 2 Harrias 1 1 HJ Mitchell 2 Premeditated Chaos 1 1 TheJoebro64 2 Wehwalt 2 A. Parrot 1 A455bcd9 1 Al Ameer son 1 Alanna the Brave 1 Anarchyte 1 Bneu2013 1 Ceoil 1 CHO woohyuck 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 CurryTime7-24 1 David Fuchs 1 Doncram 1 Dr. Blofeld 1 Ealdgyth 1 Epicgenius 1 FunkMonk 1 Gerda Arendt 1 Hog Farm 1 Ixtal 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Johnbod 1 KGRAMR 1 Magiciandude 1 Michael D. Turnbull 1 Mirokado 1 Ojorojo 1 P. S. Burton 1 Pamzeis 1 PanagiotisZois 1 Panini! 1 PCN02WPS 1 Richard Nevell 1 SandyGeorgia 1 Shooterwalker 1 Smokefoot 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Steelkamp 1 Stupor26 1 SusunW 1 The Night Watch 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 TompaDompa 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 Vaticidalprophet 1 Wretchskull 1 Totals 141 17 21

Supports and opposes for June 2023

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 1 2 8 11 Unlimitedlead 5 2 2 9 Jo-Jo Eumerus 9 9 ChrisTheDude 7 2 9 MaranoFan 4 3 7 Buidhe 7 7 Aoba47 3 3 6 SchroCat 3 2 5 Tim riley 5 5 Serial Number 54129 1 2 1 4 AirshipJungleman29 1 3 4 Lingzhi.Renascence 3 3 MyCatIsAChonk 3 3 UndercoverClassicist 2 1 3 Graham Beards 2 1 3 ProtoDrake 1 2 3 Ippantekina 2 1 3 Heartfox 1 2 3 HAL333 2 1 3 In actu 1 2 3 Sturmvogel 66 1 2 3 Pseud 14 3 3 BennyOnTheLoose 2 1 3 Harrias 1 1 2 Premeditated Chaos 1 1 2 Femke 2 2 Aza24 2 2 Gog the Mild 1 1 2 Guerillero 2 2 HJ Mitchell 1 1 2 Dudley Miles 1 1 2 Ceranthor 1 1 2 TheJoebro64 2 2 Wehwalt 2 2 Shooterwalker 1 1 Michael D. Turnbull 1 1 Al Ameer son 1 1 CHO woohyuck 1 1 SandyGeorgia 1 1 Bneu2013 1 1 KGRAMR 1 1 A. Parrot 1 1 Vaticidalprophet 1 1 Anarchyte 1 1 CurryTime7-24 1 1 The Night Watch 1 1 SusunW 1 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 1 Hog Farm 1 1 Richard Nevell 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Mirokado 1 1 Pamzeis 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 Smokefoot 1 1 Ojorojo 1 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 PCN02WPS 1 1 Ealdgyth 1 1 PanagiotisZois 1 1 Wretchskull 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Dr. Blofeld 1 1 Alanna the Brave 1 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 1 Doncram 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Magiciandude 1 1 Ixtal 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 Panini! 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Stupor26 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 P. S. Burton 1 1 A455bcd9 1 1 Totals 73 1 19 86 179

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) 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nominators for April 2023 to June 2023 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 3.0 22.0 7.3 AJona1992 2.0 1.0 0.5 Amitchell125 4.0 1.0 0.2 Aoba47 4.0 68.0 17.0 BennyOnTheLoose 6.0 20.0 3.3 Bneu2013 2.0 1.0 0.5 ChrisTheDude 13.0 129.0 9.9 Cplakidas 6.0 11.0 1.8 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 4.0 0.8 Epicgenius 6.0 17.0 2.8 ErnestKrause 2.2 19.0 8.8 Figureskatingfan 3.0 4.0 1.3 FrB.TG 4.5 40.0 8.9 FunkMonk 3.0 31.0 10.3 Gog the Mild 12.0 92.0 7.7 Hawkeye7 8.5 42.0 4.9 Heartfox 3.0 28.0 9.3 HJ Mitchell 4.5 38.0 8.4 Hog Farm 7.5 27.0 3.6 Ian Rose 4.0 49.0 12.2 Iazyges 7.8 23.0 2.9 Ippantekina 6.0 15.0 2.5 Iry-Hor 2.0 1.0 0.5 John M Wolfson 6.0 6.0 1.0 Kusma 2.0 28.0 14.0 Lee Vilenski 6.0 24.0 4.0 LittleJerry 4.5 2.0 0.4 MaranoFan 9.5 37.0 3.9 MyCatIsAChonk 4.0 3.0 0.8 PCN02WPS 2.0 8.0 4.0 Peacemaker67 4.0 3.0 0.8 Premeditated Chaos 5.0 10.0 2.0 PresN 2.0 2.0 1.0 Pseud 14 4.0 25.0 6.2 Sandbh 2.0 4.0 2.0 SchroCat 9.0 75.0 8.3 The Night Watch 2.0 6.0 3.0 Thebiguglyalien 2.0 2.0 1.0 TheJoebro64 4.5 8.0 1.8 Tkbrett 2.0 3.0 1.5 Trainsandotherthings 3.0 11.0 3.7 Unlimitedlead 7.3 39.0 5.3 Wehwalt 7.8 51.0 6.5 WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker 2.0 None 0.0 Your Power 6.0 17.0 2.8 ZKang123 3.0 3.0 1.0 Zmbro 4.0 4.0 1.0

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Mike, just an FYI, but there was also this which garnered a fair few opposes before being nuked. It's probably not in the stats, though. SN54129 11:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right, the stats don't include anything that doesn't make it into the archives. I think that's probably OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

TFA coordinator lineup proposed changes

With the retirement of Jimfbleak after this month from coordinator duties, I've started a discussion here, and since this page gets more hits than WT:TFA, I've posted here with that link. Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I will note that while Gog can obviously handle the load, he was the only coord promoting/archiving FACs between 21 June and 9 July. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been (I think fairly openly) less active due to RL stuff the last couple months and while I'm hoping that resolves sometime in August, I can't promise that. If my scan of my contributions is correct, than I haven't promoted/archived a FAC since May 14, and the one before that was May 7. If my general lack of coord activity is considered detrimental by the FAC community, than I am willing to resign and let somebody who can more adequately fill the role take over. Hog Farm _Talk 23:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Do you anticipate getting busy again after your return? There's no point in having two weeks of free time then getting busy again. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: - I think it should be manageable. My work life is probably just going to be cyclical for the near futures, with very busy summers and only moderately busy winters and springs. Hog Farm _Talk 01:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: it is unreasonable to expect coords to be available 100% in a calendar year, which is why there are multiple co-ords. If you anticipate having more time in August/September, then I have no concerns with you staying on. We can also revisit the issue in September if you discover that your real-world time commitments are still too large. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Z1720; this is why we have multiple coords. I don't see a problem with you remaining a coord. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for His Majesty's Theatre, London

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/His Majesty's Theatre, London/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Death and state funeral of Leonid Brezhnev

Hello! I wanted to leave this request for feedback for Death and state funeral of Leonid Brezhnev in order to size up what its prospects could be for FAC. If anyone could take a look, I'd be most appreciative. My biggest concern is that a sizeable portion of the article covers the year before his death (because the poor state of his health was a large factor in the last year of his life). This may seem to some as being "off topic", however, there is precedent for this for FA's (Death of Jimi Hendrix and Death of Cleopatra being two of them). If editors here could take a look at the article, I'd be most appreciative. My thanks to you all for any time you can spare. Regards,  Spintendo  02:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's technically allowed per the FA criteria, but the current citations for List of foreign dignitaries make it very difficult to verify for the person trying to do spot checks. I would recommend citing each bullet point separately. Also, I would try to cut down on the number of notes. If a content is not sufficiently important for the main article text, it probably does not belong in the article at all. All content in notes needs an inline citation. (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe Thank you for your feedback, it's much appreciated. I've reduced the number of citations in the foreign dignitaries section to one (all of the names on the list should be tracked to that one source, it's the official Soviet list produced by Pravda), and I've reduced the number of notes to four, all of which contain inline citations. Regards,  Spintendo  04:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a big issue with the cited source as the link doesn't actually verify the names. Also, just being on the official attendance list doesn't mean it's WP:DUE. I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria is supposed to be; mentioned in secondary sources and/or notable might be reasonable. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe My apologies, the URL wasn't pointing to the right page. I've corrected it. It should now take you to the list of names. Regards,  Spintendo  05:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I see where the problem was. The URL I originally entered was correct, but for some reason, you have to select the actual subpage when you get to that first page, because the URL it gives for the subpage is identical to the landing page's URL. In any event, it's the third entry from the top of the list, titled: Траурный митинг на Красной площади - репортаж. Half of the list is displayed there. There is a second page you then need to click when you get to the bottom of that page, to see the second half of the list. Sorry it had to be so difficult, If I had designed that website it would have been a lot easier. Regards,  Spintendo  05:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's fitting that the website which stores past issues of Pravda, with its Byzantine navigation, is itself an homage to Soviet bureaucracy.  Spintendo  05:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If I were doing a source review I would wonder if Pravda counts as a high quality RS. Also, I think the list needs a clearer inclusion criteria and wonder how much it actually aids reader understanding if there is no context about a person's visit or non-visit. I wonder if there were any notable disputes/controversies about the attendance of any individuals at the funeral because otherwise it seems the article may be US-centric. However, at least it's more verifiable now. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe You make a good point. I don't think there's been any established consensus on whether is a reliable source to use (I have seen some discussions about modern day Pravda in other societies such as Ukrainian Pravda, which have been stated to not be as reliable, but again those were for modern day publications). I think as a primary source it would be acceptable in that there's no interpretation of the information being done, since interpretation would require a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Policy states that a primary source may be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (in this case, if you're not counting the need to translate the text). Perhaps it could reiterate "according to Pravda" or "as published by Pravda" in parentheses would work, after where it says list of dignitaries. As far as your point about being notable, of the 180 on the list, 14 are non notable. Of those 14, 2 can be sourced to the New York Times as well. I could put in a citation for those two and then delete the others, would that work? Regards,  Spintendo  06:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And I agree, it is very US-centric, the result of having mostly access to English language documents about that period of time. If there were any other disputes, they wouldn't have been published in Pravda, that's for sure. I have seen some German language sources which talk about the dispute between their foreign minister and Andropov in the meetings that were held on the same day as the funeral, I could add that information. There's also information about the attendance of Luis Cabral, the ex-president of Guinea-Bissau, and the difficulty that engendered with the possibility of the current president's representative at that time attending, since one was ousted by the other in a coup. Needless to say the other president's representative did not attend. Regards,  Spintendo  06:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Nestor Makhno

I tried asking a few people on the FAC mentor list but ended up getting nowhere, so I'm asking here. Could someone here have a look over the article on Nestor Makhno? It's an article I spent a lot of time last year working on, taking it through peer review and GA review. It's been a while since then and I haven't found much more that I can add to it - changes have mostly been copy-editing - so I've been ready and waiting to submit it for FAC. Regards. -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Why not just submit it, Grnrchst? It looks rather good, and the worst that can happen is that it get promoted first time, in which case you'll have learned a lot anyway. Seriously, don't hesitate to take the plunge!~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The length isn't extreme, but I do see some places in the article where personally I would be inclined to be more concise—particularly the legacy section where it seems doubtful that all the cultural references mentioned are really WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Are there any specific bits that stick out to you as undue? --Grnrchst (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the length of the Further Reading section. Why aren't these sources used as inline citations? I understand not using foreign language sources (Google Translate is not a great idea, and if you can't read it then its better to leave as-is) and some of the other sources look to be lower quality and maybe can be removed (Goldberg, Joel Harold (1973), because it is a PhD paper, and Makhno, Nestor (2007) [1928] & Nomad, Max (1939) are both older sources that can be avoided for newer ones.) Why can't some of the other sources listed here be used? Z1720 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: There's a few reasons for why these aren't used. Some are because they're broader histories of Ukraine and/or the Russian Revolution which don't focus much on Makhno himself (Allen 1963; Avrich 1971; Dubovik 2009; Goldberg 1973; Magocsi 1996; Rublyov 2009; Subtelny 1998; Yekelchyk 2007). Others are because they're primary sources (Arshinov 1974; Eichenbaum 1955; Goldman 1923; Gora 1930; Makhno 1996; Makhno 2007; Makhno 2009). Then there's a review of one of the main sources (Avrich 1983) and the aforementioned non-English language sources (Menzies 1972; Przyborowski & Wierzchoś 2012; Savchenk 2005; Semanov 2005; Wierzchoś 2011).

Sysyn is the only source that I think could potentially be used to add more information to the article. I'm almost certain I had used it at some point, but apparently not. -- Grnrchst (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing broad overviews then (perhaps moving them to other articles' further reading sections), that's a huge amount you've listed. Aza24 (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aza24: Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: The source, "Avrich, Paul (1983)" does not need to be listed in Further reading, as it is a review of a book and does not provide encyclopedic content to this article (although they can be used for the articles about the book). In addition, I suggest using the following sources as inline citations to help fulfil the 1c "well-researched" criteria of the FA criteria:

• Avrich, Paul (1971) [1967]. (if its to general, as mentioned above, then it can be removed)
• Gilley, Christopher (8 October 2014)
• Sysyn, Frank (1977). (I think you mentioned this above)

I did not list "Guérin, Daniel (2005)." because I am not sure if AK Press is a high-quality source. Sources written by Makhno can be placed in the article prose under a section called "Notable works" or something similar. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: The reason I didn't use Avrich 1971 is because it's not just a general overview of the Russian Revolution, but also because it doesn't really cover any extra information on Makhno that's not covered by Avrich 1988 (a more focused biography). I suppose I could cite Gilley, although that one is a tertiary source and two of his main sources are Shubin and Sysyn. I will definitely have another pass of Sysyn 1977 for 1c. As for Guérin's book, it's an anthology of many primary sources, including a number of works written by Makhno. It does include a short biography on Makhno, but it's not one I thought was particularly necessary to cite. I'll also see about doing a notable works section. -- Grnrchst (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If something is not used for inline citations because there are better sources, then I would not list it in Further reading as we want to guide readers to the highest-quality sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for interrupting the conversation. I just wanted to add a quick point. I do see some WP:SANDWICHING issues, specifically in the middle of the "Commander in the Red Army" subsection and at the top of the "Against the White Army" subsection. It is not a super major point, but it is something that should be addressed prior to a FAC at least in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I missed this. I've moved the images around now, per the manual of style. Thanks for catching this! Grnrchst (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)