Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Made an idea about this in Village pump

[edit]

Hi! I came up with an idea related to this fantastic page over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#URFA_addition_to_article_milestones which might be of interest to you all. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving diff to discussion before it archives. Seems to have fizzled out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VPT query

[edit]

Me again, displaying my abilities for the whole world to see: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed now, thanks to Legoktm; it was a wayward table that I copied from the WP:FASA tabs (and also fixed there). Thank you, Legoktm! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfactory diffs before Signpost

[edit]

Could we make a push to fill in the diff for the third “satisfactory” here before the Signpost runs? I think I completed them at old, but not yet very old. At times, I skipped forward a version or two, if it was just bot improvements or some such. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is complete. Please check and post below if there are concerns or questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks Z! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022 tentative TFA schedule

[edit]

I am starting to post the TFA blurbs for February. The draft list is here. The four pre-2020 promotions are from 2018, 2015, 2013 and 2007. If any URFA editors would care to cast an eye over them it would be appreciated, especially re Final Fantasy Tactics. Their are likely to be changes before all of these go live and if so I shall update this thread. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Tactics should be in decent shape. Z1720 and a few others have been reworking it, and I believe the two batches of comments I gave it have been resolved. Hog Farm Talk 15:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edit by FACBot

[edit]

@Hawkeye7: FACBot made this edit: [2] which resulted in this [3]. I'm not sure what FACBot wanted to do, but I reverted the edit. Any insight on what happened? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Sydney Hailstorm

[edit]

I'm not an expert on hailstorms, but it seems like 1999 Sydney hailstorm is weirdly formatted and likely is not comprehensive enough on impact given the level of damage that occurred. I have seen more academic literature related to damage and aftermath out there as well. Would like additional thoughts on this. NoahTalk 02:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, the two reports listed in the To do on the article's talk page should be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 tentative TFA schedule

[edit]

The tentative schedule for March may be found here. It is subject to change if further TFA/Rs are filed or if there's any issues with an article. I plan to schedule next week, a bit early due to travel. Comments are welcome, and should be on that page so discussions stay centralized.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any old ones of concern, since they all either recently went through FAR, or have active knowledgeable FA watchers. Will others please check in case I missed something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very bad one

[edit]

Starting off by pinging @FAR coordinators: and the "regulars" @SandyGeorgia, Z1720, and Buidhe:. I don't think I've been one to counsel trying to rush something to FAR quickly, and explicitly argued against doing that at Talk:Characters of Carnivàle#This is not FA quality. But that is what I am about to ask to do. I've recently noticed the 2007 promotion United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. This is quite frankly the worst-condition FA I've ever seen, and I'm the one who opened this FAR that was closed in less than 3.5 days. The primary issue here is that this FA appears to be strongly based in POV, a conclusion that seemed obvious to me after I skimmed most of the text and looked at what type of sources were used and what type wasn't. The FAC nominator is a blocked sock. There was a peer review in 2015 that identified some of the same issues I have and frankly should have been a formal FAR, yet nothing seems to have occurred. Given the state of the article, the nominator's block status, and the 2015 peer review basically serving as a long-term pre-FAR notice, when is the soonest this one can be brought to FAR? Hog Farm Talk 23:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only nomination I have maturing is Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gyeongju/archive2, which moved to FARC on 19 March, so I'm not sure I'll be eligible for another nom for two more weeks. (It's a bit sad that we are forced to overlook some really bad FAs as we all search to nominate those that won't get stalled as we're at our limits. There are some that are just unbearably bad, but I can't afford another stall until Josquin des Prez, and now Cyclol, get moving.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, also with my son's wedding approaching, and planning to drive cross country (five days driving plus the week at the wedding), I can't take on a tough one until J. K. Rowling is put to bed or until after the wedding ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have space to nominate and was going to nominate an article today. If FAR coords let us wave the two-week notice period, I will create this article's FAR. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 since you are willing, maybe you should formally request permission at WT:FAR ... transparency and all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind :) I edit conflicted with NM, and the reply tool lets you post over an edit conflict, without showing what the conflict is <grrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and holy mother of all canvassing, and how timidly and politely I pointed that out on the FAC when I was still young and green ... well, we know I wouldn't handle it that way today :) Coords, I think considering the circumstances of the faulty FAC pass, an expedition or dispensation for an extra nom should be allowed in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the nomination, but it's getting late and my partner wants to watch Moon Knight, so I'll have to finish it tomorrow. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking ahead at April TFA listing

[edit]

It's largely recent promotions. The ones that fall under URFA/2020 are

American paddlefish, No. 79 Squadron, and European nightjar have all been marked as FAR not needed. Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HF. I'm good with the three we've marked, and don't plan to check Messiah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FACbot

[edit]

FACbot has not been through here since November 6. At first, I thought it could be because of the page split in December, but I see I had asked the question before the page split, when TFA dates weren't updated. @Hawkeye7:? Also, we need to go back through all of December, January and February to make sure all TFA dates are added; starting on that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got all of December, January and February; waiting to hear from Hawkeye7 on March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What run is this we're talking about? What is it supposed to do? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 updating TFA dates: sample. I'm not sure if it's the same run as these, for example. I suspect we got dropped after the list here was split for size. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 it ran! I'm not sure in what order the bot processes TFAs, but it didn't pick up everything scheduled so far? From March, it got

But it didn't pick up

Perhaps it only runs one month out? If so, we're good .. thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 sorry for the double ping; my bad ... both of those articles went through FAR before this list was generated, so are not on this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it ran. I updated it. It should be okay from now on. The idea is that it picks up the the latest entries as the TFA coordinators schedule them. But it is capable of going back further. I have ordered it to re-check December, January and February. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again; because of this run, I picked up our big miss on Olympic Games (below). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for the Signpost

[edit]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report

Hi there! Would anybody from the project be interested in participating in a short interview (6 questions) for an article in the Signpost? See also discussion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Suggestion by Z1720 (2022-01-06. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to do so, although others would likely be more eloquent/less likely to make bad typos than me. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I think Sandy should be interviewed, especially to give insight on how this all started. I'd be willing to do this if more interviewees are needed. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If new editors are a useful perspective for the article, I'm glad to help as well. I haven't done many reviews myself, but thought I'd offer just in case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z, sorry I’ve not kept up (as you may have noticed, I have been otherwise entertained for weeks :) I will respond over there on the “not a WikiProject” issue. But as an informal group of editors working together, there are clear leaders, who should be heard from (Z and HF). A. C., my suggestion for the fourth would be Jimfbleak for three reasons: 1) prolific FA writer who has dutifully noted own articles satisfactory, while 2) also reviewing other older FAs and entering notes, and 3) a user of the list for TFA purposes. That really covers it all SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing up the work, so we don't overlap. What if I focus my responses on history/aims, Z1720 covers the annual summary and data, Jimfbleak takes the approach of how it helps improve quality, both across the board and for TFA choice, and Hog Farm fills in the marketing rah-rah come out and help gaps? Does anyone have something in particular they want to say? My rough is all history; why we needed it, how we did it before (URFA), what sparked my idea to get it going, how it interacts with FAR and builds camaraderie and brings new FA prospects into the fold, blah blah ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer qu. 2 (motivation to join), qu. 3 (contributions I am proud of, mention Basiliscus), and qu. 5 (pressing needs). Also happy to answer some other ones if no one is sick of my text yet. Some of these questions should be answered by more than one of us. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all! Looks like organization is going great. Just a note, feel free to add extra reply sections beyond the 4 I originally added, if needed! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, EpicPupper but can you clarify the formatting, per your edit here, and my start here? Are we supposed to write and sign as Buidhe did; or precede our comments with our name, and not sign; or something in between? Since (everyone knows) it takes me 500 edits to write one sentence, it would help to get off on the right foot :) I'm going to take on the "typical day", since it's all about keeping the list working effectively and efficiently! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia! I would prefer preceeding 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EpicPupper Great, thanks! Would it be possible to add this somewhere on the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few samples of Very Old Featured article saves from 2021
*These received a Million Award
SandyGeorgia  Done with a few tweaks 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid too many interviewees in the Signpost article, I'll let others answer the questions (their responses so far are great!) This leaves SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, buidhe, and Jimfbleak as our voice! Ping me if there are any concerns or questions. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What ??? You should be in there; you could respond to at least one of the questions (we don't all have to respond to all of them). I have plopped in the basic history, which should include all of the links, so we don't end up with dupe links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'll take a look at the end and respond if I think something is missing. I don't need the celebrity: I would rather have a great article that draws people into the project than a long article that bores people. Besides, you four have a lot of prestige on Wikipedia, which will draw people into reading the interview. I'll be here, ready to answer questions when editors arrive. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. OK then, who is going to chop my verbosity when we're close to done? (PS, anyone is authorized to correct my typos.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am always available to chop out your extra words ;) Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can work on that after everyone is in. Thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I've left placeholders for where I intend to weigh in; you really could fill in the other gaps, as you have been a leader of the group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 EpicPupper asked us to respond within one or two days, and we’re still short. Do you think we should ask FunkMonk to respond at “ What motivated you to become a member of the Unreviewed featured articles 2020 working group?” (Because they do so much reviewing), and should we ask a FAR Coord to respond at “ What do you see as some of the biggest achievements of the Unreviewed featured articles 2020 working group and are there any contributions you are particularly proud of?” Re the reinvigoration of FAR? Otherwise, the rest of you have to pop in some more answers! I’m going back to sleep now; please ping in those people if you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'll check later today and if there are still some missing answers I will contribute. I think there should probably be 2-3 responses per question (depending on length). Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both … starting to look better … I’ll finish mine off after I get through my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the disaster that is my watchlist, and I cannot image what yours looks like....Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don’t watchlist very much; instead, I re-read all of FAR every day, and when I enter URFA reviews, I ask to be pinged back. And in my own area of editing, I only watchlist FAs. (Because all of the bad medical content is so depressing that I can’t follow it without despair.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I currently have 1,330 pages on my watchlist. I've been meaning to do a general purging, but haven't gotten around to it because it's such a mess. Ugh. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it down to 830, but it's still barely manageable. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, I’m lower than y’all at 720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are mostly in now; @Buidhe and Hog Farm: since we are FA writers Who Never Overlink, can you go back now and check that links are only on first occurrence? I got many of them in to my first (history) post. We may be far enough along now that dup link check can be made. What’s missing? Do we want to ask Nikki or Cas or DrKay to pop in ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I don’t know why the flippin’ iPad can’t have a straight quote, so all of my curly quotes will need fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, although some of the dupe links may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Buidhe:, EpicPopper is asking for a few more responses[4] in the blank “Example” slots at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report. @FAR coordinators: could y’all glance over this to make sure there are no huge fox paws (faux pas :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the report is long enough as it is and should not be padded by adding a fourth answer where there are already three, unless there is something more to say :) (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great point 🙂 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EpicPupper could we together come up with a shorter, pithier title? The title there now doesn’t inspire one to engage … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia sure, totally agree! How about The Forgotten Featured? Feel free to suggest an alternative. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s interesting, but others here are probably more creative than I am. They are certainly pithier! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep asking them to please copyedit their own work; I've already asked three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

[edit]

Well, we didn't get a lot of feedback on the article, but I was very encouraged by what was written by Ganesha811, Bilorv and Indy beetle.

Here's another good reason for working towards those important "saves": FAR is actively returning high-value FAs to status, which is not only a benefit to our readers, but also means adding these (often vital or core) articles to those that can be re-run TFA. The articles currently at FAR got last year at least five times the views as FAC's highest month of promotions did. And nine of the ten top viewed are actively being worked towards a save. I hope this will encourage more involvement, so we don't lose so many of these older "core" articles, which are a benefit to the mainpage readers, as well as editors looking for examples of Wikipedia's best work.

With a similar number of articles, comparing the visibility of the articles currently at FAR with the highest month of FAC promotions in 2021 (October):

  • Current FAR: 43 articles; 1,640 daily average pageviews per article
    Ten articles with more than 2,000 average daily page views; nine of them actively being worked on towards a save
  • October FAC promotions: 46 articles; 354 daily average pageviews(a) per article
    Two articles higher than 2,000 average daily page views (Sustainable energy at 3,973; Turtle at 2,377)
    (a) Many ran TFA in November or December, so this measure of pageviews is somewhat inflated relative to current articles at FAR.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, February 4, 2022 (UTC)

Articles at FAR as of 4 Feb and pageviews
Articles at FAR as of 4 February 2022
Article 2021 average
daily pageviews
Antarctica 4,987
Arsenal F.C. 12,059
Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy 2,145
Avery Coonley School 11
Chicxulub crater 3,981
Christopher C. Kraft Jr. 167
Cliff Clinkscales 6
D. B. Cooper 7,912
Darjeeling 1,053
Geology of the Lassen volcanic area 14
George Fox 257
Green children of Woolpit 634
Heavy metal music 2,954
History of Minnesota 95
Holden 984
Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre 43
J. K. Rowling 9,056
Jabba the Hutt 805
Joan of Arc 5,902
Joel Selwood 213
Josquin des Prez 289
Ketuanan Melayu 114
Mars 5,945
Michael Woodruff 7
Monarchy of the United Kingdom 5,108
My Belarusy 60
Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt 103
Numerical weather prediction 158
Procellariidae 64
Quatermass and the Pit 102
Rock Springs massacre 194
Same-sex marriage in Spain 81
Shadow of the Colossus 910
Surface weather analysis 52
The Green (Dartmouth College) 10
The Well of Loneliness 184
Thoughts on the Education of Daughters 21
Titanium 103
Torajan people 190
William Henry Harrison 854
William Tecumseh Sherman 678
Yellowstone fires of 1988 109
Zelda Fitzgerald 1,894

Comments

[edit]
Good question. All I can think of is to keep doing what we're doing; this is, processing down the list, leaving notes, and pinging editors we know to be capable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A progress note

[edit]

If I did the math right, we're over 13% of the way through the very olds (if the rate continues, it would take us a bit less than 8 years to complete all of those). If we can get 38 moved off of the '04-'09 page, that'll put us up to 15% by the end of the month, which ought to be doable if we all chip in. Hog Farm Talk 18:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and assist; I'm trying to get one of my old FAs spruced up for ever 2–3 I help check off on the list, so after Populous: The Beginning gets some love I'll be diving back into the olds properly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Games Feb 20 TFA

[edit]

I thought it odd that FACbot updated a TFA for Olympic Games above, when I had not seen it listed on the page we checked per the 8 January Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Archive 2#February 2022 tentative TFA schedule notice. When I checked the article talk page, I found that the FAR notice had gone to talk archives, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Olympic Games was submitted on 15 January (a week after our check of the preliminary list here). So, the idea is that we have a system here where we can keep a permanent record of diffs, even if/when they are swept into talk archives, and yet we missed this one when the last-minute change was made. (@Buidhe, Sdkb, and Gog the Mild:) it seems that the article got by without complaints, so no harm, but we may not be so lucky next time. Just a reminder to check these pages when making last-minute changes at TFA involving old or very old FAs. I've been going through and checking a lot of the older notices, and suggest we all may need to keep an eye out for notices getting swept into talk archives by automatic archiving bots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone working in TFAR should check to see where it is on URFA before running an older FA. But that's an issue for the TFA folks so I suggest posting it on their talk page. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, heck, I've already over-posted this (I think in three places) :) So, I'll just @TFA coordinators for even more overkill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the good news department, TFA ran an article with maintenance tags, and no one complained at WP:ERRORS; someone must be off-duty! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that that article was approved while it still had maintenance tags, and I had meant to check to see that they were resolved before it ran, but I dropped the ball on that, so apologies there. I think we should try to be clearer about the point at which non-compliant TFAs should be caught and blocked: is it at the TFAR nomination or is it at some point after before they run? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on that, Sdkb, and besides the routine and helpful advance notice the TFA Coords have been giving here, that is probably a decision left to them. As a side note, unrelated to this page, the situation at Talk:Socrates Nelson may be about to test that; I'm not aware of any other recent situation of an FA that is too new to appear at FAR having so many deficiencies that it qualifies for a FAR, but I'm still hoping the deficiencies will be addressed before a TFA decision becomes urgent. I'm sure they can make the right call on that one, and don't like options of codifying instructions that may hamstring the Coords. (On the other hand, considering that ERRORS got no complaints on Olympic Games, I wonder if we should be more concerned that no one reads beyond the LEAD anyway ... which is what the WMF folks are always saying, and is quite depressing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have generally had the view that running a TFA with deficiencies is not a horrible thing; it's Wikipedia, and deficiencies should encourage participation. It's disappointing that this did not accomplish that, and that no one even noticed the deficiencies, so I may need to rethink my views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

In response at the talk page of Olympic games, Gog the Mild inquired whether there is a list of URFA articles somewhere that shouldn't be TFA.

Right now, there are 154 old or very old FAs that have received "formal" notice per the FAR instructions of a FAR needed (the category Olympic Games is in), 41 more at FAR, and notes of varying levels of deficiency on hundreds more here on these pages. With around ten editors working steadily on this, and about half a dozen using their one nomination per week at FAR, and the extreme number of old and very old FAs needing review because of the decade-long inactivity at FAR (about two-thirds of all FAs), these numbers are large, and status changes quickly. So, the best and most complete way to check an old or very old FA is to look here, at URFA2020. This page is more useful than the list of "formal" notices given at WP:FARGIVEN.

That is, anytime an FA comes up for TFA that was last reviewed at FAC or FAR before 2016, you can look on WP:URFA/2020A (Very old, last reviewed 2004 to 2009) or WP:URFA/2020B (Old, last reviewed 2010 to 2015). You can do that quickly with a ctrl-f, although the Notes column is sortable (that's how I do my reviewing). You can always click on the diff listed in the Notes column to see where things stand. Anything at WP:FARGIVEN should probably be avoided for sure, but there are some flagged here with only "notes" that are in worse shape than some listed at FARGIVEN, as we try to give editors who have boatloads of old FAs time to respond before noticing for FAR. So checking in here remains a useful step.

I wonder if we should add something to the instructions at TFAR as a reminder to check URFA/2020, but I think not, because the situation that happened here is so rare ... that is, the TFA Coords so far have been giving us an advance list, and regulars here have been checking it over. That has been useful, and means less work for you. Two things went wonky here: the nomination came up a week after your preliminary list here, and the FARGIVEN notice had been archived at the talk page because archival time there was short. (Also, the FARGIVEN notice was not an URFA regular, so no one was following.) So now Sdkb knows to check URFA when a very old FA comes up. I really think no change is needed here-- just awareness to check here whenever an FA that was last reviewed before 2016 comes up. It is rare that on old TFA would happen to come up so quickly after your prelimary list, I think? but if you think we need a line at the TFAR instructions, that would be easy to add. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 report

[edit]

Usually around this time I would begin drafting URFA/2020's quarterly report. However, real life is not kind to me at the moment and I doubt I will be able to complete this. Is anyone interested in preparing this? I find the reports encourage a couple editors to participate everytime it's published, so I hope someone will take this on. Z1720 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF is also pretty busy, so I can plan to do that. Someone may have to remind me :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quarterly report archive list at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/stats and started the 1Q 2022 at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/1Q2022. (Which means that should a truck hit me, anyone can fill in the numbers now and say a few words about the quarter's activity.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should be pulling out of the busy stretch for a few weeks soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we set 2022 goals to a) finish up all of 2004–2006, and b) have all of 2007 at least looked at, commented on? If so, we could put that out in the Q1 report, to encourage others to work towards finishing those up. Looking at all of 2007 would require each of us to look at between 10 and 15 per month for the remainder of the year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good goal. I'm a bit worried that some of the remaining 2006s might be "stuck" in the not-bad-enough-for-FAR but not good-enough-to-keep territory. Hog Farm Talk 02:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can backburner that problem, and start talking about what to do with them around July-ish? Because I have noticed that many I think are OK turn out not to be when a topic expert looks at them ... which leads to FAR. If we can get more eyes on 2006, some of them may take care of themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: an idea. Maybe if we get to the beginning of fall, and 2006 isn't progressing towards solving itself, we can propose at FAR that the limit be relaxed to allow us to mass nominate all articles left in that group. That would provoke folks to look and !vote. And if we announced that broadly in advance, maybe folks would get moving on addressing or FARing anything left in that group. Two years since the launch of URFA/2020 is more than enough time for 16-year-old FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if we post on the major Wikiprojects within the week, asking for topic experts to take a look at and improve the article? When I asked for help for Final Fantasy Tactics, I got some responses. This might also be a way to find subject-matter experts that we can recruit for other articles. In July, the articles that don't get a response, we can batch-nominate them (if FAR co-ords will allow) and we'll see where it takes us. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are willing to do that work, go for it :) I am going in to the hardest part of the J. K. Rowling FAR, and don't know how that will go or how much of my time it will consume. Hope all is well with you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going back to the busier version of myself - I'm taking a section of the CPA exam in a few weeks, and can't really spend extended time on here. I'll still be around, but less so and probably not much major content work. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle this when I am back full-time, hopefully in April. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I got all the structure in place at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/1Q2022. I see you are somewhat back in the saddle, while I am in the thick of the hardest work at J. K. Rowling. Are you able to finish up and publish when the quarter ends? If not, I can eventually get to it, but it won't be great work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'm not 100% back, but I will take a look at the report and I can post it in the usual spots. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft report for Q1 is available here. Please review and let us know if anything should be added/changed/removed. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in some missing stats in the draft, and I will send out the report tomorrow if there are no concerns/objectives. Please comment below if something needs to be changed in the report. Z1720 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The report has been posted to FAC, FAR and TFA. The link for the report is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/1Q2022. Do editors want the report posted here, too? Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May TFA

[edit]

Gog the Mild has started roughing in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2022. I am concerned that we should take a closer look at Flag of Belarus, as it has been a year-and-a-half since we marked it Satisfactory, and we should look at in relation to Wikipedia:Featured article review/National emblem of Belarus/archive1. @Bogdangiusca, Marcelus, Pofka, Nieszczarda2, and Cukrakalnis: is Flag of Belarus in good enough shape to run on the main page at WP:TFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I was going to nominate Flag of Belarus to TFA for July 3. I will see if Gog is willing to delay it. I think some uncited claims have been recently added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Given the above, would you be willing to at least move Lassen to the May 22 slot? It's currently in May 23 and the date connection is May 22. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it from May's list in line with Z1720's request. I don't anticipate any issues around it running on 3 July. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I don't have strong positive or negative opinion about this article. It looks quite good, informative, and references are presented everywhere. If somebody noticed unreferenced claims, then I think it can be solved using Template:Citation needed. Somebody should present sections/details which this article lacks in comparison with other FA-class articles of flags and then we can consider that article Flag of Belarus is no longer a FA-class article. -- Pofka (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Flag of Belarus is not in good enough shape, because it definitely does not match the level of other FA-class flag articles like Flag of Canada, Flag of India, Flag of Japan, Flag of Singapore. There needs to be improvement/expansion/creation of protocol, related flags and symbolism sections in Flag of Belarus. I noticed that the article also lacks a construction sheet, which is rather important. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukrakalnis: Can you also post these concerns on the article's talk page, so that the article watchers might be able to address the concerns? Also, if you feel that an FAR for the article might be necessary, can you add it to WP:FARGIVEN? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June TFA schedule

[edit]

May be found here. Scheduling will begin around 5 May. Comments welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ones from the list in our remit -

The two I find of biggest concern would be checking if the FARGIVEN notice for Hurricane Irene is appropriate and seeing if we can get one more set of eyes on Final Fantasy Tactics to get it moved to the satisfactory section. Hog Farm Talk 17:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to help check this month because of festivities ... that's a bigger than usual list for URFA, so I hope we'll get lots of eyes on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Dunstan, Final Fantasy, and Rowling are all fine. I've left some more comments on Irene - it should probably go to FAR per criteria 1c, but it's not in the sort of patently bad shape that would necessitate a TFA pull unless someone's going to FAR it before then. If Casliber is willing to look over the banksia one, there shouldn't be much to do except look at the other 3 and figure out what to do about Irene. Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Hurricane Leslie (2018).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took a quick skim of Carsten Borchgrevink and did not immediately notice concerns, though I am not familiar with this type of bio so I don't know if the sources are of high quality. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original numbers by year for year-end report

[edit]

Re this note, in the early iterations of the page, we didn't have articles divided by year, and we didn't have a counter on the page. I seem to recall that somewhere down the line, we found a few errors, that resulted in some adjustments. So, I did not try for absolution precision here. I counted in the early iteration how many were in 2004 to 2006,[5] how many in 2007,[6] how many in 2009,[7] and just lumped the difference in to 2008.

I thought we'd want these numbers for Z1720's year-end report, to see how we've done in each group. I'm thinking we may want to approach The Signpost about a year-end article, and plan to spam the main WikiProjects; that is, we should write more than just a year-end report, and aim to get more involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a wider posting and trying to get a signpost article would be great here - I'm willing to help if needed on this. Hog Farm Talk 04:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of submitting the year-end report in the WP:SIGNPOST, and talking to one of their reporters about the group. For the Wikiprojects, it would be nice if we could do project-specific reports: for example, for WP:CYCLONE we could give an update on HurricaneNoah's work on the 2004-2006 list, or provide a suggestion of 10 articles the project could review. I'd also like to get a URFA/2020 report into project newsletters, like The Bugle for WP:MILHIST. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great ideas! Who wants to approach the Signpost ? (Not me, for reasons best left unstated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up that other than hurricane/cyclone season articles, I have checked through 2004-2007. NoahTalk 02:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost usually publishes at the end of the month, so maybe we will aim for the Jan issue? I can contact the editor or post on their Newsroom after the December issue is published. As for project-specific newsletters, here are the ones that I think are active:
If everyone signs up for a newsletter, we can get project-specific reports out in no-time. I'm happy to write a draft project-report template if others are interested. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I can touch bases with Ajpolino about Medicine. We had a great save with Menstrual cycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: can you contact the editors of the Hurricane Herald and see if they are interested in a project-specific URFA/2020 report? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've belated posted something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom, we'll see if we can get any fish to bite. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Small note on the signpost thing, would it be a good idea to mention there the idea lab thread as a like "this is how we are trying to grow urfa into the future" type shout out? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I want a signpost article to focus on what has happened and how the process is going. If things are implemented in the future, we can mention it in the next signpost article. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have we been able to have any luck with getting something into Signpost? I think that would be a good place to get some attention to here. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to send them a message after December's issue was released, to try to get our report included for January. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's about right for me. First, because I hope we focus for the remaining three days on getting as many of 2006 reviewed, and as many of those "already have two satisfactories" resolved, as possible by year-end. And second, because between FASA launch, Sherman, TAMU and Tornado/CCI, I'm about out of steam, and have zero energy for a new project ... yet I see that Nikkimaria has gotten the needed book for the Great Fire, and I should help finish that up ... maybe someone can send a heads up to the Signpost after December publishes, and then we can gather our forces about the second week of Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can manage Great Fire if you're feeling overloaded, Sandy - some expansion to do there yet anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged Guerillero again about the maps, and can at least clean up the image size mess as soon as I get some steam back :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors at WiR/WiG are exploring options on highlighing older FAs in need of improvement. A discussion about goals and setting this up is proposed to start at WP:WIG later this week. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To note for Signpost article, overall numbers of articles processed in 2021 at WP:FAR not seen since 2010, when the last effort (WP:URFA)—to review 523 articles after standards increased in 2006 to include a requirement for inline citations (see History of the Featured article process)—was completed. After that initiative ended, FAR was relatively quiet for the next decade (see WP:FAS), resulting in a backlog of FAs needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost and 2022 goals

[edit]

When we start working on the Signpost article, it would be good to highlight successes and generate some 2022 goals, such as …

  1. recruit more editors to work at FAR (if we each brought in one more active participant, it would make a big dent)
  2. get at least 200 moved to FAR not needed (we can’t expect WBFAN top producers to keep marking their articles ‘satisfactory’ if nobody then does the second and third review)
  3. get the 542 now at 2007 and the 706 now at 2008 considerably reduced (what should our goal be?)

We made a big push at year-end, and we need to either keep up or accelerate that pace in the new year. Thinking big picture, we really really need to bring in more participants … which is why it is so important not to unnecessarily offend those editors who helped build the FA process in the earlier decades. We need more Ceoils and Fuchs and FunkMonks on board here. For example, Grapple X has shown interest, and has dutifully marked their articles ‘Satisfactory’, and there they sit, with no second review … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Introduction

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (WP:URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. It was launched at the end of November 2020. This is the first annual report for this endeavour.

The goals of URFA/2020 are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • List older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and help the TFA Coords check older FAs before running on TFA

The URFA/2020 list is divided into two pages: WP:URFA/2020A for very old (VO) featured articles last reviewed in 2004–2009, and WP:URFA/2020B for old (O) articles last reviewed in 2010–2015.

Progress

Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:

  • 195 FAs were Delisted at FAR (179 VO and 16 O)
  • 151 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (107 VO and 44 O)
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% to 69%
  • 60 editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020, while others nominated, reviewed, and edited articles at WP:FAR

These numbers do not encompass the full activity of URFA/2020, however; once three experienced FA reviewers have deemed an FA 'Satisfactory' (not needing a FAR), it is moved to 'Kept or FAR not needed'. At year-end, an additional:

20% of the initial 4,526 older FAs have had ‘satisfactory’ feedback, or been noticed, kept or delisted at FAR. Hundreds more have been noted as having minor issues that should be addressed, work underway, or similar. Some FAs needing review per contributor copyright investigations have been flagged.

In December, URFA/2020 focused on reviewing FAs from 2004–2006. This resulted in many of the oldest articles getting reviews, particularly hurricane and typhoon articles; the number of these very oldest FAs needing review started in November 2020 at 225, and stands at 132 at year-end 2021. Reviewers are still needed for these older articles, especially editors with experience in European history, biographies, and animals. If you have any questions on how to review articles, please see the instructions tab or comment below.

URFA/2020 participants intend to write year-end reports for Wikiprojects, which will highlight articles that members of your Wikiproject might want to review. If your Wikiproject or newsletter is interested, please comment at WT:URFA/2020.

How to help

If we continued this year's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:

  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards any more, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 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.
  • Nominate an article that has been ‘noticed’ of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed.
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix.
  • Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
  • Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2021 Summary.

Older reports 2021's quarterly reports are listed below:

Discussion 2021 Summary

[edit]

Discussion of this report should be placed here. Special thanks for SandyGeorgia for co-authoring this report. Z1720 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one article promoted in 2014. I would say Anachronox doesn't need an FAR but I'm open for a 2nd opinion. GamerPro64 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GamerPro64: If Anachronox doesn't need an FAR, can you mark it as Satisfactory on the URFA/2020 list? Another reviewer might come along and give notes later, and this will let them know that you are watching the page. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to update link to archive on Signpost when this section moves to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2004-2006

[edit]

We're below 100 of these oldest few now. A concerted effort could get many of these taken care of. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July TFA schedule (belated)

[edit]

I didn't realize this hadn't been listed here, so posting.

Because I was late in getting around to this, we're going to need to figure out quickly if there are any show-stopping issues. Hog Farm Talk 14:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept Chincoteague updated, with the major changes being due to the cancellation of the pony carnival the past two years.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat and the Canary, Leyland, and the rodent look fine. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August TFA schedule

[edit]

Still draft and subject to change, enjoy. Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022 Gog the Mild (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative TFA list for September

[edit]

A tentative list of TFAs for September 2022 may be found here. Further TFA/R nominations for September are still welcome, though. Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worried about Iridium, but let's keep comments at the TFA talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We confused FAC bot

[edit]

This and this. Super Mario 64 was delisted in April 2021, but was repromoted in March 2022 and is now scheduled to rerun as TFA in September. Hawkeye7 - Is there anything we can tweak in the table to keep the bot from getting confused? Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed When the TFA run was written, the possibility that a delisted article could become TFA was not considered (and indeed has not happened until now). I have added an extra instruction to the run, and the problem should not recur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2Q2022 draft report

[edit]

I have created a draft report of 2Q2022 at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2Q2022. My goal was to shorten this report so that editors are more likely to read it. I think expanded reports can be given at the year-end reports, while these quarterly reports can be shorter. Statistics will be added later in the month. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for wrangling this info and publishing the report each time. I'm happy with whatever info you want to put out at whatever time :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good instinct, like it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've updated the nunbers, but I'm stumped on an easy methodology for updating this number:

  • XX editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020

Last quarter said 79. The page stats say 36 at VO, and 26 at O, but that was after the page was split, so the editors who made a notation before the split would have to be merged with those who edited after split. I think this requires an Excel spreadsheet to sort? I can't remember how I or we did it before. Can we just remove this from the quarterly report, and only do that once, at the end of the year ? Or change the wording to "at least 79" ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I put all three page stats into a spreadsheet, deleted the duplicates, deleted SD001 (who created the list), and came up with 90. Next quarter, we run the stats at VO and O, and just add those whose first contrib was later than June 30. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could we add a plea for a goal to help us finish up 2004 to 2006 before year-end? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say that it's not worth the effort to try to get accurate counts of who all has edited the page. I can post the list of relevant ones at MILHIST again (last time that netted us one moved off as satisfactory and the notice for Finnish Civil War) and possibly a few other projects. I think we're getting down to some of the trickier cases in the 04-06. Hog Farm Talk 13:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did it :) See above ... from here on we can just add the newer ones to the 90 ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for not reading the timestamps accurately. Hog Farm Talk 13:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you read correctly ... I was doing the work while you posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the editor count, I've been using a spreadsheet to keep track of who has been editing URFA/2020 since its inception, and used that to update the editors number. I'm fine with removing this stat from the report or only using it in the year-end. Thoughts? Also, is there anything else that needs to be changed/added before it is sent out to the various talk pages? Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The report has been posted. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing to finish up 2004–2006 unreviewed

[edit]

Milhist

[edit]
I've posted messages at WT:MILHIST and WT:VG basically begging people to look at selected lists of the 2004-2006 ones - we're getting down to a lot of articles on the list I truly don't know what to do with. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WT:MILHIST: As mentioned before, WP:URFA/2020 is hoping to get all of the featured articles last reviewed between 2004 and 2006 looked at as soon as possible. MILHIST is currently over 90% of the way to its goal of 1500 FAs within project scope, and helping give these older FAs some love will keep us from going backwards through delisting. Ones that still need looked at are:

...

Thanks to anyone who helps with these! We've seen some good cleanups of MILHIST articles like Battle of Blenheim, Thomas C. Hindman, and Axis naval activity in Australian waters. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biology

[edit]

@Jimfbleak, FunkMonk, LittleJerry, and Casliber: Some of these Very Old FAs (from 2004 to 2006) may be dismal, some may be close to standard, and some may need FAR. All have basically inactive main editors. Would you be able to help get them either appraised via Notes on talk, or listed at WP:FARGIVEN, or marked Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020A, or submitted to FAR as needed? It would be grand to get these oldest of the old wrapped up before the end of 2022. Thanks for anything you can add! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If needed, I'll work on Platypus and with FunkMonk on Stegosaurus. I would also help out on Dinosaur. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to get some wider dinosaur project involvement in some of these. I believe the dinosaur article is almost done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeolitic has recently been working on the Velociraptor article, perhaps he would like to see that one through. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to do some tweaks and additions mainly around the History section. Overall, the article looks fairly generic with some questionable areas, like several non-FAs. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - all need a systemic look-over. I have done some work on most of them but have very limited time. Doing in some sort of order and ticking off sequentially would be good for me. I'll look at Velociraptor and Steog saurus and then look at others Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October TFA list

[edit]

A few this month that fall into our remit:

I haven't had time to read these thoroughly but I don't think any of them are high-risk. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that strikes me as urgent ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleary-eyed

[edit]

I can't for the life of me figure out what this edit is doing; Ian Rose did you do more than you intended, or am I just too bleary-eyed to figure it out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that diff is definitely not what it looked like when I previewed my earlier edit so I have no idea what happened; anyway I've reversed it and had another go and this seems to have worked as it should've. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Ian; I've been so swamped I thought I might be misreading the diff ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q3 report

[edit]

A draft report for Q3 has been created at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/3Q2022. I will be unavailable in late September (I'm taking an extended wikibreak for the same reason as I took one in February, so I will probably be gone for a couple of weeks) so I would appreciate it if this could be updated and sent at the beginning of October. Let me know what you think or if there are suggestions for improvements. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I finished up the data and added a couple of goals, which should be reviewed by others. I believe (?) that sending it means publishing it to WT:FAC and WT:FAR and WT"TFA? Anywhere else (I forget)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my question: from Wikipedia:URFA/2020/Reports/Send, it appears that the idea of a mass send did not take hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seriously swamped IRL; I see no one has gotten to this, so I'll "publish" it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I set up Wikipedia:URFA/2020/Reports/Send, hoping to test it out for this report. Unfortunately, real life has put me in a position where I shouldn't be testing anything right now. Maybe I'll revisit this in December. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
z, your life sounds a bit like mine right now; hope it gets better for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November TFA list

[edit]

Gog posted a provisional TFA list at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2022. Here are the FAs that fall into our purview, and their URFA/2020 status:

Fletcher's article looks OK for sourcing, but I don't think it has any information about him post-2008.

SA race also looks OK, but the lede needs a trim and I think some level 3 headings can be utilised to break up large sections. Also, it has a "Newspapers" section that lists the newspapers used, but it only leads to their websites not the specific articles, so I think it can be removed. I'm hesitant to WP:BEBOLD and remove it myself because I've never seen this before in an FA and don't want to change something that might be there for a good reason. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that that the nominator of South American dreadnought race is still active. And you may wish to hold off on Ernie Fletcher for a while; his article is very provisional and may be swapped out. (For a more recent article.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fletcher has been replaced (indirectly) with a 2022 promotion. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

[edit]

A tentative list of TFA's for December 2022 may be found here. As usual, it is subject to change. Comments for the schedulers should be made there. Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the articles that fall in our purview:
Please let us know if you check these in the upcoming weeks. Z1720 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nafanan language missing

[edit]

I can't see Nafanan language in the list (promoted in 2005 and last reviewed in 2009): why? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's there ... but was renamed ... now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch: Thanks! (article noticed on its talk page) A455bcd9 (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARGIVEN

[edit]

None of these notices by A455bcd9 have been listed at WP:FARGIVEN; does anyone have time to update that page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: sorry, I didn't know. Should I do it now? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, that would be grand ... I am quite swamped. Thanks for the contributions! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done A455bcd9 (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2023 TFAs

[edit]

The January list for TFAs has been posted. Here are articles that are of interest to this group:

Thanks for your help in reviewing these. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023 TFAs

[edit]

The first draft of February's schedule is here Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2023. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on the fitness for TFA of Bengali language movement? It has been nominated at TFAR. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mess at the bottom of the article really needs clean up, but other than that ... over my head topic area. It has one satisfactory mark, but I wish we had others knowledgeable on the topic to take a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming time

[edit]

We're down to 75 of the 2004-2006s remaining. I think it would be nice to get the rest of these polished off before the end of the year, and then start '23 with a push on the 2007s. I know we're all highly busy right now, but does anyone have any thoughts on a way to approach these? Currently 3 are at FAR. I know we're pretty much all very busy and have been for awhile, but any ideas? Hog Farm Talk 15:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think our end-of-year-goal should be to have noticed, provided notes, or have a satisfactory notation for every article listed in 2004-2006. This is because I don't want to overwhelm the FAR process, and with only a few active FAR nominators and 10 weeks left in the year, it will be very hard to nominate all the needed articles to FAR. One way I think we can tackle this is by posting to active Wikiprojects and asking for help (MILHIST, CYCLONE and VIDEOGAMES seem to be particularly active, and I'm sure there are others). I have found that asking for help for specific articles (like listing a small number of articles to be reviewed) is more likely to get a response than asking editors to choose from the URFA/2020 list. I also think there's a perception that we are asking editors to fix up the articles, which discourages others from reviewing (I have had many responses akin to "I don't want to fix someone else's FA") so it might be helpful to emphasise that we are looking for reviews, not an editor to fix the article? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we didn't make that goal ... I have had to slow down considerably because of real life stuff, and we've had lower throughput because of increasing number of saves. Anyway ... I was thinking of an idea to focus the year-end report on what has been done so far as a way to shine a light on those remaining through 2007 ... will start a new section once I get organized, as I am snowbound at the cabin and enjoying a few untypical days of nothing to worry about, and nothing I have to do IRL ! Happy New Year to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table of ones w/o comments

[edit]
Article WikiProjects FAC nominator
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Radio, Comedy, BBC, Science Fiction JohnDBuell
Satyajit Ray Biography, India, Childrens literature, Screenwriters shmitra
Oceanic whitetip shark Sharks, Fishes Yomangani
Concerto delle donne Classical Music, Italy, Women's history Makemi
Witchfinder General (film) film, horror Hal Raglan
Battle of Schellenberg Military history, Germany Raymond Palmer
Redshift Astronomy, Physics, Measurement ScienceApologist
1933 Atlantic hurricane season Weather Hurricanehink
Platypus australia, mammals Yomangani
Stegosaurus Dinosaurs, Palaeontology, United States Firsfron
Chalukya dynasty India, Hinduism, former countries, middle ages Dineshkannambadi
Ahmose I Biography, Africa, military history, ancient Egypt, politics Thanatosimii
Kroger Babb Biography, United States Badlydrawnjeff
Joseph W. Tkach Biography, California, Chicago, Christianity, Illinois RelHistBuff
History of Solidarity Poland, organized labor, politics Piotrus
Thylacine Australia, mammals, extinction, cryptozoology Yomangani
Jocelin of Glasgow Medieval Scotland, biography, middle ages, Christianity Deacon of Pndapetzim
Order of the Garter England, Orders/decorations/medals, middle ages, heraldry and vexillology Lord Emsworth
Edward III of England Biography, military history, England, middle ages, English royalty, London, politics Eixo
1995 Pacific hurricane season Weather Hurricanehink
Bodyline cricket, Australia Dweller
California Gold Rush California, Mining, United States NorCalHistory
White Deer Hole Creek Rivers, Pennsylvania Ruhrfisch
Caspian expeditions of the Rus' Military history, Ukraine, Russia, Greece, Norse history and culture, Azerbaijan, Iran, middle ages, Belarus Beit Or
Kinetoscope Film DCGeist

Most of these WikiProject are dead or functionally so, a number of those that remain are no longer in the FA business. Some of these nominators are active, some aren't, and a few are blocked for bad behavior. Hog Farm Talk 23:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list for URFA/2020 reports?

[edit]

Does URFA/2020 want to produce a mailing list for our reports? This might make it easier to deliver the quarterly reports to FAC, FAR, TFA, and URFA/2020 (so that it doesn't need to be manually posted to each talk page) while also delivering the report to interested editors' talk page (only if they sign up, though: we don't want to spam volunteers). Thoughts? Ideas on who/how to get this set up? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

generally, I don’t know. Specifically, Ajpolino knows how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to set up the list, but I have sent mass messages before and can do it as part of the admin toolkit. Hog Farm Talk 19:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the instructions are at mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage. Basically you setup a weird-looking subscription page that anyone can add their username to (example). The MassMessaging tool reads the page and sends the messages. It's user-friendly enough that I've been able to use it without major disaster. If any issues pop up, let me know. Or I'm sure if you ask at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders someone who actually understands the tool will step in to help. Ajpolino (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass message sender list for reports

[edit]

Instead of manually adding the URFA/2020 quarterly reports to various pages, I have created a mass message list at Wikipedia:URFA/2020/Reports/Send. This will also allow users to sign up and receive these reports in their talk pages. Thoughts about using this for the reports? Would those with mass sender permissions be willing to send the reports for us? Z1720 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standardised messages to send to FAC nominators

[edit]

Now that the Signpost article has been posted, I want to think about how to invite FAC nominators individually to participate here. When I sent out invites to top FAC nominators in 2021, about one-third started participating in URFA/2020, which I think is pretty good considering that other efforts seem to recruit fewer editors. I think it is a good idea to send out additional invites to specific editors on their talk pages, and want to brainstorm the message that we would post on their talk page. Two messages I am considering are invites to top editors at WP:WBFAN, and invites to editors that have "their" article marked as "Satisfactory" twice.

Top editors at WP:WBFAN

In this November discussion, SandyGeorgia wanted to preview the invite sent to editors. This discussion fizzled out, so I hope to bring it back so that there's one invite used each time we send another set. Here's the proposed text from before:

WP:URFA/2020
You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. Specifically, we need your help to review articles that you nominated to determine if they still meet the featured article criteria. If you have any questions, please ask on the working group’s talk page. Hope to see you there!
Comments on this invite template

Thanks for your comments below. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Two satisfactories

There are some articles that need a third editor to mark it as satisfactory, and their FAC nominator is still actively editing on Wikipedia but hasn't commented on URFA/2020 yet. I was thinking that we could create an invite that would ask those editors to check their article and ensure that it still meets the FA standards. Here is a proposed message:

WP:URFA/2020
You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, ARTICLE NAME HERE, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on (insert WP:URFA/2020A or WP:URFA/2020B). If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page. Thanks for your help and happy editing!
Comments on this invite template

Thanks for your comments below. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z, they both look good to me, although I have the same concern I had before (that we aren't keeping up with the ones already marked!). Can you give me some examples from this second group? That is, who are some sample editors who might be receiving this second one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: A reason I think we struggle to keep up with the ones that are marked is because we do not have enough editors engaged in the process. My hope is that some of these editors will come to mark "their" articles, then stay to help out other articles that interest them.
Three examples of who I would send invites to are TrueHeartSusie3 for Marilyn Monroe, West Virginian for Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge and Dudley Miles for Æthelwulf. None of these editors have commented on URFA/2020 yet, and I do not think they have received a talk page invite for the project so far. Let me know if you would like me to compile a complete list of who this invite might go to. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need; those few samples make sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give it another couple days for comments. If there are no objections, I will send out a couple invites of the two-satisfactory template to see what the response is. If this is successful, I will do a larger amount of invites. I'll hold off on sending the WBFAN invites until after this two-sats experiment is complete (and hopefully catch up on reviews.) Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sent invites to the three editors mentioned above. If the response is positive, I will send out more later this week. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update on this initiative: the response has been overwhelmingly positive, with some editors giving the third satisfactory and reviewing additional articles. I finished sending invites to the 2014 articles, and I just prepared the 2013 list to send invites later this week. One observation that I have is that lots of the articles with two satis are birds and dinosaurs, largely thanks to FunkMonk's reviewing. After this initiative is complete, I think I want to post a note on the WP:BIRD and WP:DINO Wikiprojects to see if anyone is interested in reviewing for that third satis. When we get closer to that point, I will draft a note to place in those Wikiprojects, unless anyone objects. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think about focusing on 2009, where we have a number of two satisfactories, so we could clear out the older before starting on the newer ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that. I'll create a list later today and start sending out invites. Later this week I'll be on Wikivacation, so I will get everything sent before I leave. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Went through 2004-2009. There aren't that many articles with two sats, and even fewer with nominators who are still active. I sent out a couple invites, and I'll continue with the URFA/2020B list until my Wikivacation. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last update (I promise): All lists have been compiled and invites sent out. I did not send invites to semi-active or not-active editors. Lots of great responses, which has kept Sandy, HF, and I busy moving articles to "FAR not needed". Now that the hard part is over, I'll keep monitoring the pages and send out third-satis invitations as they appear if the original nom is still active on WP. When things settle down a bit, I'll send invites to the next set of WBFAN editors listed. Sometimes, those editors review pages that they co-nomed, so it creates a domino effect where it creates a two-satis situation, I invite the co-nom to review, and then the co-nom reviews other articles, triggering more two-satis invites. That type of activity will hopefully get new editors engaged in this process and speed up the time it will take to get through the articles. Z1720 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, maybe on your next round, explicitly point them towards the instructions, so we don't have to keep trimming very long commentary. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled about the amount of work this is causing (no one seems to read the instructions), and I am unconvinced of the need to move the Old (as opposed to Very old) off the list quickly. Our main focus needs to be on the Very old, whereas these old FAs could be no longer Satisfactory by the time we get to those lists a few years from now, so it just doesn't seem to me to be that helpful to get them moved off (relative to the Very old FAs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I think the amount of work will die down very soon, since all of the invites for two sats articles have been sent, including for very old articles. I also prefer that the "Very old" articles be moved off first, but unfortunately, there aren't enough reviewers here. Above, it was mentioned that URFA/2020 couldn't keep up with inviting nominators to mark their articles: this is because there weren't enough reviewers. I was hoping these invites would recruit more editors: while they might start by focusing on the 2015 articles, they might migrate their way to reviewing earlier entries. My opinion is if someone indicates they are watching an article, it is less likely to need attention from one of us to ensure it is up-to-date. I also acknowledge that this isn't a perfect system, but it is one that will need ongoing analysis and change in order to make improvements. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right, and that some of the new editors reviewing will read the instructions. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk messages

[edit]

Z1720 considering this reaction, maybe the wording

Specifically, we need your help to review articles that you nominated to determine if they still meet the featured article criteria.

should be changed to

Specifically, we need your help to indicate which articles that you nominated have been continuously watched, and whether you believe they still meet the featured article criteria, so that other editors will review.

or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a message on Iri's talk page. I'm putting these messages on pause and I won't send anymore until a consultation has happened here, first (and I'll incorporate Sandy's wording into the new message when that consultation happens). Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z, don't worry about this (no need to overthink it, you're doing fine). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations....

[edit]

Requesting that some of my older FAs be granted clemency as I can only work on one at a time and each one will take me 2-3 months to update. Shoshone National Forest was at FAC in 2006 but had a massive update in 2014 where the refs were tripled and information nearly doubled. I recognize it needs another update, but not much changes in such places overall. I keep pretty good tabs on my old haunts and no new news items pertain to this forest. Glacier National Park (U.S.) was at FAC in 2006 but did have a big update in 2010. It of course needs to have refs checked and updates as well. Redwood National and State Parks was also at FAC in 2006 and I recognize it too needs an update. Banff National Park went to FAC in 2006 was listed at FAR in 2016 and was updated then and kept as an FA. Elk was at FAC in 2007 and I recognize this needs an update yet. Pallid sturgeon was at FAC in 2008 and also needs an update, however it was adjusted prior to being TFA in late 2015. Currently I am focused on the article Yellowstone fires of 1988 which is already in a FAR and as I mentioned, this will take me 60 days minimum to update. Editors can of course nominate any article they see as needing improvements to FAR, but due to my real life work commitments I can only work on one at a time and some of the ones I listed could be a year or more out before they can be updated substantively by me. Restoring demoted articles back to FA is a thankless job and in many cases, may never happen. I urge those that merely see few dead urls, some grammatical errors or such minor details like image stacking to assist where possible and make such corrections themselves if possible.--MONGO (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: I cannot comment on Yellowstone fires of 1988 because it is at FAR and so the FAR co-ords will decide if the FAR will hold for improvements (although they have rarely denied holds to editors working on an article). For the other articles, I suggest that you mark each article as "Working" and sign your name at WP:URFA/2020A and WP:URFA/2020B. This will tell reviewers that someone is going to fix up this article and that they don't need to review or nominate it for FAR at this moment. With over 4,000 articles at URFA/2020, it is great to know that you are still making improvements to the articles you nominated at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will mark them as working, using a diff to this discussion, when I am on real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: work is progressing only at one of the above (see comment at Redwood talk). I have altered Working to Notes.

Participation at Wikipedia:Peer review/Yellowstone fires of 1988/archive2 encouraged! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about non-FAR rewrites

[edit]

I've recently done a very heavy rewrite of Thomas C. Hindman (2007), which had been at WP:FARGIVEN with sizable issues (and I found more during the rewrite, such as a few errors and omissions). As it stands, the article is now 47kb of readable prose; it was 24kb. I'm now the author of 80% of the article according to xtools, and it bears no resemblance to what passed FAC. In the past, these rewrites have been marked as satisfactory without going through FAR, with the only exception I can remember being the climate change FAR. Would there be benefits to sending situations like these through some sort of mini-FAR or courtesy FAR? It just feels weird to have something marked as an FA when literally less than a paragraph has actually been through the FAC process. While FAR is pretty congested at the time, sending something like that through the FAR process would be infrequent based on past history and in most cases would be a pretty straight-forward FAR that only needed to be kept up for a week or two; it may even be advisable to allow the courtesy FAR to not count against the limit for process reasons. Any thoughts from @FAR coordinators: about this situation? Would the FAR coords prefer such articles be handled to article talk or through the URFA process, or would they prefer at least some formal action as well. Pinging @TFA coordinators and @FAC coordinators: since this is a general FA question as well, given that the current process results in FAs with content not even similar to what passed FAC. Hog Farm Talk 23:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that as long as the article meets the FA criteria, we're good. If someone thinks the criteria aren't met, FAR is the place. Great work on the article! (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what Buidhe said. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a drive-by comment. The issue Hog Farm raises leaves me feeling a little twitchy. They are saying that virtually none of the content of a FA has gone through FAC, and that it is effectively maintaining its status on the unchecked authority of the author of 80%+ of it. With no disrespect to any editor who has put in a shift improving any of the old sub-par FACs, that seems to me to be a less than ideal situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see advantages and disadvantages to whichever route is taken. Many very old FAs that are maintained by their original nominator have, like Hindman, very little of their original content. I offer as an example my 2006 Tourette syndrome. Like most medical content, it requires constant updating, and it was extensively re-written for its TFA in 2020, I think. Little content is original. It's not correct to say its FA is based on "unchecked authority of the author of 80% of it"; articles are deemed satisfactory at URFA when three (typically experienced) reviewers say so. This is quite similar to FAC, where these days, three supports are deemed satisfactory to FA status. So, letting URFA work as it works (FAR is the backup) is one route that is not unreasonable.
On the other hand, I'm amenable to a courtesy FAR outside of the five-limit as Hog Farm details above because it would provide that extra entry in articlehistory that makes it clear for posterity that the article has cleared a more "formal" process. The reason I think that might be a good route to take is two-fold: first, I get asked about TS all the time. Editors unfamiliar with the process see the 2006 last date in AH and think the article is dated. A courtesy FAR check giving it a 2022 AH entry wouldn't be unhelpful. Second, there is the Maya civilization situation at URFA; marked satisfactory by its original author, got two more satisfactories, but not everyone agrees.Changed my mind on this one per continued discussion; agree with Z1720, Buidhe and Casliber now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Additionally, FAR is not actually congested ... look back in history to a time when we processed all of the original WP:URFA and there were times when we had more than 50 FARs going at a time.
In short, I can see this either way. My suggestion is that flexibility may be the answer. If Hog Farm would feel better having Hindman go through FAR, he should be able to submit it to FAR outside of the five limit. Same would apply, for example, to me sending TS through FAR. HF might want to do it, as MilHist editors would weigh in. I wouldn't do it for TS since experience shows that most FA regulars are hesitant to take on medical content, and every top person I would want to look at it already has, both medical and layperson. So, I can see allowing HF to run it through outside of the five limit if he wants to, but otherwise, it's handled as the usual URFA, where it needs three satisfactory marks, anyone who disagrees with the URFA outcome can still FAR it, and HF could abstain on markng satisfactory if he is concerned about COI there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, if we opt for some sort of courtesy procedure, we would have to deal with things like Talk:Elizabeth II, where someone attempted to run it through FAR only because of its date, without laying out reasons. How would we distinguish a Hindman from an Elizabeth II? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) How about putting it back through FAC? Per NOTBURO, it will be a kind of 'speedy keep' equivalent at AfD. At least that way it ticks the 'official' box of 'has (re)passed its FA candidature'. Obvs, FAR is also a consensus forming process, but, well, they are still two distinct processes. SN54129 14:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you put it back through FAC, you're getting in to weird territory with articlehistory ... it hasn't been demoted, so how do FACbot and AH handle that (a mess that requires re-programming). Why would we put it back through FAC rather than FAR? FAR does the job if you want a formal box checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, FAR can handle a "speedy keep", just as it handles a "speedy delist". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'd like to see it at least get more eyes on it - I've never done a bio FA, it doubled in length, and it relies heavily in patches on the Neal bio. I don't know if I would have taken it beyond A-Class myself. At a minimum it needs someone to point out all the spots it reads like a bored redneck wrote it after work. Hog Farm Talk 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bored redneck wrote it after work" LOLOL !!!!! So, if HF would feel better having a formal box checked, that should be possible. The questions to sort are: 1) can he nominate it outside of the five limit, which is really becoming a problem for many of us, and 2) how do we prevent then the Elizabeth II scenario, whereby anyone, without laying out reasons, starts sending older FAs through FAR? That could overwhelm FAR.
    Separately, SN, I'm worried that you say that FAC and FAR are "still two distinct processes". They should not be and were never intended to be: FAC, FAR and TFA are all part of one process, that does the same thing and serves the same purpose (to identify and place our best content on the main page). That's precisely why it was a mistake to fire the director on an impromptu RFC. If you believe that FAC and FAR are doing different things, that is problem we should be discussing. A FAR pass should be no different than a FAC pass, and vica-versa. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • I'd be inclined to re-run it at FAC. There is a similar issue brewing at Middle Ages, which an editor with serious WP:OWN issues is rewriting. The original main author, who has maintained it diligently for years, has now been forced to abandon it, as I have as secondary nom in the original FAC. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod, see my post above. Are you saying that FAR is not properly vetting current FAs re WP:WIAFA? Running an existing FA back through FAC means, essentially, doing away with FAR and re-programming FACbot to consider a FAC of an FA as what is now a FAR. Is FAR broken? Can FAR not handle Middle Ages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SN and Johnbod, I hope you are both clear that what you are proposing is, in essence, doing away with FAR. I hope there is a reason you have more faith in FAC than FAR, and can explain why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why is there no WP:FARGIVEN at Talk:Middle Ages? Please lay out the issues and someone can nom it at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The rewrite is ongoing. As I see it FAR is for checking articles that have passed FAC. There comes a point where a rewritten article is so different that the original FAC ceases to be very relevant, and a new FAC is needed. I don't see that as "doing away with FAR" at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened was that a particular editor showed up in December with a mass tagging spree here and I just decided it wasn't worth the stress and headache. I've watched the death-by-a-thousand-cuts that is this editor's modus operandi and it just wasn't worth my bother. I unwatched at Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 10#Unwatching and you can see that the rest of archive #10 is just more tedious pick-pick-picking to be picking. Much of the edits could be just done, but its like it's important that they highlight how superior they are by dragging every tiny bit of possible ambiguity to the talk page to make it look like the article is awful and how wonderful they are to be rescuing it. Not my cup of tea. It's an overview article that's going to have some spots where it generalizes. I left the article to the person who obviously thinks I and others were not taking good care of it. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, obviously I am clear about nothing of the sort! :p what I'm proposing is actually to avoid wikilawyering legalese etc in the future from the same cadre of tagbombers and refbandits that will, if you give them a chance, claim that the latest version of the article has never been through FAC, only a similar process, and while similar, FAR isn't FAC. And, by their QED, therefore it can't be a FA. Anyway, I thought we were tossing ideas around, not accusing each other of destroying projects. SN54129 15:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could any of the three of your (Johnbod, Ealdgyth or Serial Number 54129) help me understand, then, why an article like Hindman or TS or Middle Ages would bypass FAR and go back to FAC, which in essence, means we eliminate FAR? Johnbod and SN have said to resubmit an FA to FAC rather than FAR, while Ealdgyth did not opine. I am certain that FAR can handle a Hindman or a TS. I am unclear what we do with an Elizabeth II. I am completely in the dark about why we would run either Hindman or Middle ages back through FAC, which neither FACbot or AH are currently set up to handle. Is FAR not doing its job? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on Middle Ages' status as an FA as I've unwatched it and washed my hands of it. On Hindeman, it's a very much grey area... and I suspect that it's going to be difficult to figure out - I would think at least it would need to be looked at at FAR, and if it's really almost totally rewritten - it might not be bad to consider a full FAC at some point. You originally asked me what happened at Middle Ages, my reply was about that. I'm not that fussed with whether something like Hindeman does an FAR, or is procedurally failed at FAR so as to open a new FAC... either option might work, considering how much it is said to have changed since the original FAC. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot discussion

[edit]

This has become very confusing, now with three editors (Ealdgyth, "it might not be bad to consider a full FAC at some point", Johnbod for Middle Ages and SN for Hindman) suggesting that existing FAs go back to FAC (rather than FAR) for reevaluation of their existing FA status. This is no different than eliminating FAR as the page where existing FAs are re-assessed, and requires redoing how FACbot and {{article history}} interact, and means ultimately, no more FAR, as it implies that FAC is the page that confers or confirms or strips FA status. This is completely at odds with everything that is the current situation for FA evaluation. Perhaps, due to iPad typing, I am not being clear, or we are misunderstanding each other, or people are typing FAC when they mean to type FAR, so I'm starting over.

URFA/2020A is not an official process; it's a working group. Its outcome is not recorded as an event in {{article history}}. It was only intended as an informal way of figuring out which old and very old FAs need to be submitted to FAR, and only came about because every proposal at WT:FAC to do some sort of "sweep" of older FAs was rejected. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report. If an article "passes" URFA (gets three satisfactory marks) when some feel it shouldn't (eg, Maya civilization), FAR remains the official recourse for re-evaluating FA status.

Hog Farm's original question has to do with whether he can submit an article he rewrote but is not confident about (Thomas C. Hindman) to FAR without having it impact his five-non limit. The five-nom limit is slowing down FAR; his question is whether a "courtesy FAR" can be outside of the limit. My secondary question is how we distinguish between Hindeman and Elizabeth II, which has been continuously watched by its original authors, and yet was submitted to FAR for a "recheck" without identifying any deficiencies. The two original questions are: can such noms be outside of the five-nom limit, and how do we distinguish a Hindeman from an Elizabeth II. I am completely comfortable not re-running the 2006 Tourette syndrome through FAR, because everyone who would look at it at FAR, already has, and the FA process would certainly fold under the pressure if every very old FA had to come to FAR.

Now separately from these original questions, three editors are suggesting that FAC be used in place of FAR, to re-evaluate status of existing FAs. Are you all mistyping FAC for FAR, understanding that the implication of this proposal = no more FAR, misunderstanding the question, or expressing a lack of confidence in FAR? Or am I, in my pre-wedding jitters, completely missing something?@Ealdgyth, Johnbod, and Serial Number 54129: holy cow this is not the sort of discussion I relish during a significant wedding, so I apologize if I'm completely missing something. FAR is the other side of FAC, where status of existing FAs is re-evaluated. Why are you proposing to change that? Why would we eliminate FAR and send existing FAs back to FAC, when FAR re-evaluates exactly as FAC evaluates, but via a more deliberative two-step process that allows time to address deficiencies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some general thoughts. Feel free to respond under bullet points to keep conversations organised:
  • I don't think FAR should be replaced. FAR is a fundamentally different process from FAC. FAR is more collaborative, with reviewers and editors working to improve the article, while FAC is more about assessing if an article is ready to be an FA. Merging these together will create disorganisation.
  • There are thousands of articles at URFA/2020. When that process is done, I imagine that we will continue with 2016-2020. I see that FARs usually involve 4-5 editors (and with popular ones like J.K. Rowling, that number can get very high). URFA/2020 usually involves 3 editors for each article to determine if it's satisfactory. To maximize editor time (and the amount of editors needed to determine if an article is satisfactory/keep) I suggest that articles only go to FAR if there are specific concerns about if they meet the FA criteria. If a nominator's reason for FAR is when the article was promoted, then the FAR co-ords should ask if there's a specific concern based on the criteria, and if not then it should be removed as out of process. Perhaps this can be clarified in the instructions.
  • In Hindman's case, rather than an FAR, I suggest that HF reach out to editors of this subject area to take a look at the article. In other words, seek if three editors agree that the article is FA quality and mark it as satisfactory. Some articles, like potentially Maya civilization, will be declared satisfactory when other editors might identify concerns, but those articles can still be noticed and brought to FAR. URFA/2020 is not a perfect process, but it's doing a pretty good job so far in systematically evaluating articles.
Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! Completely clear response to both the original dilemma and the new concerns, even in my pre-wedding jittery state. I think I agree; I imagine that HF can convince three knowledgeable editors to review Hindman, allowing us to reserve FAR for only those cases where deficiencies are identified and no one is addressing them. I shudder to think where the overall process would end if we are now saying that all very old FAs need to come to FAR; we would be overwhelmed then, and what we're doing is working. Articles are being improved, formally or informally, and only the clearly deficient are taking space at FAR. Thanks Z :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're ascribing to much to my off-the-cuff remarks - I said "I would think at least it would need to be looked at at FAR, and if it's really almost totally rewritten - it might not be bad to consider a full FAC at some point. ... I'm not that fussed with whether something like Hindeman does an FAR, or is procedurally failed at FAR so as to open a new FAC.." that's it. Totally off the cuff and pretty much specific to Hindeman which has been 80% rewritten per the above. It's pretty much a outlier for most things and should not be considered as applying to most FAs. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, E! I didn't want to be leading you via my ping, but I was really asking you whether you thought Middle Ages could not be well served via a FAR, as opposed to Johnbod's and SN's suggestion that such articles be resubmitted to FAC even though it's already an FA ... that would be a huge change, with considerable implications for the overall process. What started out as one question morphed along the way when it was suggested that existing FAs go back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to reply, but I've been misquoted and ascribed motives I haven't had, which forces my hand so to speak. I was speaking above specifically wrt Hindman. I know nothing about the Middle Ages. But the point is: the version that gets reviewed at FAC has a community consensus for promotion; if that version is subsequently re-written out of all recognition (and no criticism to HF for doing so), then it literally cannot be said to have the same consensus. The thing that is called Hindman now is not the thing that was assessed by the community then. Therefore that consensus must be resought. I don't really give a FAC (!!) whether this consensus is found at FAR or there; I was merely pointing out that someone will almost certainly wikilawyer down the line about its status if is/ts aren't dotted/crossed. Anyway, no more pings on this, please. Cheers, SN54129 19:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intent to misquote you, and apologize if I did, but my point then is that the same can be said about any FA that has been continuously maintained; Tourette syndrome is not the same article that passed FAC in 2006. If it were, it would be inaccurate and uncomprehensive. All continuously maintained FAs change. If we bring them all back to FAR, we overwhelm the process. So the query is, should FAR be used for "courtesy checks" like Hindman or Elizabeth II or TS, or only for cases where deficiencies are identified. So, for example, if a reviewer looks at Hindman and says the prose needs work, they can notice the article and bring it to FAR. I think Z1720 has it about right; sorry the discussion got rambly. I think the answer to HF's original question is becoming clearer. Let URFA work; we can find three independent reviewers to look at it, and only bring it to FAR if deficiencies are noted. We can't FAR every old FA, or even those that have changed, because any well maintained old FA will have changed. If anyone is uncomfortable about any aspect of Hindman, they follow FAR instructions: notice deficiencies on talk, if those aren't addressed, bring it to FAR. I guess I'm saying this whole discussion comes down to: ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Which is pretty much what Cas and Buidhe said at the start of the discussion: I now find myself in full agreement. We simply cannot nor should we want to FAR every old well maintained FA. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And that's the point: cases like Hindman must be as rare as rocking horse 💩 it's an application of IAR, nothing else. In fact, it's arguably the opposite: Hindman hasn't been actively maintained; of it had have been, it wouldn't need to have been rewritten! But my suggestion doesn't, I assure you, presage the End Times of FAR. It isn't applicable to any old FA like the Middle Ages (I know nothing about the Middle Ages), or articles like TS, i.e which have been actively maintained—unlike Hindman. I agree with everything you said, just annoyed at suddenly being cast as the Third Murderer of FAR, a process I am fully seized of  :) SN54129 20:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my intent at all ... I know I shouldn't be engaging at all while in the midst of a big wedding, but did not anticipate the directions the conversation went. I'm truly sorry for making you feel as I did :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as another example, J. K. Rowling was almost 100% rewritten: FAR can handle it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PPS ... using the examples used so far (Hindman, Middle ages, Tourette syndrome, Elizabeth II, J. K. Rowling, and Climate change), I think I can gel this all down to an algorithm of acceptable v less acceptable use of FAR v URFA. I'll try to summarize that tomorrow while I'm bored as an oyster as hubby does the driving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAR can handle rewrites, but it cannot handle multiple rewrites of many different articles. Rowling was rewritten at FAR because the article was nominated at FAR before editors volunteered to fix it up. In my opinion, if an editor fixes up an article to FA standards, it does not need to go to FAR. Only article which do not meet the FA criteria should be at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree ... but I can still envision a grey area for which an algorithm might be useful ... and Climate change falls in that grey area ... and I suspect, in this case, Hog Farm is underestimating himself, too. More on that tomorrow, when I have more time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No of course I'm not mistyping FAC for FAR! As people have said above, they are different processes, with for one thing FAC getting a wider group of reviewers and hopefully more with subject knowlege (on a good day). I think FAR is doing a fine job, but it is a check, or recheck, and there comes a point when a rewritten article becomes a different article that should go through FAC rather than being grandfathered in. If I'd been asked, I'd have said that an article like Rowling that was "almost 100% rewritten" should have gone to FAC, but I daresay you didn't know this amount of rewriting would be needed at the start of the FAR process. I know nothing about the template side of things, but I imagine the easiest way is to take the star away on the grounds that the article has changed too much, then start again at FAC. That shouldn't be a problem. I think that point will be reached at Middle Ages as the rewrite proceeds; in fact the article had not changed much at all prior to the new editor turning up, thanks to diligent watching. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For another thing, FAC has rules limiting nominations, which means that such articles cannot be sent to FAC. There would therefore be no point in attempting to rewrite them to meet FA standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? How so (if you are replying to me). Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, as Hawkeye points out, the nomination restrictions at FAC are even more limiting than at FAR. FAR is five at a time; FAC is one unless you get permission from a coord. Running old FAs through FAC is even more prohibitive than FAR. Also, on what basis would you strip a star from an article "because it's changed too much"? Then strip Tourette syndrome. We evaluate FAs relative to WP:WIAFA; nowhere do we have criteria saying "it changed too much". Your proposal would mean we need to strip stars from about 4,000 FAs !!!!! To strip the star from Middle Ages, you need a reason based on the criteria. And what a disincentive to maintaining FAs if keeping them updated means they'll lose their star !!! I also disagree about the quality of review happening at FAR relative to FAC; three supports, no matter how poor, got Socrates Nelson promoted, and there are numerous similar cases. No FAR gets closed until Coords are thoroughly satisfied; no such thing as three supports= promote or keep at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, this is complete nonsense. Complete FA rewrites are quite rare, & I imagine there would be only an example every few months. I'm clearly NOT talking about articles that have been maintained & reasonably updated. The reason for delisting is that this article did not pass FAC - another one with the same title did. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrites are not as rare as that (I've done enough myself to know), and on what grounds (WIAFA) would we bring the FAR? Deficiencies have to be identified relative to the criteria at WP:WIAFA. If we want to change WIAFA to say that rewritten content is defeatured, that discussion has to be held elsewhere. (Then the fun starts of figuring out what all has been re-written in well maintained FAs; that would be a monumental chore in and of itself !) We would also essentially be saying that certain topics can never be featured for more than a few years, like medical or BLPs, which will and should constantly change. This may make sense for those who work in more "static" areas and have the good fortune of not having to constantly rewrite ... not so for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never fully rewritten one of mine, or felt the need to. If the rewrite is by the same person/team as the one that passed FAC, the assumption that it is an improvement is probably safe, but what if it is by a different person, highly antagonistic to the old editors, and is (they think) actually making the article worse? Neither of the two original editors would probably want to go through a vast article explaining each issue, or even working out if it is really an issue. That it is a very long way from the article that passed FAC should be enough to delist. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but in cases like the one you are worried about, it should not be hard to come up with issues relative to WIAFA for initiating a FAR. In HF's case, we have no issues that we know of (unlike, eg, Climate change). And it would probably be likely that the article that concerns you would be defeatured (I can't really say since no one has yet said what the issues are, but if they are related to sourcing, no amount of rewrite is going to be deemed acceptable at FAR.) Then the "new" rewriter can have their own fun trying to get their new product through FAC, which seems unlikely based on the little I am understanding from what is said here. But that just isn't the case we're talking about here with Hindman ... here, we are talking about the very editor who is best equipped to write in the given content area, and whose work can be vetted by the same reviewers who are most likely to look in at either FAC or FAR. We have to take care not to, for example, do away with a lot of Jo-Jo's work, medical content, BLPs, any number of areas that need and require constant revision. Like Jo-Jo, I have to check PubMed monthly to update each medical FA I follow. We want to encourage that! I just reviewed the work from my 2020 rewrite of TS, and I could not have gotten that kind of sustained input and feedback via FAC ... I had half a dozen experienced FA writers combing through my update ... which was five years overdue because of the WP:MED issues, and should be done every five years. Remember that not all areas are the same; any medical article that isn't considerably rewritten every five years is probably no longer accurate at all, much less an FA. The Middle ages were a long time ago; perhaps that's more static, but we don't have such liberty in many other areas. I'm worried that not everyone is understanding the consequences of some of the ideas we're tossing around ... if we only want to have FAs on one-time sports events, some of these ideas fit the bill. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read several pages of talk archives at Middle Ages, and that's an ugly dynamic and unfortunate situation. I can understand why you are discouraged, considering that many have tried to help. I'm sorry that is happening, but that situation is far afield from what was being discussed here. :*( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, anyone can bring a FAR (subject to the restrictions in the instructions), but significant contributors have to be consulted to bring a FAC. The outcome of FAR is the same as FAC; why are you disagreeing? Where do you see FAR failing to meet standards? How do you compare and contrast what is coming out of FAR to Socrates Nelson and similar? FAR= FAC; we evaluate articles on the same criteria, and the processes have huge overlap of reviewers and ability. If FAC and FAR are not doing the same thing, that needs to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting a bit strange that on the talk page of working group, not even an official process page, we are now discussing a complete redefinition of the FA process ... changes that would require new criterion at WP:WIAFA, changes to {{Article history}}, changes to FACbot, and what is beginning to look like separation of two processes (FAC and FAR) that are intended to complement each other and do the same thing, at different ends of the process. Hog Farm had a much simpler question, that had to do with how URFA should interact with FAR, and the five nom limit, and most have agreed that interaction is not broken. A discussion that redefines what WP:WIAFA is and what FAC and FAR are shouldn't really be on such an obscure talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original questions

[edit]

In the past, these rewrites have been marked as satisfactory without going through FAR, with the only exception I can remember being the climate change FAR. Would there be benefits to sending situations like these through some sort of mini-FAR or courtesy FAR? It just feels weird to have something marked as an FA when literally less than a paragraph has actually been through the FAC process. While FAR is pretty congested at the time ...

  1. Climate change was not such an exception: neutrality was raised as an issue, as it should have been in such a controversial article.
  2. Why does "it feel weird" to have an article marked "satisfactory" at URFA/2020 based on three reviews, when articles pass FAC based on three supports? What is the difference? A "satisfactory" mark at URFA means nothing more than we don't have to hang our heads in shame if it runs TFA, and a FAR is not immediately or apparently needed. But anyone who disagrees can submit a FAR. Are you doubting our utility here, HF? :) :)
  3. FAR is not congested; look back in history at the numbers we once processed. A couple of FARs are spectacularly stalled, but that is design not congestion-- we allow editors time when they ask for it, and Joan of Arc was impacted by a sock.

But, re

... sending something like that through the FAR process would be infrequent based on past history and in most cases would be a pretty straight-forward FAR that only needed to be kept up for a week or two; it may even be advisable to allow the courtesy FAR to not count against the limit for process reasons.

We don't know in advance if a given case is "pretty straight-forward", and if someone who is a topic expert in a given area doubts their own work enough to think it needs a FAR, they have to be prepared for the fact that the review could become complicated and lengthy. Which means it should probably count towards the five-nom limit. Take the example of J. K. Rowling. It came to FAR on faulty grounds; disruptive editing is not the same as 1e instability, and disruptive editing is handled through dispute resolution processes, not by stripping stars. At the outset, the article looked fine, with disruptive editing that could be handled via discretionary sanctions. Only when we got in to it did we discover that there were WP:ELNEVER breaches and numerous issues in the early life bio that required rewriting. If you doubt whether a rewrite meets WP:WIAFA, 1) you have to say why or where the problems are -- relative to WIAFA, what are the actionable issues, and 2) it has to count towards the five-nom limit as the review could consume resources even if you think it won't at the outset, as happened at Rowling. Personally, I trust you to come up with the reviewers to identify any issues at Hindman, and I'm confident it will end up better than half of what FAC is currently turning out, because you'll bring in tough reviewers to look at it.

Relating Hindman to the other past examples (Middle ages, Tourette syndrome, Elizabeth II, and Climate change)

  • Climate change had identifiable issues-- repeat questions of neutrality on talk. That's why an article of that nature is a grey area; because of a history of controversy and claims of POV on talk, it should have come to FAR.
  • At the other extreme, Elizabeth II was presented for a "recheck", with zero actionable issues identified, and with original nominators following since promotion. Correctly closed as out of process. Imagine where FAR would be if every old FA could be submitted on no grounds. If, as some are arguing here, all old FAs that are kept updated, which often means considerable rewrites, are stripped of their star at FAR and sent back to FAC simply because "they've changed too much", then it would be much simpler if we simply said what the end result would be: FA status is only good for x years, say 5, after that, they have to come back and be re-evaluated. (Our much bigger problems are those articles that never change and are never updated). I can understand this feeling taking hold in an environment where FAC is producing a lot of tiny extreme-niche FAs on subjects which will never have new scholarly sources that need to be worked in, and never change; that's not the case for all FAs. For most FAs, we expect change and updates. New scholarly material will be published, and articles have to be kept updated, and that often means considerable rewriting; this is to be encouraged, not discouraged.
  • If the FA process is to go the direction suggested, whereby updating or rewriting means stars are stripped a) we don't have enough people to keep up, and b) we just wiped out FAs like Tourette syndrome in spite of me keeping it updated for 16 years (which has meant several complete rewrites). Obviously, changes like this would mean no one would have any reason to care about maintaining an FA. If we want a time limit on FA status, we should just say so, and try to get that passed via RFC.
  • If Middle ages is truly out of compliance, it should come to FAR. From what has been said, it appears that the only reason it hasn't is that people have washed their hands of it; that's unfortunate. Particularly since we don't yet know what the problems are. But that's not the process that needs change or is broken; that's individual editors who gave up. If the article has deficiencies, they should be identified so it can be FAR'd.

So, how is Thomas C. Hindman different from Climate change or TS? Climate change is controversial and had seen talk page charges of POV; a broader audience made sense there. It came to FAR with mention of concerns about neutrality; that's a valid use of FAR. It would be grand if TS could have similar benefit of a broader audience, but most FAC reviewers won't touch medical content anyway (we have to beg for review); seems they're intimidated. TS would get no more review at FAC or FAR than I made sure it got by having half a dozen non-medical FA writers review it, and half a dozen medical editors review it after a major rewrite. It would gain nothing by a new FAC or FAR, although it would nice to have that new timestamp if we had unlimited FA reviewers. We don't. And based on what deficiency relative to WIAFA would I, or anyone, bring that FAR? "It has changed too much" since its 2006 promotion is a) not part of WIAFA, and b) A Good Thing-- it was kept updated. Hindman is not a similar case to Rowling or Elizabeth II or Middle ages or Climate change. It is similar to TS. The best and toughest reviewers are not going to come from "a broader audience"; they're going to come from MilHist reviewers, complemented by one non-MilHist review for jargon. Hog Farm knows as much on that topic as pretty much anyone on Wikipedia, HF knows the criteria, there are no past concerns like POV lurking, and HF knows which topic experts to bring in for a solid review of the article against WIAFA. I suspect that Hog Farm just isn't trusting his own work enough :) The process isn't broken; URFA can handle a Hindman. If HF has such serious doubts about Hindman, then I would agree he could bring a FAR similar to Climate change, by identifying an actionable issue such as neutrality was at Climate change. But if he has doubts significant enough to warrant doing that, he would have to be prepared for the possibility of a long FAR, and then it should count towards the five-nom limit. And he has much better ways to spend his time! An improved Hindman is what we want-- not something we want to discourage by adding layers of process! Z1720, Buidhe and Casliber have this one right. If others want to change the whole FA process, we shouldn't be having that discussion on this backwoods talkpage. If we want a time limit on FAs, or to redefine the process such that updated FAs need to be submitted to a new FAC, we need an RFC elsewhere on that topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, you're getting silly and rather insulting here. The only reason I have "given up" on Middle Ages (with the capital please) is because every edit I have made since the rewrite began has been reverted, and every talk page comment replied to with sneering hostility. At one point there were also several edits every day, changing different things. The article was, when I last looked, heavily covered with tags as well. I'm afraid that none of your comments above have made me see why a completely changed article should keep its star. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am sorry you have decided not to send it to FAR, where you might get some help from more experienced FA participants-- I'm sorry that has happened to both you and Ealdgyth, and sad that you haven't used the processes that might help. But changing those processes in ways that will penalize others who keep articles that need constant revision updated won't help either/any of us. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "decided" anything, & the rewrite is still ongoing. Neither I nor Ealdgyth (I imagine) will be interested in redoing it, so won't need help. But speaking for myself at least, I don't want an article that is unreviewed, and not the one we took through FAC, to keep the star. It's just gone. You are again completely distorting what I have said above very clearly, several times! Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am not understanding what you are saying; I'm sorry for that, and also sorry that I don't know how to help with the Middle Ages situation then, but it is still very different, unfortunately, from the Hindman situation. I understand your concern, but the remedy for Middle Ages is a FAR; a FAR is not the most expedient way to advance Hindman's status wrt WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a small group of editors doing the bulk of the work at FAR, whether that's nominating articles or fixing them up. The most valuable resource editors have is time: if we are using that resource to review FAs that already meet the standards, then it cannot be used to review or fix up another article. It is great when an editor fixes up an article without an FAR, because it saves reviewer time at FAR. Only articles that do not meet the FA standards should be brought to FAR, in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vital article URFA list

[edit]

Here is a handy table for those interested, originally from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#FAR for Wind. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Vital articles at URFA
Article URFA comment Last action date
Amphibian no No comment 2012-12-16
Ancient Egypt no No comment 2008-03-30
Antarctica  Passed, keep at FAR 2022-06-25
Archaea no No comment 2008-07-02
Archimedes no No comment 2007-10-23
Atheism  Notes given... 2007-04-28
Augustus no No comment 2007-08-31
Australia no No comment 2010-06-29
Bacteria  Remark: 2 satisfactory 2006-12-03
The Beatles no No comment 2009-11-03
Bird  Notes given... 2007-12-20
Byzantine Empire  Notes given... 2012-06-27
Canada no No comment 2010-04-20
Charlie Chaplin no No comment 2014-01-14
Climate change  Passed, keep at FAR 2021-01-21
Charles Darwin  Notes given... 2006-12-19
Dinosaur  Remark: 1 satisfactory 2005-12-17
Walt Disney  Not applicable 2016-05-21
DNA no No comment 2007-04-25
Earth  Not applicable 2020-11-14
Electron no No comment 2009-08-30
Elizabeth I no No comment 2007-12-10
Evolution  Notes given... 2007-06-10
Leonhard Euler  Passed, keep at FAR 2021-09-04
Fungus no No comment 2009-08-22
Galaxy  Notes given... 2007-02-10
Genetics  Notes given... 2008-03-25
Germany  Remark: 1 satisfactory 2011-06-13
Han dynasty  Notes given... 2009-04-21
Hydrogen no No comment 2008-04-20
Immune system Checked, 3 satisfactory 2007-01-09
India  Notes given... 2011-07-28
Influenza  Notes given... 2006-11-02
Michael Jackson  Notes given... 2008-07-28
Japan  Notes given... 2011-04-14
Jesus no No comment 2013-08-15
Joan of Arc  Reviewing... 2006-08-31
Logarithm no No comment 2011-06-01
Nelson Mandela  Not applicable 2017-02-10
Mars  Passed, keep at FAR 2022-06-25
Maya civilization Checked, 3 satisfactory 2015-07-24
Mercury (planet) no No comment 2008-06-06
Metabolism  Notes given... 2007-03-30
Middle Ages  Deferred 2013-05-26
Moon no No comment 2010-05-18
Murasaki Shikibu no No comment 2011-09-16
Neptune no No comment 2008-03-14
Emmy Noether no No comment 2008-06-22
Olympic Games  Notes given... 2009-05-12
Oxygen no No comment 2008-02-06
Periodic table no No comment 2012-11-07
Pi no No comment 2012-06-04
Planet  Reviewing... 2008-02-08
Primate no No comment 2008-12-03
Rodent  Remark: 1 satisfactory 2014-10-22
Saturn  Notes given... 2007-08-02
Sea  Notes given... 2013-10-05
Solar System  Passed, keep at FAR 2022-07-09
Sun no No comment 2009-07-30
William Shakespeare no No comment 2007-08-14
Sheep no No comment 2008-02-13
Shen Kuo no No comment 2007-06-01
Speed of light  Passed, keep at FAR 2022-03-19
Star  Notes given... 2006-10-13
Supernova  Reviewing... 2007-02-10
Tang dynasty no No comment 2007-08-03
Uranus no No comment 2007-09-29
Venus  Not applicable 2016-06-26
Virus  Remark: 1 satisfactory 2008-09-23
Wind  Reviewing... 2009-06-27
Mary Wollstonecraft  Notes given... 2007-01-20

I find it very hard to take VITAL seriously, particularly after the lack of response at Vital talk to the issue at William Utermohlen. It looks like anyone can write an article, and declare it "vital". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, 95% of the Vital Article project effort is devoted to voting circle jerk and 5% is people complaining the project for being a circle jerk. It is really disappointing that the project is a huge timesink. I'm currently thinking of creating a drive that sweep old FAs (after the current WP:30 kB drive), but I don't think that the project can cope with such a big task yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean to sweep the old Vital FAs? By sending them to FAR, or removing them from Vital? What would you like to do so we can know how to help? That is ... we have a very big problem at FAR right now with too many astronomy articles showing up at once ... we try not to overwhelm any one area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is to clean up these articles before they need to go to FAR in the first place, i.e. improve those articles back to FA-quality. Like I've said above, I would love to make such a drive work, but I doubt that we have enough capacity to do so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck :) We have lost too many of the old FA writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with FAR experience and a low view of the vital articles list, I think the quick-and-dirty pageviews test is probably a better estimate of article importance. Impossible to do for a very large set of pages, but I'll try to pull something together for the ones currently at FAR after I get off work. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm see my sandbox8, where I had started to look at the pageviews on recent saves, relative to the most recent month of FAC promotions. FAR is saving the "big" ones, with five times the average pageviews of recent FAC promotions. A pat on the back for all of "us". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that sense, FAR is far more efficient and effective in serving readers than new FACs. This is very interesting to say the least – could we add something about this along the line in the next quarterly report? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of that, but the quarterly report is about URFA, where this data is really about FAR overall-- an "official" process vs. an unofficial one. Also, it might stir up some unproductive ... reactions ... best avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions about the need to address some underlying issues at FAC wrt this very matter have often turned unproductive, so ... the proof is in the pudding, and sometimes showing the way forward by Just Doing It (which is what we did with URFA) is a better way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear now that TFA would be in a hotspot these days without URFA/2020 and FAR, with the increasing need to re-run old FAs, as FAC production has declined and become so focused on niche topics. FAR/URFA are providing mainpage diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For fixing up the vital FAs, many times editors do not fix up the article until it is at FAR. I would suggest that, if CactiStaccingCrane and other editors are interested, that they start reviewing the vital articles listed above and noticing the ones that need to be fixed up. When nominating at FAR, try to be careful about nominating too many from the same category. The advantage of vitals is that they are from all around the project, so if there's an influx of articles from one category (like right now with astronomy) then different vital articles can be nominated at FAR (like religion). Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I sometimes fear that WP:FASA may be encouraging editors to wait for a FAR to "get the reward", but I'm not sure that's a bad thing, either. I feel better about an FA being restored at FAR, where it gets many sets of eyes, than it being done outside of FAR, where we might not all take such a close look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Perhaps a simple fix for that would be to create a different, or branched, reward for fixing an FA that would very obviously fail an FAR. Would be good for moral, perhaps. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a great idea, but I just don't think we have enough editors to conduct the amount of review that would require ... ideas ??? In recent months, I came across (at least, that I can remember) three FARs recommended for closing that weren't even close ... this is worrisome, and we need to assure that experienced FA eyes can get to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd much rather see those editors get engaged at FAR ... notice articles at URFA, and bring them to FAR, and get the reward there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most editors still look at URFA as "FAR the economy version" and FAR as "FAC being culled". There isn't that much incentive for editors to help out at URFA yet. We need to make them realize that FAR work can be far less demanding and more fruitful than trying to bring an article to FAC from scratch. But then again, there's a reason why Vital articles aren't being improved over time... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps a year-end report on FAR activity would help ? The sort of thing we used to do at the Featured content dispatch workshop ... but it would need to be very carefully written so as not to ruffle some feathers. Something like we did with Forgotten Featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the advantages (and unintended, positive consequences) of FASA is that TFA co-ords can notify them when the article is nominated for a TFA slot, which means someone who has significantly worked on the article can also take a look at the blurb. I don't mind editors receiving a FASA if the article wasn't at FAR, and maybe that will encourage them to fix up articles before it reaches FAR. Perhaps editors can self-nominate at FASA and include a link to the before and after versions of the FA. This might also point out articles that editors are working on and bring FA reviewers in to provide feedback on how to improve even more. That might make more work at FASA, but I'm OK with making more work for myself if it means more editors will fix up FAs. Furthermore, providing FASAs for non-FAR'ed articles will give additional info to TFA co-ords on who to ping when the article is nominated for TFA. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the FASA awards are conferred by FAR Coords for Kept articles at FAR; this would redefine FASA. I also fear it would weaken FASA ... unless we have the person-power to review them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for focus of year-end report

[edit]

I've started playing around at user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox8 with an idea to focus our year-end report by content area on work to be done on the remaining 2004 to 2006 and 2007 articles. My idea is to first summarize work so far, and then similarly list remaining 2004 to 2007 by topic area, so that we can hit WikiProjects with a) how they've done, and b) how they can help.

  1. Before I do the manual work of tallying the numbers, wonder what others think of this idea ?
  2. Also, a discrepancy to be resolved. The WP:FFA diff since URFA started shows 352 articles delisted (have to subtract History of South Carolina). But our tallies at URFA (which we know are correct) show 357, and there were delistings outside of the scope of URFA, so the FFA diff should show a number higher than 357. Does anyone recall where the discrepancy lies or have ideas about where to look? I suspect it's more things like History of South Carolina ... or I'm doing something wrong ...
  3. For perspective, should we add a column about total FAs in each area .... now ... or when URFA started ... for calculating percentages ... that is, what columns do I add to reflect that larger content areas have larger numbers, to use percentages instead ??
  4. Is this the right way to approach this ? That is, should we be looking at content area, or FA nominator? I fear the work to sort the articles by nominator would be near impossible to do, whereas the content areas are already given in the FFA diff-- I just have to count.
  5. Is there a better way to focus our year-end report to encourage more work on older parts of list ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some rough numbers for delistings that I'd been incidentally been throwing together at User:Hog Farm/FAR by category/2021 and User:Hog Farm/FAR by category/2022, although I don't know if that'll be helpful to you. I'm willing to hunt down the discrepancy once I get a couple more year-end federal reporting items completed. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha ... your breakdowns may help locate the discrepancy because I can get total delistings by area from the FFA diff, and then compare them to your totals ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna be fun ... my counts from the diff show 10 for art and 13 for biology, while yours show 9 for art (6 + 3) and 11 for biology (6 + 5), but I would have to go back and manually add 2020 (we started at end of November) ... anyway, no hurry on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I bet the extra two biology are MS (November 2020) and Cell nucleus (December 2020). I can't promise I got all of them exactly for both years, though. I've been doing this rather ad hoc. Hog Farm Talk 20:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can get in to detail if we decide this is a good way to approach year-end ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm wondering if it will be faster/easier to just use the diff, as it can be easily tallied, and just footnote that there is a discrepancy in numbers which we didn't take the time to sort ... because I will have to spend a lot of time manually tallying the kepts, which I hope show which WPs and editors have kept up with Satisfactory marks ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if someone else is willing to go though and tally the Keeps per WP:URFA/2020 lists ... which means looking up each of the 150 + 72 keeps to see what group they are each in at WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just getting ready to offer to do at least part of it. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got what I needed to done; will try to look into what's causing the issue. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work in my sandbox8 as you wish ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, is there any chance this could be being caused by former featured articles that were re-promoted? There's The Empire Strikes Back, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, Super Mario 64, Ceres (dwarf planet), and Hamlet chicken processing plant fire all re-promoted during this time frame. Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but every time I look at re-promoteds, I have to learn it all over again. I *think* (not sure) that re-promoteds don't affect overall number ... but I always forget. I could be wrong ... slow brain today as I am hibernating in the snow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we've had one post-2015 one delisted (Lewis (baseball)), so we need to keep that in mind, too. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Suzanne Lenglen is a re-promote. So we've got a discrepancy of 6 overall (357-353 + History of SC + Lewis). Hog Farm Talk 21:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my sandbox tally on delisted outside of URFA ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sandbox tally of delisted outside of URFA is quite right - we didn't start keeping track of stuff on the URFA page until late November, so only three of the eight November 2020 listings are included on URFA - Tulsa, Oklahoma, Climate of India, and Rosetta@home. Hog Farm Talk 22:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes ... but now my sandbox tallies make no sense, since they show FAR archives and URFA delists both at 357, so what about those that were delisted outside of URFA? The URFA delist number should be lower than the overall delist number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I am making a mess as I don't have my trusty HP calculator here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be resolved, which now leaves room for Lewis. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not resolved. Re-promotes do not affect the tally; when an article is re-promoted, it is only sent to a different part of the page. But, in reviewing the diffs at WP:FFA step by step, after we launched URFA/2020, we found quite a few errors in pre-URFA numbers, so the number in the diff becomes meaningless. It is still unclear why the delisted in archives is not higher than the delisted at URFA/2020, because there was more than one delisted outside of URFA. Meaning: it is unlikely we will know the exact number, but we can proceed anyway to tally the delisted from the diff at FFA, remembering not to count the exceptions like She Has A Name ... the Kepts will come strictly from the URFA page list because, again, we can't use the archive number as it includes non-URFA keeps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right that the discrepancy relates somehow to re-promoted, but my brain doesn't want to cough up the logic today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next step

[edit]

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox8#URFA/2020 year-end summary 2022 is done, but there is an error of 1 in the final column (535), based on the topic areas at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox8#2004 to 2007 (536). I can't find the error; don't have calculator at cabin, nor do I have real computer (iPad editing).

This chart gives us a way to explain kudos via the Keep/Delist ratio to WPs that have done a good job of processing the "satisfactory" (eg, MilHist, Birds).

The 536 remaining is not as bad as it looks, as many of those have Satisfactory marks already.

I don't know how to use the visual editor; could someone delete the TFA date column from the 2004 to 2007 table ?

To take this to the next level, so that we can post our year-end report to individual WikiProjects, it may be helpful to further refine those (large) groups where there is actually a chance of people working on them ... for example:

  1. Biology (66) could be refined to Birds, Dinosaurs, all other, because Bird and Dinosaur editors will get on those
  2. Music (55) I don't know how to split usefully as it is unlikely any single editor or WP will work on these
  3. Royalty and nobility (44) don't see usefulness in splitting as Ealdgyth and DrKay are on it already
  4. Media (40) possibly split between television, film and other to post to individual WikiProjects
  5. Sport and recreation (39) could be split by sport, but hard work, not sure worth it
  6. History (38) very individual, split not worth it
  7. Warfare (32) not worth splitting as MilHist will get on full list and ship editors follow MilHist
  8. Meteorology (32) not worth splitting same WP
  9. Literature and theatre (24) not sure worth splitting
  10. Physics and astronomy (24) split out astronomy from physics
  11. Video gaming (23) not worth splitting all can go to one WP
  12. Geography and places (22) not worth splitting, too individual
  13. Art, architecture and archeology (19) should be split to art, architecture, and archeology

Below that, not worth splitting. Is anyone interested in adding a column to the 2004 to 2007 chart to split out those above ? Then we can start drafting a year-end report that can be posted also to individual (active) editors and WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: - I've been a bit distracted lately with getting COVID (I feel fine now, just had a couple miserable days last week and my employer made we work from home this week), so have been out of the loop for several days. What all's still pending on getting this ready? I can help with the splitting either this evening or this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you are better; everyone around me is getting COVID suddenly. I lost the plot here as well ... went to the cabin and first had no water, then leaks everywhere, came home, and found main water line to house had sprung a leak, and now dealing with wet carpets in basement, moving books and furniture ... drying stuff out ... so, my overall idea was we write a year-end report focused on how to get 2007 moving, and THEN we (as a separate matter) post that report to the WikiProjects that are worthwhile, combined with a list excerpted per the above 13 points ... in other words, if you want to pick any of the 13-list above to add a new sub-column to the chart so we can refine the sort in some areas, that would be grand. I hope I am done dealing with water issues after carpet install tomorrow, and then have a ton of catching up to do ... so do not see year-end report getting out really soon unless someone else starts writing it. I think we should switch up our tone and style of writing to vary compared to past reports ... Our last report is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/3Q2022, our next would be at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022. We need to somehow make it punchier ... add something new ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get the subtopics split out this weekend (is it still desired to get rid of the TFA date column?) Hog Farm Talk 02:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you know how to use the visual editor and can do that easily ... Iri showed me once that the visual editor can delete an entire column at once, but I forgot how to do it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is the correct thing and didn't break anything. Only my second time using visual editor, and while it would have made my life much easier at List of tinclad warships of the Union Navy, I think I'll stick with manually working with wikitext. Hog Farm Talk 03:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good ... Yes, I didn't get along with the visual editor at all ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess - do we want to keep updating the tables through whatever date that we post it? There's a non-zero chance that the Missouri FAR closes soon, and it's one of the '06ers. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not worth the effort ... let the WikiProjects sort if someone shows up who cares ??? What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the splitting out by subtopic. I went ahead and split things out by sport, and added a plants subtopic for biology. Media includes a media biographies subtopic because I didn't feel like trying to sort out some of the bios into TV vs. film. The "other biology" could be split into lifeforms vs. general biology, but I don't know that that's worth the effort. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the saddle, I hope <fingers crossed that nothing else goes sideways in my life>. @Hog Farm, Buidhe, and Z1720: shall I take the lead in drafting the year-end report, or does someone else want that honor? Hog Farm, would you mind if I undo this edit? I prefer that we match the year-end totals (although we can remember to drop those subsequently closed from the individual lists when we post them to WikiProjects) so we don't leave someone scratching their head a decade from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to undo that one. I'm getting busier again for work, so I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute to the year-end report. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm thanks for doing the hard work on the chart/lists! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First draft

[edit]

@Buidhe, Hog Farm, Z1720, Nikkimaria, DrKay, Casliber, Extraordinary Writ, Jimfbleak, Wehwalt, Gog the Mild, Ian Rose, and Firefangledfeathers:, first draft of year-end report is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022. Please place feedback here so we can publish, maybe ... beginning of next week ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, feel free to perform simple copy edits directly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we intending to link or include the big table with all of the ones remaining by topic and subtopic? Given the size of that, it may be best to put that table on a subpage and then link to it, or we could include if it would get much better visibility that way. Hog Farm Talk 21:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we would reserve that table for posts to individual Wikiprojects ... but we can link if you disagree. If we decide to link, I need to move it out of my user space ... User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox8#2004 to 2007 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to hear the other's thoughts, but I do wonder if linking it would be useful for the situations where there isn't going to be a single reasonably active WikiProject to send it to. IMO the table popping up in something posted at say WT:FAC or WT:FA would be more likely to get eyes on the history or music ones, because there's not going to be a single project that would consistently get attention to those. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you're right ... I will be out for the evening, but will move it to an URFA page later and link it in ... but we will still post the individual lists to individual WPs, right ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some areas are heavy and I should work that in to the year-end report ... Dinosaurs, Birds, Astronomy, etc will need to gear up for Saves ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Wikipedia:URFA/2020/2004 to 2007 working list for 2023. (But let's NOT add a Notes column lest editors start using that page instead of the URFA pages!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for writing this up! (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to publish tomorrow unless anyone sees issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following along the past few months, though been too busy to contribute. Thanks for doing this. When I have more time, I'll look at how other projects format their newsletters and see if we can incorporate some of their best practices for later newsletters. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any concerns with the draft. Any ideas for which projects to send the larger list to? MILHIST, dinosaurs, and video games come to mind. Hog Farm Talk 18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that has 10 or more ? For example, the hurricanes, birds, biology ... when we start sending them, we can keep going as long as needed. I'll first post to the usual spots, and then we'll reconvene to do the WPs. We might also want to revisit #Standardised messages to send to FAC nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individual WikiProject lists

[edit]

@Buideh, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I've posted the year-end summary to the usual places.

As MilHist is likely to get on their list, I used them as a sample for how we might do the individual lists. See here, where I posted the list after the year-end report. Will that format work? Suggestions for improvement? We can see how it goes and do others over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fix Buidhe ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the examples of FAR saves should also be tailored to the project, to make it more relevant to them. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the examples (selection criteria = all are MILLION) are part of the overall report, and would mean I couldn't transclude the report, rather would have to individually rewrite it for each WP??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And some of the WPs aren't going to have great saves to showcase. For instance, for video games, I don't know if we want to really show off Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shadow of the Colossus/archive1, which is the classic "meh" keep. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the same report is being sent to all the WPs, then separate save lists might not be necessary. Also, if this is creating more work than is worthwhile than I wouldn't do it. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I personally like the filtered list broken down in order - the way the MILHIST one is set up leaves a good space for breaking down discussion by individual articles. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had to jump through hoops to get there. Sort the chart, copy the relevant section to Excel, delete the extra columns, sort the articles alphabetically, convert to Wikipedia list format with numbers and brackets ... maybe you know a faster way to generate the others? Actually, maybe I should just put the whole chart into Excel and do all of that just once ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the easiest way I can think of off the top of my head Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do that once we agree on a posting format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussions forming at the MILHIST list, we might want to consider leaving summaries of concerns identified on the project talk pages to the article talk pages, so that the notice/notes are more in order if the article do need to go to FAR down the line. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's gonna be a lot of work! (Next I'm going to get the list translated via Excel to groups in a format we can use here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll at least keep track of it for MILHIST. There's been several with significant concerns noted, and I'd rather have everything on the article talk for notice purposes. I've already handed out one MILHIST notice, and there's going to be at least a couple more. Hog Farm Talk 19:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once I finish the sort, I'll see how I can work in a general note about posting comments to article talk ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lists are at Wikipedia:URFA/2020/2004 to 2007 working list for 2023 and sample note added to WT:MILHIST. Should we a) give this a few days to see how it shakes out at MILHIST, and b) post the lists to individual WikiProjects little by little so we aren't overwhelmed with feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted today to WP:Weather and Cyclone. I'll keep track of posts at the working list page. I thought that the safest Project to post next, as anyone who intends to work on Hurricane articles probably already is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a few more of the shorter lists, in the interest of not being overwhelmed by posting too many of the longer lists at once. Going forward, I won't notify this page; follow the Working list page if you want to track progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been posting to a handful of WikiProjects daily, and should be done by tomorrow. I don't recommend repeating this exercise next year. First, by doing it this year, we've already raised awareness to WikiProjects about URFA/2020. Second, next year's list would be huge, since once we get into 2008, the numbers go up (many of the very oldest FAs were already reviewed as part of the original WP:URFA, so weren't on our earlier lists, rather are reflected later). The work to sort that list would be too much. Third, I've been looking at the pageviews on pages the year-end report links to, and they haven't gone up by much; readers aren't clicking through to see the links in the kinds of numbers that would make it worth it to go through this much work again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next step: augment WP lists as needed

[edit]

Done. You can see what I did and did not do at Wikipedia:URFA/2020/2004 to 2007 working list for 2023. Some of the lists were too segmented (like Music and Literature). Anyone else pls feel free to do anything I did not, but I don't think the effort is worth it, as we aren't getting much feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the history ones could usefully be added to the MilHist list - where you are more likely to get a response. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I ran out of steam on History and Literature, because they're all over the place. Also a problem with Music, and with most bios. My suggestion is that, now that I'm done, anyone who wants should go through the Working list (and particularly those sections) and tack on any articles they wish to any WP post I've made, or copy one of my WP posts to any new WPs as needed (sample). This was a tonna work, only possible because HF set up the sub-lists.
For me, I feel like we've now blanketed the world with the idea, and we'll see diminishing returns, as few WPs are as active as MilHist or have the initiative that MilHist does to keep its FAs up to snuff. But I do agree that going through the Working list to tack any on for MilHist would probably be useful.
In fact, I think it's time for us to switch away from quarterly URFA reports (maybe go to first half then year-end). Most folks who care now have the idea of how it works ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done for MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog ... we will have missed a lot, but the general word is out, and when/if any article does go to FAR, every WP tagged on talk gets a notice, so we are at least ahead of where we were a month ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/Archive_2&oldid=1149923238"