Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox/Archive 1

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

Work plan

[edit]

Lots of work needed here to get this ready; Maralia, DrKiernan, are you game to help? The first thing I see right off the bat (when sorting by nominator) is some missing nominators and incorrect nominators (I have one FA, but I am listed as the nominator on a number of them ... not sure why Hawkeye's script pulled me up on those). The first step in pruning out those FAs that are still being maintained by active FA writers is to get the list of nominators correct. Then to review vis-a-vis Dweller's list, then to sync with the list now at WP:URFA, etcetera ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see so far that Hawkeye's script didn't like user sigs that had superscripts ... and seems to have picked up the FAC delegate in some cases. So, everything attributed to me, Karanacs, Laser brain, Ucucha, Raul654 or Gimmebot needs to be checked. And YellowAssessmentMonkey and other FAR closers as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, you indicated once that you had taken on YellowMonkey's FAs ... all of them? Could you review his list here and let us know if you really are watching/maintaining all of them, or if some of them should stay on this list of FAs that might need review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all duplicate entries and fixed all missing (empty) nominators. For nominators with noms listed under multiple usernames, I have updated them all to list under the most recent username. I fixed the noms that were wrongly attributed to Raul. The noms attributed to Karanacs, Laser brain, Yellow Monkey/YellowAssessmentMonkey, and Ucucha appear to be correct.
There are nearly 140 noms still attributed to GimmeBot, and 60 to Mav, that need to be gone through one by one. Maralia (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maralia. I'll start from there, remove Jimfbleak and anyone else who responds below, and I am cross-checking this list vs. the current WP:URFA list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm out for a bit. Maralia (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Sandy's question re. YM's FAs, I was once keeping an eye on several of his Vietnam-related FAs but checking now I only have three on my watchlist: September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt, December 1964 South Vietnamese coup, and Nguyễn Chánh Thi, so can't vouch for the state of the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-checked ... everything that is on WP:URFA is on this list as well (except those marked as already at FAR). So, when this page replaces URFA, we can roll the unreviewed there into the new total. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back. @SandyGeorgia: I presume we want a Notes column, as at URFA? I can add that right now, if you give me a couple minutes clearance. Maralia (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No ... I'm thinking this page is already too hard to work with, and once we finish pruning, I will move it into URFA anyway, using the format there, at which time we will add notes. Too soon for notes ... then everyone will have a note, and the page is already huge to edit. slow going in here ... sitting this long makes my back hurt ... let's see where we are after we get all the major still-actives deleted.

It looks like all of Emsworth's old royalty FARs got attributed to Mav for some reason ... I've stopped checking if they were Emsworth and just using his name, since I'm thinking DrKiernan has lots of those watchlisted and may want to strike some of them anyway ... he can search on Emsworth when I'm done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the script chose nominators at least partially based on who created the FAC page—so it picked up whoever did the admin work back when closed FACs were moved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/articlename to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/articlename/archiveX. Maralia (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'm going to go off to work in my own sandbox to look up all the GimmeBot/Gimmetrow, so it's all yours if you want to do anything ... catch up on Hawkeye list below? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Maralia (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To look up nominator: User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#URFA_temp_sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia, if you're just a glutton for punishment, you could add the nominators to this sandbox page as I look them up on that sandbox. (It's a good thing I have such positive memories from us building articlehistories together, or this would be daunting!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I...would not describe my memories of that as 'positive' :) But yes, I will update this page from your sandbox—because looking them up is a bigger pain in the ass. Maralia (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of PITA, that's what I've got right now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia, I'll finish up there after breakfast. DrKiernan, how about Edward III of England? Dweller's page passed Tourette syndrome; could one of you look at it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hchc2009, User:Ian Rose and User:Lampman improved Edward III in 2011: Talk:Edward III of England#Featured article status and references.... I presume they were happy with the result. DrKiernan (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DrK, but before pruning, we need to know that someone has it watchlisted and is committed to its maintenance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still have Edward III on my watchlist (that and almost 5,000 other things!) and revert obvious vandalism when I see it. In terms of checking good faith content changes, I'd hope that if Hchc2009 also has it watchlisted then the article would be relatively safe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've got Edward III on my list. Not in bad shape, but I'm not convinced that it still reflects the best of the current literature though. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia, shall I remove this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do maintain that one, but want to give it a quick read-through to make sure I haven't missed anything over the years. Maralia (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week update

[edit]

Maralia, thanks for the BLP work-- are we done with that now? Here is my thinking, if you all agree (@DrKiernan:, @Casliber::

  1. Now that the page size is a bit lower, it might be a good time for you to go ahead (as you suggested) and fix the format for an eventual merge to WP:URFA. My thinking is that we can lose the FAC and FAR date columns, to minimize page size and editing agida, and just keep the Most recent date column. I think we could also now add the Notes column, where we can begin to track things (like BLP, Long, etc) after we get the page size down a bit more. I do like having the article name as the first column, rather than date (that is, preserve this format rather than the existing URFA format of date first).
  2. The pending list is growing, and I wanted to make sure you're all on board before continuing.
  3. I haven't yet processed Iri because the answer to whether articles are watchlisted isn't a straight up yes, so am planning a spotcheck.
  4. And I haven't moved on from there because we all may need a spotcheck of how we're doing before continuing. For example, I hesitate to remove anything on the list from FA writers who have substantially increased unvetted text post-FAC, and we will also need to take a close look at any Geography articles for "as of date" issues, etc. In other words, now that the size is a bit more manageable, we can discuss next moves.

I'm out for a funeral tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, forgot ... I'm thinking we might also create a template for subst-ing to FA nominator pages, explaining what we're doing and what we need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All BLPs should be tagged as such by now. It took me multiple passes because I made the mistake of first limiting by Category:Living people, inadvertently missing articles on bands, crimes, etc.
I added a Notes column last night, and moved the "BLP" and "Long" comments into it. I didn't remove the FAC and FAR date columns, for a specific reason that now escapes me; if I can't remember it shortly, I'll strip those two columns out. Maralia (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

[edit]

@Hawkeye7: are you able to figure out why Punk rock and Sex Pistols are missing from this list, and then whether others are missing for the same reason? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7:, ditto ... Nansen's Fram expedition ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found that one! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that they are not FAC, but RBP. I have adjusted the script. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hawkeye7; I added back in Sex Pistols and Punk rock. I am sorry to keep troubling you, and know this is a lot of extra work, but is there any possibility of you being able to generate a list of any other RBPs that may have been missed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refreshing Brilliant Prose articles by most recent RBP or FAR
Article Most recent RBP FAR Nominator
Sex Pistols 18 October 2006 19 January 2004 18 October 2006 Graham87
Greek mythology 30 November 2006 19 January 2004 30 November 2006 Muriel Gottrop
Punk rock 18 January 2007 19 January 2004 18 January 2007 Graham87
Menstrual cycle 25 October 2008 19 January 2004 25 October 2008 Graham87

All of the Other RBP articles have gone through FAC or been delisted by FAR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much, added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I've never nominated anything for FAC, let alone FAR. Graham87 05:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's because you moved Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture to fix namespace conflict on 12 January 2008‎. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87, it's no problem ... we are aware of issues that bomb the script and correct them ... the RBPs are a challenge! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 and SandyGeorgia: Ah, that makes sense. Graham87 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borat

[edit]

In attempting to fix the GimmeBot nominator on Borat, I find:

I don't know why it is listed at WP:WBFAN for Wehwalt? The article was renamed ... is there another ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first FAC nom shown in articlehistory on Talk:Borat (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan/archive1) lists Wehwalt as a co-nom. Maralia (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ah ha ... I see it now ... buried in the nomination statement. I'm not sure how RickBot parsed that out of the sentence ... I always look for the sig! Thanks, Maralia. So, list Wehwalt here, assuming he still follows it ... ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my watch list, but it could certainly use updating and improvement as I don't spend a lot of time with it and it's deteriorated. I'll put it on my to-do list. I'll see what I can do to dig up some decent sources, but I'm a bit busy at present so it may take some time. Have someone check back with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, would you stop pinging me? It is not welcome. I have responded. You have nominated a large number of coordinators. Please have them do any necessary contact in future. End of conversation.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All righty then. Could one of the coordinators decide how to handle Wehwalt's articles on this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SG

[edit]

Can someone decide whether to remove mine?

  1. Tourette syndrome
  2. I watchlist The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) for Steve, and it is fine.
  3. @Eric Corbett:, do you watch or have an opinion on Ottava's Samuel Johnson and Early life of Samuel Johnson? I keep them watched, but I have had several extended absences where something could have snuck by me, and I don't have the sources.
  4. I watchlist Autism and Asperger syndrome and do NOT think they should be removed, as they have issues.
  5. I know Ima Hogg is still good, and I watch it.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both Sam Johnson articles are probably still OK, but I'll have a read through them later just to make sure. Eric Corbett 17:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch every one of these articles except The Revolution. Agree that Autism and Asperger syndrome both need work and should stay on the list. The others are all in good shape. Will edit the list accordingly. Maralia (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Long FAs

[edit]

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive63 (Nov 2014)

[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive63#FA scripts
Manhattan Project (103)
Passed FAC 2011 with 15,227 words, now at 16,909; actively watched and maintained by original nominator; Hawkeye7 has indicated he will be creating sub-articles to reduce size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Pope Pius XII (99)
    Passed FAR in 2006 with 6,321 words, now at 16,307; original nominator Savidan (talk · contribs · logs) retired since 2012. On List needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Military history of Puerto Rico (98)
    Passed FAR in 2006 with 7,925 words, now at 16,751; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elvis Presley (97)
    Passed FAC in 2010 with 15,390 words, now at 16,363. Original nominator PL290 (talk · contribs · logs) gone since 2010; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ketuanan Melayu (93)
    Passed FAC in 2006 with 12,492 words, now at 14919; original nominator Johnleemk (talk · contribs · logs) sporadically edits; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Byzantine navy (93)
    Passed FAC in 2009 with 12,706 words, now at 15,356; original nominator Cplakidas (talk · contribs · logs) still active; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Michael Jackson (92)
    Passed FAC in 2008 (before MJ died) with 9,791 words; now at 15,491. Realist2 (talk · contribs · logs) hasn't edited since 2014; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Air raids on Japan (91)
    Passed FAC in 2012 with 14,363 words; now at 14,992; original nominator is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle Ages (88)
    Passed FAC 2013 with 14,352 words, now at 14,410; actively watched and maintained by original nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Spanish conquest of Petén (88)
    Passed FAC 2013 with 14,794 words, now at 14,825; original nominator is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian Smith (88)
    Passed FAC 2014 with 14,184 words, now at 14,433; original nominator is active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikita Khrushchev (87)
    Passed FAC 2009 with 13,760 words, now at 14,086; actively watched and maintained by original nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Byzantine Empire (87)
    Passed FAR in 2012 with 12,971 words, now at 14,302; Yannismarou (talk · contribs · logs) is still active. @Maralia: and @DrKiernan:, we might evaluate whether this should be on the review list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sea (86)
    Passed FAC in 2013 with 12,245 words, now at 14,040; nominators are still active. Feedback from Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth on growth in size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The extra information has largely been added by a single editor and I am happy that the quality has been maintained. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjamin Disraeli (86)
    Passed FAC 2013 with 14,288 words, now at 14283; actively watched and maintained by original nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Finnish Civil War (86)
    Passed FAC in 2006 with 6,452 words, now at 13,296; Pudeo (talk · contribs · logs) still active, on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Society of the Song dynasty (85)
    Passed FAC in 2007 with 10,232 words, now at 13,588; nominator is active, on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemur (85)
    Passed FAC in 2010 with 12,909 words, now at 13,433; nominator active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    L. Ron Hubbard (84)
    Passed FAC in 2011 with 13,364 words, now at 13,727; nominator active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tang dynasty (84)
    Passed FAC in 2007 with 10,141 words, now at 13,828; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Trek: The Motion Picture (83)
    Passed FAC in 2009 with 12,996 words, now at 13,787; watchlisted and maintained by active nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Military history of Australia during World War II (82)
    Passed FAC 2009 with 12,682 words, now at 13,279; nominator active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bob Dylan (82)
    Passed FAR 2008 with 9,271 words prose, now at 13,374; on list needing review. BLP !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Punk rock (81)
    Passed FAR in 2007 with 6,272 words prose, now at 13,081; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ronald Reagan (81)
    Passed FAR in 2009 with 10,342 words prose, now at 13,382; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to top 25 from new size list as of April 22, 2015:
  14. History of Poland (1945–89) (105K)
    Passed FAR in 2007 with 7,880 words, now at 15,295; on list needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul Kruger (91 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2015 with 14,584 words, now at 14,590; nominator active. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ulysses S. Grant (87 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2015 with 13516 words prose, now at 13498. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Douglas MacArthur (85 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 with 12298 words prose, now at 12753, nominator active (I corrected a misstatement of SIZE guideline in article talk page FAQ, which calls for 10000 words prose or summary style [1]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top 26–75 as of April 2015

[edit]

Cut off at 75 which represents more or less 10,000 words or prose (per WP:SIZE guideline); remove those already included above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Beatles (84 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2009 with 11506 words, now at 13075; on list needing review.
    AI Mk. IV radar (84 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2014 at 14046, now at 14046, size was raised as a concern.
    Hillary Rodham Clinton (83 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2014 at 12419 words, now at 12948; nominator active, size was raised at FAC.
    Babe Ruth (83 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2014 at 13948 words, now at 14197; nominator active, size was not raised at FAC.
  2. Augustus (83 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2007 at 10394 words, now at 12942; on list needing review.
    Andrew Johnson (82 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2013 at 12811 words, now at 12799, size was not raised at FAC.
  3. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (82 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2009 with 5472 words, now at 12512; on list needing review.
    Richard Nixon (81 kB)
    Passed FAC 2011 with 11801 words, now at 12580
    Early Netherlandish painting (81 kB)
    Passed FAC 2014 with 12733 words, now at 12708
  4. Nagorno-Karabakh War (80 kB)
    Passed FAC 2007 with 8667 words, now at 12283; on list needing review
    Mitt Romney (80 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 at 11079 words, now at 12256.
    Empire of Brazil (79 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2011 at 12328 words, now at 12266.
    John, King of England (79 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2011 with 12666 words, now at 12798.
    History of Gibraltar (78 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2013 with 11752 words, now at 12370.
    Campaign history of the Roman military (78 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2007 with 12711 words, now at 12974.
  5. Ancient Egypt (78 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2008 with 9976 words, now at 12525; on list for review.
    Female genital mutilation (78 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2014 with 8586 words, now at 8728.
    Iraq War in Anbar Province (78 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 with 11489 words, now at 11883.
    Jack Parsons (rocket engineer) (77 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2015 at 11234 words, now at 11775.
    Mark Hanna (77 kB)
    Passed FAC in 1022 at 11851 words, now at 11867.
    William H. Seward (77 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2014 at 12494 words, now at 12473.
    Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (77 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2013 at 11111 words, now at 11272.
  6. Paul McCartney (76 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 at 10718 words, now at 12132.
    Frog (75 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 with something that bombs the size script; manual check needed.
  7. Mariah Carey (75 kB)
    Passed FAR in 2007 at 5418 words, now at 11976. On list needing review BLP !!!
    Stanley Bruce (75 kB)
    Passed FAC 2013 at 11371 words, now at 11538.
    William McKinley (75 kB)
    Passed FAC 2012 at 11732 words, now at 11502.
  8. San Francisco (74 kB)
    Passed FAR in 2008 at 7118 words, now at 11779; on list needing review.
    Ezra Pound (74 kB)
    Passed FAC 2014 at 11852 words, now at 11877.
  9. Germany (74 kB)
    Passed FAR 2011 at 7844 words, now at 11342. Add to review list ?
    Mary Rose (74 kB)
    Passed FAC 2010 at 12375 words, now at 12696.
    Charlie Chaplin (74 kB)
    Passed FAC 2014 at 11582 words, now at 11800.
    Edward II of England (74 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2015 at 11913 words, now at 11913 words.
  10. Harbhajan Singh (73 kB)
    Passed FAR 2008 at 6939 words prose, now at 12749; on list needing review, BLP !!!
    Battle of Vukovar (73 kB)
    Passed FAC 2011 at 10542 words, now at 10635.
    Neville Chamberlain (73 kB)
    Passed FAC 2009 at 10427 words, now at 10886.
    Colorado River (73 kB)
    Passed FAC 2013 at 11094 words, now at 11527.
  11. Guadalcanal Campaign (73 kB)
    Passed FAC 2008 at 10661 words, now at 11552; on list needing review.
    Jimi Hendrix (73 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2014 at 10877 words, now at 11736.
  12. Plymouth Colony (73 kB)
    Passed FAR in 2007 at 10492 words, now at 11890; on list needing review.
    Russell T Davies (72 kB)
    Passed FAC 2012 at 10859 words, now at 11493, BLP.
    Spanish conquest of Guatemala (72 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 at 10442 words, now at 11735.
  13. Batman (72 kB)
    Passed FAR in 2006 at 7356 words, now at 11535; on list needing review.
    Sinking of the RMS Titanic (72 kB)
    Passed FAC in 2012 at 10484 words, now at 11905.
    Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (72 kB)
    Passed FAC 2011 at 9755 words, now at 9736.
    George W. Romney (72 kB)
    Passed FAC 2012 at 9773 words; now at 10982.

Break

[edit]
Extended content, done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hawkeye7 See also User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size etc., etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From The ed17's longer list, the kinds of articles we are discussing that might need review can be found. Moving all the way down around the 50th longest FAs are samples such as:
  • Germany currently 12,300 words readable prose, passed FAR June 2011 with 7,800 words of readable prose. More than three years since it has been reviewed, and has almost doubled in size, meaning most of the text in the article is unvetted in a review process.
  • Paul McCartney, BLP, currently 12,000 words of readable prose, passed FAC in July 2012 with 10,700 words of readable prose, FAC nominator no longer active.
So, the idea of looking at very long FAs is only to identify those that a) might have grown significantly since last review, or with b) several years lapsed since review, or with c) FAC nominator no longer active. If we can get a list of all FAs that have been x years unreviewed, we might then be able to focus on those that have a lot of unvetted text by way of having grown post-FAC or those whose nominators are gone. That is the subset that might need to go to FAR, but we need a starting list so we can begin eliminating the ones that still look to be well maintained.

Hawkeye7 would you mind if I merge all of this info to one thread, retaining sub-headings, so we have it all in one place in archives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The ed17: you last generated the list by size in August 2014 ... see my work above ... would you be interested in or able to generate an updated list before I continue (perhaps on to the top 50), or should I use the August 2014 list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to do this tonight or tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the pages for FA wiki text and prose size. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so much ... I will dig in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of longest FAs

[edit]

Relative to FAs unreviewed through 2010, of the 75 longest FAs (a cutoff point which roughly corresponds to the SIZE guideline recommendation of 10,000 words of readable prose for attention span and readability):

FAs as of April 2015 that: 2010 and before After 2010
Passed FAC or FAR above SIZE 15 40
Grew to pass SIZE post-FAC or post-FAR 17 3

Most of the long FAs (40) passed FAC after 2010 and aren't covered on this list, but a sizeable number passed FAC within size guidelines before 2010 (17), but then added content (significant amounts in several cases) post-FAC or post-FAR and are on this list for review. Of concern is how many FAs within SIZE guidelines have seen similar amounts of unvetted text added post-FAC or post-FAR; this analysis doesn't address any FAs below the top 75 longest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to frequent nominators

[edit]

If you are a frequent FA nominator, and are reading this because you have been pinged to this page, the list is still being pruned to hopefully result in a new list for WP:URFA of FAs that might need review. That list is not canonical, and being on the list doesn't mean the FA has deficiencies ... it only indicates the last time an FA was reviewed.

Most FAs being maintained by still active nominators (ie familiar with current standards) will be pruned from this list, but as an example of an exception, I would leave Major depressive disorder on the list of FAs needing review, even though most of us who worked on it are still active (DSM5 revisions need to be addressed).

If you are a still-active, frequent FA nominator, a useful first step would be to add a note here in the event you have "abandoned" or given up on maintaining any FA you nommed, so that it can remain on a pruned version of this list.

Also, if you have taken over maintenance of any FA whose writer is departed (eg Moni3 or Awadawit), please indicate that here. Lots of pruning will be needed here; those are some of the first steps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next pass (more to come) @Wehwalt:, Brianboulton, Casliber, Jimfbleak, Ealdgyth, Ian Rose, Sturmvogel 66, Mike Christie, Eric Corbett, David Fuchs, Hawkeye7, DrKiernan, Ceoil ... are there any FAs on this list that you no longer maintain? Since you are all still active FA nominators, reviewers or writers, I believe we are safe to strike your articles from the list of those potentially needing review, unless you indicate you no longer watch them. Also, there are many duplicates on this list and incorrect nominator names (I am still working on those), so if you notice any of yours in those categories, pls correct ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruhrfisch:, @Sasata:, @Sarastro1: ... three more pings as we slowly work through here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Finetooth: ... noting that I am generally inclined to leave basic geography articles (city, state, country) on the list, as they need constant updating ... Finetooth, are you still maintaining your FAs, and can Lock Haven, Pennsylvania be tuned up for date-specific info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely absent from FAC these days, but I watch all my old FAs and noms. Lock Haven has no problems that I'm aware of. Link rot is a nuisance on some of the stream articles. For example, I have not found an RS to replace a dead one supporting the claims in the geology section of Johnson Creek (Willamette River). Finetooth (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Finetooth! I've pruned your articles from the list, but could you give Lock Haven a once over for dated info? For example, is this still true? "As of 2009, the mayor is Richard P. Villelo, Jr., and the manager is Richard Marcinkevidge." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Villelo no, Marcinkevidge yes. I'll look more closely at all of them this week and do what I can. The link rot on Johnson Creek is worse than I thought; hadn't checked for a long time. Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellhalla:, @Abraham, B.S.:, @Dweller:, @The Rambling Man:, could you please review the list in this sandbox and confirm if you are still actively watchlisting and maintaining all of your FAs listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0:, @Resolute:, @Parrot of Doom: ... see above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actively watch and update mine. There is always the possibility that small vandalism snuck past me but nothing huge should have escaped my notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch all my pages and normally work in collab, so usually have Victoriaearle, Modernist and JNW and other co-noms also watching. Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch all the FAs I nominated, but I've occasionally been away from my watchlist for weeks at a time, so it's possible there are some problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mike Christie, that answer is too wishy-washy! Can I prune yours or not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at my FA list, and I think you can prune everything except Ace Books, which is under-referenced by today's standards. I seem to recall it was FARed a while back, or at least someone asked about it, but it seems to still be an FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still watching my articles. Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think it would be quite safe to prune Bryce Abraham's FA noms from the list, even if he doesn't respond here directly. I know he pops in occasionally to maintain these articles, plus I have all of them on my watchlist anyway as they're also my area of expertise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info, Ian Rose-- most helpful, and the kind of thing that will help us get through this list faster! We are really after a proxy now of FAs that aren't actively watched and maintained or have known and obvious issues or are article that have grown significantly since review, since the number of old FAs needing review (and the missing nominators) so far is surprising even me! Once we get the list pruned down to something more manageable, we'll more globablly ask others to indicate, for example, if they are watching and maintaining any FAs of departed editors ... for now, I will prune Abraham B.S. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while we're at it, I also have the following on my watchlist and believe they're still in good shape:
Lastly, re. Woody's nom Victoria Cross -- I'm one of several MilHist editors to have this on my watchlist, it's a bit volatile and I've had to add some fact tags to it, but doesn't look too bad. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ian Rose, got those. If you look at Missing nominators, you can see we have big issues with YellowMonkey, Ucucha, Cla and Awadewit ... what do you know about Ucucha? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose (and SandyGeorgia). I apologise for the delay in response, but I have been without power for the last couple of days due to severe weather. However, while I am not quite as active on WP as I once was, I do still drop by, 'maintain' and watch the articles I brought to FA. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like Ealdgyth I have all the FAs I've nominated on my watchlist, so I'd be rather surprised if anything major has snuck past me. Eric Corbett 16:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eric! The garden beckons, and I am not close to finished, so perhaps DrKiernan or Maralia will take over for a bit. I didn't finish removing Mike Christie (except Ace Books), need to remove Eric, remove more duplicates, check all attributed to Raul or FAC delegates or GimmeBot or FAR delegates (many are wrongly attributed to them), and fill in missing nominators ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that I've taken over the maintenance of Quatermass and the Pit, which passed FAC back in 2004. Eric Corbett 16:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch all mine, nothing on your list Jimfbleak - talk to me? 21:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still watch and update all the articles I have brought to FAC, including two FFAs that I restored, but I am a relative newbie, and none of the FACs date from before February 2009. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch and maintain (or is that a dirty word now?) all my FA noms and co-noms, the earliest of which dates from 2008, by which time standards were pretty close to what they are now in terms of density of referencing and so on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have kept a general watch over my early FACs, and in some cases (e.g. with TFA pending) have given what amounts to a complete overhaul. I don't think there are serious problems with any of the rest, but I intend shortly to devote a few days to some loving care and maintenance. I will include in this exercise Tom Crean (explorer), where I was junior partner with the departed Zatoichi26. Incidentally, Discovery Expedition is credited in the list to Gimmebot, and Nansen's Fram expedition doesn't appear at all. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brianboulton ... we are aware of and fixing all of the Gimmebot entries, and I will ask Hawkeye about Nansen. So, are you generally comfortable then if we prune all of your articles from the list, or is there anything we should leave? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can safely prune. It occurs to me that the Nansen article may have been pruned with Ruhrfisch's crop, as he was my conom on that one. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brianboulton, will do next ... I do see that Nansen was on the first version that Hawkeye put up, so yes, it already got pruned. Thanks again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, people ... here's a sample of how you can flag any abandoned: [2] I am finding scores of dupes, so processing here will be slow going. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to prune myself; to the best of my knowledge, Tourette syndrome is at standard, including DSM5 update. Someone else should decide if I'm "prunable". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are a still-active FA reviewer and writer and I did not ping you above, that doesn't mean anything ... I'll get to you eventually ... the first pass is just to get the size of the list down to a dull roar! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing; a few old FAR saves I no longer watch; thinking Punk Rock, Sex Pistols and espically Heavy Metal. These had been with DCGeist and WesleyDodds, both now departed, though I do watch other collabs I had with Wesley and his articles in general. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil. That raises a question for Hawkeye7; Heavy metal music is showing on this review list, but even though Punk rock and Sex Pistols were last reviewed in 2007, they do not appear on this list. Ceoil, do you happen to watchlist any of Yoman's art FAs? I'm thinking of The Four Stages of Cruelty, An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, and Four Times of the Day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Ceoil, can you review the page to doublecheck and confirm that you have all of Wesley Dodds FAs covered? If so, I can remove them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I do be watching Yoman's art pages, as does Modernist and Mandrax I notice, and Wesley's are covered. User:Indopug is also watching since Wesley moved on. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil, got 'em ... no hurry, but sometime please doublecheck that I got everything off the list you maintain. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming. The only thing that tickled was Wesley Clark, but to say mr Dodds is in the clear, absolved, there. Ceoil (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to keep an eye on all mine but there's alot. Most should be fine, but some high traffic ones (e.g. lion and major depressive disorder) can be boring hard to keep track of. Some of the early dino ones might be a little rusty (and I will try to take a look sooner rather than later), but if someone is working down a list, gets to one and opens a discussion on problems, I have absolutely no problem with that.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Casliber. Lion was reviewed in 2011, so is not on this list. I left MDD and a couple of your early dinosaurs on the list ... let me know if they are good to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I'll need to check the dinosaurs yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maralia ... I am done gardening and will resume work after bubble bath and dinner, but will ping here first to make sure we don't have a miserable edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, did you happen to check this ... I am thinking the YellowAssessmentMonkey's were probably FARs he closed, while the YellowMonkey's were probably his own FAs?? So, all of the YAM's may need to be checked ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every one is about cricket or Vietnam, so I think we're good. Maralia (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks ... I'll start work again in about half hour ... will put page In Use to avoid ecs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, Acdixon, Auntieruth55, Bencherlite, Ceranthor: Can you confirm whether you continue to maintain the FAs attributed to you on this list? Maralia (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a list, but I maintain all articles I have taken to FA. Tim riley talk 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy, I am not as active as I used to be here, but still watch and maintain the articles I have taken to FA. I know Sonestown Covered Bridge needs to be updated (similar to what I did for Hillsgrove Covered Bridge back in January, though not as extensive. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. Yes, I still watch the FAs I have nominated. Though some of the oldest ones probably need some review and updating for the changes in standards we've had over the years. Resolute 18:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Resolute; is there any article in particular that should remain on the "needing review" list? When the list goes live, it will be spelled out that being on the list does NOT mean that an article is deficient, only that it may need to be looked at ... yadda, yadda ... can you give a clearer delineation on whether we can remove all of yours, or if we should leave some of the earlier ? (See some of the other responses above.) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my FAs are BDPs, so they will not have changed much. It's really my oldest five that I would most want to go back and check: Calgary Flames, Jarome Iginla (as an active athlete), and the three History of the NHL articles. The rest are recent, actively maintained and generally don't change much. Resolute 18:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left those few, but would hope to prune them before the list goes live, so please keep the page posted, Resolute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I don't have nearly the time on Wikipedia that I used to before my two little girls came along. As with Resolute above, most of my FAs are BDPs, and don't change much, but I do try to check the watchlist frequently and revert any nonsense or edits that contradict policy. I do have a few BLPs, and I try to watch the news for major bits about them, such as the recent death of Wendell H. Ford. That's not to say I won't fall behind on a few; Governor Steve Beshear needs about three years worth of updates, but being a GA, that's outside the scope of this list. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Pruned, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs: congrats on the new FA!! Since you have been back, have you caught up on all the FAs on this list, are they current, are they watchlisted, can they be pruned from this list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, I believe that I still "guard" all the FAs I nominated, even the ones I worked on with User:Dweller. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: tried to identify your collabs with Dweller—are we safe to remove West Indian cricket team in England in 1988, Paul Collingwood, Adam Gilchrist, England national football team managers, and History of Norwich City F.C.? Maralia (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We both watch them all, so yes, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, haven't been on today so I just got the notification. I'm totally willing to keep tabs on all the articles I've nominated. ceranthor 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ceranthor, thanks for weighing in! Is there any article listed on the page that you haven't watchlisted and maintained in the past, and that might need checking? This list doesn't mean it needs a review ... just that it might need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SandyGeorgia, 2002_Bou'in-Zahra_earthquake might need checking, but otherwise they're okay. ceranthor 03:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—have removed all but that one from the list. Maralia (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others here, I keep all my FAs on my watchlist still; while they're probably mostly all free from any inadvertent vandalism and accumulated cruft I do have a few on my todo list for some sprucing... I'm certainly a better writer than I was in 2008. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See To do list; pinging next the hurricane people, since they rarely engage BLPs:

  1. @Hurricanehink:
  2. @Juliancolton:
  3. @Cyclonebiskit:
  4. @Titoxd:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC) I still keep an eye my older FA's. I know some of them might be a tad stale at this point (some became featured nine years ago), but the references generally work, the information is still sound, and there isn't new vandalism in there. When major issues come up, I and the project usually fix them up (with some minor prodding, heh). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


See To do list; pinging more frequent nominators for feedback on whether they actively watchlist and maintain all FAs nominated, with particular emphasis on any BLPs.

  1. @ChrisTheDude:
  2. @Gary:
  3. @Iridescent:
  4. @Jackyd101:
  5. @Maclean25:
  6. @Maky:
  7. @Masem:
  8. @Mattinbgn:
  9. @Mitchazenia:
  10. @Nev1:
  11. @Nick-D:
  12. @Parsecboy:
  13. @Scartol:
  14. @Scorpion0422:
  15. @Serendipodous: [3]
  16. @The ed17:

If you have nommed any FAs on this list that you haven't actively maintained, pls indicate. And, if you happen to have taken over any FAs written by departed nominators, pls indicate that as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept an eye on all of mine. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All my FAs are on my watchlist and keep tabs on (and in fact have tried to improve some of the older ones with conjunction of WP:VG). --MASEM (t) 21:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same for me - mine are watchlisted and maintained, and I've gone through to bring some of the oldest ones up to current practices from time to time. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch all my FAs and remove vandalism etc. but I am a lot less active on Wikipedia than I used to be. Most of mine would be watched by participants in WP:CRICKET as well. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I watch all of my FAs daily, unless I'm out of town, and even then I'll go back and check for the time I was out. I'm not saying my old work is perfect, though. Standards have changed over time, and if someone feels one of my articles needs a review, just say so. (Though I would prefer to be notified first so that a review can happen when I'm not too busy. This month and next month, for example, are going to be hell for me. After that I'm good.) – Maky « talk » 06:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the forthright reply, Maky. I had a look at your two earliest, left a few comments (which you need not get back to me on quickly, recognizing you are busy), but didn't see anything remotely close to the kinds of problems typically seen at FAR, so have pruned you from the list. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have all mine watchlisted, and maintain them. A couple (Australian Defence Force and Timor Leste Defence Force) are currently over-due for updates, and I need to bring my first (Axis naval activity in Australian waters) up to modern standards of referencing. All the others are all in good shape, and have been updated by myself or others when new sources become available. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick-D (and thanks to all for the helpful, forthright appraisals of your old work). For now, I have left those three on the list, which probably won't go live for at least another month; if you can get those to standard, pls ping here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy - I'll get to work :) (the ADF article will need to wait until the upcoming mid-May Australian Government budget, which will lead to lots of changes in its content) Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have all my FAs against my name watchlisted and (IMO) have not let them slip from the standard they were in when they were promoted, although I haven't necessarily gone through them to check that all links still work etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ChrisTheDude; I pruned all of yours except Steve Bruce which is an older BLP; could you give it a glance to make sure it's good to go and get back to this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am happy that article is still of an acceptable standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

[edit]
I rarely check my watchlist so can't say whether they've changed, but most of mine from this period are on low-traffic specialist topics which are unlikely to have changed. (Tarrare, Pig-faced women and Charles Domery are the regular subject of Reddit threads which could potentially drive waves of vandals their way, but I haven't noticed anything significant.) The only one of mine with potential concerns is Noel Park; the WMF's increase in the default thumbnail size makes it appear somewhat overloaded with images. (I can see no easy solution to that, without resorting to forced image sizes or the dreaded gallery; the notability of Noel Park derives from its extraordinary melange of utopian architectural schemes, so the images are all necessary.) By virtue of the periods covered, none of mine should have any BLP issues. – iridescent 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iri, I will have a look at the oldest, and get back to you ... I was up to my eyeballs yesterday trying to complete the long list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maralia: @DrKiernan: @Iridescent: I don't know how we want to process these, since Iri indicates not actively watchlisting. As a test case for when we expand to contact other nominators, do we leave unwatched articles on the list? I spotchecked the first on the list, found that a diff back to the featured version has too many changes to sort, but found these changes since TFA (which look good). So, if Iri is only concerned about Noel Park, but doesn't actively watch, do we prune or not? Appreciating all of the forthright answers we have gotten from nominators, but unsure what precedent we want to set ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm inclined towards pruning, since Iri's FAs aren't really "abandoned", and we have so many that have potentially inactive nominators and no watchers, that we may as well get to the real beef. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll just respond here for simplicity. I'm largely inactive here these days and I no longer bother with my watchlist. I can go through some of the FAs I worked on and fix things as I see fit. I think most of them are still in really good shape. -- Scorpion0422 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scorpion0422; thanks for popping in, and it's good to "see" you again. Since your articles are in popular content areas that may be hard hit by editors not versed in FA standards, I hesitate to prune them from the list if you haven't been watching them. Is there any chance you can go through them and get back to this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, absolutely. It may take a while, but I'll let you know when I'm done. -- Scorpion0422 19:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I have the articles I worked on watchlisted and check on them from time to time, but not rigorously. Castle articles will need little updating; settlement articles will need to be updated later in the year to include newer demographic data if it hasn't yet been incorporated and updates regarding local politics. No involvement in BLP FAs on my part that I recall. Overall, my editing levels are low currently and for the foreseeable future. Nev1 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maralia: @DrKiernan:, I checked one of Nev1's oldest FAs, and found it updated, not detiorated, and watched by DrK. I would probably be OK with pruning Nev's articles, even though he says he doesn't check them rigorously, but would like more feedback from you two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't watch that page; I came across it while working through a clean up category. It's tagged as outdated because the census of 2011 is not included, which makes me suspect that it would benefit from further attention. DrKiernan (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Bodiam Castle didn't need much work, but it's one of the newer ones, and not a settlement. I think they're all likely to need some minor tidying, so we should probably keep them on the list. Maralia (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

[edit]

I forgot to watchlist this page and then forgot about it after my ping - sorry!

  • You can prune Heyer and History of Texas A&M. I still need to look at Grass Fight and Lawrence Sullivan Ross. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and user Buffs is no longer active. You can reassign the first three of his articles (all related to Texas A&M) to me and I'll take a look (next week?). I was co-nom on 2 of them and know enough about the third to evaluate it. Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Bellhalla (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I watch mine and they're all still good, although some of them could use updating in minor ways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sturmvogel 66 and Bellhalla-- I pruned all except Orizaba ... please ping this page when you've had a chance to go through it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3

[edit]

Moving down the list of missing nominators brings us next to Dana boomer, with 19 older FAs on the list. Perhaps Ealdgyth or Montanabw have watchlisted or are maintaining some of those, or know if anyone is? Montana, if you have maintained any of Dana boomer's articles, could you please indicate so we can prune those from the sandbox list of FAs that might need review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist/maintain several of Dana's articles, where is this list that I need to look at? Do I have the authority to remove any that I am keeping an eye on? Montanabw(talk) 17:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, the list is at the sandbox associated with this talk page (WIkipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox-- scroll down to Dana boomer, alphabetical by FA nominator); it would be easier on us if you not remove any yourself, because we're trying to work very slowly and keep track of what and who we've done. If we have everyone editing the page, we may get crossways ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have all seven watchlisted. I helped with most of them and can affirm that Andalusian horse (has been TFA), Horses in WWI (has been TFA) are still fine. All but Cleveland Bay have already been TFA, and none have had significant changes - so do we still need to review??? (TFA also Haflinger, Suffolk Punch, Marwari horse, Icelandic horse, ) I haven't paid much attention to the others beyond vandal reversion - anything I need to do? Montanabw(talk) 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw If you have them watched, and can verify that they have been maintained to standard, we can prune them from the list-- as someone who knows the FA standards, all you have to do is say so :) We are really trying to prune this list down to the significant number of FAs that are no longer watched (departed nominators, etc), or that have known issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will say yes, with the caveat that by "yes" I interpret "maintained to standard" to mean they have not been messed up or changed in any significant way since becoming FA/TFA. I guess my take is that they are maintained, they are still of the same quality or better quality as they were at the time passed. If they were put up for FAR today they would probably all still pass, though they may need some cleanup (I spotted a raw URL at Icelandic Horse that I just fixed, for example). Personally, I'm OK with them, but I haven't checked recently for linkrot and such. So I'd say "no known issues." Will that do? Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dana boomer pruned, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not around much at the moment, but continue to watch the FAs I nominated. They are all pretty much unchanged from FA, and there is nothing new to add that hasn't been added. I think they should be fine. (Hopefully, I've replied in the right place!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Enigma's response

[edit]

Hi, I nominated the following and have them all on my watchlist: Operation Brevity, Operation Perch, Battle of Villers-Bocage, and Operation Charnwood. I was also part of the team of editors who improved Operation Epsom, and also have that on my watchlist.

These are articles are actively maintained, and I believe still meet the FA requirements as they have not changed much over the last few years other than updates to ref formatting, small insertions of new and sourced material, and copyediting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc; I have pruned all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Cane's response

[edit]

The eight articles below that I nominated for FA before the end of 2010 are all still watched and maintained by myself. Most are low traffic and haven't attracted much unwanted attention. I believe that they would all still meet the FA criteria if nominated today, but will be happy to rectify anything if anyone thinks there is any deterioration that needs fixing:

--DavidCane (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DavidCane. I have pruned your articles from the list, but it would good if you can fix a recurring WP:REALTIME issue that I saw. Please search for any use of words like "today", "current", "recent", and replace them with as of dates. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly have a look, but as all of these articles conclude with either the merger of the railway company into a subsequent organisation or with the death of the subject - all of which happened in the 1930s or 1940s - I doubt anything that was current when they were considered for featured article has changed since then.--DavidCane (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod's

[edit]

I keep all mine on my watchlist, but might miss stuff. Others, like User:Modernist are great watchers too. I've commented on most. Funerary art might be worth a look (it can never be complete) but hasn't changed much - mostly additions by me I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnbod; I pruned two, and left Lung cancer (I wasn't ready for you-- my plan of attack on all medical articles was to approach WT:MED globally about all of the work needed). I'm unclear if you think Funerary art should be pruned or not? I see a bare URL in the citations, some incomplete citations, and wonder if See also needs pruning; could you get back to this page on that one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to the text more than I remove, I think. I'll take a look, not sure when. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bare URL in the citations fixed; SA down to 3. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pruned (left a WP:REALTIME inline query). Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jackyd101

[edit]

I've had a quick look over mine and they seem fine. Some I hadn't looked in on in years - a couple I don't even remember writing, was nice to revisit them. I'm sure most have minor problems that I probably don't have time to get to - I go through long periods of semi-retirement from Wikipedia due to work fluctuations and although I have them watchlisted I can't keep an eye on them most of the time or guarantee to catch and fix problems that might arise. Thanks for flagging this up though - its a worthwhile project.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did a spotcheck, and found nothing of concern, so pruned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop

[edit]

Hello, of the four FAs listed next to my name, the only one I'm still actively watching is William of Tyre. I could possibly help out with Second Crusade and Treaty of Devol if they needed to be reviewed...and I totally forgot about chariot racing so I'd be no use there. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam Bishop. I pruned only William of Tyre, but per WP:LAYOUT, could you please separate Sources from Further reading? It's hard to tell which are sources that are used in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done! I added another section to separate the two. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola

[edit]
  • I do indeed monitor the Oliver Typewriter Company and Sholes and Glidden typewriter articles. They are essentially unchanged since their promotion and, as I understand that also to be the case with the FA criteria themselves, I believe they continue to meet the standards. (Oliver had a typo in the references and two dead links, which I've now fixed.) As shocking and counter-intuitive as it may seem, typewriters from the turn of the 20th century just don't seem to get much traffic. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds' pages

[edit]
  1. Court of Chancery looks good to me (even the referencing is consistent. Which is amazing, since I'd expect someone to have shown up and broken the style by now, but apparently not. Woo, articles so boring nobody reads them!)
  2. Drapier's Letters appears fine (same principle)
  3. Gray's Inn, I need to do some tightening of the sources. Will get on that this week.
  4. Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett ditto.
  5. William Garrow, ditto, but only one fix.

Thanks for the notification, and thanks so much for running this project :). Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you ! Ironholds pls ping this page when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Kahn's response

[edit]

Please forgive me if I didn't handle this response correctly. I'm responding after having been pinged by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). I have nine FAs in the list. I have them all watchlisted and although I'm unfortunately not able to be as active on Wikipedia as I once was, I do keep an eye on them and make sure they're keep up to the right standards. None of them are BLPs or topics that are ongoing or changing, so there hasn't been the need to keep them substantially updated with new information. I believe they should all be fine, but am obviously willing to do any work that needs to be done to them. — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Hunter Kahn. I did a quick spotcheck, and the list nommed by you looks quite fine, but because South Park is a content area that can attract more editing than some other content areas, I'd like confirmation from Maralia or DrKiernan on pruning them (just as a matter of precedent as we move into pinging editors from content areas that are ... less than obscure). Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damien, Pilot (Parks and Recreation), Starvin' Marvin (South Park), and Weight Gain 4000 are all fine, as is Sebastian Shaw (actor), which I still watch since I reviewed it at FAC eons ago.
The rest need a very small amount of attention:

  • Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo - There's been a poorly sourced addition with bare url citation (search on “Joseph of Arimathea”).
  • Parks and Recreation (season 1) - Would be nice to clean up a poorly written viewership assertion with a clunky accompanying footnote (search on “5.45 million households”).
  • Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street) - The lead has devolved somewhat and now has several 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs. The last sentence of the lead (re Breaking Bad) is unsourced and not mentioned at all in the main article text.
  • Tender Mercies - A wholly uncited and apparently OR paragraph has been added at end of the Religion section.

I will remove the first five from the list, and add notes about the latter four. Hunter Kahn, please just let us know here when you've had a chance to address these small concerns. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn's response

[edit]

Of the six articles listed next to my name, I would say that Dustbin Baby (film), Andrew Johnston (singer) and Lactifluus volemus (though, in fairness, the third is mostly Sasata's article) are all in a good state. I'd say they can probably be removed from the list. Dungeons & Dragons (album) and Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album) are pretty much as they were when promoted (and neither is the sort of article that would need to be updated) but they may raise some eyebrows when compared with what is expected today- I will have a snoop through them and do some cleaning. Connie Talbot, I must confess, is out of date and below current standards. I have little interest in the topic now (reality TV is a guilty pleasure, but this should, by no stretch, be an article about reality TV any more) and a rather bitter dispute with another editor drained any motivation I might have. I recommend that this article is delisted. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I took a quick look at the first 5 you listed, and agree with your assessment, so I have removed them from the working list. Connie Talbot definitely needs work—the 2010-2015 section is tagged for expansion and is full of proseline, and there's some cleanup to be done on citations—so I've kept that on the list, with a note that you're no longer maintaining it. Thanks for your help! Maralia (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Jbmurray

[edit]

I still have all three articles for which my class and I were responsible watchlisted: El Señor Presidente, The General in His Labyrinth, and Mario Vargas Llosa. My sense is that they remain in fairly decent shape. This doesn't mean they could not be improved, and of the three the one that could do with most improvement is undoubtedly Mario Vargas Llosa, both because it is subject to more attention and because (as its subject is a living person who continues to write and be active, and indeed has won a Nobel Prize in the interim), it could stand to be updated. So personally, I would recommend taking the first two off the list, and keeping the third one on, at least provisionally. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jbmurray ... I have pruned the books, and left the Vargas Llosa BLP; please let us know if you have a chance to work on updating it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin's response

[edit]

I have all five articles (Battle of Bicocca, Battle of Ceresole, Italian War of 1521–26, Italian War of 1542–46, and War of the League of Cambrai watchlisted and actively maintain them, although given the obscurity of the topics there usually isn't much activity. As far as their current status:

  • Battle of Bicocca: Minimal changes since FAC. As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been any significant new scholarship published since 2006 that isn't reflected in the article. I think this still meets the FA criteria.
  • Battle of Ceresole: Same as above.
  • Italian War of 1542–46: Same as above.
  • Italian War of 1521–26: There were some concerns raised in 2010 that one of the sources used in the article wasn't sufficiently reputable; the citations to this source were finally all removed in 2014. There have also been a few additions since FAC, but no major changes. It's less densely cited than my more recent articles, and could probably use some more citations, but I'm not sure if the existing citation density would raise a concern if it were to undergo FAC today.
  • War of the League of Cambrai: There have been a few additions since FAC, but no major changes. As above, my inclination would be to add some more citations, but I'm not sure to what extent this is a concern vis-à-vis the FA criteria.

Kirill [talk] 17:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maralia, my inclination is to prune all of these. We aren't after perfection; we're after a list of FAs that might need FAR. But you're more of a MilHist'er than me, so I'll leave the final decision here to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look. I'm okay with removing all except Italian War of 1521–26, which has at least four substantial paragraphs that have no citations at all. Kirill, appreciate if you could tackle that sometime in the next month or two; no big rush. Maralia (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia, sure, I'll do that once I get back from Berlin. Kirill [talk] 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the scope of User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page

[edit]

I'm really glad about the initiatives going on here. If anyone can help me expand the scope of the page in my userspace, please chime in at User_talk:Bencherlite#Old_FAs_that_haven.27t_been_on_MP_-_by_date. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not sure what kind of help you're asking for ... additional reviews on that page? I saw right off the bat that Quatermass is still at the top of the list, while Eric Corbett has reworked it. In fact, looking at some of the review dates there, I'm wondering if I will be able to sync this page with yours, since some of the reviews there are becoming dated. In other words... yes to having more eyes work on that page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, more reviews, and main page date suggestions, but the thing I most need help with now is getting a list of 2008 promotions that have yet to feature on Main Page. I'm too stupid to get the tech to work, despite Bencherlite's step by step instructions on his talk page. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: I took a stab at this with this edit. I had to get a bit inventive to compile the list (no AWB on Mac) but it should do the trick. Maralia (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFA date

[edit]

I suggest to include TFA dates in the list. An article which recently appeared - such as Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song) - probably is less of a problem than one that appeared in 2005 or never. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the suggestion, but TFA is not in the scope of this page, and adding a new parameter at this point would create a burden. Regardless if an FA was recently run TFA, unwatched articles tend to deteriorate, and this URFA list will be worked on for several years, outliving any improvements that might result from TFA. We are generally looking at this point for unwatched articles. TFA isn't relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put these

[edit]

I've given my entries on the list a cursory once-over. Not sure where the best place to put this is—this talkpage seems to be growing like a tribble, and I'm not sure which list is the master copy—so will post this here and assume you can cross out whatever needs to be crossed out or move it wherever it needs to be moved.

  1. Albert Bridge, London has undergone huge cosmetic change since FAC, but nothing substantive other than the final paragraph which has been added to cover recent changes. The sourcing for that latest paragraph isn't great, but not enough to make it fail FAR;
  2. Alice Ayres is virtually unchanged since FAC;
  3. Aylesbury duck is a constant battle against spammers adding links to duck farms, and good-faith people adding "better quality" pictures because Commons has a number of other duck breeds miscategorized as Aylesburys, but other than that is fairly stable. As the things are almost extinct, there's unlikely to have been anything substantive published on them in the last five years;
  4. Battersea Bridge, Chelsea Bridge and Wandsworth Bridge have undergone a restructuring by a couple of Jack Merridew socks which has left them with List-Defined Referencing; as with all articles in LDR format, I refuse to touch them as a point of principle as I think LDR goes against everything Wikipedia stands for;
    Thanks a lot, Merridew. So, Iridescent, do these need to stay on the list? Are you watching them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Biddenden Maids occasionally has spurts of activity when Reddit notices it, but seems to be stable. There's no obviously glaring issue with the current version;
  6. Brill Tramway (and its child articles Brill railway station, Quainton Road railway station, Waddesdon Road railway station, Westcott railway station, Wood Siding railway station and Wotton railway station) are, AFAIK, all watched by Redrose64 and DavidCane so shouldn't deteriorate too much. The whole thing closed down 80 years ago, so (with the exception of Quainton Road, which is still open as a museum) nothing should change on any of them;
  7. Bruce Castle has hardly changed. I can't guarantee that the final sections, on the current museum, are still up to date, but other than that there shouldn't be any issues;
  8. Charles Domery is completely unchanged since FAC, other than the addition of a "see also" section;
  9. Daniel Lambert is a Reddit favorite and gets occasional spurts of vandalism, but nothing substantive seems to have changed since FAC. Looking at the revert history, it appears DrKiernan is watching it;
  10. Halkett boat is fine;
  11. Hellingly Hospital Railway is spectacularly low-traffic (five edits in the last three years) so can be assumed to be stable;
  12. Noel Park has the issue I mentioned previously, of the WMF's new enlarged default image widths for non-logged-in readers making it appear cluttered when viewed logged-out. Other than that, there have been no substantive changes. I can't guarantee that it's still up-to-date, but I presume the area hasn't changed much in the last 5 years;
  13. Norwich Market is fine, although again I can't guarantee it's up-to-date—however since it underwent a major reconstruction in 2005 it's unlikely to have been rebuilt again since then;
  14. Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was tidied up last month in preparation for a TFA appearance, so should be fine. It appears on your "long articles" list because it's effectively three separate articles (Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, Death of William Huskisson and 1830 Manchester riots; the three events are so closely bound up that it makes no sense to try to separate them;
  15. Pig-faced women is remarkably stable considering the amount of traffic it gets and the controversial subject, and is almost unchanged from the FAC;
  16. Postman's Park is largely unchanged; it's had a rather spammy section added, but I would turn a blind eye to that since (despite being blatant spam) it looks like something someone researching the topic would genuinely find useful;
  17. Richmond Bridge, London has undergone substantial change but it appears to all be cosmetic;
  18. Tarrare is a relatively high-traffic (about 250,000 hits a year) vandal favourite, but given how quickly vandalism gets reverted it appears quite a few people are watching it. The article will almost certainly go out of date at some point in the next couple of years, if The Depraved Appetites of Tarrare the Freak is ever completed and released;
  19. Tunnel Railway I cleaned up last year when it was TFA, so should be in decent shape;
  20. Vauxhall Bridge is virtually unchanged since FAC.

Hope that helps! – iridescent 09:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, you're a gem :) I was unsure how to process your articles since I wasn't sure they had been continuously watchlisted during some of your absences ... this is wonderful. I'll get through them after coffee and the rest of my watchlist. Thank you SO much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is, unless Maralia gets to them first ... I have my work cut out for me in other areas today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so pending feedback from Maralia, and a response from Iridescent on the Merridew LDR issue, I'm OK with pruning all of these. We are looking for a level of issues beyond anything described here.

PS, Iridescent why not just revert the Merridew business? I don't suspect he wants to continue to press that issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already checked a couple at random, and just looked over the three bridges individually; they're in good shape, so I think we can remove them all. Maralia (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey's FAs

[edit]

I've started a new section as there are quite a few articles to look at here. I'm starting with the cricket biographies for the moment, and I'll add them to my watchlist and see if they need a general tidy. At first glance, even though these are old FAs, there aren't any huge issues and I can sort the few that there are (with the exception of Harbhajan Singh, which I think needs FAR quite urgently). The main problems are minor prose/jargon issues which would probably be flagged at FAC nowadays. My only worries are over images; I think things have tightened up a lot since these were at FAC, and I'd be happier if someone like Crisco 1492 or another image expert could have a look. As far as clearing the list goes, here are the first few, and I'll add to this as I come to the articles. If anyone wants to move this elsewhere for ease of "filing", it's fine by me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking this on :) Maralia may disagree and want to process these individually, but I'm inclined towards waiting for you to finish before pruning, noting, etc. Thanks again! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping with these, Sarastro1. I looked these over and am generally in agreement:
  • Singh needs a fair amount of work to clean up prose additions, prune cruft, and ensure BLP compliance; agree that this will need FAR.
  • Brown, Macartney, and Toshack look fine except all 3 have images with questionable provenance/permission. Have made note of the specific images; will detail these later, when we find a sucker willing image reviewer.
  • Tallon may need a little attention for 1 iffy image, but especially for the massive strings of citations in the 'Invincibles tour' section: I don't know a damn thing about cricket, but citing a single statistic to 33 individual sources (which presumably contain the numbers from which the statistic was calculated) sure makes me worry about OR.
Let me know here when you've had time to look through some more. Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch: As above, nothing major that jumps out at first glance except image issues. Once I've done a general look, I'll go over again in more detail, and I'm watchlisting as I go. Maralia: I've fixed Tallon a bit as the long string of references were OR. Let me know if you spot anything else; I'm making notes here as I go along. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: would you mind if I incorporate my comments (both those above & upcoming) into your subpage? I think it would be easier to keep track of that way, since this page is getting pretty busy. Maralia (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Maralia: That's fine with me, and would be a huge help. While I don't think any of the FAs have desperate problems, they all need a little bit of polish I think, which I'll get to when I've worked through the list. Would it be easier to continue working through them there and leave this page a bit freer? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

updating the Germany article.

[edit]

I started to update Germany and Horst-schlaemma reverted my edits before I'd gotten more than a portion of the way through it. If you want me to bring it up to speed again, please give me instructions onwhat to do. Not touching it until it's protected further. auntieruth (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort there, Auntieruth55, but Germany passed FAR (with no principal nominator on board, meaning I am unsure if people watching it are familiar with FA standards, and I haven't checked) almost four years ago at 7844 words of prose, and the last time I checked was at 11342 words. It has considerable text that has not been vetted by a review process, so it may be in need a full-fledged Featured article review. I haven't initiated one yet because of the time that will be needed on an article that size. What you are doing now (noting issues relative to WP:WIAFA on talk) is the best way to proceed, but if it is more work than you can take on at this point, then let it go until our work is further along and more editors can focus on that effort! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/sandbox/Archive_1&oldid=1137400256"