Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC source reviews
For advice on conducting source reviews, see Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

New TitleCaseConverter userscript
Hello guys! So I decided to promote a new userscript TitleCaseConverter, which converts all reference titles to title case. Recently I've seen comments by FAC coordinators here suggesting that all reference titles "should be either in sentence case or title case" regardless of "how they appear in their originals". As it would be cumbersome for one to go over 50+ references in an article and use other tools to convert each reference title (such as Capitalizemytitle or Title Case Converter), I decided to write up this userscript so that the process would be much quicker. Thanks to, the userscript is further refined before I shall share this for all to use. Obviously, it's still best to check over manually what has been changed before submitting. All feedback is welcome.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Cool, but I thought we have to use title case for book titles and sentence case for journal article titles? Also, how is the script dealing with names (such as country names, person names, genus names …), which obviously should remain capitalised? Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The script basically looks into the title part of the ref and edits accordingly. All other parameters in the references are retained.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to names in the title part. For example, if the title is "A New Hummingbird from Brazil", and we ask the script to use sentence case, does it turn "Brazil" into lower case as well (which would be incorrect)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless I’ve missed it, the script only supports title case (at the moment) and doesn’t change to sentence case. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the moment it only supports title case. But if there's demand to also incorporate an option for sentence case, I will think over it.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Re: book and journal titles, there's nothing in WP:CITE or Manual of Style/Capital letters that insists on any specific form, just that it needs to be consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:CT says Wikipedia normally follows these conventions when referring to such works, which, I think, makes it clear that we should use title case (except for, in some cases, article titles and chapter titles). Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah. That was added by, you guessed it, MOShead-in-chief SMcCandlish after no discussion, so the extent to which it actually reflects a community manual of style is arguable.  ——Serial Number 54129  18:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing this script. I got it to work when Syntax highlighting in the editor is disabled but it seems to do nothing if it is enabled. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Switching to something like this goToShowChangesScreen function would probably fix this. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominations aren't collapsed anymore
For me at least, the nomination page is endlessly long, making it very hard to get an overview of articles to review. Is something broken? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes!! Nominations viewer randomly stopped working for me a few days ago. Heartfox (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me too.  ——Serial Number 54129  18:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stopped working for me at the end of may. Works again after i reintroduced the script to my /vector-2022.js but maybe you're having another issue? Draken Bowser (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ↑ Ditto. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the script should be re-added? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the script in my common.js and it's working fine for me. I use A455bcd9's version, which has a couple of extra features, and I also tried reverting to the original version.  Both work for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why the list isn't collapsed by default without every editor having to install a script? Could be a way to centralise solutions, as it isn't the first time it breaks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing from Vector (legacy) to Vector (2022) in Preferences, Appearance, worked to solve the problem for me. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been using Vector 2022 since not long after it came out. I know there was a lot of fuss about it from people who hated it, so I thought I'd add a short plug for it. I changed a bit reluctantly, but once I got used to it I found it much preferable.  The ability to choose where the ToC should be, and the fact that some top buttons such as history are accessible even when scrolled down, are features I now could not do without. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The script has also stopped working for me, but uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To everyone in this discussion, this issue is most likely because of the recent changes to the underlying HTML of talk pages, which has been breaking a bunch of scripts lately. All skins apart from Vector 2022 are affected. Since Gary hasn't edited in a while — A455bcd9, would you be able to take a look at this? — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 01:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I'm using the default Vector 2022 so everything works for me. Making sure the appearance is the same across skins might prove difficult. Pinging @PresN who is way better than I am at this and who recently fixed a similar issue (Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/archive_15). (And I'm busy getting married in a few days...)
 * @FunkMonk: we could probably collapse by default using Collapse top in the discussion page of each article, but I think we would still need a script to compute the last activity, number of participants and supports. Unless we could do it with a Lua module? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mike mentions the option to choose where the ToC is. That may be a good option for people who are more technical, but I found that the ToC disappeared and I did not know how to get it back. I find keeping Vector Legacy with a button to switch to the Vector 2022 look when needed better. See Village pump (technical). Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You see everyone, it was WP:THURSDAY... ——Serial Number 54129 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to try to fix it today, but I'll list the issue out in case anyone else wants to take a swing at it: the issue is that the way the script works is that it decides what a "nomination" is by starting at the header (the h3 element), taking all of the sibling nodes that come after it until it hits another header, and clumping them together into a 'nomination'. What broke last January is that the 'Older nominations' h2 element was being wrapped in a div tag, so it didn't know to stop there. There's a similar issue here- in skins that aren't vector2022 are now wrapping the h3 headers in a, so when the script starts at the first h3, it never sees another as a sibling so it never collapses anything. Pretty sure what needs to happen is that in the hideNomination function on line 343, it needs to, instead of doing h3+siblings, jump up to the parent div if that div has class=mw-heading3 and then do that+siblings. If all of that didn't read as gibberish, feel free to take a crack at it. -- Pres  N  14:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, noodled on it during some meetings, and I think I've gotten it working; it looks right (barring display variations) for vector2022/vector2010/monobook. Was a little more complicated to fix than I expected, and it's not the prettiest javascript I've ever written, but I guess it's okay. My version is at User:PresN/nominations viewer.js; the change is this if you want to add it to your version. -- Pres  N  16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot @PresN! I've just replicated the modifications in "my" script. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that works fine now for me. Appreciate all the effort you put in there! The only thing I'll add to anyone still having problems is to remember to uninstall/disable previous viewer scripts—it won't work in parallel with another.  ——Serial Number 54129  15:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't change my scripts, but now it works like before for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it's related, but the "highlight duplicate links" script has also recently broken, perhaps at the same time, so that it counts linked words repeated from the lead in the article body as duplicates, which makes the tool basically useless, since the same words can/should be linked in both the intro and article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Grouping sources by type?
I remember a FAC within the past month or so where somebody had grouped the sources by type (i.e. book, article, news, etc) and a reviewer objected to that. Does anybody remember which FAC that was? This came up at PR and I want to make sure I'm giving @Joeyquism the right advice. RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our is avocado of that style—Hannah Glasse for example—is that what you were thinking of? Wooh! "Morphius is fighting Neo!" time  ;)     ——Serial Number 54129  18:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While it is in the "Further reading" rather than "References" section, Mars in fiction has that kind of division as a result of feedback during its FAC. Seemed uncontroversial at the time. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are no strict rules for source formatting, except that it remains consistent and includes the bare minimum of necessary items (author, date, title, publisher, and generally some kind of identifier like an isbn/oclc/issn/doi etc). The other main exception is inline parenthetical citations, which have been deprecated. Everything else is essentially preference based (as long as it is consistent).  Aza24  (talk)   18:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Joeyquism, RoySmith, There is absolutely nothing wrong in dividing by type (there are enough FAs—both mine and others—that use it to show it's completely acceptable). Consistency is key, and as long as you are consistent in the way you do this, then you'll be okay. There are some tweaks I would suggest about the labelling of the source types, but as I have a few of the albums you've discussed, I'll be along to the PR shortly and add some comments there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input on this matter and the indication of your willingness to comment on the PR. Hoping to hear from you re:labeling soon! joeyquism  ( talk page ) 01:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes question why a given source is in one section and not in another, mostly for consistency reasons. But at least for me, grouping sources by type in general is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It makes it easier read, review, and see where sources are coming from - depending a lot on what you are citing. But certainly not required (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did something similar at The Cenotaph because of the number of sources. I only put the books and journals in the bibliography and used inline citations for things like newspaper articles but that's just personal preference. The important thing is that the reader can tell where you got your information. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentor for first FA nomination
I am planning to nominate an article soon. It's currently a GA. Am I meant to post here for a mentor, or just nominate it? Rjjiii (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I recall doing the GA review and thinking it was in pretty good shape then. I am about to start a week long trip but if you don't mind me having uncertain response times I'd be glad to give it a pre-FAC review.  I have no particular expertise in either basketball or racial segregation topics, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And that time frame is fine with me. Rjjiii  (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Does FAC needs to be GA
Does an article needs to be a Good Article, for it to be nominated as a Featured Article Candidate? Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 13:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. See John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalter, which went from nothing in October 2018 to Featured Article, one year later.  ——Serial Number 54129  13:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Many of the articles that go through FAC are not GA, and some have not even been through PR, but the more eyes on an article pre FAC (and that includes a GA review), the better, particularly for those who are new or inexperienced in the process. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, but I'd recommend it for all beginners, at least before their first few FACs. Though I've nominate 60+ FACs, I still always take them through GAN first for the extra eyes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, Thanks. Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Fourth
can I begin another nom? hope this isn't annoying 750h+ 07:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Should you have to read the lead to understand the article?
I've been looking at I'm God by. One thought I had is that the main body of the article doesn't actually start by explaining what the subject is, i.e. "I'm God is a ...". The lead does start that way, but that means you need to read the lead to have the right context. MOS:LEAD says The lead should stand on its own and I've always taken that to mean that the main body should also stand on it's own.

But maybe I've been reading more into that than I should, since the next sentence says the lead should establish context. I also see that my American Bank Note Company Printing Plant follows the same pattern; if you skip the lead and jump right into reading the main body at "Previous land use", it won't make any sense. I'm not looking to pick on I'm God, but I am interested in what other people think about this. Should you be able to skip the lead, start reading at the beginning of the main body, and understand what's going on? RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My view is that it should be possible to read the body without reading the lead first and still understand everything. Then again, I tend to write the lead (apart from the very first sentence or so) after I have written the entirety of the body, so maybe my perspective is just a consequence of that habit of mine. TompaDompa (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to think of the lead and the body as more or less separate articles. Ideally, the body should make sense if you have only read the very first sentence of the lead (or the short description). Like TompaDompa, this reflects the way I write articles: write one defining sentence ("John Doe was a Scottish astronaut"), then write the body, then summarise the body and condense it into a lead section. A reader of my articles should be able to decide whether they want to read the lead (micropaedia) or skip to the body (macropaedia), but the body does not need to start by defining again what the article is about. —Kusma (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all a little outside the scope of FAC, where we should reflect the spirit and practice of the main guidelines. Ideally the body should be readable without the lead, although I suspect nearly no-one actually reads like that. Having said that, articles which have a Background section tend to start slightly further away from the main subject but provide necessary context which allows the subject to be understood more completely. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's outside the scope of FAC. Reviewers need to decide whether or not to raise objections if this particular practice isn't being followed, and that's a matter that could be decided here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Because this isn’t an FAC point: it concerns all articles but isn’t covered by the MOS. The same question could/should be asked more centrally rather than here. SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're overthinking this. The lead should stand on its own because a reader could plausibly read just the lead; it's at the top of the article. From there a reader could click/scroll to any section. We should strive to make the article as accessible as possible to those who pick-and-choose their sections but neither the first section, nor any other section, needs to reintroduce the context that would allow it to stand on its own. That would make for a jarringly repetitive read for the top-to-bottom readers. Ajpolino (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I struggle to imagine a situation where there is information in the lead which is not in the main article and a nomination meets criterion 2a. Similarly the lead and the main article not each independently covering the topic. And 2a is explicitly within the scope of FAC. Perhaps it could be done, but I am sceptical. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the two cases I mentioned above, it's more a matter of order. In my case, the main body starts with "Until the late 19th century, the land where the plant stands was part of the village of West Farms in Westchester County", but unless you've read the lead, I haven't yet told you what "the plant" is. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why I tend to make sure the first sentence of the background section, if it mentions the article subject, includes the subject's original name. In this case you might be able to use the address of the plant. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In biographies at least, it's conventional for the first words of the body to be the subject's full name, which certainly gives the impression that the body, like the lead, forms a coherent sub-article in its own right. On a separate note, as a matter of style, I'd normally avoid using a phrase like "the plant", "it", etc which has an antecedent found higher up than the paragraph it is in. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By definition, the lead is the summary of an article. IMO the lead should not contain any new information that isn't present in the main body to maintain consistency, ensuring all content is well-supported and verifiable. Introducing unique information in the lead without elaboration in the main body disrupts the logical flow and can confuse readers. The lead's primary function as a summary necessitates that it only encapsulates details that are fully explored within the main article so it makes sense for the main body to stand on its own without the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

New FGTC Coordinator Proposal
Hi all, please check out the new New FGTC Coordinator Proposal if you have a moment!  Aza24  (talk)   20:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for June 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2024; the analysis was done by Hog Farm (thank you) this month. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple source reviews?
Quick question if that's OK - for the first time in my time at FAC, my current nom is/has been having two source reviews. One has resulted in a pass but the other is still ongoing. What happens if the second one doesn't pass? Does it then need a third to break the deadlock? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A failed source review means a failed nomination, regardless of how many other reviews have taken place (as long as the failing is made on reasonable grounds that are covered by the criteria/MOS etc). - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was just a little perplexed by the multiple source reviews, as this has never happened in any of my previous noms.  Normally it's a "one and done"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple source (or image) reviews are not standard, but any reviewer is free to carry one out if they wish to, and they are far from unknown. As SC notes, any issues raised will be viewed as seriously as any others. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination
Hi coords (if you see this), without pinging, Mike Christie asked if the source review on my current nomination would be a pass or a fail. Could one of you comment on it? Thanks. 750h+ 13:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck
Anyone mind doing a third spot check for Featured article candidates/Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)/archive1? Thanks and best 750h+ 23:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tool for facilitating source spot-checks
Doing spot-checks in a pain in the posterior for so many reasons. Being a software guy, I'm working on a tool to at least simplify some of it. I've got a POC intermittently running at https://wikirefs.toolforge.org. My initial goal is to be able to tell it something like "pick a random N (or N percent) of the statements in the article and show them to me along with the references that support each one". I'm reasonably close to that now. A stretch goal would be to make this more like a code review tool where you can enter comments and the system will keep track of progress, but that's way, way, more complicated and will probably never happen.

For those not familar with with software POCs, that's code for "This is fresh out of the oven, so expect things to break all over the place. It's just intended to give you an idea of where things are going". Feedback is appreciated. You can drop it here, or on my talk page, or if you have a github account, feel free to file a bug report. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for developing this! My opinion is that it's better to spot-check based on the text, rather than randomly. For instance, a common mistake people make is overgeneralisation / extrapolating from primary sourcing. Spot checking sentences that seem at risk from this gives a higher chance of finding errors. Similarly, highly technical sentences are another source of potential error, as it's easy to misunderstand a difficult source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree about starting from the text, which is one of the reasons I dove into this. I think what most people do is to sample some references and then work backwards to find the text they support.  Starting from the text and then working forward seems to make more sense to me.  The long term plan is to offer both options and let the reviewer pick which they want. RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roy. I agree doing source-integrity/verification reviews are a time-consuming process, so it's nice to have some tool assistance. It seems like it'll be easiest to help out with web citations. I ran it on iMac G4 and it can't handle sfn well because the links can't be followed anywhere (maybe if it prints a list of references at the bottom?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've added sfn support to my to-do list. RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Poverty in ancient Rome
The article poverty in ancient Rome has been nominated for GA, by a user with a couple of years experience and a few thousand edits (i.e. not a newbie). I've been doing some GA reviews recently, focusing on editors with no GAs who have been altruistic enough to go ahead and do a GA review already, and this editor is one of those. I'm hesitant to review it, though, because it looks pretty good and I'm not a subject matter expert. I know we have some editors at FAC who are knowledgeable about that time period, so I thought I'd post here in case someone is interested in picking up the review. I hate to see a potentially very good editor get discouraged by having to wait six months for their first GA review, after having done a review themselves already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure that editor has already had had a GA review from one such time-period & FAC regular, unless I'm missing something. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I've got a problem in the GA stats, damn it, which I'll look into. That does weaken my suggestion but I'll leave it up in case anyone is interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have taken on the review; thanks for pointing it out! Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  06:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Stalled source review
Could I get a second opinion on the source review at Featured article candidates/Iron Man/archive2? It seems the reviewer and I have a disagreement about whether primary sources are required when writing about fiction, and they've now gone quiet. Courtesy ping to. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have responded there. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sudden archival of Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1
I'd like to request opinions regarding the archival of Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1. After a passed source review and an oppose (which has been addressed), the FAC was suddenly archived without prior warning. As I've explained here and the next comment, I don't think this was fair, as I'm at a loss just because the opposer didn't see my response in time (and they're not forced to). Had I been warned, as I was in another FAC, I'd have pinged the opposer again and tried to gather more opinions. I was also completely committed to the FAC and responded to all inquiries within the same day they were posted, so this wasn't an issue. As such, I'd like to know if is possible to reconsider the archival or, at very least, ask permission to renominate right away, as the oppose's issues have already been resolved and the two-week wait period is not needed. Skyshifter  talk  23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Although it was a bit abrupt, yes, I don’t see anything to be concerned about. Something I learned last year at Featured article candidates/Daytona USA/archive1 is that the coordinators expect to see supports in the first three weeks, at least one.  Just because concerns were addressed doesn’t mean it should stay open if it’s not progressing toward being promoted, and I agree that three weeks seems like a short period to evaluate this, but I understand the premise that it has to be making measurable progress towards promotion in a reasonable amount of time so they don’t all sit for months on end awaiting more feedback.  Red Phoenix  talk  01:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See, I completely agree with everything you said, but at least you got a warning in your FAC before it was archived. I just wish this had also happened to my FAC. Skyshifter   talk  03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Side note addendum: usually a “support” on images or sources isn’t generally a “support” in that those reviews are required in all FACs and if it’s specifically on one of the two it’s usually taken as checking off that that review is complete and issues addressed, not a support of the whole article unless specified or if that reviewer discussed the article and not just images or sources. Red Phoenix  talk  01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Coordinators leaving a warning note is not required but I do it in cases where there has been little to no activity - that wasn't the case here. It had been open for three weeks with no support and one valid oppose and given your knowledge of the FAC process, I don't think you should wait for a coordinator to leave a warning note for you to get active in terms of pinging reviewers and getting more participants. In any case, I don't think the prose issues have been fully resolved which is actually why I archived the nomination. The reception section, for example, is rather repetitive with opinions being lined up like a list without any coherent theme. FrB.TG (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Think I have to agree with the closure here. No supports after three weeks isn't a good sign of progress. My suggestion is to take the next couple of weeks going back over the comments and make sure they're all sorted, then bring it back again. In the mean time, I suggest you review other people's article. Not only will it help you understand the general concerns and levels of FAC, it will also act as an encouragement for others to review yours when you return; there is no quid pro quo at FAC, but people do tend to review those who the see being active on reviews. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not only that but if you review articles on similar subjects to the ones you nominate, you might pick up ideas for improving your own articles. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the close and reading through find it unsurprising: anybody who even half follows FAC knows the co-ords open/transparent approach wrt archiving. Skyshifter, in addition to Harry's advice on reviewing and goodwill, its not a sin to reach out and ask for help from potential reviewers. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

FFAC Talk Page Template
I have just noticed that the boilerplate template for a not-promoted FA candidate reads as follows:

"[emphasis mine]"

As I remember, we generally avoid the term "failed" around here, for reasons that the co-ords will be better able to articulate: I've heard it said that an FAC judges whether promotion, or non-promotion, is the best thing for the article, so if the judgement is "not promote", that shouldn't be seen as a failure.

Should this text be amended -- perhaps to something like "Please view the links under Article milestones below to view the nomination"? This might also be a more honest reflection of what the nomination page would show, given that they rarely set out in any authoritative terms (other than "consensus has not been achieved/is not likely to be achieved) what it was about the article that led to its non-promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replace '... failed' with '... was archived' as nominations that don't proceed are closed as archived that'd be consistent with the term used on the FAC. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree -- "was archived" seems the right way to say it. I'd go ahead and make the change myself but the code for Article history lives in Module:Article history and I wouldn't know what to change there.  Do we have a Lua coder in the house? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think that "former featured article candidate" or "former good article candidate" are good statuses for an article. Instead it could be noted that the article has never been recognized as good or featured. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Those notes have a practical purpose, similar to how a second FAC nom states that it is a 2nd nom. And anyway 99.999% of articles have "never been recognized as good or featured". As usual, I'm not sure what your point is. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think these are fairly well entrenched terms, although of course that doesn't make them ideal. As a coord I find it useful to know this without checking article history. In any case I fully agree the 'failed' term should go -- either UC's or Mr rnd's alternate wording works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 'failed' should certainly go; it would take a lot of the bite out of noms that have lasped due to having timed out or need to run through a PR. i notice a lot of first time nominators who have articles on the verge but not quite there, see archiving as 'failed', and are thus hurt and often abandon the process. This change wont fix but might soften the blow. From a selfish pov, I see these people as badly needed future reviewers.Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling
I think this article is pretty bad, but I'm not sure if it has people who are irrationally defending it, or if I'm overreacting. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In what way is it "pretty bad"? That's a perfectly acceptable opinion to have, but some examples of where it is flawed or lacking would help people judge what you mean. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It went through FAR in 2022. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to say, lest I bias, but:
 * 1. There's a huge amout of the article spent on analysing Harry Potter in great detail. A link to Harry Potter series seems more appropriate.
 * 2. It has some moments of extremely infelicitous writing. For example, near the end of J. K. Rowling, we suddenly get a description of the main character in the middle of the last paragraph. The "Themes" section reads like a high school essay.  The beginning of J. K. Rowling reads Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, Rowling wanted to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press; she became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". which - besides tending towards hagiography, also contains that "in the words of Smith" bit. Smith was last mentioned in #Religion, wealth, and remarriage, probably a dozen pages ago, and has a generic name.
 * 3. Thanks largely to point 1, it is exceedingly long. At over 200,000 characters, It's nearly twice as long as William Shakespeare, Maya Angelou, Honoré de Balzac, etc.  While by no means the longest featured article, I'm not sure it can be considered sufficiently on-topic to justify how high up in those rankings as it is. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 20:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FAC has nothing to do with the article right now. So why is this topic here? Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wehwalt. AC, why  is this topic here?  Is the article talk page off-topic not enough?    could someone please move this topic to WT:FAR? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are presumably referring to this talk page section? To answer your original question, I think your main argument has merit, but you are definitely overreacting with "Why is this article so badly written?...Why is this article so bad? How was this ever accepted as a featured article?... This article is such a mess." (etc., formatting unadjusted) Reminder: you are talking about 600 words only out of 9,000, in an article about a very divisive figure. Would it terribly hinder you to cut down on the needless hyperbole and focus on the improvements? If I found mistakes in three of your FP restorations, I certainly wouldn't repetitively demand "WHY IS YOUR WORK SO TERRIBLE? How have any of your images been featured?"—because that does absolutely zilch. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At a very quick glance:
 * The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the WP:LEAD—The Casual Vacancy (2012) was her first novel for adults. She writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, under the alias Robert Galbraith.—seem a bit odd for the very first paragraph.
 * Born in Yate, Gloucestershire, Rowling was working as a researcher and bilingual secretary for Amnesty International in 1990 when she conceived the idea for the Harry Potter series. – quite a non sequitur, and I'm not convinced the place of birth is necessary in the lead at all.
 * There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series. – "were" would seem to suggest that they have stopped, in which case it would be relevant to indicate whether they did so quickly or if they lasted for a long time.
 * The bibliography has a rather unorthodox layout that does not seem to be very well suited to the contents.
 * Based on this, I think it's fair to say it does not seem to be polished to the degree one would hope a WP:Featured article would be. That doesn't mean it is outright bad (and I haven't looked into it nearly closely enough to be able to say whether it is), but it would probably be able to improve it a decent amount. TompaDompa (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue that, as a writer, if we didn't cover her second longest-running series (one that is still ongoing and adapted for a television series), that would be odd. I think it's entirely justified where it is.
 * I think the summary sentence on the religious aspect is appropriate for the lead - it needs to summarise the article, not repeat every aspect of it.
 * The layout of the sources looks completely fine and dandy to me.
 * That brings it down to a minor tweak of one sentence. I agree that the location of birth isn't necessary, although I have seen them in enough biographies not to think it's necessarily a bad thing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)