Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive62

Untranscluded FACs
These FACs either weren't listed or weren't closed: —Designate (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Ammar ibn Yasir/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Aphthous stomatitis/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Mahan-class destroyer/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive2
 * I've transcluded Aphthous stomatitis (valid nom, apparently wasn't transcluded), and Erick was definitely a joke, not worth transcluding. Not familiar with the other two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Crisco, we really do need to keep an eye out for the untranscluded ones. I could've sworn Mahan was in there because I've been watching its progress as a MilHist editor; it already has some commentary/support, so is worth transcluding. Yasir also has commentary but not positive, and a quick scan suggests it was not FAC-ready anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained oppose
Hello. At the currently active Kangana Ranaut FAC, this user has opposed the nomination without an explanation simply writing: "Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content." Now, this user has competency issues and I have, on several occasions, reverted his/her edits due to his extremely poor language skills. So this oppose is clearly to get back at me for those reverts. This particular nomination already has two supports, including one from. I would, thus, request one of the FAC coordinators to strike out this unreasonable oppose. Thank you. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure that FAC delegates just ignore unactionable opposes.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 14:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the case. I had an oppose once by someone who claimed the article wasn't comprehensive, but couldn't point to what was missing. It was just ignored Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh..alright. Thanks. :) -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't worry too much about it. User:GrahamColm and User:Ian Rose can usually spot things like that. You could report this editor at check user if concerned he might be a sockpuppet.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No I don't think he is a sock, but I believe I should also point this out. During my previous FAC nomination, another user (Prashant) had posted a similar vengeful oppose, here. Now, for Prashant's last two nominations, Daan0001 has supported those nominations without a single comment, see here and and here. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've nothing to worry about. Graham or Ian are going to notice him claiming the article "does not exist" and ignore it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! Okay, thanks. :) -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Taylor, Jim and DrB for responding so promptly to Krimuk's concern -- I've left a note at the FAC page as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination rules
I want to nominate an article in cooperation with User:Figureskatingfan (and will also be crediting User:Wadewitz, who was the main contributor before, well you know...). Figureskatingfan has an article in the queue already; will this be a problem? I will be helping resolve issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, conominations can be run at the same time as a solo nomination — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Undermining reviewer
My attempt to resolve this at a delegate's talk page and the relevant FAC page  went unaddressed. Could someone please tell that a reviewer shouldn't impose his/her personal criteria, arrogantly dismiss others' responses to his/her personal criteria, or canvass retired editors in an attempt to get them out of retirement and oppose an article they know they've opposed in a previous FAC? Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You got me, pal: I didn't like your article (or, later, your petty vicious entitlement attitude, i.e., "How dare this horrible person make things difficult for my vanity project after I solicited him to critique it; I mean, he should have known I only wanted kiss-ass reviews and that the very last thing I was interested in hearing was his impertinent advice on how to make my stuff actually worthy of Featured status!"), and there's no way out for me now except to jut my chin forward and brave the tempest as I'm sure it'll be a regular Beaufort-force 12 gale of hypocrisy from this point on (e.g., chiding me for canvasing other editors in a post made to enlist your own troops, etc).
 * I have no reason to expect you take any hints after not listening to any given previously, but a suggestion: just let this one blow over by not dropping my user name into anything else you do, then wait a couple months before bugging the FAC list to consider your article a third time. I'm not "watching" you or your articles (or even the FAC list for that matter); I simply respond to those little red notification boxes like a hungry dog snapping at a bacon treat ...so stop making them for me to click on and I'll go away.--Froglich (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, you're really not doing yourself any favours by letting this get to you, or by suggesting that your concerns are being ignored. I'd already responded to you at the FAC page once. As to a previous opposer being canvassed, that was an experienced reviewer and Graham or I might well have invited him to comment on the FAC this time around as well. I suggest you have some faith in the delegates to ignore unactionable objections, rise above the noise, and get on with dealing with any actionable objections as they come up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm not naïve enough to assume good faith when the reviewer messages someone he admits to knowing in their message had opposed the previous FAC (CANVASS) and makes the dubious intent of their message--to garner/strengthen the oppose--obvious: "In an attempt to temporarily coax you out of retirement.... I've no doubt you will find this interesting given your previous assessment of it." Dan56 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, as a former longtime FAC reviewer, I'm not a fan of this review. This might just be my opinion, but I simply can't ignore faulty reasoning that may put others off of coming to FAC. The logic that is being applied is flawed. We don't require references in the lead (barring a direct quote), and the claims that the article shouldn't be promoted because of a lack of importance don't hold water. If an article has sufficient notability to generate the level of sourcing required to pass FA criteria 1b and 1c, that is what counts, not whether other works by the same artist are more well-known. These criteria are certainly subjective, but based on a brief look there's enough content that I wouldn't automatically fail the article the way the reviewer seemingly wants to. This article has been criticized strongly in the past for close paraphrasing, and I think it would be more productive for reviewers to check whether that issue has been resolved than to complain that "more important" articles aren't here instead. Also, can we calm down before calling an editor's work a "vanity project" leading to "entitlement"? The editors nominating FACs are doing the best work they can on topics that are of interest to them. I don't think we should assume that vanity is the primary reason for this work; some of us just want to contribute high-quality articles to this great website that is used by millions of people around the world. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely concur with Giants2008. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur qith Giants2008 as well. At the very least if we were to assume that people write wikipedia article for vanity, then the same would apply to those who seem to use the context of a review and the small amount of power that gives them boost their own egos at someone elses expense. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The grammar remains junior-level. (That's what touched this off in the first place.) As for the rest, we can talk about minimal requirements as opposed to likelihoods until we're all blue in the face. At that end of the day, there are a small number of Featured slots to dole out for a large number of entrants; and the simple fact of that matter is that the status isn't often (in fact I can't think of any at present) granted to these kinds of subjects unless they represent the pinnacle of an artist's accomplishments. I'm sure there are corner-cases out there suggesting otherwise, but in the main it is so. (This is why I recommended Dan pour his efforts into Coleman's Library of Congress-inducted The Shape of Jazz to Come.)--Froglich (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ..."At that end of the day, there are a small number of Featured slots to dole out"... what?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the review you wrote that caused this disagreement, but I would like to comment on what you say above. When you say "slots" I imagine you're referring to the slots available for "Today's Featured Article"; I don't think this is a primary motivator for most of us who work on featured content, and I don't see how the likelihood of selection for one of those slots should have any bearing on our evaluation of the quality of an article.  Surely, if the article is notable (i.e. it would not be deleted in an AfD) then if it meets the FA criteria, it can be a featured article?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we've built an unwritten consensus over the years that the only notability threshold for an article to become an FA is the existence of sources which show general notability and allow a reasonably comprehensive overview of a subject. "I've never heard of it", or "it's not as important as [other thing]" should never be a valid rationale (I'd leave Wikipedia before accepting such opposes as valid). Our TFA yesterday was even more obscure than this album, especially in the context of the Anglosphere, and yet there was never any question of whether or not it was notable enough to be featured. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles become Featured -- unless that's been changed since I last looked at it, then there are always going to be more desirous, notable, well-written entrees seeking the status than are actually awarded the status. To judge whether or not an otherwise qualified (as noted above, I had reservations over this article's shaky grammar) article is likely to become Featured, it helps to looks at past successful submissions. Past successful submissions tend to be highly notable, not just well-written.--Froglich (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No indeed, by the looks of it. Froglich, only 0.1% of Wikipedia articles pass the featured article process, not because of an inherent notability, but because only a small minority of articles have editors who are both interested enough in the subject to write a high quality article and capable of writing high quality prose which is free of close paraphrasing and copyright violations, as well as sources sufficient for a comprehensive article and an interest on the side of reviewers (who stay with an article for 3 hours or however long it takes to review). Some of these are ultra-obscure, some of these are highly recognizable. There is no second bar of notability which must be passed before an article can be FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes,, this kind of stubbornness also characterized the non-responsive comment he made after I had cited a grammar guide/book source in response to the grammar he preferred for the article--one of the three reasons for his oppose, the other two being the "notability" argument and the citation-less lead smh. Dan56 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, just remember that opposes aren't binding. If the reasons for the oppose are addressed (either by fiing them or legitimately refuting them), the coordinators can be counted on to pass over them (as they would for hollow supports).  Which I think is clear to happen with Froglich's, so Let It Go. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic personal attack

 * One of the points that made above resonates with me, and I wonder what  and  think about Dan's canvassing/spamming no less than 55 users since he opened the FAC on June 15. Kokoro20, Flyer22, Werldwayd, Bencherlite, Tjarrett, Hyperborée, Night Time, Mr Stephen, Semitransgenic, DISEman, Wikiklrsc, TJRC, Johnny338, BrunoMacDonald, Divine618, Friginator, Redrose64, GentlemanGhost, Jinkinson, Jedi94, Freshacconci, Synthwave.94, Radiopathy, Dylanbud, Froglich, Mlpearc, Favonian, Calidum, Werieth, ?uest, Ortolan88, Adabow, Koavf, Kencf0618, SNUGGUMS, IndianBio, Beatleswhobeachboys, Noboyo, JayJasper, Victor Lopes, Widefox, LemonCrumpet, Livelikemusic, Magioladitis, SilkTork, DepressedPer, Aoidh, LindsayH, Montanabw, Makyen, Ericorbit, Sufur222, SNAAAAKE!!, ChakaKong, Mayast. Seems like a blatant violation of Canvassing. I noticed that Dan56 never uses an edit summary when he spams/canvasses for FAC reviews, which is pretty odd, because as far as I can tell he always uses one otherwise. I suppose its difficult to get enough support when socks can no longer support an article's promotion. Harmelodix (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * that last one's particularly off-base, given that Dan was the one who reported it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where's the diff that show's how "Dan reported it"? Harmelodix (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 02:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've stricken the above comment because I see now that Dan56 reported the socking. Sorry, Dan. My bad. Harmelodix (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont see how requesting many different people to review ones article can be considered a problem. More eyes on an review gives a better article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that this benefits Dan56, but spamming does not benefit those editors he spammed, and it can be seen as disruptive. Harmelodix (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , why does any of this "resonate" with you? What led you to this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as the request for a review is neutrally worded (i.e. not "Please drop by and support my article"), I don't see any problem with asking reviewers to take a look - indeed I have done so myself when a FAC has stagnated. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It resonates with me because I have been on the receiving end of Dan56's "solicited comments". I think its canvassing that violates Canvassing because: Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. - How many of these editors are active in the topic area? 55 posts is excessive, IMO, especially when we consider Froglich's complaint that Dan56 jumped on him for not supporting, but Froglich was canvassed by Dan56, so he created the situation then complained when Froglich "canvassed" in the wrong direction. Harmelodix (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What "receiving end"? And what do edit summaries have to do with messages to other editors' talk pages? Have you heard or considered anything the other editors who've commented here have said, like 's last comment to you? I solicited comments from editors I've seen on my watchlist editing music-related articles and do not expect even a third of them to respond because a certain level of competency is required, one that Froglich has not showed with his poor attempt at reviewing the FAC (complete misunderstanding of notability in FAs, grammar preferences, and citations in the lead, all of which he unreasonably held against the article even being a GA) and unwillingness to admit or respond civilly to the personal criteria he was imposing., I didn't "jump on him for not supporting". He was not being responsive, so I forced the issue here, and he hasn't responded since being refuted by everyone who has commented (on the actual issue). Furthermore, I don't see the point of you striking a bit of your opening comment or questioning "how many of these editors are active in the topic area" when the only reason you've commented here or knew about this discussion is by looking through my contributions to see how I've been active, right? What other reason have you for being here other than to continue criticizing and hounding me? Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at that grammar, shall we? -- That's my sole edit to "your" article, which you immediately reverted (not bothering to retain the link to harmolodics I'd created). -- Even aside from the in-thread unpopularity of my other quibbles over the article's bona-fides to Featured status (remember that Wikipedia is a consensus project whose guidelines change over time for better or worse), the caliber of writing at Of Human Feelings remains at a mediocre level.--Froglich (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "Despite its commercial potential, Of Human Feelings had no success on the American pop charts.[26]" 1) "Despite its commercial potential" - is this sourced, because it reeks of WP:OR. 2) "Of Human Feelings had no success on the American pop charts" is terrible grammar; this would read much better as, "Of Human Feelings was unsuccessful in American pop charts." The article is loaded with clunkers and unecyclopedic writing, e.g. "astonish the senses with music made tender by abstract rhythmic interplay and artless pieces of melody". Tender? But nobody can challenge you without being accused of impropriety, and I think you use that to manipulate FAC. Harmelodix (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dan, you recruited an editor to join a content dispute, who then sided with me, so I guess I haven't been on the receiving end. I had this page on my watchlist, and that's how I knew that you were here casting aspersions on yet another editor. Do you realize that you label anyone who disagrees with you as either a sock, a hound, an edit-warrior or genre warrior? I guess its a competency issue with the latest victim of your mud-slinging. Is it at all possible that a Wikipedia user might disagree with you, or dislike your writing "style" without them breaking policy or being incompetent? If I was going to review this article I would oppose also, because the writing is atrocious, IMO, but then I can't do that without fear of repercussions and accusations from you, which I think undermines the FAC community. Harmelodix (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But really, I'm curious – why are the only edits that you do not include an edit summary for those which "solicit" FAC reviews? At any rate, messaging 55 users to review your FAC is spamming, is it not? Harmelodix (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reculver FAC
I've come begging for more input to the Reculver FAC, which I nominated as my first FAC on 17 May. I'd also appreciate some guidance on where things stand, especially from the FAC coordinators. I'm afraid of this FAC becoming stale as, despite having support from four reviewers (Cas Liber, Dudley Miles, hamiltonstone and Tim riley), and no explicit opposes, it's been held up since 14 June by questions about its sourcing, after Ian Rose asked for a source review and spot check. These questions were first raised by hamiltonstone, who has since stated satisfaction with the sourcing based on my efforts to explain why I believe it is appropriate. On the other hand reservations were expressed by Ritchie333 and Hchc2009, the last of whom has (I think) firmly rejected some of the sources as primary and unreliable, and has expressed the view that I have applied analysis in using them, i.e. OR. But I've stated that I'm baffled by Hchc2009's view, and frankly, though I'm very sorry to say so, I reject it: maybe I would, being the nominator, but I'm quite convinced. Hchc2009 has suggested that reservations may be allayed by some subtle rewording, and I've offered some changes I'd be prepared to make on the basis of consensus, but therein lies my problem: on this specific question of sourcing, hamiltonstone supports, Hchc2009 remains unconvinced, and Ritchie333 has since expressed satisfaction with one aspect, and has spot-checked one source, but has very little time IRL to contribute; so there's no clear consensus.

When I made this, my first FAC nomination, I thought it'd be me doing most of the hard work – I've been involved in four GANs (some more so than others) and this has been my experience. I had no idea that in fact, it's my first FAC nomination, the burden really falls on those editors who are kind enough to contribute. I'm extremely grateful for contributions made so far but, as I say, there's been very little real movement since 14 June. Am I worrying unnecessarily? Is there an end in sight? I might add that, for purely personal reasons, I'm finding the waiting very hard; and I think I've name-checked here everyone who's found time for this FAC so far, not forgetting Nikkimaria's image review, huge thanks to all of you. Any helpful views or further input to the FAC would be very much appreciated! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hchc knows a lot about medieval and early modern sources; you're in good hands. The FAC coordinators will often leave FACs open for a while to see if anyone else wants to give feedback, particularly if there are open issues. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes, I think that might be part of the problem – I too know a lot about medieval and early modern sources! I've no doubt about Hchc2009's ability and sincerity, I just disagree on this issue. Your tip re the coordinators' approach is much appreciated too. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you're here, hope you stick around. I've been really impressed with our Middle Ages FACs, you've got some good people to work with. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NB: I think that Nortonius and I would agree about the way to handle these sources outside Wikipedia... I think the point of disagreement is how to deal with primary sources of this sort on the wiki. :) Which ever way the way the consensus goes, though, its a fine article. Hchc2009 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, I'm sure that's true! :o) And I'm very appreciative of you liking the article. But whether or not most of the sources in question are primary or secondary is precisely what's at issue, no? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians classify some sources as primary that other scholars generally regard as secondary. Divergence in the terminology was inevitable, I suppose, but it's also regrettable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So it seems! But it's been totally out of the blue for me, I thought I had a good handle on how to use sources in Wikipedia until this, I hadn't been expecting it at all and I don't understand it. I'm totally confident that no-one's obtuse, and I mean no disrespect by it, but it  obtuse to me. I don't suppose I might tempt you to review the discussion on sources at the FAC (if you haven't already – it starts at "Notes -- Hi Nortonius, am I right in gathering that this is your first FAC?", about halfway down the page) and comment on it directly there? Nortonius (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

leave to open a new nomination
I do not understand why did not close Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1 today. Its reviews are done and it has three supports with no opposes. I opened it on May 24 and all the nominations that were closed today are newer. Can I open a new nomination today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been chomping at the bit to nominate Freedom from Want (painting) since I got my third support on July 6, but waited patiently for the next set of promotions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't contributed to the FAC page on this article, but I'll state here that I don't think it's ready. For starters, there appears to my eye too much unsubstantiated original research in the lede. (I've added a cite tag to the sentence "Until then, Freedom from Want was not a commonly understood and accepted universal freedom"; and am squinting narrowly at "Although the image was popular at the time (1946) in the United States and remains so, it caused resentment in Europe where the masses were enduring hardship at the time" -- who resented it? (In fact, the Reaction section leads me to be suspicious of the academic merits of Borgwardt's A New Deal For The World as a source if presumably myriad previous editors have culled it for text-bytes without any of them tripping over the what I'd hoped would be the glaringly obvious historical fact that Europe was in complete shambles due to World War II during the 1940s.) The article could also use a long-overdue honest appraisal of the amount of political propaganda generated out of this piece of art by overturning the concept of political "freedom" to, instead, imply that freedom could embody the idea of mandated wealth-redistribution a la Roosevelt's "Great Society" programs and other economic policies responsible for causing and prolonging the Great Depression of the 1930s in the first place.)--Froglich (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, the WP:LEAD should not have citations. Also, you attempt to merge two long sentences was counterproductive. I have basically reverted your changes. This page is not where we have discussions about nominations. I am hoping to open such a discussion soon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as the first point goes, Tony, I generally get to about half a dozen closures during any given pass of the FAC list and then call it a night. Several of the noms that were promoted may have been newer than yours but activity around them had been stable for longer, so they got the nod first.  Re. starting another one, I'd prefer you just stick with this one at least till I walk through the list again in a day or two, particularly given how many are still open. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue men of the Minch
Something weird is going on with this FA, promoted in the last week. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is? Doesn't look like anything's weird with the article at a quick glance.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 17:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by involved editors
Hi. Just to ask here, is it legit if an editor (who is significant contributor to an article) gives the FAC a review on the sources? It's about Megadeth's FAC, where I asked L1A1 FAL to check the references for their reliability. I personally believe that his input is very constructive, but want to get this confirmed here.--Retrohead (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say not - if you've done a lot of work on the article, you shouldn't be reviewing any part of it yourself. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Involved editors are absolutely allowed to give constructive feedback on the article; they just can't "Support". Their involvement should be made clear so the closing admin can take it into account. —Designate (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those things we need to look at on a case-by-case basis. In this instance the comments appear to be thorough and dispassionate, and the editor has identified his involvement up front. I'm inclined to accept their validity unless anyone has specific objections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Who looks at what....
I did some looking at pageviews - see Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination page
I have just nominated Isopoda on the FAC nomination page but the article nominated immediately before mine, Sonia Sotomayor, is not listing properly or is incorrectly formulated, and I had to add a couple of break tags to separate my nomination from it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fanny Bullock Workman
For those of you who remember Adrianne Wadewitz, who died not long ago in a climbing accident, two other editors - Adam and Christine - have brought one of Adrianne's articles, about the early climber Fanny Bullock Workman, to FAC. Its nomination page is here. They did so in part to honour the memory of this fantastic Wikipedian. That said, it has not attracted much attention to date, after five weeks on the list. If you would like to reciprocate the favour of the work that Awadewit (as I knew her) did here at FAC, maybe take a look this article that she was enthusiastic about, and help ensure it is of feature article quality. Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to add my voice to this request for further review attention. I have not felt it appropriate to contribute to the FAC review myself, as I was quite active in contributing to the article around its peer review, and am currently (excluding Adrianne) the article's second most prolific editor in terms of number of edits. I hope very much that others can be motivated to look at the article and assess it against the FA criteria. It looks to me a worthy candidate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant to review this but it dropped off my list; thanks for the reminder. I've started a review and will finish it over the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation taking applications for two Wikipedian positions
Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.

In general, our focus for the classroom program will increasingly be on quality over quantity, so we'd really like to hire people who have the kind of understanding of article quality that FAC regulars have.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is interesting, Sage. Where does one email for further information (like, say, how "remote" a remote location can be?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Indonesia do you mean? :-) Eric   Corbett  23:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * More or less . Rather hard to schedule IRC or other forms of direct communication with a 12 hour time difference (well, 7 for the UK). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492: The email to apply or inquire is at the job description links above. As to 'how remote', that's something we're running by our HR provider right now, and unfortunately I don't have an answer yet. (I don't think we'd rule anyone out just based on time zone, as long as we can legally employ them.)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll send an inquiry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Who was the image reviewer in this review?
I can not tell who the image reviewer was in Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3. Was it, or another editor.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a renomination, into which Sandy carried forward Elcobbola's image review from the previous nom. During the second nom a number of further images were added, mainly by Ruhrfisch, who presumably verified their licensing before doing so. Neither Raeky's nor Finetooth's comment amount to a proper image review. So the best answer to your question is probably Elcobbola plus Ruhrfisch. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with highlightText
I've reported this at, WP:VPT, WP:Lua requests ... no luck so far. I need this for my copyediting software. Per Wnt: "I see ... some version (I don't know if it's the most recent for sure) of the highlightText at with the infamous split-on-space at line 12." That's exactly it ... I'm hoping that all I need is a function (residing in or outside of Mediawiki) identical to highlightText, with (I'm guessing) the space in pat.split(" ") in line 12 replaced by a tab character. (Or, getting rid of the parsing entirely so I can pass an array of strings would be fine.) Any help? - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Art books for FA writers
Hi, Wikimedia UK has been talking to the Public Catalogue Foundation here in the UK. They have offered us 12 of their books on Oil Paintings in public ownership in the UK to give to FA writers who would find these useful reference material. If you would like one of these books, details of the 85 titles available are here. You do not need to be a member of Wikimedia UK or even resident in the UK to get one of these books, just choose a book and email me. Preference will be given to FA writers. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the information in the books is essentially that available on the PCF/BBC "Your Paintings" website, sorted by large owner or area into books. But they are very handsome objects. Scotland is not covered .Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have applied for the "Northern Ireland" book; this is a very generous offer. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ceoil, delighted to include you. Four now booked but eight books still available. PS to John, as far as I'm aware Scotland is very much in the frame with 8 out of 85 books. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) aka WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, so it is - something left for DevoMax then! Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Update four books now despatched, eight more available if there are another eight people interested. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception sections in music articles
I just reviewed City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song); I don't review many music articles so I took a look at several articles on singles or albums that are FAs. I was surprised to find that the critical reception sections in every one I looked at are essentially listings: "Critic A said this. Critic B said that.  Critic C said the other." See Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), Talk That Talk (Rihanna song), and Kala (album) for some examples. I looked at about ten of these and found very little variation. Occasionally there's a little structure: perhaps the first paragraph is positive reviews, and the second is negative; or the sentences are written to embed quotes in statements about the good or bad qualities of the music, rather than simply listing critics, but this isn't the case for most of these.

I criticized City of Angels for having just this structure for the critical reception section, but now I'm wondering if other reviewers agree with me, given the apparent precedents. Does this sort of section really meet criterion 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"?

I looked at some of the classical music articles to see if I could find alternative models, but it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. See L'Orfeo, for example; there's a narrative there, with quotes placed in service of the narrative, but one suspects there are not twenty newspaper quotes available for the article writer to use if they wanted.

I've marked my review of City of Angels "leaning oppose", though not only for this reason; do others think this is a valid reason to oppose? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this issue Mike. I also find this writing scheme to be trite, and surely not that interesting to the readers. I don't know who/when set this standard, but it definitely fails to get my attention to read the entire article. Nominators usually defend themselves by saying there are other FAs with similar (or identical) stricture, but the point is to please the reader, not bore him.--Retrohead (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) For me, what makes a good Reception section is following through on the opinions. It is easy for a critic to say the song was "compelling" (and for WP to report this) but surprisingly few explain why (it is compelling). The critic-by-critic flow of this particular article could be improved with better transition (e.g. 'similarly', 'alternatively') to help guide the reader in comparing/contrasting critic POVs. (2) Quotes need to have a purpose, so "...spins the tale of his decision to move to Los Angeles and his earliest days there" is an unnecessary as a quotation in a Reception section. Also, paragraphs should not be used as arbitrary breaks. (3) Reception sections are inherently going to be opinion-heavy and therefore should be heavy with quotes and be directly attributable. Wikipedia should not be re-writing or interpreting critic opinions (e.g. if they said the song was "corny ballad" then they meant corny ballad; not dumb-hokey-cute-unprofessional-mediocre-whatever) - and it was that one critic's opinion. maclean (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All good points, but I'm not convinced that this is enough. The critical reception section should summarize for the reader how the song (or album, or whatever it is) was received.  The ideal source is an article about the artist that says e.g. "Blowing in the Wind is regarded very well by critics, with many calling it Dylan's finest song".  That's a secondary source giving a summary of the overall set of reviews; the article writer can easily produce a summary statement about the song from sources like that.  Simple lists of review statements is the same error as listing individual research results in an scientific article instead of stating the current scientific consensus on a topic: it can sometimes be justified, but it should be the exception.
 * When there are no summary opinions in secondary sources (which is nearly always the case for a typical song) then I think the best option is to pick some of the more respected sources available (national papers, Rolling Stone, etc.) and use those as examples to illustrate the positive and negative reviews. Even simple statements such as "most reviews were positive" are risky: did the writer check every review of the song in every music paper?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

FA was not passed, but why?
After many edits and corrections, this FA process eventually ended with everything being addressed. Then nothing happened, which is why I posted my (unanswered) question above. Today I noticed that the process had closed with a not-nom, although there is no reason for this given, and I was not informed of this closure. Can someone let me know what's going on here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the coordinators, but after two months with no supports I would expect this to be closed and archived. I also can't speak for the reviewers, but I can tell you if I review an article, and everything I list is dealt with, and then I don't support, it's often because I have reservations about the article.  The FAC for hartebeest last year is an example.  I will try to articulate them if I have time, but occasionally that doesn't happen.  To put it another way: supporting on a FAC requires the supporter to believe it passes the criteria.  Sometimes this is not quite the same as having all one's comments addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And sometimes it isn't even that; I've had it happen before that the reviewer just kinda forgot about it, so I pinged them and it worked. In my experience, simply not supporting if you don't oppose doesn't hurt an FA nom; the problem is when you don't get at least three supports, period. Tezero (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So, wait, I had to go back and garner support votes in order to close successfully? And no one mentioned this before closing it? Now what do I do, go through the whole process again?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. The description could probably be more explicit about this being necessary, but frustrated nominators might resort to less-than-reputable methods to get their articles the three necessary supports. (Do you want to get socks? This is how we get socks.) I think a solution could be for the coordinators to look over old nominations with fewer than 3 supports but no opposes and, if they support the passing, go ahead and pass it anyway. Tezero (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we might be on a slippery slope by allowing fewer explicit supports, remembering of course that it's not just a numbers game anyway -- support has to be backed up by comprehensive reviewing and awareness of the FA criteria, as well as resolution of outstanding comments. Maury, I might suggest that as the reviewers, like the coords, are all volunteers, it would be useful to the entire process if you reviewed some other FACs when you nominate one.  It's not a requirement of course, and we don't encourage QPQ reviewing per se, but it helps you become better known in the community, which can lead to people keeping an eye out for your noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Life without bots
Am I correct that we don't have bots updating article history anymore? Going on that assumption, I tried to teach myself how to do it by following Maralia's instructions at User:Maralia/FA bot but I got lost with ArticleHistory because I don't know what's supposed to go in those fields - so I reverted what I tried to start. But I'm thinking if we don't have a bot, this is something we should all learn to do so we don't have talk pages with the "please leave comments" still displayed. And if we are now manually updating, maybe we should remove the "don't manually update" message. And … (sorry, being a bother) … if the bots got lost when the everything was moved to the WMF Labs, shouldn't we ask somewhere (Villagepump technical maybe?) to have them make a new bot? The updates are a lot of work, and personally I think featured articles are sufficiently significant for the project that it's something that should be supported somewhere. But if not, as it seems not to be, then we shouldn't expect the delegates to do the work, and we'll have to learn ourselves to close the FAC. Sorry, long post here - short question is what is supposed to go in the articlehistory fields? Please ignore if this makes no sense. Victoria (tk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Victoria, we are still pursuing a couple of possibilities, either repairing the old GimmeBot or creating something similar from scratch. In the meantime, kind souls have been doing the manual closures per Maralia's instructions. I have to admit I thought there was more detail there about article history for the uninitiated, so I might add a footnote shortly on just what to do and them perhaps you could have another go and let me know the result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If clear criteria for the bot can be spelled out I may be able to produce a bot. Chillum 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that offer, Chillum -- let me just see where we're at with the possibilities already in train first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What else is in the works? As chillum notes this is a pretty narrow and potentially well-specified task. Shouldn't be too much trouble to make a new bot. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the old instructions for MilHist ACRs are quite detailed. They could easily be adapted for FAC if necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, great minds, Harry -- I'm just in the process of adapting the article history part of those instructions for the footnote I promised Victoria... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that footnote about article history is now at User:Maralia/FA bot if Victoria (or anyone else) would like to take a look -- happy for improvements if anything can be better expressed, but in the meantime it's way past my bedtime down here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, that's very helpful. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, I came looking to see if there was a problem with the bot... and am I correct in thinking there is? I'm not entirely clear what's happening, is this a widespread issue or something just effecting Gimme? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have created a new bot to handle FAC, which I will be testing this weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Many tks again for that Hawkeye. For everyone's info, Hawkeye implemented a bot to close MilHist Project A-Class Reviews not too long ago, so it occurred to me that his talents could lend themselves to a FAC bot as well (possibly sparked by HJ's comment above). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

New Bot
I have a new Bot. I will now have to go through the procedures to register it. In the meantime I will run it manually as a script each day, checking what happens. I would like the delegates to simply mark articles as passed with. The bot will move the nomination from the candidate page to the log page. This saves messing around with the end-of-month processing. The Bot will create the new month for you. Some questions: Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Who are the delegates? My preference would be to create a special category for them, like we did for the MilHist coordinators.
 * 2) The Bot adds articles to Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page by adding the appropriate  but how do I find out what topic the article is under to update Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page?
 * Tks mate, we owe you one. Would have to double-check point 2, but re. point 1, a while ago I created @FAC to ping all FAC coords in one hit -- does that do the trick or would you prefer something else? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, if the bot could also handle, which requires the FAC nom page to be closed and the transclusion to be removed from WP:FAC and added to the archived nominations page, our joy would be complete... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a as well, right? —Designate (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to be careful because these  are the same template where any choice  of words can go where I have put the asterisks.  Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to confuse the issue for the moment with the "withdrawn" parameter but we do occasionally use it FTR when a nominator, for whatever reason, asks for the plug to be pulled on the FAC. The actions for the closer (or the bot!) to take in the case of are exactly the same as for  . Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , to answer your second question - WP:FANMP is generated by taking WP:FA and stripping out all of the articles wrapped with, just leaving those that have yet to run (or adding "none" where appropriate). But when I say "is", I really mean "was" because the bot that used to do this is offline... Is there any chance that you could add this task to your list?  That would be very useful. (The advantage of having WP:FANMP as a clone of WP:FA is that then only one page has to be specifically updated for promotions/demotions/renames, rather than two.) BencherliteTalk 09:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that is easy to do. I have updated WP:FANMP page. Now we are back to the original problem of how to correctly update WP:FA ie how to put the articles on the correct categories. For example, when the bot looks at William Barley, it sees that it is a book, a biography and a classical music article. What did you file it under? Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Many thanks, . (Two minor issues on the FANMP page - could we have "none" where the sub-category is empty, and could we avoid the initial dot at the start of each list? Compare e.g. this). As for your other point, my understanding was that the coordinators add articles to WP:FA, not the bot.  is this still the plan? BencherliteTalk 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. As to the second point, my preference would be for the Bot to handle it, so there would be only one manual step. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick thought, but if the coordinators want the bot to handle adding the page to the list(s), a simple modification so that they could use to instruct the bot which section to which the newly promoted article should be added. So for example, when U.S. Route 141 was promoted a month and a half ago, Ian Rose could have added  to the bottom of the nomination with his signature, and the bot could have taken care of the rest. I'm sure the bot could set so that attempts from others to initiate promotion would be ignored, or possibly deleted. Just some food for thought.  Imzadi 1979   →   19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! That would be ideal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Such enthusiasm! Before we go too far, though, the request was to automate Maralia’s instructions, no more at this stage. Having to choose the right category for the promoted article in WP:FA, was one reason the FAC delegates always did that step manually. The other reason for the delegates’ manual work would’ve related to the frequency of the bot, so we should confirm that before automating those items. The idea of adding another parameter to FACClosed to allow the bot to determine where to put the article in WP:FA is elegant, but I for one don’t carry all those categories around in my head so I’d have to go to WP:FA to decide where it goes and what the exact section name is before completing FACClosed, which wouldn't represent a saving in time (Graham might have a different perspective). FTR, the tasks the delegate performs after adding the FACClosed template to the nomination page are:
 * If FACClosed = “promoted” then
 * Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
 * Add FAC archive page to Featured Log
 * Add article name/link to appropriate section of WP:FA (note/link article name in edit summary) and increment total number at the top
 * Add bulleted article name/link plus date in the form (dd mmm) to FA section of WP:GO
 * Else
 * Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC
 * Add FAC archive page to Archived Nominations
 * As far as I’m concerned, an article is promoted or archived for the purpose of the nominator kicking off another FAC (if promoted) or commencing their two-week waiting period before another (if archived) the moment the FACClosed template is added to the FAC page; the remaining steps however are always actioned ASAP afterwards (at the very least on the same day) to keep dates consistent. I don’t consider the above tasks onerous so unless the bot can handle them very soon after the FACClosed template goes in my first thought is to leave them out of it, particularly adding the article to the appropriate section of WP:FA, which as I say probably wouldn't save any time. Again, I’d like Graham (and Ucucha if available) to offer opinions before we decide on additional work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also sometimes we have to italicize the title of the article - or part of it - using a piped linked when adding it to the FA page. I too can't always remember the FA section headers and occasionally deciding on the right section is not straightforward. (I can't think of an example just now). I think it would be best for the bot to complete Maralia's instructions and leave the rest to us. Graham Colm (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point about the formatting, Graham -- e.g. italics for movies, TV shows, novels or albums, but inverted commas for episodes, short stories or songs, plus mixed formatting for ship names, etc, etc. I think we'd have to add another parameter to FACClosed for pipelink style and, again, in that case we may as well just do it ourselves in WP:FA. As to a category example, well I considered several biographical sections for the recently promoted Fanny Bullock Workman before finally going with my first thought of sport & recreation in light of her mountaineering achievements... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am filing a formal request to create a new Bot. There will be some testing of bits of bot, so do not be alarmed. But do report anything that is wrong in some way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is close paraphrasing acceptable?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Village pump (policy)/Archive 116. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The question of whether limited close paraphrasing is acceptable to Wikipedia is interesting. However, it's still not brilliant writing so I think its use would fail 1a anyway. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a fine point; I agree! Brilliant writing would never heavily rely on close paraphrasing, but FTR, per Plagiarism:


 * Regardless of plagiarism concerns, works under copyright that are not available under a compatible free license must comply with the copyright policy and the non-free content guideline. This means they cannot be extensively copied into Wikipedia articles. Limited amounts of text can be quoted or closely paraphrased from nonfree sources if such text is clearly indicated in the article as being the words of someone else; this can be accomplished by providing an in-text attribution, and quotation marks or block quotations as appropriate, followed by an inline citation.


 * Also, per WP:NFCCP: "Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,, or a similar method."


 * So really, our policies and guidelines already strongly discourage close paraphrasing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the use of paraphrasing is disputed at Xx (album), it would help to get an additional spotcheck for its FAC for OR and/or copyvio. Nominator Dan56 is skeptical about Rationalobserver's source review.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the source of my skepticism. Dan56 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dan56 and close paraphrases, this is one source of my concern. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For those, who may have missed it, the Signpost republished an old, but very interesting and thoughtful article about plagiarism, close paraphrasing and related questions. Link is here. GermanJoe (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. However, this thread title begs the question by assuming that xx has a significant amount of close paraphrasing. Whether that's the case is being hotly debated. Tezero (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, Dan56 is the only one debating it. There are several examples in that article that cross the line, and I am right to be concerned. E.g., source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left." Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left". Rationalobserver (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If its acceptable its not close paraphrasing and if it is close paraphrasing it is not acceptable. But it is always a subjective judgment if it is or isn't close paraphrasing or just using similar formulations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, but Dan56 does not: "Look again, there's no note under "Close paraphrasing and in-text attribution", which is what I did in the examples you pointed out--paraphrased closely and attributed the source in the text." Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing
Just a heads up, I'm withdrawing Featured article candidates/2003 Sri Lanka cyclone/archive1 for personal reasons. Thanks everyone for the help and good work! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks for letting us know -- dealt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Current referencing practice
I was asked about referencing in recent FAs, so I prepared this table from Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2014.

Key: --Mirokado (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * efn – uses for notes
 * efn-ua – uses for notes
 * listdefined – uses list-defined notes
 * ref group groupname – uses  containers for notes
 * #tag:ref group groupname – uses  containers for notes
 * Refs in notes
 * cs1 – uses Citation Style 1 citations in callouts
 * harv – uses as inline text
 * harvnb – uses as inline text
 * sfn – uses callouts
 * short text – uses explicitly formatted short form callouts
 * #Name – uses explicit links to local anchors in callouts
 * Refs
 * cs1 – uses Citation Style 1 templates for callouts
 * listdefined – uses list-defined references
 * sfn – uses callouts
 * sfnm – uses callouts
 * short text – uses explicitly formatted short form callouts
 * #Name – uses explicit links to local anchors in callouts
 * Citations
 * cs1 – uses the Citation Style 1 templates
 * cs1 harv – uses CS1 templates with the  parameter
 * cs1 sfnRef – uses CS1 templates with the  parameter
 * cs1 #Name – uses CS1 templates with the  parameter to generate local anchors
 * text – explicitly formatted citations


 * Interesting, but what's the context? What's the question being answered? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked for examples of recent FAs with a particular approach to referencing. The table was a byproduct of looking carefully through the FAs. We can see various patterns which have been used recently (no doubt there are others, this is only a small sample). --Mirokado (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting out of this: essentially nobody uses the same referencing style. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It goes by more than author, too. On video game articles, which make up the vast majority of my work here (Sonic X, a cartoon, was my FA up here, but it's tied to a game series) I stick with the cite web/journal/etc. format for everything, but with others like Czech language and Afternoon (neither of which is an FA, admittedly), I use "harvnb" more because that's optimized for citing multiple pages of a book. In this case, which style I use depends on what kinds of sources are necessary. Tezero (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam at TFAR
Readers of this page may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, BencherliteTalk 08:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Subsections of FACs
It's been a while since I reviewed regularly, but I've done a few recently and I see that it's now acceptable per the instructions to use fourth level headings for commentary inside FACs. This seems sufficiently convenient that I'm tempted to do it on every review, but first I'd like to remember why it was unacceptable at one time. Is there any negative side effect of these subsections? Why were they not allowed in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fourth level headings are fine; any higher make a mess of the log pages. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike, setting aside older technical issues which have now been resolved, the reason they were disallowed in the past was that some reviewers used headings "creatively", shall we say, in ways that created bias. I believe recent thinking is that as long as the heading is strictly neutral (such as "Review by MikeChristie"), the sub-headings no longer mess up the archives and it can be done.  But, the last time I wandered through here, no one was making sure that non-neutral headings were removed, so ... nice to "see you", and bye again !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if that's an actual issue; it's happened exactly once that someone changed the meaning of my heading (from "support on prose" to "support"), and I fixed it and explained the difference. But if this is some kind of ongoing problem, I'd like to hear about it. Since my comments tend to be sparse, I tend not to use subheadings myself unless there are already subheadings for other people's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why so few support/opposes?
My first attempt at FA failed and I learned it was due to too few support/oppose votes - namely zero of either. So I re-listed and the same is happening. I was started to feel depressed until I took a look at the list as a whole.

I started at the bottom, as those would likely have the most fully developed reviews. Scrolling upward, I found that most of the listings are lacking any sort of "vote" one way or the other. Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories has three supports yet these took well over a month to gather, Luo Yigu has a single weak oppose, Hemmema has a single support. These reviews take up eight pages on my very large monitor and span a period of months, yet there's a total of five votes, which of course means that most of these articles will fail FA.

Now, of course, the articles that have passed are likely removed from this page relatively quickly, so it's a biased sample. Generally, how many FA's are failing for lack of votes?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The coordinators are best placed to answer that question, but the cause is simple, and is a perennial problem: there is a shortage of reviews. It might speed things up if reviewers gave preference to older nominations with less than three supports.  I try to do that myself when I review.  I'm not saying there's any obligation on reviewers -- they should review whatever they want.  And of course getting more reviews would be much more helpful than simply changing the priority of what to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While we do have a shortage of reviewers, I might ask if you've been reviewing other people's articles? Often editors will be willing to review an article by somebody who reviewed one of theirs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a radical idea, what if we were to form a list (or category) for users willing to be arsed in the event of a dangerous review famine? I'd join it, because inactivity-failing is incredibly petty to me. Tezero (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier just to review some articles? Eric   Corbett  00:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we knew about their urgency, sure. It's not realistic to expect everyone who'd be open to helping out an editor in need to keep a constant eye on the FAC list - some may be rather myopic in their wiki-activities by nature but willing to help if needed. Please, before you call an idea "radically stupid" take a moment to think about the people who might benefit from it. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it not realistic? I've not infrequently reviewed articles that are about to drop off the end of the list, and I flatter myself sometimes saved them from being archived. How many FAs have you reviewed this week for instance? Eric   Corbett  00:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two. Again, it's not unrealistic not because these people wouldn't be willing to do them, but because they wouldn't necessarily know about them. Think about it this way: you'd be willing to buy your friend dinner if he didn't have any cash on him, right? Does that mean you'd call him up every evening to ask if he had his wallet? Tezero (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any stupid ideas being floated here but there may be some potential reinventing the wheel. Aside from checking out the bottom of the FAC list, there's also the 'FAC urgents' list at the top of this page that I usually update every week or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently most nominations aren't communicated in interested projects (checked a few project talkpages). While some projects use article-alerts, such alerts are easily overlooked, so some people won't even know, when reviews are being needed for a topic of their interest. We (nominators, reviewers, coordinators) really need to do more to "advertise" our activities and bring more people on-board. Suggestion: make talkpage notifications for all interested projects (see article talkpage) a mandatory step of the nomination. It's a bit more work for nominators - but getting no feedback must be even more frustrating. GermanJoe (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Many people who might be interested are often not aware, so alerting isa good option - I find folks are often interested and take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; WP:VG keeps a very regularly updated list of FACs, GANs, PRs, etc. where we might not naturally keep up with this stuff otherwise. We don't have a whole lot of inactivity failures as a result, and we boast quite a speedy GAN process compared to most content areas: it's rare for a VG article to be awaiting a review for more than a month or so. Tezero (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I comment at featured pictures fairly often. I have never commented here because the standards for a featured article are more complex so I have never attempted it. Chillum 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A good way to start is when reading, to think, "how could this be improved?" and go from there - what's it missing and what's hard to read, then going to look at and then check sources etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just took a look to see if there was a sensible way that I could comment on the article and help move the review, but it is so far outside my areas of interest and expertise that I really don't think I can. Generally the majority of articles that get featured do so because there is a community of editors with similar interests that work conjointly on the articles whether they be hurricanes, battleships or 19th century English literature. I think it would make sense if you went to the wikiprojects that have to do with engineering, physics and naval technology to see if you could recruit reviewers. Some people think this would be "canvassing" but that is only because they already have a network of people they can count on for congenial reviews.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many comments above, so if you don't mind I'd like to comment on the comments: Again, I'm going purely on personal experience here, but in my case Sturmvogel 66 performed a superhuman review of the article in question, and I implemented perhaps 95% of his comments. At no time was there any sort of red flag issue, or even general comment to the effect of "this sucks" - it was largely clarity edits, GR and REFs and similar cleanup, the content of the article remained the same throughout. A second review of that depth seems unnecessary, but here I am in a second review, with no votes. This is not always the case, there are numerous examples of FAs where there are concerns being expressed by the reviewers. But certainly the list maintainers can tell the difference. So what about a "end of days" process that calls for votes on articles that have been extensively reviewed and appear to have no problems? Instead of simply archiving them, we have a short list of items that are ready to be voted on without further major review. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a number of comments about a lack of reviews, and/or a lack of reviewers. I do not find this to be the case; in the examples I am looking at there are extensive reviews, but few or no votes. Sturmvogel 66, your review of my FA went on for page after page and we fine-tooth-combed it to a T. But you didn't vote.
 * Tezero mentions a mechanism for ensuring freshness, which seems like a very good idea. But again, we need votes, not more reviews - personally I think the review process is fine. But this gets me thinking...
 * In my experience (which is admittedly sporadic), there are two big reasons why reviewers might be hesitant to firmly support or object. If you support, you are basically vouching for the article and declaring that you vetted it according to all the criteria. It's much easier to just declare your comments addressed and walk away, because it doesn't leave you responsible for criteria you might not feel qualified to judge. If you object, you are also more likely to attract an undesirable reaction from the nominator than if you just leave "comments". I objected to a recent nomination; the nominator called my judgement and ability into question, then proceeded to go combing through my contributions to see what nominations I had supported so he could point out that I'm a hypocrite for supporting articles he perceived to be inferior to his own. Shortage of reviewers indeed; who really wants to subject themselves to that behaviour? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you're at the heart of the matter here Spike. And if this is the case, we need to address it head on. Perhaps the call for votes would address this... bear with me here. What if the FA process had two parts, one being a call for comments, and a second being a call for votes. The first would be essentially identical to what we see today, people leaving comments on how to improve the article. There would be no votes during this period. The second would start when the first concluded, essentially the archive point as it is today. In that second part it would be straight-up votes, no more comments (unless obvious and simple? or even that?). Does that make sense? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just quickly before I hit the sack, the 'call for comments' alone, rather than declarations of support or opposition, is really what Peer Review is for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I disagree with this suggestion. The established FAC process has served us well for many years and I see no reason to change it because a nominator feels that their article is not attracting enough reviews. FAC is not about votes; it is about reaching a consensus, which is not the same thing. I disregard unqualified "support"s and "oppose"s, especially if they are from inexperienced reviewers as they are not helpful in judging whether a consensus has been achieved. What we need is more reviewers who are willing to take the time to read the FA criteria, read FAs to see the standards required, and contribute good reviews.  FACs do not fail "for lack of votes"; they are archived because the coordinators cannot determine if a consensus has been reached or there is well-argued opposition to promotion. Of course, we need to see explicit declarations of support – but please do not regard these as votes. Graham Colm (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So Graham, are you saying that you don't count support/oppose? Because that's the opposite of what you told me before, and precisely why I started this thread. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to endorse what Graham has just said – and pay tribute to him and Ian for their continued fair-minded and painstaking management of the FAC process. I don't think a "call for votes" would work—those disinclined to declare would simply ignore the call. Like, above, I sometimes watch the latter end of the FAC list, to pick up on nominations that aren't getting much reviewer attention. Looking at the current list, I see most of the noms that have been here for four weeks or more have had lots and lots of attention – some of the reviews are stupendously long. This probably reflects the fact that peer review is not working well – perhaps 40% of peer reviews get no comments at all. Ah, for the days of  and !  The only oldish FAC noms with rather sparse attention are Murder of Leigh Leigh and Didier Drogba; I will review one of these – maybe Eric might do the other? (You can have first pick, Eric). Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't fancy either of those Brian, particularly not Drogba, as I have an aversion to BLPs. Besides, I'm still working on the FA review for Bonshō, which I'm not ready to support yet. Eric   Corbett  15:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I like numbers. Here are the numbers for every article on the list today: Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories - 4 pages of review, 2 votes Luo Yigu - 4.5 pages, 1 vote Hemmema - 3 pages, 3 votes Rodent - 16 pages, 2 votes Amphetamine - 7 pages, 1 vote Briarcliff Manor, New York - 7 pages, 3 votes 1850 Atlantic hurricane season - 2 pages, 2 votes Stroma, Scotland - 7 pages, 1 vote ...And Justice for All (album) - 3 pages, 1 vote, 2 conditionals Caesar Hull - 4 pages, 3 votes Fez (video game) - 7.5 pages, 1 vote Murder of Leigh Leigh - 2 pages, 2 votes Didier Drogba - less than one page, no votes Xx (album) - 18.5 pages, 3 votes Ashley Tisdale - nothing Not My Life - 7 pages, 1 vote Interstate 69 in Michigan - 9 pages, 3 votes Chandralekha (1948 film) - 5 pages, 3 votes Bonshō - 4 pages, no votes Temperatures Rising - 2 pages, 2 votes? Turquoise parrot - 3 pages, 1 vote No. 1 Squadron RAAF - 2 page, 2 votes American paddlefish - 1 page, no votes Oxford College of Emory University - 1 page, no votes Æthelstan A - 1 page, 3 votes Barn owl - 4 pages, 2 votes Ontario Highway 403 - nothing really Master System - 4.5 pages, 1 vote The Seinfeld Chronicles - less than one page, 2 votes Acacia pycnantha - less than one page, 1 vote Carl Hans Lody - 1.5 pages, 1 vote The Boat Race 1993 - less than one page, 1 vote Battle of Warsaw (1831) - 3 pages, no votes (1 stricken) AI Mk. IV radar - 1 page, no votes The Fifth Element - 3.5 pages, 1 vote Margaret Bondfield - 3 pages, about 5 votes Tony Hawk's Underground - 2 pages, no votes William H. Seward - 2 pages, 1 vote HMS Formidable (67) - 2 pages, no votes 2003 Sri Lanka cyclone - nothing yet As one can see, there is no lack of reviews, but there is a lack of votes. If this list is judged according to the criterion on the main page, the vast majority would go to archive. How many? Well there are 40 items on the list, 10 are in for re-review due to lack of consensus on their previous run. That's 25% of the entries. That of course ignores the ones that never bother to come back, which I suspect is the majority of these examples. Looking over those noms, it appears that they all failed for the same reason: lack of votes. The Fifth Element is one example, in spite of two votes. In fact, only Didier Drogba appears to have been actually opposed, which implies that the other nine died for no good reason. So it appears that this is a fail-bad process, and it is being called a surprising number of times. If this doesn't indicate breakage, I don't know what does. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Maury but I think there’s a touch of IDidn’tHearThat here. Pls re-read for instance Graham’s last post above.  The list you’ve made really doesn’t mean anything in terms of judging consensus to promote, or otherwise. As has already been explained, FAC isn’t about ‘votes’.  If that was the case then we could get a bot to promote and archive nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not review much anymore (or do much on WP, alas). That said, I still occasionally review here. If it is not an article I reviewed before FAC, I am more likely to just comment initially 9neither oppose nor support, though I will try to indicate which way I am leaning). With fewer reviews I am more hesitant to oppose right away if there seems to be some chance of the outstanding issues being resolved. My fear is that I do not want a nom closed just because I opposed based on issues that might have been fixable. Thanks to Brian for the heads up. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, which is why the coords look at commentary, rather than just supports or opposes. I've left noms open with one or two opposes that looked fixable in a fairly short timeframe, it's when we see fundamental issues that clearly need a lot of time to address that we're more likely to archive. So my message is, don't be afraid to declare an oppose, you can always change to a support, or at least strike the oppose, if and when the issues are addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I rarely oppose, which is mostly because I've read the article, or most of it, before starting my review and if is going to be not ready or a ton of work, well, I have only so much time. I won't spend time at FAC with articles not close to the criteria.  I'll often PR them or give them a heavy copyedit, but I don't feel that can be done adequately under the time pressure of a FAC.  Just my view. I generally PR if asked if I think I can be of help.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian, the only thing of interest is the outcome. The outcome is that 25% of the articles on the nom list are previous entries that were archived, many of them after extensive reviews. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, how many times does this have to be explained. Promotion to FA is based on reaching a consensus, the lengths of the reviews are not directly relevent. Graham Colm (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So you say it's not the support/oppose votes, and it's not the length/quality of the reviews... perhaps you could just say what it is? I've looked, and the closest description I've seen to how consensus is reached in this process is the lengthy section on how to support or oppose found on the FAC page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to continue this discussion with you. Graham Colm (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Maury - the reason that I never voted was that the nom was closed before I had a chance to get back to it and review your changes in light of my last comments. I intended to give a support and need to review whatever changes have been made since the last time that I looked at the article. I doubt that anything that you've done since then will need to be fixed, but the possibility is always there. I will review your nomination when I get a chance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Maury, I'm late to this discussion, but this complaint about FAC misunderstands FAC. There are people who review because they're interested in that particular article or type of article; others are reviewing because they're active nominators at FAC, and they feel obligated, or are trying to get other people to review articles they're interested in; others (not many) do a lot of reviewing and feel a connection to FAC as a whole. (And of course, there's overlap in these groups.) If you want to talk about changing the way things are done, I recommend being clear about which group you're addressing. For the last group ... personally, I wouldn't presume to tell the most active reviewers what they're doing wrong and how they need to change without doing some research first ... there are probably reasons for the way they do things. For people who review only when they put a nomination up themselves, new rules might run them off. Your best chances of success are in asking for help at the wikiproject level ... the article you're talking about is a Milhist article, and Milhist has a good track record of being responsive to requests for help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

FA promotion note on user talk pages
At Featured picture candidates we put templates on the talk pages of users who have successfully nominated a picture or had a picture that they created be successfully nominated. For an article to pass FAC review is a big deal, so I would like to propose that FAC also put templates on user talk pages to congratulate people on FA promotions. You can see an example of the FP template here. --Pine✉ 22:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your intention is good, but most editors with live FACs watch the page closely, visit regularly, and are well aware when their nominations are promoted or archived. They don't need templates to advise them. Nor, I think, do we need an additional "procedure". Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be a nice extra if it were bot-omated, but it's not good to create extra work for people when nominators are expected to watch their FACs. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the point of thanking nominators? Think WP:LOVE. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But how LOVE-y is it if it's a required procedure? There are plenty of editors who stop by to give congrats on a passed FAC—I know I've done it here and there. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I already block the numerous automated notices that appear on my talk page from the GAN process (review started, review on hold, review passed), and I would likely block such an automated notice from FAC if it appeared on my talk page. I keep the reviews on my watchlist, so I know when they close; an extra notice in such an intrusive fashion is unnecessary. (Now if the promotions appeared in my notifications list, that could be handy.)  Imzadi 1979  →   05:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good idea. How good would it be if someone set up a notification system telling you when your article passed FAC/GAN/DYK etc. -  NickGibson3900 Talk 03:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Shortest FA
I am working on a short article. It past GA and I am thinking about taking it to FAC. However I'm not sure if their is a limit so can can someone provide a few links to the shortest FAs? -  NickGibson3900 Talk 03:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See User:The ed17/Featured articles by wiki text and User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. Also, take a look at a similar discussion I had with another editor who was also worried that his article was too short: Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. I hope that helps! :) AmericanLemming (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Status toolboxes - most work again
As most reviewers probably know, the toolbox links in FAC-nominations are almost completely down. The problem is solved in the sandbox, but still needs checking and activating by an authorized template editor. However the links in the "small" toolbox at WP:FAC "Nomination procedure" are active and can be used in the meantime. Unfortunately I can't tell, if and when the "long" toolbox on the nomination pages will work again. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC) - (most tools fixed now - see below)
 * There still appears to be a problem with peer reviewer and reflinks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, peer reviewer worked a few weeks ago, iirc - never used reflinks (I'll do a few more tests). But some functional tools are still better than none :). Many thanks for your help, DrKiernan. GermanJoe (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Peer reviewer and all other tools (except reflinks) work again, you may need to clear your cache on the tool's page before using it (Ctrl + Shift + R atleast for Firefox). GermanJoe (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How long should an FAC nomination stay open?
I nominated Featured article candidates/Carl Hans Lody/archive1 on 15 September, aiming to have it ready for a Main Page appearance on 9 November - the centenary of the subject. As of today, 20 October, it has had six reviews and supports, with no opposing votes. Could someone please advise how much longer the FAC nomination should stay open, given that there appears to be a substantive consensus in its favour? I'm keen to resolve the nomination in good time, bearing in mind that I still need to get the article into a WP:TFAR slot for 9 November, and that I have another time-sensitive article that I need to nominate for a January deadline. Prioryman (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally make a mid-week pass through the list of open FACs so should catch it, and other likely closures, within a couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Ian. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

, the Tony Hawk's Underground review hasn't been touched in two weeks, yet it has three supports (four if you count a very early one) and passed image and source reviews with no outstanding comments. It's not time-sensitive like that one, but is there anything else I should be doing with it? Tezero (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see that one during the week and thought I'd left a message on the FAC page but evidently not. From memory all the reviewers appeared to be from the WP gaming community (correct me if I'm wrong) and while that's very useful in terms of expert opinion, we do like to see more diversity in commentary, i.e. from outside the related Wikiproject area, particularly as it helps iron out accessibility issues, reduce jargon, etc. Similarly one likes to see at least one review of a MilHist FAC from a non-MilHist editor, and so on -- you get the idea... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's SNUGGUMS, but he could go either way: I don't think he's really involved with WP:VG himself, but it's not like he's never reviewed one of its GANs or FACS before. Man, the no-canvassing rule sucks. Tezero (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco's supported. Good thing I found about this when I did, heh. Tezero (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments needed
Anyone care to comment here: ? Graham Beards (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Late addition
When I opened the FAC for Francis Poulenc I forgot to add it to the list on the FAC page. I've now done so, but am unsure if I ought to have put it at the top, as the review page is three days older than that of the entry immediately below it on the list. If the presiding authority here thinks Poulenc should be moved down, I shall perfectly understand. So sorry about this, and grateful thanks to the kind editor who pointed out the omission to me.  Tim riley  talk    08:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tim, as the FAC has already received some reviews, I have moved it down the list. I don't think this will be a problem. Graham Beards (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Graham! Apologies for my absent-mindedness.  Tim riley  talk    09:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Another item I routinely checked manually (whether all FAC pages were transcluded), until GimmeBot took over doing that by bot. Add this housekeeping item to the list of those I am inquiring about above. Since both Gimme and Raul were chased off of Wikipedia by a sockmaster (the same one), who has taken over these routine leadership and housekeeping chores? Untranscluded FAC checking is one of those items. Which editor or coordinator is now doing the routine, tedious, time-consuming stuff ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I check for untranscluded FACs using VeblenBot. I missed Tim's because I have been tied up with emails this week. Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Graham. Does your bot have the ability to count the number of FAs on the WP:FA page and make sure that agrees with the tally?  (Similar for FFA.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my bot, and no. But see my comment above. Graham Beards (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. There's a note from Dana one my User Page, which serves as a constant reminder of the extra step needed when reinstating former FAs. Graham Beards (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's my Bot. The FACBot does indeed check that pages are transcluded, but only sends me a warning. This is because it could be running at the time when someone is creating the FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ah, ha :), are you willing or able to write the kinds of scripts we are discussing above (for generating lists of FAs for potential FAR review)?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks so much, Hawkeye. Re. further above, I tend to use WP:FACL, which also displays untranscluded FACs (though it also got clogged with unclosed promotions and archives -- now we have Hawkeye's bot that's less of a problem). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed TFA coord team
Hi all, please see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC
On its fifth FAC appearance, this nomination has received exactly zero review comments after almost five weeks. It is  as though an invisible cordon sanitaire has been erected. In its first two appearances the nomination receieved a total of nine supports, including several from some of our most experienced FA writers/reviewers. It was archived on each of these occasions on the basis of unresolved issues about close paraphrasing. The third and fourth nominations received little attention; the nominator stated  last time round that the paraphrasing concerns had been answered, although nobody has sought to verify this. With this history, it seems that the article has been quite close to promotion; could some of its previous supporters be persuaded to revisit, check out the paraphrasing issue and perhaps send the article on its way? To archive it again for lack of reviewer interest would seem unduly harsh. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a larger issue here which I believe is dissuading reviewers. You'll note that in addition to History of KFC, Farrtj (Tom) has brought KFC here six times. Each nomination has sputtered after concerns over the quality of writing and sourcing. Tom seems reasonably responsive to individual concerns in the past, but I posit that recent nominations have failed more for a perceived lack of nominator attention and enthusiasm than a lack of reviewer interest. The third nomination closed after Tom failed to respond to basic queries for several weeks. The fourth closed after basic comments went unaddressed. What is the impetus for any of us to put time into the fifth? I say "perceived" lack of nominator attention and enthusiasm because I'm almost certain this isn't the case, but I'm honestly interested in knowing how and where this process hasn't worked for you. You clearly have passion and interest for the subject matter, but you haven't been able to get your work through here efficiently. -- Laser brain   (talk)  16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject matter meant that it was going to be a tricky one to get through from the outset. Yeah might be good to hear from Farrtj and take another look. I commented one one or two along the way I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Today's Featured Article" coordinators - request for consideration of closure of discussion
If there is anyone watching this page who has not participated in the discussion at WT:TFA about new TFA coordinators etc, please consider answering my request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for someone to determine whether, and if so how, to close any or all the discussions there. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ArticleHistory and other review stuff
I've been running through Endometrial cancer in preparation for its mainpage appearance in a few hours, and have a few queries/concerns: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Could reviewers please take greater care in reviewing for crit. 2, WP:LEAD, since that is what the TFA schedulers use for writing a blurb?  One of the many reasons that the LEAD is singled out in the FA criterion is because it is used to generate the TFA blurb, so it should be as close to "perfect" as we can get, and deserves extra attention.  This means prose, sourcing, MOS, and making sure it adequately summarizes the body of the article, and that everything in the lead is found in the body.  Extra scrutiny to the LEAD aids the TFA schedulers.
 * 2) Is ArticleHistory completely dead now?  Is there a bot that has replaced GimmeBot to add Good Article and Peer Review to AH?  At Talk:Endometrial cancer, I found no record of the PR or the GA in its ArticleHistory.  If there is no longer a bot that does this, then it would be most helpful if either a) nominators updated AH before appearance at FAC, or regular FAC reviewers check each new nomination to make sure AH is there and updated.  Instructions are at Template:ArticleHistory, and Dr pda's article history script can be used to find events and oldids.  (See User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js).
 * 3) Is anyone doing regular crit. 2, manual of style checks?   I'm finding MOS-y stuff everywhere I look-- some of the kind that impacts readability on mobile devices, for example.
 * 4) And on several FAs (not endometrial cancer), I'm finding lots of off-topic text, which is more appropriately dealt with by summarizing a Main article, via a hatnote.  FAs are getting unnecessarily long because text is added that is somewhat off-topic in the FA, and actually the subject of another article.  Just a reminder of WP:SIZE and appropriate use of Summary Style.


 * Re 2: (run by ) is updating article histories for promoted/archived FAs; a couple of requests have been made to add things into article histories, which Hawkeye has now actioned (thanks); this may have been one that predated those fixes, but if not then I'm sure Hawkeye will be willing to tweak the bot's settings.  BencherliteTalk 21:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see ... but Gimmebot did PRs and GAs as well, so maybe Hawkeye is only doing FACs? If that is the case, it would be even more helpful if regular reviewers (and nominators) would make sure AH is updated when a FAC appears.  Otherwise, Hawkeye will be adding event1, when it might be (as in the case of Endometrial cancer), event3.  I used to run through the talk page of every new FAC to make sure there were no AH errors that would stall GimmeBot; perhaps it would help if folks did that.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we went for a long time without a working FAC closure bot – despite a couple of attempts by people after the demise of Gimmebot – but nothing reliable until we asked Hawkeye if he could create one to essentially emulate Maralia’s manual FAC closure procedure. That’s now been in place and working well for a little while so we could certainly discuss further refinements if Hawkeye is willing. The ideal would be if the existing GA bot did article history but perhaps Hawkeye could devise a way to pick up article history after the GA bot has done its thing, and perhaps close PRs and FARs as well (unless FAR closure is already in there as I think the possibility came up recently) – Hawkeye? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye improved his new bot last month so that it now incorporates standalone PR and GAN templates into articlehistory when it closes FACs (example). Very nicely done, in the proper order and everything. Maralia (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Most viewed TFAs
Is this because Wikipedia is dying, the mainpage is becoming irrelevant, or are people no longer updating the stats? (Or did I count wrong?) At Today's featured article/Most viewed, the number of most viewed pages per year is: Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2014 – 1
 * 2013 – 3
 * 2012 – 11
 * 2011 – 7
 * 2010 – 15
 * 2009 – 9
 * 2008 – 17


 * WP:TFASTATS hasn't been updated for several months. I have recently proposed merging that page with WP:TFAREC by leaving a message with, who's been doing the work at TFASTATS for some time, but he's not edited since.  That might make things easier to keep up to date, because TFA coordinators ought to keep TFAREC current. BencherliteTalk 21:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Other factors might be that we haven't had a US election for a while, we don't get as many film star FAs as we used to (true I think), and that, as often complained about, FA subjects have mostly become more obscure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I've just looked up the TFA day views for December 1-9, which seemed a good deal lower than I'd expected. Only the film, island & battleship over 20K, none over 40K. Lowest 6K I think (Beyonce, despite a "female empowerment" hook and a sexy photo). Am I right to think these show a fall-off from say 4 years ago? Yes, it seems, even disregarding John Lennon and Daniel Lambert. That is 1-9 December 2010, but 2011-2013 seem hardly better than this year. This useful page has not been updated since May btw. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes. that is my point.  either the mainpage in particular, or wikipedia in general, no longer has the relevance it once had.  or something.  And because important FA-page discussions used to regularly get feedback from over 100 editors, and now get a couple dozen, I wonder if the FA process is also becoming irrelevant.  It's all about google ranking now, and that can be had without the star.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've kept more of an eye on DYK views, my own and others, and these seem stronger than in the past if anything, given they only get 12 hrs. Some days this month I expect they have exceeded the TFA, if one compiled the figures. Frankly I doubt article quality is the reason, whatever you think of it. Article variety might be part of it (better on DYK). But certainly FA gets less attention from editors than it used to, like everything else, but perhaps not disproportionately to other things. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I find TFAs to be almost always about the same topic, but that is because people put things at FAC that are about the same subject. Even the most enthusiastic fan has a hard time caring after the 10th hurricane article or the 10th ship. Furthermore, people care about what happened in the current world cup, and less about what happened in the cup 80 years ago. People care about the fights happening today, not the battles that occurred centuries ago. TFA should have a system of favoring recenticism if views are truly important. Also, I find google doodles to be more interesting that even date-related TFAs (like anniversaries), because google pays someone to design some interesting picture or app. We only have a volunteer putting up some blurb which almost always is "standard". Nergaal (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clearly related to the subject matter - popular culture topics get lots, regardless of whether it was last year or ten years ago - look at the most popular. Issue is, it is much easier to write FA material on narrower/esoteric rather than broad articles. This is one of the reasons I have been pushing the core contest Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * About that: what kept me coming back to Wikipedia year after year before I started editing was the more out-of-the-way articles. I never came here to read about World War II—I can read about that anywhere.  I suspect I'm not alone: English Wikipedia had over 1.400 billion page views per week in November this year.  The latest stats at WP:5000 give us 400 million page hits for the top five thousand articles—less than 30% of page views go to the top 5000 articles.  See Long tail.  This, I think, is a very large part of Wikipedia's appeal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tools - are up again
So nearly all the tools in the toolbox in the upper right corner of FACs are broken again, sigh. What are we to do? BollyJeff &#124;  talk  02:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the last time we had an issue here you might’ve been able to help – could I bother you again? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like the "old" toolserver finally got shut down. Unfortunately I do not know, if and when the new WMFlabs system will provide similar tools. A list of some "old" tools and their status at WMFlabs can be seen at Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements and more detailed following the 3 links at the top of the linked page. GermanJoe (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now can the tool boxes be updated with these, or at least redirect to that page? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As the working links were already used on other pages, I have replaced them in both FAC-boxes and left a note for the GA-template editors. All linked tools should work again - for now ... GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Collaborators wanted
I've been lured out of retirement with the possibility of a collaboration to bring Texas Revolution to FA status, and the main page, by May 25th. As proposed here, the History Channel is creating a series (Texas Rising) that will feature the Texas Revolution after the Battle of the Alamo. The production company approached the WMF to find out if there was interest in our editors improving this article so that they can send viewers here to get more (and accurate) information. Improving that article, and all of its children, has long been a goal of mine.

We've had a few volunteers express interest, and I'm hoping to get one or two more. You don't have to have ANY prior knowledge of the topic - I'm happy to do the bulk of the research and already have posted a lot of my notes, but I could really use more people who are good at writing/summarizing/etc. I've collaborated on several FACs before on topics I knew little about, and it was a lot of fun. If you're interested, please join us at Talk:Texas Revolution. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Be happy to help, and welcome back. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to give it a hands on review and polish.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Automatically archiving reference links when pages are promoted to features article
Over at Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Archive 4 is a proposal that when articles are promoted to featured status, all the links in their reference be automatically archived. It is universally supported at that discussion, but I figured it needs to be discussed before implementing, probably through Bot requests. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This could be done by a bot, or it could most likely also be done with a user script. Using either method, the person that writes the code will need an exact description of the task to be preformed.  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations divider
The "Older nominations" section divider on the FAC page is meant to be moved by whoever wants to move it, but there's no rule about what age is "older". Two or three years ago it was typically set to 14 days, and out of habit I still do that when I move it, but with the page moving more slowly I'm wondering if 21 or even 28 days would be better. Any opinions? I'll probably start moving it to 21 days instead of 14 if nobody has a good reason not to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, FACs are often running much longer than they used to. I think a 21 day-divider is a good idea. BTW, thanks for doing this routinely; it is appreciated. Graham Beards (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; and as I say, no reason for others not to do it when they notice it's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There are 29 "older nominations", and at least a half a dozen of them one to two-months old, with no support, some opposes, and some with suggestions for withdrawal. Is there a reason they haven't been archived? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which ones have withdrawal suggestions? Which six or more are over one month old but have no support? I can't speak for Ian, but when the list is relatively short, I let nominations run a little longer than we used to – particularly after your complaint about too early promotions. Graham Beards (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note also that things typically stand still for 10 days or more over the holiday period, with most people doing less, though some more. Maybe have a little clear-out of no-hopers now, then a bigger one after New Year. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to-- among others-- several noms that have been up since October, and before Thanksgiving. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was looking forward. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year


Happy New Year! 'Tis already the morning after the night before Down Under... Wishing everyone in the FAC community a Happy New Year. Thanks for your contributions in 2014, and look forward to a great 2015! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)