Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive85

FAC reviewing statistics for January 2021
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for January 2021. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month.Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What does an accessibility review entail/are they necessary/common/are there examples anywhere? Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See RexxS's review here or Harrias's review here for examples. It's a review specifically about MOS:ACCESS.  It's not done very often (maybe a couple of times a year), but doesn't seem to me to fit in any of the other categories (content/source/image) so I break it out as a separate review type.  RexxS has done most of the ones that have been done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning that, at complete blood count and Buruli ulcer (and others which I have forgotten), completed the accessibility review pre-FAC.  This is an important sub-aspect of WP:WIAFA crit. 2, which is too often overlooked. At Ted Kazynski (at pre-FAC PR), RexxS steps through from here to show how to make tables accessible. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

New facstats queries
Two new queries now available: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Summary of FAC by year -- shows each year of FAC for which I have data (back to September 2006, currently) with a statistical summary.
 * Who reviews who? -- how many times has reviewer X reviewed a nomination nominated by editor Y?
 * Thanks Mike, these are really neat tools to have. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And there's now current FACs -- this is the one I mentioned further up this page that lists information about the activity of all nominators of any FAC currently active.  As I said above, I think this might be controversial, so I would be willing to take this page offline if there is consensus here that it's harmful.  I don't want it used to shame people, but I think it could encourage some nominators to start reviewing more, and that would be a good thing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is excellent - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Its really fascinating. Looks like I've been following around and hassling Wehwalt, Gerda Arendt and Casliber for years! Some missed names when looking at those I have most often reviewed. Ceoil  (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These are cool tools, Mike. Who reviews who? is fun! Moisejp (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * All of this is awesome, Mike. I confess that I was concerned about why you were putting so much time and effort into generating this data (when we sorely need your time to be spent on reviews), but now that the data bears out everything I knew anyway, of course, I am quite happy you did it :) All of your data reveals some alarming factors, and now those factors can be discussed more factually. I am still having some issues with, I think, how you handled restarts, but will type that up on your talk page when/if my back stops hurting so much and I can take more typing time.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you (and the others above) for the compliments. The two main things I'd like to see it get used for are adding factual data to some of the discussions we have about process and history, and encouraging nominators to review more, by making it easy to see just how many reviews by others are necessary for articles to be promoted. Re the restarts: not everyone here will know what you're talking about so a quick explanation may be in order.  Occasionally (133 times since September 2006) a FAC would be restarted.  See this example; 13 editors reviewed it before the restart, and 5 after the restart; only three are in both lists.  Those three (Nick-D, Jappalang, Jayjg) all are counted twice in any query that includes that FAC, since they posted a review twice for that FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mike, so did you count restarts as one very long FAC (yes) or two separate, shorter FACs (not optimal) ? I cannot remember on which query I got confusing results, all related to restarts ... will have to dig that up when I am able, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For anything that is not looking at reviews, it counts as a single FAC. When looking at reviews it's still usually counted as a single FAC, but some reviewers may get double-counted, per my note above.  If you let me know any oddities you see I can check that that's working correctly, but that's the intention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have to backtrack to figure out which page gave me problems ... on my list, which is growing out of control, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Number of comments?
I wonder if there is an automated way we could include the number of commentators for each article in the ToC? That way we can tell at a glance which articles are in need of further review. Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The number of editors reviewing is not an indication of which articles need further review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but a nomination with 2 reviews could sure use the boost 1 more would provide more than a nomination with 13. Praemonitus, this script will simplify the main project page and let you hover to see how many participants there are. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (double ec)The nominations viewer does this. I find it invaluable, and I do look first for articles with almost no reviews.  However, an article with plenty of commentary might still need further review, so I wouldn't automatically assume that a candidate with four or five participants needs no attention. (Post ec): Sandy, I only half agree: an article with less than three or four reviews always needs further review, and I think that's a good way to find something to review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FAC Urgents can also be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another approach is to start at the bottom of the page and read through to see what the Coords might still need. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I'd say the usefulness would depend on the reviewer. Some may prefer to review articles with more comments; others prefer fresh articles. At any rate it may save a bit of scrolling through the list. Praemonitus (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

FACs failing due to a lack of reviews
My FAC for The Heart of Thomas was recently marked as failed because there was insufficient input from other editors. While I do have some issues with how this closure was handled (specifically the closure coming a mere 40 minutes after the most recent reviewer responded to my comments, precluding my ability to respond), from a cursory review of other failed FACs, it appears this is an issue that is not unique to my nomination. If multiple articles are being failed not because of any specific fault with the article but because there is insufficient input from other editors, that would seem to suggest that there are significant flaws with how the FAC review process is structured.

So here is a very neutral question from someone who is a relative outsider to the FAC process, and can hopefully provide outsider input: why are there even limits on how long an FAC review can be queued in the first place? It is obviously justified to mark an FAC as closed if it is clear that the article is a ways away from meeting FAC criteria, but if the issue is merely that not enough people have weighed in yet, why should that be justification to close the review? I suppose people want to avoid a backlog, but the reality is that I intend to re-nominate The Heart of Thomas for FAC and don't forsee changing the article significantly in the interim two week waiting period, so it will effectively be the exact same as if the review was never closed in the first place. It just seems like a wholly arbitrary standard, and one that incentivizes the kind of QPQ-style reviewing that editors expressed a distate for just a few months ago. Morgan695 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can definitely dig the "wholly arbitrary standard" comment here. The process is actively turning people away and seems unashamed to do so.  I would normally have been happy to review various candidates but it was made clear that my methods of review are not (nor apparently ever have been) welcome here.  After 13 or so years involvement with FAC I'm afraid to say it is approaching its nadir.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * At GA it's not uncommon for an article to be queued for six months before an editor takes it up for review; that an article should be autofailed after six weeks (or two weeks, as suggested below) due to insufficient reviews seems like far too hasty a timetable. And to clarify my original comments, I'm not actually opposed to the idea of a QPQ system for FA, though I don't want to beat the dead horse of the discussion from above. I concur with your point below that it's a catch 22 that an article can be autofailed for a lack of reviews, but soliciting reviews is frowned upon; it seems like a de facto QPQ system effectively already exists at FA, so it would be helpful if there was some actual policy around it. Morgan695 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think FAC needs to be clearer that editors do not need to be "experts" in the article's topic, Wiki-policy or the FAC criteria to review an FAC. The instructions also need to emphasise that your FAC will probably get archived if the nominator does not review other FACs. Yes, there's an informal QPQ on FAC, and we need to acknowledge it and encourage editors to review articles before and while their article is at FAC. Yes, this will cause some editors to post low-quality reviews, but FAC coordinators can contact these reviewers and give feedback on how to make it higher-quality. Who knows, with some encouragement a low-quality reviewer might become a prolific, high-quality FAC reviewer. If nominators are not willing to review, then they need to consider whether they know the criteria enough to nominate. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no time limit on how long an FAC review can be queued except the patience of the coordinators; that too is purely arbitrary. I have suggested that the time it takes for the Bot to list an an article as an "older nomination" be doubled from three weeks to a more realistic six weeks but that gained no traction with the coordinators. It has no real significance though, and its usefulness is somewhat diminished now that the majority of nominations are older nominations. Sometimes when an article is facing closure for lack of reviews the coordinators ask me to call in a few favours (which does nothing for the allegations of quid pro quo reviewing). (I think I owe a month's output from Carlton and United.) I think that the two-week rule should be waived in such cases or, better still, be abolished entirely. (You can always ask the coordinators for a fiat.) I am often confronted with an article that is not apparently going anywhere and would like to nominate another article, but the two-week rule discourages this. You never know how near or how far an article is from promotion.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a stunning irony in being told to go and find additional reviewers (of specific qualities, i.e. non-expert and/or non-males) and then being told not to go and ask people to review the article. Like new reviewers are supposed to appear as if by magic.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, ; there's a lot to unpack here, but I think with a small amount of guidance, you will find the FA is within reach for this article.  While some FACs really are closed due to lack of review (which is sad), your FAC actually received quite a bit of review, with eight different editors looking at it.  When a FAC really gets scanty review, it can sometimes be because it is so bad that reviewers are reluctant to engage, as they don't want to be drawn into a lengthy back-and-forth.  In your case, of the reviewers that did engage, some gave what appeared to be premature supports based on a less than comprehensive review, while four reviewers who engaged declined to offer a "support". It was lacking, as Ian Rose, a depth of commentary rather than number of reviews. This is not only an indication to the Coords that more work is needed but fortunately, you have feedback from four reviewers who would probably be willing to engage if you opened a peer review to help you clear any final hurdles.  Another issue is that as soon as a FAC starts running over a month, it becomes less and less likely that new reviewers will engage; the Coords balance all of these factors in the interest of helping your article o the bronze star in the most expedient manner.  That doesn't mean their work is always appreciated, but an archived FAC is often a good thing.  I think we'd see FAC production pick up again if they aimed to archive unsupported FACs by the two-week mark as was done historically.  The other thing you can do to most help your FACs is to actively review other FACs; this is not, as stated, QPQ, rather that the more one reviews, the more one learns what kinds of things need to be looked at, and who is good at looking at certain issues.  Working at the Peer review level is a more relaxing experience for all (nominator and reviewer), as issues that are resolved don't have to be struck, and you can have more back-and-forth dialogue without worrying about the FAC becoming so long it is off-putting. During a peer review, reviewers sometimes feel at more liberty to speak up about why they weren't comfortable supporting at FAC, and you might be able to work through those issues quickly.  Please don't be concerned about an archived nomination, as it is often the fastest route to promotion.  Taking the two weeks to re-consult with everyone who reviewed, tie up any loose ends, and get additional feedback via Peer review can help assure that your next FAC will do well.  I can see plenty of issues that reviewers didn't raise, and the benefit of a new FAC with everything cleaned up off FAC is that you won't have to deal with citation cleanup issues. I'm a little worried that you state: "but the reality is that I intend to re-nominate The Heart of Thomas for FAC and don't forsee changing the article significantly in the interim two week waiting period".  I encourage you to open a peer review and ping in the editors who reviewed but didn't support, to make sure that you can clean up remaining concerns before re-approaching FAC.  If you put up a Peer review, please do ping me in where I can cover the concerns I have; meanwhile, happy to see that FACs are no longer running to two or three months-- an alarming trend seen in Mike Christie's stats that worked to slow down FAC overall.  sorry for sloppy phrasing and typing ... working with a bad back, not fun.  Good luck, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken re: peer reviews, but I disagree with your assertion that a review receiving a large number of "drive-by comments" is necessarily indicative of deeper issues with the article. A reviewing editor could have simply noticed a resolvable issue with an otherwise passable article, but lacked the interest or availability to commit to a full review. The idea that it should count against a nomination if several editors only wished to give brief feedback doesn't sit right with me; it seems like an approach that will inevitably have a chilling effect on broader editor participation in FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From my experience, the big issue with FAC is just a general decline in active reviewers. There's relatively few editors who are frequent FAC reviewers (source and image reviews can be even harder to come by), and reviewers are often reluctant to review outside of their areas of expertise, which just results in less diversity of topics promoted.  This is gonna sound pessimistic, but there's not a whole lot to do to solve the problem besides find a way to get reviewing back up. Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I'd also say it's not just "reviewers are often reluctant to review outside of their areas of expertise", but also they are just more interested in some areas outside their areas of expertise than others. It's hard to get round that, though a tempting nom statement might help. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why we should be trying to lower the barriers to participation, not heighten them. That an FAC receiving feedback from editors who only wished to give a few cursory comments might actually hurt its chances of being promoted seems like an unambiguously bad thing. Morgan695 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Barriers are increasing at FAC which is discouraging both nominators and reviewers from participating. Ironically TFA ran Cheadle Hulme a few days ago with a general acceptance that FAs aren't perfect (indeed, Cheadle Hulme was by far the worst target article on the main page all day) yet the current regime at FAC is full of inconsistency and makes unreasonable demands while simultaneously slighting reviewers and nominators for certain "types" of nomination or "styles" of review.  And to be told by a co-ord to go get more reviews and then to be told not to go and solicit more reviews is, frankly, a joke.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Morgan695, re That an FAC receiving feedback from editors who only wished to give a few cursory comments might actually hurt its chances of being promoted seems like an unambiguously bad thing, you may be reading too much in to my response here (which is my fault for typing it so hurriedly). In pointing out that your FAC had not in fact received few reviews, my point was that you were fortunate to have plenty of editors who might engage at peer review.  A separate point is that among those who did engage, there was a lack of thoroughness to the reviews. I suggested some reasons this sometimes happens, which may or may not apply to this case: what I see in this case is issues that were not reviewed at all, and can be worked off-FAC to take advantage of the two-week wait to bring a nomination more likely to succeed. I didn't mean to imply that the "cursory comments" had "actually hurt its chances", rather they had improved the chances that you would get more thorough feedback at a peer review, relative to a nomination that truly had received little feedback.  There is much work to be done to prepare this article, but it's doable. It would be a stretch to believe that a FAC would be hurt by reviewers who only engaged to comment, but in this case, those who engaged thoroughly failed to support. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope you aren't discouraged by this. My first FAC was archived but I kept at it and now have five. After a while you get the hang of what the expectation is and it can reduce friction in the process. I review a lot and perhaps that's why I've never lacked for reviewers on my FACs. (t · c)  buidhe  09:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, returning the favour, a little bit QPQ. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 12:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts that I didn't see covered above. When I'm actively reviewing, I try to focus on articles that are short of reviews, which is why I rarely review articles by some of the best writers we have because they often attract reviewers who like their work. But this is a hobby, and a poor-quality article that has no supports, by a nominator who is disagreeing with every comment a source reviewer makes, or who clearly is not a very good writer at a sentence level, doesn't seem like a very enjoyable use of my time. I review some of them, but more often I let them go by. Morgan695, none of the above applies to you; I haven't looked at your latest nomination but your previous one was in excellent shape and I was happy to review it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we may not have many reviewers, but at least we have plenty of people ready to review the reviewers. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think the most productive route for this discussion would be for us all to go grab a review or two each, rather than complain about the lack of reviews in the process. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, one of the "review the reviewers" users even started a sub-page to do just that. Little wonder people aren't interested in participating in the process.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TRM, your dissatisfaction with what you refer to as a "regime" is turning into a WP:BLUDGEON on every topic; the Cheadle Hulme situation is quite different than what you present here, and that discussion is held, appropriately, elsewhere. Could you refrain from bringing this sort of cross-pollination to every topic please?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's important to stress that FAs are never perfect and given the surprise from several experienced editors that TFA was content to run such a low-quality article, it's worth remembering that. And it links in perfectly with the dissatisfaction with FAC and its inconsistent adherence to certain individual's subjective interpretations of rules which is diving people away from the process.  Hence fewer reviewers.  It's all linked.  And while we have "established" and "trusted" reviewers making the kinds of comments that have been collapsed above, little wonder people don't want to get involved.  They might even end up having their reviews reviewed (or criticised for being too long or nitpicky or out of context or whatever in various other fora).  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to run a non-spotcheck source review while things are in the 2 week limbo? -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * see Peer review/The Heart of Thomas/archive1. Because it is a translated work, the spot checks needed are more than the usual situation; that is, one needs to determine that the original work (back on fr.Wikipedia), brought over to en.Wikipedia, didn't have too-close paraphrasing, etc, and that there are no direct translations from non-English sources, which would be plagiarism.  The article extensively uses a couple of books; do you have access to them?  On the peer review, some source-to-text integrity issues have surfaced.  (This is what I was referencing above when I said there were things that no one had yet even checked ... meaning, considering an incomplete translation template on the talk page, all supports were premature until source-to-text integrity and paraphrasing are examined ... a different situation than when we are dealing with original work on en.Wikipedia.)  In the unfortunate event that anything imported from fr.wikipedia has copyvio, we would need a revdel.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify that the article is not a line-for-line translation of the French article. I used its article structure and sourced it heavily, but I re-wrote the copy from the machine translated text; the overwhelming majority of sources used are also in English. So I don't believe that a copyvio/source check that is any more vigorous than that which is typical for an FAC is needed here. Morgan695 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes User:Guerillero, I would appreciate that, thank you! User:Aza24 was in the middle of doing the source review when the original FAC was closed, but I don't know if they intend to pick it up for the PR. Morgan695 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the sources look fine other than some missing trans-title parameters so I'm not sure what else is required besides potentially spot checks to ease some users's concerns here. I can do them, but it's going to be later this week... Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the PR is going to last for at least the two-week FAC waiting period, so there is time. If you have the availability to review it would be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can think of at least one nominator of past years who I found difficult to work with and have avoided reviewing since then. I am sure other reviewers do the same.
 * In the past I've sometimes skipped reviewing a nomination that I might oppose if I reviewed it, because I can see it would be a lot of work to do a thorough review, and the nomination seems likely to fail for lack of support. Again I feel sure I'm not the only one who does this.
 * In some ways I wouldn't object to an infinite time limit at FAC, but although this would help with unjustly un-reviewed articles, it would also preserve articles that are being skipped by reviewers for the reasons above. I don't see any fair way to distinguish these two outcomes.
 * (response to Mike's "no time limit" idea) Maybe an article with one or two supports could be considered "safe" from archival (which is de facto the case for articles with three supports), so that only articles with no supports or with opposes would get archived? Because there have been many frustrating cases where an article looks good, I've supported, but no one else shows up to review, and then it feels like a waste to both the nominator and the single reviewer when it's archived. Then one could "save" yet unreviewed articles that seem worthy by just giving it a review, and be sure it would stay on the page for others to review down the line. Personally I find it demotivating to review an article at the bottom of the list that has one or no supports, because I know my review might go "to waste" as it will probably be archived anyway (don't know if others feel this way). But if I know my one review would make a difference for keeping it on the page, I'd have a bigger incentive to review it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You might consider adding a link to the candidates page in the "From today's featured article" on the home page. It was several months before I realised it existed (not that I've participated now that I know it exists but at least I know the option is there). It may be that you don't want randos straight from the home page blundering about, in which case it's not a good idea, but it would raise awareness of the existence of the process. Crispclear (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC mentoring - First time nomination
Good afternoon, I hope you are all well. I was considering nominating Beryl May Dent as a Featured Article Candidate but I have never nominated an article for FAC before now. Also, even after a year of editing on here, I feel very much of a "newbie", with so much I have still have to learn (especially the administration side of things). Consequently, I would really appreciate some advice on the nomination process, and some guidance on what I need to do to improve the article (I wrote the article last year). It has just gone through GA — and I am wondering if it would be better to wait and keep making incremental improvements (and I mean other users editing it as well). Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Gricharduk (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just read the comments in the section above this one; perhaps I need to hone my skills and get other articles through GA first, before going for a FAC! 17:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Gricharduk (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Peer review would be a good place to take it. The standards at FA are a good bit higher than GA, so some GAs will require a good deal of work before they are ready for FA.  Peer review would be a lower-pressure place to get the article incrementally worked up and get advice for making the FAC plunge. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to pre-FAC peer reviews; hope this presents an alternative for you. (And on the discussion above, I had reviewed hundreds of FACs and FARs before I presented my first FAC.). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much and . Thank you for the links and I am glad I asked here first. That looks to be the perfect process for me to learn how to improve the article Gricharduk (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping me when you make your PR and I will try to do a source review -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to add it to the sidebar when you open the PR; so far, I seem to be doing most of the maintaining of the sidebar myself :). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, a future FAC that's not a song or a war? I'll be sure to leave comments when it comes around. P  anini 🥪 14:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion about AllMusic
I've seen AllMusic debated in several recent FAC source reviews, so I think this is a relevant discussion at RSN. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How to nominate an article: toolbox
Hello,

The last 3 links in the toolbox don't work for me (details on request). Not sure if they are wrong or whether something is blocked from here. Do they work for any of you guys?

Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing gameplay details of a remastered game through older sources
Hi. I've been gearing up the video game article Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered for FAC and need to significantly re-write the Gameplay section as a lot of prose focuses on outlining the new features of the remaster in comparison to its original counterpart Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare rather than providing a summary of its overall gameplay. As a result it relies heavily on the original game's article for clarity and does little to stand on its own. In order to get around this, would it be possible to use reliable source(s) detailing the gameplay features of the original game if I can provide examples that state the overall gameplay (or even certain elements) remain identical between the two versions of the game? It's a struggle to find an alternative solution as due to the remaster being a re-release of an existing title and therefore not "new", its mechanics/features aren't being discussed in detail by sources. Pinging ImaginesTigers who proposed this. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would say, if RS on the new game focuses on how it differs from the old game, so should the wikipedia article. It shouldn't cite sources on the prior game because that sounds like WP:OR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you expand on why you think this would be OR? I'm not sure what the best answer is to Wikibenboy94's question, but I don't understand your concern.  It seems reasonable that if an RS gives enough information to be able to conclude that certain aspects of gameplay are identical, another older RS could then give details on those aspects.  Do you think there's a risk of synthesis here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What I think Wikibenboy was suggesting was taking coverage of the previous game and using it to cite the gameplay of the later game. I think that would be inappropriate. If necessary, certain aspects of the gameplay could perhaps be sourced to the game itself. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging if he has any further feedback for buidhe. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Buidhe is right that sourcing the gameplay to the game would be a better choice. If you have an RS that says some specific feature is identical, then I think the older game could in theory be used to cite it but I would avoid that if at all possible -- and if it's truly identical I don't see why you would need more than a cursory mention of it in the article, which should focus on what changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By sourcing the gameplay to the game, do you just mean basing the section around new gameplay elements introduced for the remaster, because essentially gameplay between the two is identical (things that have changed boil down to very subtle improvements to character movement and expanding upon the range of content within the game's modes); no sources detailing new features would be enough to fill its own section because as mentioned they're only focusing on what's different and don't give a thorough breakdown of gameplay from top to bottom. The concern ImagineTigers had was that Featured Article reviewers would have trouble fully comprehending the extent of the gameplay if the prose just focuses on detailing the new elements. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the concern, but why would the article need to detail the full extent of the gameplay? I don't know the game, but if I were to read one article and then the other, I wouldn't expect to read a detailed account of the gameplay in both.  Is there perhaps some other way to organize the articles that would make this more natural?  For example, an article about the game that also covers the remastered version, using summary style to hive off the development section into a sub-article?  That approach would not require a repeat of the gameplay section -- it would feel natural then to only discuss the gameplay differences for the remaster.  I've no idea whether that particular approach makes sense, but summary style with sub-articles seems like it might be worth thinking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never come across an article that centers around a game and its remaster (not purely on their own anyway) if the respective versions have their own available, so presumably the consensus is they have no reason to. Ultimately, I think due to the differing opinions on whether this concern should be addressed it will just hinge on what the reactions are when it goes to FAC. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC mentoring
Greetings! I would like to get some advice from mentors as I am considering nominating the Second Voyage of HMS Beagle for FA. This is my first nomination and I would like not to miss the bus and fail the nomination. I saw at the mentoring statistic that only 15% (at least what I recall) of first-time nominations are successful. The article, which currently stands as an A-class article, is a vital part of evolutionary biology, and therefore decided to get it to FA standard. Wretchskull (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wretchskull, I frankly don't think this one is quite ready. Like with the conversation above, peer review is probably the more viable alternative.  There's a number of referencing errors - for instance, it's unclear what the cite to Herbert 1980 is referring to.  Or which source FitzRoy 1839 is referring two (there's two possibilities).  The heavy reliance on the primary sources of Darwin, Owen, FitzRoy and the various letters will be questioned in a FAC.  There's also some uncited bits throughout the body.  The first footnote may be original research.  A couple of the references are actually uncited notes.  There are other referencing errors, such as Von Wartenburg not seeming to have a publisher.  I think peer review will be a lower-pressure area to get this worked up to FAC standard. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , agree re peer review first. The Herbert 1980 looks clear as citing Sandra Herbert's introduction p. 11 which discusses taxonomists defining species, the two FitzRoy volumes need to be distinguished and that'll take some checking. There are a lot of secondary sources, such as Herbert, but also some bits are probably based on Desmond & Moore but only show a primary source. Ouch. Will try to get that resolved. The first paragraph of the Return section is now an example where we need only cite the secondary sources, but the primary sources are a useful online resource – any comment on that? . . dave souza, talk 16:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: have found the first FitzRoy ref (vol. II) is cited, the appendix to it is a separate volume which isn't currently cited. Have made that FitzRoy 1839a in case we want to use it in future. . dave souza, talk 18:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite. What does User:Dave souza think? ——  Serial  19:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , agree! as above. . . dave souza, talk 16:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confused about what process led to the A-class classification— can’t find anything on article talk or in article milestones. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been designated A-class by WP:WikiProject History of Science; I don't think they review it, just assess it. This is one of two like that . ——  Serial  19:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It was this edit, by, ten years ago. Given the edit summary, it is possible that they were confused regarding the process. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both ... odd :) :). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reclassified them as B-class, which I think suits their range and breadth while acknowledging the existence of flaws. ——  Serial  19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright. Of all the things that I checked, I completely overlooked the fact that most names mentioned in the Notes section either lead nowhere or to the References section. It was quite a big hit in the gut finding out I missed some important elements, as well as the fact that it is a B-class article. I will work on fixing references and perhaps peer-reviewing if necessary, Dave souza will probably also come in very handy if he has time. Wretchskull (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delighted to see Darwin and the Beagle. It takes me back to reading John Bowlby's Attachment and Loss, and through it, especially the third volume to Darwin (the Voyage and Alan Morehead's Darwin and the Beagle) and later evolution itself.  I wish I had the time to peer-review, but I don't.  I wish you luck though.  The article looks fairly detailed.  I can't speak to the sources, but I did notice the paragraph about his return to Shrewsbury.  I had always thought he spent the night at the local inn, not wishing to disturb his family; that he appeared at The Mount without warning at breakfast, his father noting amid the raptures that the shape of his head had changed.  Indeed, I always assumed that the inn story was part of his lore, of the admiration people hold for the psycho-social maturity that his strivings had brought in their wake.  Please don't tell me it is not true. :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you've got sources I've not seen, any assistance you can give will be greatly appreciated. I've gone over the first paragraph of Return, there are one or two discrepancies between Desmond & Moore and Browne so have referred to primary info which helps assess interpretation. Think I've seen the inn story somewhere, but it's not in these sources – CD wrote to his uncle that "I reached home late last night", but maybe there's another source. Browne does show the "shape of his head" story, it's from Darwin's autobiography and he cited it as showing his father was "of a sceptical disposition, and far from being a believer in phrenology" so maybe not just balding. So many interpretations! . . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Your edits look great.
 * Bowlby in his biography of Darwin sidesteps the question of where Darwin overnighted on Oct 4, saying only that he reached Shrewsbury late at night. (See p 205).  He does mention the letter to Fitzroy you have referenced.  But that letter begins with, "Thursday morning. Oct 6th, My dear FitzRoy, I arrived here yesterday morning at Breakfast time, & thank God, found all my dear good sisters & father quite well ..." "Here" can only mean The Mount.  (Also, the notion that he might have returned after five years to a household in which he was much missed and awaited, and crept up to bed without creating a mingled din of shouts and yelps does not jibe with my experiences of returning.  :)   ( Aside: Speaking of interpretations, Bowlby has much to say about Darwin's good old malady.  See here PS In his later work, Bowlby was much influenced by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. ) There are a few mentions of the inn, especially in the creative non-fiction accounts, but I'd like to see it mentioned by name somewhere.  Will keep looking.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that, the Bowlby book does look tempting, though think I've lost interest in the malady. Should have mentioned Desmond & Moore's take: "He finally reached The Mount late on Tuesday night, 4 October 1836. So late, in fact, that the family had gone to bed. Even though he had been away for five years and two days, he slipped quietly into his room exhausted, without waking them." Bowlby is wise to sidestep the return timing. The sequence is that on Oct 5th CD wrote to his uncle Josiah that he'd "reached home late last night. My head is quite confused with so much delight", on the 6th he wrote to FitzRoy as you describe, and to Henslow that he'd "reached Shrewsbury yesterday morning", both implying arrival on the morning of the 5th. Worth considering that The Mount, Shrewsbury, is pretty large, and he'd be dog-tired after days of seasickness and a marathon coach journey, so maybe he found somewhere discreet there to rest a bit and get refreshed before his grand reunion at breakfast time. Darwin's 1838 Journal shows: 1836 October 2d. Anchored at Falmouth. Oct.— 4th. Reached Shrewsbury after absence of 5 years & 2 days. So that's support for the night-time arrival, but leaves the hours until breakfast time a mystery. . . dave souza, talk 19:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Dior Peer review
I was wondering if any experienced music editors at FA can leave some comments on the Dior (song) peer review? Aoba47, a very experienced music editor, left some amazing comments that helped the article immensely. I would really appreciate it if anyone like them could help the article for it to be FA level. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, after For the Night, Mood Swings, Cups 1-4, Everything I Wanted, Let's Fall in Love for the Night, Ilomilo and I Love You I think you burned most all of the goodwill you have with the people who review featured article candidates. Please take a year to hone your craft, read over the feedback you have received from the community, and develop a sense of perseverance. You are getting awfully close to me filing a thread at AN asking for you to be topic banned from submitting articles to FAC for a year. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 05:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Unfortunately, TUB just hasn't exhibited a constructive response to the criticism of this forum. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero, go ahead and do it then. I don’t care if they ban me or not. I’m not going to let you scare me off like that. And by the way, I’m not even going to be here after year. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TUB, if you keep making posts like this, your longevity on Wikipedia will not be determined by you, but by admin action. Please refrain from personal attacks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be around to help with your FAC plans, and although I'm not as experienced as Aoba or HD in this field I still want to see a FAC of yours pass. Most likely due to me being a child of God and I can forgive and forget. Best of luck with your next nomination, and Super Paper Mario... P  anini 🥪 15:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I have just archived Featured article candidates/For the Night/archive1.
 * 2) Some of your comments there were totally unacceptable. You gratuitously attacked  for the sin of attempting to help you improve the article. When they apologised for having done anything which may have upset you [!] you edited the original post to be even more offensive. Exceptional assumptions of good faith have been extended to you as a newish editor and nominator. You have now exhausted them. I am passing on details of your behaviour to an uninvolved administrator.
 * 3) I would recommend that you consider Guerillero's suggestion above. A little more maturity and a little more Wiki-craft and you could well be nominating FA-worthy articles and seeing them through to promotion. It is clear that this is unlikely to happen at the moment.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog, if you're referring to the comments at the review I think you meant HumanxAnthro rather than Guerillero? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro here. While I generally would recommended users not to use personal attacks, I could understand a little bit why Ultimate Boss reacted the way he did. I'll confess I made some humurous comments that could be perceived as rude ("Did the Department of Redundancy Department™ write this?") and, although not intended to attack the nominator as a person, made a comment near the end that might've been misread as an ad hominem: "the nominator clearly didn't bother himself to pay enough attention to this article." I once again apologize for these comments, and while I'm not justifying the comments Boss has made, I'd like other users to have more of an understanding of where's he coming from. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, TUB I hope you'll receive the following feedback in the very very friendly manner that it's intended. I think we're all sympathetic that it can take time for a newer editor to build up the strategies and confidence to reach FA. Getting that first article to FA would no doubt be a big confidence booster to help you, or any newer editor, see that initial setbacks are not the end of the world, and that with a little perseverance—and sometimes it takes multiple nominations of the same article, I'm sure just about all the editors here have experienced that at one time or another—those strategies can be learned. I am sympathetic, and I was tempted to jump in an help you in this PR. But (I'm saying the same thing as the editors above, although possibly less harshly) unfortunately I can't justify spending a lot of time reviewing the article when your past behaviour—dropping out of a nomination whenever there's a setback—makes me fear my efforts will not be productive. I'm not saying it's never okay to drop out of a nomination, but one needs to think about, if they're doing it repeatedly, they're eroding the good-faith trust the community has in their dedication. We're all here to help each other. Honestly. But a nomination does take perseverance. And every newer editor needs to be patient with the process of building up the necessary strategies. That's what I wish for you. That's what I sincerely hope you try to consider. Moisejp (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We could all benefit from being a little nicer. I just accidentally discovered a close person to him recently passed from COVID. P anini 🥪 23:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

,,: Yes I know what I did was wrong. I would like to sincerely apologize to for acting the way I did. But is right. I lost someone who I loved dearly from that stupid virus and have been going through a tough time. I lost it and cussed out Human. Anyway, Gog and Guerillero, if you want to go ahead and report me, go ahead. I only stay on this site to bring Pop Smoke's songs to FA and GA to honor him since he died at only 20 years old. And yes, I know FA and GA aren't meant to be memorial services, but for me, it's something special to honor the legacy Pop Smoke had during his short life. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good that you apologize for your actions, I personally think you should only getting Pop Smoke articles in GA status then in FA status. I don't see the reason why all of Pop Smoke articles needs to be in FA status, maybe one of them but all of them. The rest be in under the GA criteria, just like most of Bruno Mars articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that GA status would be a good first step, then work on FA status later. I had dozens of GAs before I made it through FAC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had 42 GAs before I nominated my first FAC. Hone your skills. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had 40 GAs promoted by the time my first FAC finally passed. It can be a long process to hone your skills for FAC, and even then, FAC can still be an involved process.  Every FAC will have comments, even those that have gone through peer review.  Don't get discouraged by comments on FACs - every successful promotion will have them, even articles by our most experienced FA writers. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I had... two... but then again, my spiritual power goes beyond any administrator, even the holy Jimbo himself. P  anini 🥪 14:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done over 30 GA articles in less than a year, and STILL no success with FAC. I now have given up trying to take an article to FAC. I take it to peer review, GOCE, FA mentors, and it still ends up being opposed and failed because of "prose" issues. FAC is DEFINITELY not for editors who are not taken well here. I'm going to stop here and move on with my life. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since your GAs are generally being passed by the same reviewer, maybe that is the process you should be questioning. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am honestly confused by The Ultimate Boss's message. They say that they no longer want to involve themselves with the FAC process, but later the same day, they post on multiple editors' talk pages about a FAC mentor for a possible FAC for Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon, which would be a separate article than the ones mentioned above by Guerillero. I am more so confused than anything, and I would believe that could be a reason why some editors are not engaging with your reviews. This is just my opinion though. Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This has become a cycle: nominate an article for FA -> attack reviewers when the article is critiqued -> withdraw from FAC -> complain about the conduct of FAC reviewers -> immediately try for FA again. Xtools indicates that TUB has made 14 featured article and 2 featured list nominations (including repeat nominations) without success. FAC is not for editors who lack patience, perseverance, and maturity. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

FAC Mentoring request for art article The Thankful Poor
Hello everyone, I would like to request a mentorship for my prospective (and initial) FA nomination of the article The Thankful Poor. It was recently promoted to Good article status, but I want to see whether it can be improved further. It is already listed for peer review, but the featured article page also recommended mentorship for first-time nominators – so here I am. Any help and assistance in improving the article and nominating it for FA will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * GeneralPoxter I rarely say this but I think the lead could stand to be a bit longer. (t · c)  buidhe  21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, Buidhe! I expanded the lead by another two sentences, but am not sure if it has reached an acceptable size yet. I consulted the MOS's section on lead length, but it seems pretty ambiguous and flexible to me (for good reason probably). GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me now. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to add criteria 1f to Featured article criteria
Copyrights is core Wikipedia policy, and applies to all content. Likewise, this expectation also applies to featured articles, although this is not explicitly stated in the current featured article criteria. I propose adding criteria 1f to the featured article criteria, in the same manner that the expectation that nominated articles comply with the copyright policy is codified in the good article criteria. A proposed wording of this new criteria would be:

"compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy: it contains content summarized from sources in Wikipedia's own words (except for brief quotations) and is free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing."

I'm very open to suggestions for better wordings. Hog Farm Talk 03:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
"Alternate: compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing."
 * Support a nobrainer (t · c)  buidhe  06:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, checks for avoidance of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing have been done at FAC since 2010, and yet, oddly, this was never codified in the criteria. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  07:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support it would just be codifying long-standing practice, but good to be explicit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as overreach. Goes beyond the requirements of WP:Copyrights. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose current wording. It's a poor summary of WP:Copyrights, which allows me to reuse text I have published elsewhere (subject to licence). Graham Beards (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Graham, would you be happy with shortened wording below? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  07:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Better because we can only insist on compliance with policies. Graham Beards (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it probably is within the remit of WIAFA to specify that a Featured article has certain other characteristics, hence the two alternates. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sandy's alternative wording. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my preference also. Ceoil  (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess what I'm struggling with is the need. We're bound by the copyright policy, that is a given. If something more is said beyond the policy, then it will be taken that something more is meant beyond the policy. What is the need to say something? What existing (not hypothetical) ill are we trying to cure by this? The copyright policy exists whether we say something or not. If we're trying to do something more than that, let's be clear about the need and how this would change our practices.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What I'm thinking is that copyright policy compliance is clearly expected here, and I'm thinking that we should be upfront with our expectations. Hog Farm Talk 14:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I"d have no objection with "Shall comply with Wikipedia policies regarding copyright."--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (after two ecs) The question is multiple in form:
 * On the need, it is to get reviewing practice in line with criteria. We have an odd situation where we have required a copyvio and source-to-text integrity check on every new nominator since 2010, yet that was never codified in the instructions or criteria.  And we increasingly see Support or Oppose declarations that no longer reference the criteria explicitly (e.g.; support on 1a, 1c, 2, 4 ... oppose on 1b, 1d, etc.)  We can't "oppose on 1f" since that doesn't exist.  And our sourcing reviews look at too-close paraphrasing, plagiarism and source-to-text integrity. Some of our reviewing processes have become a bit of a mystery to new nominators, and this is part of an attempt to start cleaning that up by making it more clear to nominators (particularly new ones) how reviews are conducted and supports/opposes lodged. (This confusion was particularly acute at the Biblical criticism FAC, where the nominator kept thinking they had passed a "sourcing review", not realizing that there were still pieces outstanding ... spelling out the pieces better, and distinguishing them from 2c, could help.) Also, in terms of how it is phrased, see the existing formatting of 1 (a) through 1 (e) at WP:WIAFA.
 * Re trying to do so something more than that, there are two possibilities (the original and the alternate). The alternate is indistinguishable from what GA requires.  But, many moons ago at FAR, there was some pushback on articles which reused text according to license that was published elsewhere.  (Many of our very old FAs contained extensive republished material, not summarized in our own words.)  Some seemed to be of the opinion that, to carry the bronze star, the work should be original to Wikipedia.  I am indifferent and support either, but others may feel differently.  This is something that was discussed on some individual FARs, but I am unaware if we have ever held a broader discussion. As Hog Farm stated, open to improvements on wording ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - my first reaction on seeing this was similar to that of Wehwalt. Why are we creating a carve-out for one area of policy, when to me it is a given that articles submitted for FA must comply with all policies? For example I'd have thought it is a given that the article's name must comply with WP:AT, yet we haven't written that in the FA criteria. Similarly, WP:OR and WP:BLP are policies which must apply to an FA just as they do elsewhere, but we don't include those in the FA criteria. I think WP:FA? should focus on things that make an FA unique over and above any other article, and if we need to say anything explicitly it could just be that all of the relevant policies need to be followed. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we should drop NPOV from the FA criteria ? The difference is that copyright is something we explicitly review for, and how we do that is a mystery to new nominators at times.  The idea is that the criteria should relate to reviewing practice, and we carve out a specific requirement for a copyvio check (which checks plagiarism, source-to-text integrity, etc). Also, in terms of "unique over and above any other article", what is your stand on original versus re-used per license in FAs?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I have a stand really, I've never given it much thought. Are you of the opinion that WP:COPYWITHIN text shouldn't be used on FAs? Off-hand I can't think of a particular reason why we'd disallow it, assuming that the attribution rules are followed, the copied text covers the topic in a relevant manner taking note of all sources, and all other criteria and policies are satisfied. Unlike DYK, which exists to reward new content and/or the editors who bring them to our attention, the purpose of an FAC is IMHO primarily to assess the article itself, not its authors. On the more general point, I'm neutral at present but will be interested to see what others have to say. My only real concern would be that in emphasising certain policies we may be implying that others are less important. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I am indifferent re original material or re-published, but others may have other opinions. I don't believe this has come up at FAC, but it used to come up regularly at FAR, as many older FAs contained considerable republished material. (I don't think the issue is copying within Wikipedia, rather re-using material published elsewhere with license.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I suppose the main concern with such material would be how likely it is to summarise all of the available scholarship and literature on a subject. Without being an expert I might guess that most free text is either (a) published by fairly low-grade sources that licence their material under CC, or (b) really old stuff whose copyright expired, e.g. Britannica 1911 edition. Both of those will exclude the large body of papers and books published in recent years, of which the vast majority are copyrighted. So you'd definitely want to check such copied text carefully. Anyway, perhaps this is veering off-topic. I'll get myself a box of popcorn and continue watching how this thread develops. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a coordinator, copyright, of both text and images, is something I worry about. Bearing in mind that it is not unusual for an article to get 100,000 views because it has become an FA. If an editor was to feel that some aspect of Wikipedia's policies had or has not been met in an FAC or FA, that is a matter for the community. If I promote an article to be an exemplar of Wikipedia's best and it breaches copyright laws then there may be repercussions outside Wikipedia. With images I feel broadly reassured that copyright has been specifically checked for each image. With text I don't know if any reviewer has so much as run the article through Earwig, never mind properly spot checked for copyright. If this were ever to become an external issue, whoever was speaking for Wikipedia would not, currently, even be able to point to something and say "Look! We had a proper system in place. Human error happens." IMO this is not just another policy area, it is an area with potential RL consequences and I don't think that a belt, braces and a piece of string in our pocket approach is inappropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, might it be an idea to add copyvio checking as an explicit requirement before something can be promoted, similar to the image and sourcing checks we currently have? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I understood that to be, in large part, what this proposal was about. But it may well be that I misread or misconstrued it. Either way, IMO, yes it would. But even an explicit rule saying that it is supposed to be checked would give Wikipedia a legal fig leaf. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. I was a bit overwhelmed and discouraged yesterday by health situation, and failed to close the loop with Hog Farm on the wording because I was pouting and wallowing. Entirely my fault. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only do I Support the original version but for FACs, I oppose copying and pasting (or close paraphrasing other articles (such as from PLOS) with CC BY-SA and GFDL, the nominator, or anyone else's. I also oppose COPYWITHIN for FACs. The tacit rule should be: Paraphrase with considerable effort everywhere.
 * Not following it, is one of the main reasons for the puppy mills in FA land that have done a cruel disservice to the breeds, metaphorically speaking. When the puppies tumble out, looking mostly alike because that considerable effort has not been expended to allot each its distinctiveness, the problems arise and any reviewer with any pretense to the craft despairs that the dying embers will not burst into flames.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that was most helpful. Graham Beards (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Broadly sympathetic, but I'm wondering if this would affect series like User:Iridescent's FAs on paintings by William Etty, which seemed to me (without exactly having checked) to repeat some biographical & background material in an unproblematic way. Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The proposal is more focused on codifying the fact that we expect FAs to be free of copyvios and that there should generally be a check to make sure that FACs do not contain copyvios, I did not intend for this proposal to touch COPYWITHIN and personally think that any discussion about the merits of COPYWITHIN content in FACs should be a different thread. Hog Farm Talk 23:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree; no part of this is aimed at, or was intended to be aimed at, WP:CWW. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. I support both the proposed versions above, but I'm suggesting in the margins that for FAs they are not enough; they are pro forma.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know this particular series, but if the biographical facts are identical, we can still make an effort to vary the style, e.g. the paragraphs, the clause structure, and the choice and selection of words and phrases. The English language grants us that extravagantly.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But what you are talking about is not a copyvio issue; it sounds more like you object on a prose or summary style or comprehensiveness issue. Could we keep this discussion focused on what it is actually about, which is copyvio, plagiarism, and too-close paraphrasing?   Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But that is WP-wide policy, valid and enforced alike from stubs to FAs. Why does it need to be added to the FA criteria, and to implicitly promoting the overall unconcern about them—that they border on broad tautological principles? Witness the lip-service already being paid to 1 (b) and (c). I was responding to your remark, "... probably is within the remit of WIAFA to specify that a Featured article has certain other characteristics."  If you want an up or down vote on the proposal, and nothing but, then I oppose it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain the need above, at 14:33 3 Feb. The biblical criticism FAC was eye opening about how confusing our reviewing procedure re sourcing issues can be to new nominators. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read it. Then this proposed bit should be added to 1 c well-researched:  "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; claims are summarized from sources in Wikipedia's own words (except for brief quotations) and are free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing."  New nominators will see this injunction in context.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Fowler&amp;fowler; you have an oppose above, but this seems to indicate you aren't opposed to the overall idea ? To explain why the proposal is for a separate criterion to be added, rather than combined as part of another ... there are many aspects to reviewing sourcing, and many new nominators (not to mention some experienced nominators) are confused about how this happens.  Supporting or opposing on 1c, "high-quality sources" is a different thing than Supp/Opp on 2c (consistent citations) or on 1b, (comprehensive-- sources that are left out), or on the proposed 1f, copyvio and related concerns.  We end up with new nominators confused about exactly what reviewing sources mean, and we end up with experienced reviewers supporting nominations with no indication of what aspects (if any) of sourcing they have even looked at.  The idea is for reviewers to be able to say, "Support on 1a, 1c, 2c, but I have not looked at 1b or 1f), so that subsequent reviewers, Coords, and nominators will all have a better idea of what has and has not been examined.  If we roll the proposed 1f into 1c, we miss that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, SandyG, I oppose the standalone criterion 1f, but think that it can be helpful when added to 1(c), so that a nominator can see it where the rubber hits the road—i.e. in the claims that s/he is summarizing, and about whose verifiability s/he has just been informed. 1b and 1c already combine different criteria.  To help both reviewers and nominators, and to emphasize each subcriterion independently, we might consider adding a further enumeration of the sort:  "1b comprehensive: (i) it neglects no major facts or details and (ii) places the subject in context; 1c well-researched: (i) it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; (ii) claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (iii) claims are summarized from sources in Wikipedia's own words (except for brief quotations) and are free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing."
 * We are saying that each claim has to be verifiable against high-quality sources, but it cannot be an all-too-enthusiastic copy of the sources, only a good paraphrase. We are also saying implicitly, "Everything you write is a claim. Claims don't come from epiphanies for which you then look for supportive sources; they come from sources, which you have judiciously paraphrased"   For a reviewer, too, it will be helpful.  S/he can simply say, "1(b)(ii), and 1(c)(iii)" That is sort of my line of thinking.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you are going, but the idea here is to not try to do everything at once, as then the discussion goes too many directions. We need to first get agreement as to whether the new 1f should even be added, before we can move on to broader adjustments to how reviews are done relative to the criterion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - as I've alluded to above, my opinion is that I will support this proposal if it's accompanied by a requirement for a dedicated "copyright review" somewhere on the FAC, similar to what we currently have for images and sourcing. And as requested by Gog the Mild. But if the line is just to be added as mere fluff, to be implemented on an ad hoc basis by normal reviewers, then I think it's redundant. It's already a given that reviewers must evaluate content policy when they review. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , my eventual proposal will be to revamp FAC reviews to a two-stage process, similar to how WP:FAR has operated for 15 years, to allow for a more deliberative approach to all sourcing/image/copyright issues. But before we can get to that, we need to establish whether people feel that the proposed 1f is a missing piece in the criteria. As Wikipedia works, if you try to do more than one thing at a time, you usually get nowhere, and I don’t want to get too far ahead of the game on this.  This proposal was intended only to see if editors concur that we should codify this one piece into the criteria before we look at a broader revamping of how we review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it's already included in the WP policy, then there's no reason to add it again here. The risk is an extra layer of guidelines, that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Also, as written above, I am wary that it will be interpreted as prohibiting longer quotations, which might be needed in a FA.Eccekevin (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey
WP:WIAFA currently has: A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.  It is:  well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.   

Proposed options for a new criteria, 1f, would be:

"Option A: f. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy: it contains content summarized from sources in Wikipedia's own words (except for brief quotations) and is free of plagiarism and too-close paraphrasing."

"Option B: f. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing."

The discussion above went through several clarifications and iterations, so I am starting a Survey section to attempt to define more clearly where everyone ended up after that discussion relative to the two options. (I hope I didn't miss anyone!). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I support the addition of 1f text in either form. If forced to choose one over the other, my first choice would be Option A, second choice, Option B, as I am just not aware of a Featured article that is based on an extensive reuse of text published elsewhere (not Wikipedia), and don't mind adding a requirement that a FA should be original to Wikipedia.  On the other hand, Option B works fine as well. There is no intent for this proposal to engage copying within Wikipedia. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that the problems with MOSQUOTE have been pointed out, and I have been reminded of DANFS (ship) FAs, I am switching my first choice to Option B, although I would also support Option A if the brief quotations wording was substituted with a "compliance with MOSQUOTE", linked to that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either. Prefer Option B as it is more concise, and I'm not against republication of freely licensed content assuming it meets the other FA criteria. (t · c)  buidhe  18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose option A, weak support option B. On option A, I don't think that's something we should mandate. I see an FA as being an article that gives readers a complete and well-written overview of the topic, while being compliant with Wikipedia's other policies. There is no policy against copying properly-attributed public domain or copyleft text from off-Wiki, and I don't see why we'd want to make FAs a special carve-out prohibiting something that's allowed elsewhere on the project. The reader is the focus here, not the editor or some nebulous concept of Wikipedia producing "original" material. Obviously there's the caveat that such material must be brilliant prose and must fully sum up the full body of knowledge on that topic, so in practice it might be quite rare that it would be appropriate. But I don't think prohibiting it is sensible. On the more general requirement to be copyright compliant (option B), I don't see much harm in it and happy to support that it others think it's useful. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First choice Option B, second choice Option A I interpret Option A as prohibiting long quotes, which in some cases might be appropriate in an FA. Option B covers the anti-plagiarism requirement without restricting longer quotes. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Longer quotes are arguably already ruled out by MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text". I am inclined to see that part of Option A as a restatement of existing MoS requirements. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The quotes issue came up very recently here. I think history and art history (and perhaps philosophy & literary etc criticism) are subjects where some longish quotes are sometimes necessary. I can't say I remember (m)any FAC battles on the issue.  Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support either wording and I would like to see some sort of copyright spot check codified into the criteria in the future, although that's another discussion for another time. Although with Option A, I can see maybe an exemption for very brief copy-paste from reliable PD sources such as DANFS being okay, although by the FA stage, most PD or freely licensed sources you're not going to be able to build FA material out of solely copy and pasting them. Hog Farm Talk 21:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A, weak support B A is simply another subjective baton which can be used to beat nominations to death using an imaginary word count to oppose because someone personally thinks quotes might be too long. B is tolerable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 21:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A. I don't see any reason for the extra constraints in A. I think B is unnecessary -- everything in it is already a requirement for FA.  Even if we wanted to add a requirement to do a copyright spot check (which I'm not all sure would be a good idea) we would not need B to do so, since copyright is a basic requirement for all articles.  I'm not going to oppose because I think it's harmless, but I think it would make no difference to FAC reviewing practice or to the articles that are promoted, so I don't see the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support either. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support B, neutral on A—B is certainly worth adding in; codifying standard expectations should always be encouraged. I'm not really sure what A brings other than lengthier wording and the more or less same idea but less concisely—especially because the Length criteria 4 already expects summary style, making "it contains content summarized from sources" meaningless, and "in Wikipedia's own words" seems to just be redundant. Aza24 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A, weak support B - Thoughts are...A is implicit anyway and covered by (or should be) source reviews, the proposal creates a new layer in an already clogged process; I also share Johnbod's [very real] concern re severe application of this against quotes in art history articles Which would flood FAR; while the same could be said of "critical reception" sections in music articles. Sometimes its best let the orig specialist expert author have their nuanced say, in quotes, with full att, rather than the -inevitably- clumsy wiki rephrase. Ceoil  (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose A, weak support B. A strikes me as an overreach, as has been said above. B seems okay, but I don't know that it's necessary to make this explicit: WP:COPYRIGHT is a policy, and necessarily applies to all pages; we don't need to make it a criterion unless we're planning on checking it specifically as we do source reliability, prose, and a few others. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose both If it's already included in the WP policy, then there's no reason to add it again here. The risk is an extra layer of guidelines, that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. Also, as written above, I am wary that it will be interpreted as prohibiting longer quotations, which might be needed in a FA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing
Are one of the Coords able to close this, or do we need to post to WP:AN for an uninvolved closer? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would prefer an uninvolved closer. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So ... should one of us/someone post to WP:AN? (In about a week?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Help submitting?
I got as far* as instruction #2, placing the template at the top of Talk:Marjorie Paxson. Instruction 3 says to click on initiate, but now I'm stuck with that open...instruction #4 says I'm supposed to sign below the preloaded title, but I don't know what the preloaded title is, and it already appears to be signed in two places, and it looks like it's asking me to fill in something about the article. Then the next instruction, #5...yeah, I've no idea what (substituting Number) is telling me to do because I have this giant blind spot in my ability to generalize subst from one template to the next. I have to learn how to subst from scratch for each new template. Does this want me to replace Number with "subst:", or to insert "subst:" between archive and Number, or what? —valereee (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

*If you don't count not knowing what I'm supposed to be using the toolbox for. Also the toolbox links 2, 3, and 4 are all 404.
 * If you click on the red "initiate the nomination" link a preloaded page will come up. All you need to do is finish the sentence "This article is about..." and save the page.  Then for step 5, you'll be adding  to the WP:FAC page -- this is just the name of the FAC candidate page the previous step creates. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! —valereee (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Australian Journal of Herpetology
This article is scheduled for a few days from now. However, I think that the title is inappropriate and does not cover the subject adequately. I have put a note on the telk page but otherwise not edited the article itself. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I agree; the latter (big) sections rarely even mention the article, and I note it wasn't discussed at the nomination, although the nom (pinging User:Bobamnertiopsis) touched on it themself (a journal published just four issues and a supplemental series between 1981 and 1985 before disappearing. However, behind these numbers is a wild story about two rogue researchers). To be honest, I think it's pretty obvious that, when most of our academic journals are often little more than stubs—including monoliths such as the AHR and EHR—the likelihood of a small, transient publication such as this having the gravitas to provide for a FA must be phenomenally small. Except, of course, if it has something WP:UNDUE to build on. Which of course this has. ——  Serial  16:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But this issue won't be resolved in time for TFA. I don't view that as a problem (TFA will bring a wider audience to help sort the matter), but we have some people at ERRORS who might, so .   Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. It's true that the article is largely focused on the Affair because that's what there's coverage of, so I suppose I'm not opposed to trying to rename and retool the article very slightly to being about the affair specifically. I'm not sure I have the time or wherewithal these next few days to do large rewrites beyond the lede but here's my proposal:
 * Rewrite lede to more specifically focus on the affair.
 * Move AJH infobox into first section, rename first section "Australian Journal of Herpetology and publication"
 * Retool wording slightly in the body so that the focus is less the journal and more the affair as a whole.
 * How does that sound? —Collint c 17:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds excellent, Collin; the section about the article itself can act as a kind of 'Background' section, and the rest of what you suggest flows from there. ——  Serial  17:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, that solves the problem. The article will still need a new tittle, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable; should you move the article pre-TFA, please be sure to ping the TFA Coords. (Events in articlehistory do NOT have to be moved; article milestones links to FAC etc work even if name changes.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Howdy, , et al., I've done a retool here, which I've reverted for now. Please let me know what you think. Kindly —Collint c 19:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I was just about to move the page :)  yeah, that looks good.  ——  Serial  19:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see some tweaking needed, but that can be done post-move. (WP:MSH The on sec 1.1, a wayward line that looks like a left-over short description, and more direct sentences could be used in the lead.). But I see no reason not to proceed with the move, then fix the little stuff.  The TFA Coords will need to rewrite the blurb.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For info, it was automatically move protected by TFAprotectorbot, so an admin will have to perform the move. Is there an admin in the house?!  ——  Serial  20:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * as he will have to do the blurb anyway, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm following the discussion. Let me know when there's something I'm needed to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, if you could move it to Wells and Wellington affair, please, and link to this page's consensus. Cheers, ——  Serial  20:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article is moved, don't forget to update the fair use rationale for the non-free image to reflect its use in the renamed location. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Moved. I've changed the recent list too and made a start on the blurb. Let me know what else I need to do. Feel free to edit the blurb yourselves or ping me when the lead has changed enough that it would be fruitful for me to change the blurb.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanking you ; lower-case 'affair' though, if you could. ——  Serial  22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also you do not have to move GA noms; the redirect worked, and showed that the GA nom was under a different name-- no need to do extra work! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved again, did the GA move before reading this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work, all! —Collint c 15:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential sources to be used for FA nomination
This is kinda following on from the subsection about the game I raised last month in the process of getting it to meet FAC, but thought it would best to make a new one. I have compiled several review articles for the game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered but I'm hesitant to start sourcing them if any are immediately refused by a reviewer for an FA nomination. I've had to do some digging as the article currently only uses a couple of reliable sources as there wasn't exactly a huge number of websites that reviewed the game, and was told in its peer review that one of these (Push Square) had a likely chance of not passing as a HQRS. I was also advised that an indication of a source's reliability/notability would depend on whether they were mentioned by other websites, if the website in question included an "About" section, and what title and previous work the article's author holds; generally, these new ones I've found passed each of these criteria. Would any reviewers be able to verify whether they could be used for an FA, or would it depend more on who's reviewing the article? I've linked them as follows:


 * Trusted Reviews
 * GQ
 * Thurrott
 * Hobby Consolas
 * Vandal


 * Indeed, a website that doesn't explain whether it has editorial oversight, and hasn't been referenced by reliable sources, is likely to be rejected at FAC. If you are getting a thorough review, then it does not depend on who is reviewing. I believe GQ would be acceptable source but I'm not familiar with the others. (t · c)  buidhe  15:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for February 2021
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 2021. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Mike, I eventually was in support of Featured article candidates/International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide/archive1; perhaps my wording confused the bot? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was the one confused, not the tool -- the declarations are manually harvested from the FAC archives, and I just missed or mistyped it. Fixed; let me know if you see any other errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had assumed they were the same stats as the nomination viewer shows. Manually harvested data make your stats that much more impressive. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Review subpages?
Is it appropriate to create to create subpages for an article review? I would like to highlight some passages from a book (in French, along with translations), but I don't want to clutter the review page, nor do I want to clutter the talk page, which seems to be where the review content is moving these days (per the Transclusion problem discussion above). My thought is to create a subpage and then put the book passages there. Brycehughes (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think the review talk page is fine for this, you could use something like Hidden or Collapse top if you are so inclined. Aza24 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper profiles-- (FA) high quality RS?
Hi all. I recently did a lot of work on Mildred Mottahedeh and I'm fairly confident I've incorporated the vast majority of coverage of her. I'm not ready for FAC (lots more polishing needed!) but given that it is built almost entirely on newspaper and journal profiles, some of which are not major publications, I was wondering whether they meet the FAC 1c definition of high quality RS before putting the effort into getting the article FA ready. There's not very much coverage of her in books, unfortunately. My FAs are usually built on reputable journals/books, so I'm not sure where the types of sources I've cited here fall on the quality spectrum. Curious to hear anyone's thoughts, Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC) (moved from Ealdgyth's talk for wider input)
 * There are a few considerations relevant to this question. First off, some of these definitely qualify as primary sources - eg the marriage announcement. I'd want to check that all of those are used in accordance with WP:PSTS. Second, when you're talking about newspaper and journal "profiles", are these likely to be subject to fact-checking, or are they likely to be puff pieces? WP:NEWSORG notes that human-interest pieces are generally less reliable. Third, do these not-major-publications have processes for fact-checking, or editorial policies at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my personal opinion, but I generally prefer to not use newspapers in FAs. They tend to often focus on "human interest" things of dubious reliability and when they discuss science, oversimplifications and misinterpretations are common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Newspapers also get historical information wrong all the time. But the high quality ones are usually OK for news as news if the topic is too recent or too obscure to have more scholarly retrospectives. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit, I think that in cases where high quality ones are usually OK for news as news if the topic is too recent I'd think "the topic is not settled enough to make a FA out of it". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've always considered news articles, even old ones and profile pieces, to be appropriate sources when used for basic facts and/or appropriately contextualized ("In 19XX, Mottahedeh claimed ..." or as you've used in one part of the article, "stated mission" etc.). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion problem (again)
Looks like FAR has stopped transcluding. Perhaps some FAs could be promoted or archived? Otherwise, maybe some of us should move resolved comments to the talk page. (t · c)  buidhe  22:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I write my reviews on the talk page to begin with, and then summarize them back to the FAC when all is dealt with. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/A Crow Looked at Me/archive1; then you can use all the done checkmarks you want, and not hold up the FAC page, and not make the Coords read through miles of back-and-forth just to end at Support.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am not seeing a truncated FAC page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I noincluded the entire review for my FAC, Greek case. Seems to have fixed it for now but that's not a long-term solution. What would stop this issue is people doing FAC reviews the way Sandy says. :) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I imagine the fact that we currently have a 95kb FAC, a 114kb FAC, and a 122kb FAR all transcluding onto the page right now is a notable part of it. Those are all very long pages.  The FAR in particular seems stuck in place. Hog Farm Talk 06:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hint, FA knowledgeable people ... feedback at the British Empire FAR would be helpful. (But, noting again ... it's not the size of the individual page as much as the tranclusions, and the British Empire FAR does not have a lot of transclusions because FAR is careful to not let that happen :) While Buidhe's just-archived very big FAC did have a lot of transclusion and segmented headings, causing problems-- and the problem was solved when Buidhe added the no includes to get them off the page, This indicates the British Empire FAR was not the problem.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we are again... despite my FAC being promoted, the transclusion issue has reoccurred. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Solved by noincluding one extremely old FAC (that needs to be archived) that is full of everything a FAC should not be/need not be filled with. Why?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that's unpleasant. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If people need to write so much on a FAC that they then need to add a “collapse” (which, along with the crazy segmentations of pages and green quoting that add to the template limits), then they should be moving that commentary to talk, or putting it on talk to begin with, or Opposing the FAC. But writing a book and then collapsing it ... why? And most of the FACs on the page are a month or more older. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here’s another one: Featured article candidates/Mysteries of Isis/archive1 has green quoted text inside a collapse box ... doubling and re-doubling the transclusions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable moving someone else's comments to talk, but the thread can't be resolved further due to an editor being banned for unrelated reasons. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I would feel comfortable with it being archived. Per IAR, if there's ever a time that ignoring a rule (in this case WP:TPO) would be an active benefit to the project this is it. And since they have been site-banned by Arbcom, they will be unlikely to edit again for at least a year. ——  Serial  13:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we have Featured article candidates/Lips Are Movin/archive3 looking like a children’s coloring book. Coords can move things to talk, or they can assign assistants to do so.  It only takes a few reminders for people to get the hint that you CAN use the talk page if a FAC is so ill-prepared that you need to write a book, or if you think people can’t read a quote without it being in blue or red.  As to moving people’s comments to talk— if THEY are causing later FACs or FARs to be truncated, why defer?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Scroll down the entire FAC page (after you wait for it to load because it is so large) and notice the number of segmented pages (those add to the transclusions) and the amount of green. Reviewers are going to have to understand that if they persist in adding segmented headings to pages that are routinely staying on the page for over a month, then the green and blue quoting will have to go.  Or, if they are going to write books at FAC in lieu of Opposing, they can use the talk page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, I would like to apologize if my FAC has caused any of these problems. I will ensure this does not happen again.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 13:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to apologize for doing what seems to be all the rage these days at FAC (that is, following suit); but it seems that something has to be done to draw people’s attention to the fact that these practices harm other FACs when they cause them to be cut off. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem
The FAC instructions are still telling people that:"The only templates that are acceptable are,, and ; templates such as that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and and , used to hide offtopic discussions." But even these are causing problems now because they are added to all of the other things that put us over the limit: So that is four problems (the templates themselves being added to by the other three). The page is really slow to load now, too. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Pinging other editors.
 * 2) Extreme sub-heading of pages, where everyone needs their own section these days
 * 3) FACs lasting longer and longer adding to the overall page length.
 * I think we should start recommending that editors place lengthy comments on the FAC talk page and then link back to their section on the main FAC page. The FAC talk page will be able to hold a lot of commentary, you can use sections there without concern, and pinging, collapsing, etc won't be of concern. It might be unpopular with some, but the only other feasible alternative IMO is to more aggressively archive FACs, which would be even less popular.  Or just have the page break, which won't benefit anyone. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done that in the past, and have read FACs where I have to go to the talk page to get the whole picture, and on the whole I'm not a fan. I like to be able to read through and get a picture as I go.  I don't mind uncollapsing sections to see what's in them.  I know Sandy doesn't like long FACs, but that's the culture these days, and I don't think we can unilaterally put any length limit on FACs.  I agree some FACs could be archived sooner, and I'd rather see that as the solution.  Plus I don't think this problem is frequent enough to require dramatic action yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just checking archives for something unrelated and it has become a regular problem. But the worse problem (of which this is just a symptom) is that FACs are stalled on the page when they could be at peer review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Mike re not being a fan of FAC comments anywhere other than on the FAC page. Trying to hold all of the information on a long FAC in my tiny head is tricky enough even when it is all in one place. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If the FACs were not all so long they have become peer reviews, you wouldn’t have to hold it all in your head :). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to make it common practice to bring comments to the talk page(s). I really think for the time being an easy solution (which I can only assume has been suggested before) would be to not transclude WP:FAR on the same page; while related on the topic of "Featured articles" I would think the large majority of editors who go to FAC do not scroll down to WP:FAR. And as we know the coordinators are different, as are the timelines and processes. If it's removal means those who do scroll down to it on the same page have to click an extra link, or type "WP:FAR" into the search bar, I don't think that's enough inconvenience to be worried about... In general WP:FAR, is independent and active enough (far more so than WP:FTRC or WP:FLRC) that it makes complete sense to not treat it as an extension of FAC by including it at the bottom. Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We’ve covered this before. FAR is not causing a problem; FAR (or better stated, the absence of FAR) is alerting FAC to when FAC has a problem (that will repeat in archives if not addressed).  FAR falling off the page affects no one, but better FAR falls off the page so we know FACs are too long, then the final FACs fall off the page and no one knows they are gone. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "problem" is becoming too ambiguous. We're tackling two different "problems" here that have seemingly been conflated; the technical limits of transclusion (which can probably be addressed by removing FAR) and the more practical issue of FACs being too long. It's hard for me to sympathize with the latter; since I am using the (readily available) nomination viewer I don't really agree that nominations are "too long". If the "problem" is the culture in FAC reviews being too nit-picky and resulting in large swaths of small comments, again I don't see why the (supposably addressable) technical limits should be used to justify why that's a bad thing. My nomination was long and nitpicky, but not once did I think of that as a negative thing; surely such a nomination is the sign of a good FA, otherwise I would think rather than many comments on small things, there would have been few comments on big things. Aza24 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too long FAs are absolutely a problem making it very difficult to see what's going on, review or engage, regardless of whether nomination viewer is used or not. Furthermore, the FAC page should be understandable and easy to navigate for those who do not have any special tools installed.
 * Removing FAR would not solve any issues since if it doesn't transclude we at least know that there's an issue before FACs stop displaying. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aza24, regardless of how all of the (different) problems are solved it is important to understand that removing FAR will not solve them, as FAR transclusions are not the problem; they reveal when FAC has a problem, which is a helpful thing! Without FAR falling off the page, we would not have an indication that FACs are reaching the limit. We only know because of FAR.  Remove FAR, and we will only know if the last FAC on the page happens to notice.  Separately, I disagree that long FACs are a technical problem only; the technicalities are the least of the problem.  If FACs are so long that we can’t attract reviewers and we can’t discern quality or even if everything has been addressed or looked at, with FACs focusing more and more on prose nitpicking— all of that is reflected in length and is a much bigger problem than anything else. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Removing FAR just kicks the can down the road. It doesn't appear that FAR takes up enough space that removing it would be a permanent solution; rather, FAR is just the straw that broke the camel's back. If we remove FAR, that's a one-time trick to remove a little space.  It does us nothing long-term if the trend of increasingly heavy FAR FAC transclusion load keeps up. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean heavy FAC load, as it is the FAC page that is longer and longer, and stalled, which FAR is not ???? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a typo on my part. I meant to say FAC.  I need some caffeine. Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too long FAs would be less of a problem, if all of the things that make them navigable (like subheadings) are being actively discouraged. Relying on FAR as a buffer is not a reasonable solution, are we sure there are no other ways to detect when the transclusion limit has been reached then to wait for the next FAR to disappear? Regardless, I still don't see why FAR should be at the bottom of FAC, template limits or not. Another solution (which I assume has been brought up—I really have no motivation to read through the massive archived threads) would be to configure reviews that are too long to not transclude, in the same manner that PR is done—which works rather nicely there. Aza24 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that’s been suggested before —- I certainly haven’t heard about it. How does it work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mike, you might not be understanding; we’ve discussed every time this comes up doing what PR and GA do ... they don’t transclude the pages. They don’t keep archives or records either. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's what PR does, as far as I can tell, when reviews get too long it does not transclude it to the main page and displays "This review is too large to display here. Please go to the review directly." instead. So when the reviews are not too long, it does transclude pages. If adopted here, I would think we could customize it to our own purposes. Is there a way to detect when the transclusion limit is reached? If so, we might be able to configure it to not transclude the oldest or perhaps longest nomination when the limit is reached. Though I'm not too well technically-versed in PR's process. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We do have some technical people who might know that answer (I don’t, but you can read the archives). But we should take care in solving the issue (that FAC has turned into lengthy peer reviews) that FAC doesn’t lose its scarcest commodity (reviewers) as it encourages solutions that will lend to even lengthier peer reviews.  The division at FAC has always been along the lines of those who believe that ill-prepared nominations should be moved off the page sooner so they can be repaired and return sooner (more stars, better prepared by off-FAC review with less pressure), and those who seem to believe no article is so bad that it can’t be pulled through at FAC, and that FAC’s purpose is to nitpick and nitpick until you pull them through.  And that does not result in excellence. (I offer the peer review of The Heart of Thomas as a great example of how the process should work. A less-than-ready FAC got a serious grilling at PR, and came back to what will be a quicker and successful FAC.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're talking about making a huge change to the culture of FAC (and PR) reviewing in general, which would certainly take quite a bit of time. So regardless of if that occurs or not, at the moment, we have a reoccurring transclusion problem that's not going to wait for such a time to come. And until then it seems our solutions are to move stuff to the talk page (which has already been subtly opposed by three users) or configure FAC like PR (which it doesn't seem like you'll even consider!) FAC should not be so fragile that we have to move comments to the talk page so that FAR doesn't disappear at the bottom of the page... Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh ???? I am anything but the one talking about changing the culture ... I guess I’m not understanding your meaning. Glance at the instructions at FAC; articles are supposed to be prepared when they appear here, and we are supposed to a) not segment pages and b) comment, support or oppose.  Not nitpick and peer review.  With a result that is not working judging on diversity and throughput. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, as you've pointed out, the de facto practices of FAC reviewing are clearly not aligned with the ones dictated by the rules. These de facto practices are the current culture of FAC, so by realigning them, you are hence aiming to "change the culture"—I don't think this is an unreasonable perspective. Do note, that I'm not trying to imply your "changing the culture" intentions are negative ones... Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aza24, I have an idea. Rather than talking about the transclusion limits problem again, how about if we all talk about how we envision FAC functioning ... just a free-form conversation with no aim or end or change or goal in mind, so that we can all try to understand why we end up at odds over tranclusions, when we are really at odds over how we see FAC functioning at its optimum point.  Are you game?  We aren't proposing anything, just trying to understand each other's POV ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See below. Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Short answer (longer answers covered many times); how would you handle the FAC archives? We keep records, which PR doesn’t need.  Our first indication that we had a tranclusion limits problem years ago was when FACs fell off the bottom of our archives.  By doing what you suggest, the problem just moves from this page to the FAC archives. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Confused, PR does keep archives (and records) though, if not, what is this? Aza24 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does Peer review have a page like Featured log, archived nominations, or WP:Featured article statistics? Perhaps they do and I’m not aware, but since there is no outcome to PR (featured or archived), how could they? For example, the 54 FAs at Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2010 are part of our official log— stuff that Mike Christie uses to track data.  Those logs hit the limits if we don’t solve them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't know that PR's transclusion idea can't be adapted here. Plus we're not talking about copying PR's process, merely stealing an extremely small part of it, e.g. how they transclude nominations. I urge you to be a little more optimistic on the prospect, considering we haven't heard from any technically-versed users on its feasibility. Aza24 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK ... how do we handle our record keeping? (We have heard from our technical people many times over many years, multiple discussions in archives ... I am not trying to put you off, it’s just that we are covering ground we have been over so many times. How do we handle archives, and how do we encourage reviewers to engage lengthy FACs that are ill-prepared and off-putting ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am certainly aware of the annoyance I am likely causing you, Buidhe and others, though my proposition of adopting PR's transclusion practices is solely to address the technical problem. And once again, I don't know where your assumption is coming from that doing so would instantly compromise the archiving and statistics keeping practices of the current process. Is this really something we know for sure? Surely it is harmless to ping and ask, Tom, is adopting a similar transclusion from PR to FAC (in order to avoid template limits) a feasible and realistic idea? Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't know ... that's why I pose it as a question. How would you solve the fact that the transcluded limits problem would simply move from WP:FAC to the FAC archives? How would we handle the record keeping that is an essential part of the FA process?  Peer review has no "outcome"; FAC does-- either archived or promoted, and that matters, and our records matter. And how would you retain reviewers who don't want to be sucked in to the back-and-forth required of FACs that have become lengthy peer reviews?  Because some reviewers won't do that, quality declines ... that's why I think we could all progress if we tried to understand why the others feel the way they do ... how we each view that FAC should function, and why we won't engage if FAC is an extended peer review. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how to respond, this is getting too multifacated. As was the core of my first comment—the technical issues are getting combined with the future of FAC, making it difficult to talk about either. I would be happy to discuss in a new thread as you've proposed, though I don't think you I am properly communicating that I don't have any strong opposition to a lot of what you're saying, I'm merely trying to address the technical issue so we can move on to the more important "future of FAC" one. If you recall, I've shamelessly supported your proposal that is in the works, so it seems that we share a similar view of what FAC should look like already. I really think there is no harm in at least considering the possibility of not transcluding the longest or oldest FACs to appease the template limit for the time being. I am surprised at what seems to be a reluctance in contemplating it—especially since, as we've agreed, it is clear that there are many unknowns to such an idea... Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don’t know what to contemplate until a) someone explains how we handle archives, and b) how we retain reviewers who don’t want to waste resources on being drawn into long back-and-forth peer reviews, while worthy FACs go without the reviews they deserve. We can’t separate the two; length of FACs is related to the quality and quantity we turn out. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don’t know what to contemplate until a) someone explains how we handle archives, and b) how we retain reviewers who don’t want to waste resources on being drawn into long back-and-forth peer reviews, while worthy FACs go without the reviews they deserve. We can’t separate the two; length of FACs is related to the quality and quantity we turn out. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I am one of the reviewers who makes the nitpicky comments mentioned above. When I came to FAC a couple months ago, I assumed reviewers were supposed to point out small grammar problems in their prose review (among other concerns). I assumed this was done for two reasons: 1) FAs were supposed to be at an almost-perfect quality and 2) It shows the FAC co-ords that you actually reviewed the article and are not just posting a drive-by support. I am happy to move my comments to a talk page, while posting on the FAC something like: "Comments have been posted on the talk page and are currently being assessed" or "Support, per comments on the talk page." However, said above that they want all the comments in one place. I am going to keep doing what I'm doing until the co-ords suggest I change how I review, as they are the ones who have to read my comments. I am reluctant to oppose an FAC because of the nominator pushback, I am still new and do not think I have the authority to oppose, and I want editors to have positive opinions of me when I post my FAC later this year. I suggest a third option at FAC called "Send to PR". If three editors say an article needs significant work then the nomination is closed and a PR is immediately opened to address the concerns. The three editors are expected to engage in the PR and check the article when the nominator says the problems have been addressed. Once three editor's concerns are solved, the article can come back to FAC with hopefully three editors lending their support. If an editor is not willing to engage in a PR, then they should not post the "Send to PR" option. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I scrolled through the entire WP:FAC page at 00:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC) and counted ~315 transclusions of just tq and xt. To show how much of a problem this is, consider this tansclusion by Willbb234:  That alone contributes 510 bytes to the template limit. Even just Foo uses 208 bytes of the limit. If we assume these templates use 359 bytes (i.e., the value between the real example and the one word example), the green-text templates alone take up 5% of the WP:PEIS template limit.  takes up 130 bytes, and that template is used about 144 times (based on searching for "@" using ctrl-f) meaning ping alone takes up, at minimum, 0.89% of the template limit. For comparison, the entire review at Featured article candidates/Battle of Marais des Cygnes/archive1 (chosen at random) takes up 19,337 bytes of the template limit, or 0.92% of the limit. Telling reviewers to stop using xt alone would allow almost 5 additional reviews to be transcluded. Leaving user talk messages instead of using pings would allow an entire additional review to be transcluded. There are lots of potential solutions, but 5% of the template limit is going to making green text. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank. You. That is what I tried to point out when I started “The Problem” section.  We can all read without the green and blue right?  We should just change the instructions to remind people to stop transcluding and pinging, period.  If you have opined on a FAC, you should have it watched, and if you can write a Featured article, you don’t need color coding to read a quote. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Eliminating use of text colorization would provide a more sustainable solution at cutting down on the accumulation towards the transclusion limit.  The fact that small templates alone are adding about 5x as much as the fairly representative Marais des Cygnes review shows that the cost-benefit relationship of colorization is not enough to warrant having them drive the page over the limit. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That all feels like adjusting the deckchairs while the Titanic is sinking. Surely all it takes is one or two more nominations to completely wipe out any benefit from removing these templates?  Either something radical needs to be done which will practically ensure the limit is not exceeded or these kinds of suggestions (while useful in the very short term) are simply firefighting.  As for moving some review comments to somewhere else, that is a terrible idea.  And FACs are always going to attract a lot of review comments, especially these days when it's mainly about adherence to subjective elements of MOS in minutiae.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We would be better off if more reviewers focused on content and fewer on prose and MOS nitpicking. You can always edit the article under review and make the fixes yourself. (t · c)  buidhe  08:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The process is lucky to attract reviewers and should be grateful for any comments really. FACs are left to die with no interest these days, it's almost got to the point that any review is better than no review and we can't dictate what people may wish to comment on.  That would simply drive them even further away from an already creaking process. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * For whatever it's worth, WP:FAC is fine on my main Mac but on my older Mac (currently using), which is probably still better than the avg reading device, the page is totally unusable. Takes too long to load, but mainly even when it loads it's too laggy to browse, or scroll up and down, generally just falling back to a blank white page. I think this is mainly due to the sheer size of the page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Peer review transclusion limits
Hello all, thank you for pinging me about this interesting discussion. I am not an FA regular but can shed some light on the PR side of thing. At peer review we get all sorts of editors and many who have not used the peer review process before. Around 2015 we started to get some hourly messages on the talk page that the "transclusion limit has been reached". As I think the only active technical editor it turned out on further exploration that there is this whole size limit to how much can be transcluded and if the limit is exceeded the page won't load properly :(. I changed the pages so that reviews over a certain length only display a link to that review (see WP:PR as an example). My reasoning was: A positive outcome was that I could also remove some old instructions for use of images and so forth. In my mind these are needless rules that most editors aren't aware of and it is an unwelcome intrusion into their editing and reviewing experience to have these kind of rules enforced. I suspect it would probably deter some editors and moreover, it is quite time consuming to enforce. My opinion is that this has probably been one of a few changes that have increased the activity in peer review by helping direct attention to new reviews and making it less cumbersome to review.
 * 1) Longer reviews are well attended so don't need as much publicising on the main venue
 * 2) Longer reviews are still accessible to interested editors who can click on those pages and watch them
 * 3) It was not practical at peer review to have an editor closely monitor reviews to quickly remove 'finished' reviews and avoid the limit. We simply don't have that much time or energy (see my previous Signpost post regarding this, it can sometimes be quite lonely).
 * 4) It was least restrictive than the alternative, which was to more closely police template use, image use, and decrease the acceptable timespan for reviews.
 * 5) There are different editing styles, and different ways people want to respond to peer reviews (e.g. by topic area, duration, whether its answered, or by skimming the list)

Thinking about the problem of transclusion size being reached, there are some other potential workarounds possible using either templates or bot modifications or both. In general I feel these can be fairly simply established and, like at PR, it is possible to make different pages of active reviews based on the same master list. Examples of workarounds include:
 * 1) A listing of only the intro to the review, and then a link to the actual review
 * 2) A listing of the first paragraph of each review page
 * 3) A separate 'full' page for all reviews and 'barely attended' review page (pick your title) for reviews less than a certain length (will also act as a backup page)
 * 4) An 'unanswered' page that displays unanswered reviews
 * 5) A listing that displays only reviews that haven't yet had image or source checks

Hope this sheds some light and provides food for thought. My mind bursts with possibilities. Please ping me if you want me to reply. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the "too large to display here" option. If we did that, how easy would it be to tweak the size as we figure out what would work best? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * could you clarify three things while we have your attention?
 * Where is this old Signpost article you mention?
 * Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Special report
 * You say: Around 2015 we started to get some hourly messages on the talk page that the "transclusion limit has been reached". As far as I know, part of our problem is that we do not get (have never gotten) any such message:  all we get is that part of the page disappears.  Am I wrong?  Were you the only technical person dealing with this, or can someone else clarify?
 * These messages were placed by the bot that used to manage peer review
 * You say: My opinion is that this has probably been one of a few changes that have increased the activity in peer review by helping direct attention to new reviews and making it less cumbersome to review. I am not sure I agree; or at least, I am not sure I agree in the case of the subset of peer reviews that I see (the pre-FAC).  Until you put together, and I started populating, Template:FAC peer review sidebar, there was no discernible difference in the utilization of peer review.  And I am still having to do all the work to populate it manually and advertise it frequently, to try to convince FAC people to engage pre-FAC peer reviews. I don’t see that the other changes made at PR had any effect, and PR is still severely underutilized compared to historical levels (run down that column at WP:FAS). The pre-FAC PRs are getting traffic via me badgering, but each time I click on a non-FAC PR, I find it empty.
 * You might be right, as this is just my personal feeling. I suspect that there have been more reviews requested over time since these and some other changes have been made. Objective evidence can be found in the category (Category:Old requests for Wikipedia peer review) but is complicated by the fact that many old reviews were incorrectly recorded as being closed in November 2018 due to a script problem. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Code of Hammurabi/archive1
this lengthy, line-by-line prose review with too many tq templates to count will be the next FAC to cause the entire page to exceed template limits as discussed above. This kind of extensive prose analysis can be done on article talk, or the article can be recommended for peer review. Could you consider moving resolved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Code of Hammurabi/archive1 to avoid stalling the entire FAC page ? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The FAC page is once again very slow loading because of extremely lengthy FACs, the number of FACs overall, and excess use of templates: many of those templates are yours on several FACs. Might you reduce your use to the tq template or move resolved prose issues to talk? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar per excess templates in several FACs from and ; if you could lessen the use of greenification via templates, the page would not be so burdened to load. With the page like this, we will soon hit template limits again, and it is very few reviewers who are still using the tq (it seems to be a MILHIST thing). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Other than that, I have finally caught up enough after my computer repair to get through Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and thought I would do some FAC reviewing. One look at what the page has become is nothing but discouraging and off-putting; no idea where to even start, and lost interest.  Lengthy prose review can easily go on article talk or FAC talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly I saw somewhere that "the only allowed templates are collapse top, tq, xt, etc." which I why I used them freely. So maybe that advice could be changed. Not familiar with how transclusion limits are reached but in any case I'll compress my comments in general (nicer that way anyway). Anyway, going cold turkey on . Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ovinus; I get a partial white screen when I try to load FAC. The explanation of the template limits issues is above (but lengthy :). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry SandyGeorgia, I've only recently started reviewing FACs again and wasn't aware there was an issue with page size. It's been a long time since I had previously and the green text template was commonly used for quotations then.  I find it useful in differentiating the article text from my comments.  What I'll do in the future is add the template text to the talk page not the main review page, I'll nip through now and move the ones already on there - Dumelow (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most kind of you, ; thanks! Not only has the number of FACs spiraled out of control here, but the size of each individual FAC has as well, so that what was not a problem before, now is.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like I won't be reviewing much for a while, either, as the page no longer loads on my rural internet. I either get a time-out error or it won't let me scroll.  Any way to install nominations viewer without going through the FAC page? as I'd like to keep track of FACs, but currently can't. You would think 17 Mbps would be enough to run the FAC page Hog Farm Talk 05:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I just looked at (appearing here with every good intention of doing my part now that I have caught up), I think that the FAC process has completely lost its way. Where is Laser brain to shut them down at two weeks if there is no consensus, so we can at least see where to begin to review? Template limits or not, FAC is no longer about reviewing for the criteria; it’s about line-by-line pulling them through with extreme off-putting length. If prose isn’t ready, the FACs should be opposed, withdrawn and sent to peer review. How could anyone or why would anyone want to engage FAC pages longer than articles?  It’s sad to see how burdened and stalled the page is, with FAC after FAC going nowhere.  Sorry for the whine, but this is the most depressing state of FAC I have ever seen.  And that makes me really sad. There are 34 older nominations and at Ted Kazynski, my screen goes white, and I wait.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to make it general practice that resolved (those that lead to a support or oppose) detailed reviews get moved to the talk page and that everybody can do the move once the boldfaced opinion is in? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much easier for those who habitually do ultra-long prose reviews to put them on the talk page to begin with, and then post to the main FAC page if they support. I’ve been messing around with noincludes, and even tried removing FAR, but that didn’t work; there are too many, too old, ultra-long FACs on the page.  In the past (ahem) Coords (um, delegates) would move ultra-long reviews to the talk page themselves. Or restart the FAC. Right now, the page is not workable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Earlier in this discussion, somebody objected to the idea of putting all comments on the talk page, but that really seems to be the only viable option if it's this bad. It would make sense to me if each reviewer added a bullet point indicating that they're commenting, then linking that to a corresponding section in the FAC talk page, then changing the bullet-point text to say "support" or "oppose" upon reaching a decision. (As for the role that Mysteries of Isis played in this mess, I apologize for it and would like to clean up that page, but I'm reluctant to move reviewers' comments to the talk page myself without a consensus.) A. Parrot (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with A Parrot above. Gog the Mild said they prefered everything on the FAC page. While I agree that users should move stuff to the nomination talk page, I don't want to start that until say they are OK with it. Also, I really hope the FAC co-ords will remove the sentence starting with "The only templates that are acceptable..." from the instructions. These extra templates are causing problems on the page and are unnecessary. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think Gog the Mild’s preferred system is working? WP:FAS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lengthy prose nitpicking and review belong, eg, here: Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2 and Peer review/The Heart of Thomas/archive1. If an article needs extensive commentary to pull it through, it’s not FAC ready, and should be sent to PR.  Once  did that, they got a quick (well, for these days) FAC promotion upon return— a better outcome for all, including the article the nominator and the process.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. I am also not a co-ordinator and I don't know what info or process they need to decide to archive/pass a nomination. If we implement changes that slow down the FAC process more, we will be right back to where we started. That's why I'm hoping the FAC co-ords will comment and support these changes. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it be possible to organize this page more like the GAN page? Or at least have a secondary page? Sorry for any trouble I've caused with the template: I'll limit their use from now on. ~ HAL  333  13:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perennial discussion: please read the archives. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Alternate ... Coords, appoint some delegates empowered to go through and move lengthy prose reviews to FAC talk at the first sign of them occurring, and properly link them back to the FAC. The purpose of FAR is to evaluate whether nominated articles meet WP:WIAFA 1, 2, 3 and 4; comments on the FAC should be specifically addressing those, yea or nay, not pulling prose issues up to standard.  FAC has lost its way and is becoming (in more ways than this one) an unviable process.  Prose can be reviewed elsewhere.  To promote an article, Coords need to know if an article meets 1, 2, 3 and 4.  If they or anyone thinks they need to know whether someone thinks a comma goes here or there, or this word is better than that word, then FAC is truly lost.  This problem is easily solved if a) either prose nitpickers will put their comments on talk to begin with, or b) oppose the nomination early on, or c) Coords will appoint a few people empowered to go through and get the prose reviews with their considerable greenification off the page.  FAC is no longer working; take action.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Sandy's option C. Furthermore, these delegates should move nitpicky and minor concerns to the talk pages once the concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don’t start !voting — talking first about the problems works better. When I was delegate, I had three trusty sidekicks who were empowered to do this sort of thing. It worked. But what worked MUCH better was “oppose early, oppose often”.  As soon as we start moving some of these peer reviews to talk, we will establish ... FAC as peer review ... they should be the RARE exception, not the norm. The Coords can’t close FACs that are getting premature support on prose nitpicks alone.  By the way, I am no longer going to try to negotiate this page when it takes an hour to figure out where to help.  If anyone has a) put their nomination through peer review first, or b) engaged a collaborative team effort on article talk, and c) has a good review-to-nomination ratio per Mike Christie’s FAC stats tool, and d) received a source review, please drop a note on my talk page and I will happily review your FAC.  What is going on massively on this page now is not FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I struck out my !vote above, to keep conversations going. I don't like declaring oppose at FAC because of its negative connotation. That's why I think a "Send to PR" option would be better than "oppose." Sending to PR tells the nominator, "Not yet, let's fix it up" instead of, "No, oppose, rejected."
 * On a separate topic, I am not reviewing older nominations because I don't know what is needed. For example: does Bajadasaurus, open since January 2, need a source review, a non-expert review, an expert review, or for reviewers to revisit the article to see if their concerns have been addressed? Having a note from the co-ords on what is missing (or a note that says "Image review and expert review have been completed" at the top of the nom) would allow me to specifically review when is missing to move the FAC forward. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree generally on both counts, but also disagree. While it's commendable that Gog pings reviewers for what is needed, that method is also perpetuating the very illness we need to cure, and rewarding lengthy off-topic FACs. Reviewers can no longer read a FAC and see what is missing, so now we expect Coords to spoonfeed it to us ???? FACs have become so unrelated to the purpose of FAC, that one cannot tell what has been reviewed and what has not.  I see there are other issues occurring at Bajadasaurus that are a different part of FAC's decline.  If the Coords and FAC participants won't deal with that, well then, we can expect the process to continue to decline. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh, I think that there are a number of FACs that are open that have a clear consensus to promote, but are not being closed. Apollo 12, for instance. At a point, the coords just need to end the review -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 16:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Coords can tell us why that is happening; 'tis a mystery to me what the driving factors and expectations are at the current version of FAC, to the extent that I questioned Gog on talk about why The Heart of Thomas was not closed when it had solid review and five supports. I still don't understand.  We have three Coords processing one-third of the volume of a decade ago; I wish they would explain why they aren't promoting and archiving faster, and why they aren't keeping FACs on track, and dealing with the belligerents who are stalling FACs, as well as the issue of lengthy prose reviews while the rest of the criteria go unreviewed and they have to ping to request it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Similarly, Yazid I has received an image review, a source review, and three supports, yet it hasn't been closed. A. Parrot (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If we don't want to "turn FAC into PR", then Z1720's suggestion of adding a "send to PR" option seems like the most viable fix. I can't speak for the coordinators, but expecting them to push detailed prose critiques onto the talk page puts an extra burden on them, and while "oppose early, oppose often" may have worked once, reviewers have drifted away from it for a reason, whatever that may be, and we're not going to change the behavior of every reviewer overnight. Sending to peer review provides a middle option. The downside is the possibility that PR becomes a dumping ground, but if the reviewers who !vote "send to PR" put in the same amount of work on the resulting PR page that they would have put in here, the system could remain viable. A. Parrot (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

FA/FL review visual and accessibility checks
Do FA/FL reviews (or FA/FL policy) incorporate visual/accessibility checks for articles on different devices (different screen resolutions)? This question stems from the fact the pageviews.toolforge.org allows us to see views from both desktop and mobile devices? Take for example the FL Timeline of Jane Austen, the map of England (Template:Jane Austen Map) becomes a mess on a smartphone device with regard to all the overlay wikilinks. As per the pageviews tool, the majority of viewers on Austen's article come from mobile platforms. So all these users would be seeing a distorted version of the map and wikilinks. (I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask this so shift accordingly please). DTM (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the Austen stuff is more than ten years old. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  10:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question, both FAC and FLC now require adherence to MOS which includes MOS:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 11:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Austen map in particular may be an unavoidable problem; visual templates are notoriously badly-functional with mobile devices. Most (all navboxes and authority control templates, for example) don't even appear in the first place—I'm surprised this one does. Aza24 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity
A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:
 * Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
 * Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
 * Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
 * List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
 * Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.
 * History


 * Progress

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.
 * How can you help?


 * Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs
 * WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.
 * Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.


 * Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Feedback

FA and GA icons proposal
Village_pump_(proposals) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Article improvement newsletter -- thoughts, objections?
Technically this is more WT:FA, but I understand much more happens on this page, so I'm raising a word here. I'm playing with the idea of starting an article improvement newsletter with a twist -- that is, rather than solely dealing with a single type of article, it would discuss all of "low-quality articles in need of improvement to an acceptable minimum", "acceptable articles that could be brought to GA/FA with some work", and "GA/FA articles that are in need of extra eyes or currently undergoing GAR/FAR". Would anyone here be interested in such a newsletter, and more to the point, does anyone have objections to or concerns about such a newsletter? (Mentioning this on WT:GA as well.) <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but "all of "low-quality articles in need of improvement to an acceptable minimum"" is most of WP, or a huge part anyway. But I'm in favour of publicizing the more highly-viewed of these, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The last of the three options would be nice, if there were uptake on it. As Johnbod points out, the first of these would be a very big pool. My concern would be with regards to the second, unless it were limited to pages no one is actively working on. Some people are good at active push-towards-FA-type collaborations, and some cause more problems than they solve - not deliberately, but just in terms of stepping on each others' toes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not really understanding the scope of the newsletter, as 99% of the Encyclopedia would qualify. There is no effort to maintain GAs that I am aware of, and the pool of FAs is already undergoing scrutiny and as much improvement as editors have the time for.  I specifically want to endorse Nikkimaria's point, having recently seen many instances of editors who are not well versed in FA standards doing more harm than good, and stepping on the toes of those who are versed in the standards.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the second category, caution regarding collaboration is something I'm acutely aware of myself -- there are a lot more unmaintained than maintained articles, and so I have no interest in listing articles someone is 'looking after' already over those that need people looking after them. "99% of the encyclopedia" is indeed a broad scope, isn't it? -- but there have been quite popular initiatives of this type in the past. "No effort to maintain GAs currently" is in fact one of the gaps I'm interested in covering, in the sense of getting more people to look at older uncurated GAs (possibly to the point of a new sweep if indicated). <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Four Award and Triple Crown reviewing
If anyone wants to watchlist Four Award or Triple Crown/Nominations, the reviewing processes require care but aren't rocket science (especially compared to FAC) and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. They might only get a nomination each per month but there's only a couple of us that have been reviewing recently and sometimes they threaten to fall off my watchlist and get forgotten. Four Award/Instructions lays out the Four Award process in full detail and for Triple Crown you need to (if awarding) add to the right table (remove from the old one if upgrading), give a talk page award template to the recipient and update the (cumulative) tallies on the main page. Drop me a message if you have questions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for March 2021
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Responding to nominations
Hi. I'd nominated an article for FAC four days ago (my first I might add) and received no responses from users since, yet I've noticed all other recent nominations have (often being replied to within the day). Perhaps having a nomination go unnoticed for some time is a rare occurrence, but it just seems weird to me. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, you may want to ask on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games. Only thing I note is that the advice on Copyediting_reception_sections appears to have been applied to this page already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors often review articles they are interested in, which means some articles take longer to get reviews. Others only review on weekends, so let's see what happens in the next few days. I suggest contacting the editors that commented in the PR and ask them to review the article for FAC. I also suggest that you also review FACs: some editors review articles where the nominator has also conducted reviews, and fewer articles in the FAC queue means your article is more likely to be noticed. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:FApages § Reader-facing issues
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:FApages § Reader-facing issues. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Help requested at atheism
There's a fantastic editor updating atheism, an FA from 2007, but the article has lots of sections and the editor has requested help. suggested that I post this request here. Does anyone know of religion/philosophy experts who would be willing to lend a hand? I hope we can keep this star. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * might potentially be interested. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125; How kind of you to think of me. I have skimmed through most of the article and while I find some flaws - for example, some of the "arguments" are more definitions than arguments - even so, it is an excellent article overall, and I am left wondering on what basis its FA could possibly be threatened.
 * The focus of this article is pretty tightly limited, which is not a bad thing since this is a really broad topic. There are things it leaves out, and things it could cover a bit better, but that's a criticism applicable to every article on WP of necessity. Granted it's written from an atheist perspective. It makes no claims to presenting opposing arguments, but that's part of that tight focus, I think. It's about atheism, so it sticks to atheism. Beyond that, I am hard-pressed to see what this article needs.
 * Z1720 I have an undergrad degree in world religion and another (it's easier to get a second one) in philosophy. I went to grad school at Vanderbilt - for a very short time - to study ethics, and had to leave to have surgery and lost my scholarship. I never finished my PhD. None of this qualifies me as an expert, but I am a diligent and dedicated researcher, with some background in these topics, a willing worker, and I love WP.
 * If you would like my participation in spite of my non-expert status, I am more than happy to help. Off the top of my head, the religion section, and the New Atheism section, and some of the arguments, would be up my alley — if those are things the requesting editor is interested in me doing. But I will include actual arguments from both sides, and that will broaden the POV outside its existing narrow focus, and I understand if the other editor might not want that. I can do the research, write something, and post it on the talk page of the article for people to review and comment on before inserting anything in the article, if that appeals.
 * If they decide they'd rather not have me trodding my muddy boots across their beautiful work, I understand completely, no hard feelings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually I think your usual job would greatly improve atheism article. I'm sure your input would be welcomed there. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would welcome your "non-expert" input in the article (although I think you are more than qualified to be an expert). If there are concerns about writing broadening the POV, please post the suggested edit on the talk page and other editors can review the text. The article has been greatly improved since I posted my initial notice and I hope editors will help get this excellent article back to FA standards. I will post a more thorough review on the talk page when editors finish the first round of improvements. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Z1720 Sounds perfect. I will begin with metaphysics if that's okay, and I will post it on the Talk page for additional input before inserting it into the article. I look forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Favor requested
Would somebody be so kind as to transclude Featured article candidates/Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment/archive1 onto the FAC nominations page? My internet's too slow today to load the page. Probably should've checked that before working up a nomination page. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for April 2021
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April 2021. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Core Contest
Hi all, The Core Contest is running again from June 1 to July 15. Enter at The Core Contest/Entries. Hope to get some important articles in the FAC pipeline. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sad news
User_talk:SlimVirgin. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * If anyone from the FA community wants to contribute to helping write an obituary apparently there's one here. (Scroll down the SV section) Victoria (tk) 19:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Make "Introductory Summary" a requirement for Featured topics
Hi all. Comments most welcome at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates. Best - Aza24 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Whitespace forced by TOC
Perhaps this isn't the ideal place, but anyone know of a template or anything that can remove all the whitespace currently forced by the table of contents on Huaynaputina? Perhaps by removing some of the subsections? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To remove subsections will work, and from a test does remove the whitespace for me. CMD (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content from a featured article
Despite it being promoted to FAC by consensus last year, people have been trying to remove sourced content from my article History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II. I'd appreciate it if there were more eyes on the issue. (t · c)  buidhe  02:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the phrasing ”my article” kind of highlights the problem here Buidhe, which is WP:OWN. There’s nothing in FAR which either gives you veto rights over any subsequent changes to the article, nor say that the article must stay forever unaltered after FAR. Indeed, either one would be contrary to the spirit and nature of Wikipedia which is a collaborative project with content subject to change.  Volunteer Marek   03:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also repeat my previous request that in cases where you raise issues concerning disputes involving other editors, you do them the common courtesy of pinging them. Your failure to do so in numerous cases is an issue in itself.  Volunteer Marek   03:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:FAOWN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey all...it's Core Contest time again (finally)
The Core Contest will be running again from June 1, in case anyone wants to flex their writing muscles :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Shoot for the Stars
(formerly The Ultimate Boss, formerly DarklyShadows) has now made 18 FA nominations within the past 13 months, all of which have been archived. Here is a list of their nominations by date created and result:
 * 1) May 4, 2020: Featured article candidates/Let's Fall in Love for the Night/archive1 – archived by coordinator after two opposes. User "retired" a few days later.
 * 2) July 4, 2020: Featured article candidates/Everything I Wanted/archive1 – requested withdrawal. Self-requsted indefinite block three days later.
 * 3) July 27, 2020: Featured article candidates/Ilomilo (song)/archive1 – requested withdrawal. Told by coordinator "we can't keep throwing noms at FAC in the hope one will 'take'".
 * 4) August 6, 2020: Featured article candidates/I Love You (Billie Eilish song)/archive1 – requested withdrawal.
 * 5) August 13, 2020: Featured article candidates/Let's Fall in Love for the Night/archive2 — archived by coordinator after one oppose.
 * 6) August 22, 2020: Featured article candidates/Everything I Wanted/archive2 — requested withdrawal.
 * 7) September 9, 2020: Featured article candidates/Let's Fall in Love for the Night/archive3 — archived by coordinator because "This is not in the vicinity of FA quality and substantive work has not been performed to address previous concerns."
 * 8) September 22, 2020: Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive1 — requested withdrawal after two opposes.
 * 9) October 20, 2020: Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive2 — archived by coordinator after a PR was opened instead.
 * 10) November 19, 2020: Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive3 — requested withdrawal.
 * 11) December 24, 2020: Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive4 — archived by coordinator after user self-requested an indefinite block.
 * 12) January 4, 2020: Featured article candidates/Don't Smile at Me/archive1 — archived by coordinator because user did not care for the two-week wait period following an archived nomination.
 * 13) January 22, 2020: Featured article candidates/Mood Swings (Pop Smoke song)/archive1 — requested withdrawal.
 * 14) February 19, 2021: Featured article candidates/For the Night/archive1 — requested withdrawal, but not after calling one of the reviewers a "fucking asshole". (They apologized a few days later).
 * 15) March 8, 2021: Featured article candidates/Cups (song)/archive5 — archived by coordinator due to lack of consensus to promote.
 * 16) April 16, 2021: Featured article candidates/For the Night/archive2 — archived by coordinator after four opposes.
 * 17) May 9, 2021: Featured article candidates/Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon/archive1 — requested withdrawal due to lack of comments.
 * 18) June 4, 2021: Featured article candidates/Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon/archive2 — requested withdrawal after one oppose. User has apparently retired again.

Shoot for the Stars has been given many chances and help from many editors, but at this point I would respectfully ask that they not be allowed to make another nomination for a while as it is unfair to reviewers and disruptive to the process. Heartfox (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have major sympathies for the young editor in question, and for the kindhearted editors who have devoted considerable amounts of their time to helping them through the process. That said, I'm frustrated to see the scale of what has developed. SFTS has also developed a habit of picking up GARs and then abandoning them, both while actively editing and, more disruptively, during their frequent periods of retirement. I would consider that more disruptive than what's going on at FAC. I'm not sure if there's any mechanism in place to prevent someone for making nominations (?), and imagine it might require some kind of topic ban? Either way, the disruption is a problem and it is frustrating. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel uncomfortable discussing an editor without them being a part of the conversation, but I agree with Heartfox and ImaginesTigers that their behavior in the FAC and GAN spaces is frustrating. I have some sympathy as I have certainly learned from my own mistakes, but it honestly did put me off from working with them. Speaking in a broader sense, has there ever been an instance either in the FAC or GAN where an editor is banned from nominating articles? ImaginesTigers has already posed that question above, but I am also curious if there is any similar cases to this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently I don't see anyone banned from nominating things at FA/GAN. I've seen User talk:Shoot for the Stars and apparently nobody has tried to discuss the (lack of) quality of their FAC/GAN nominations with them yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * These same concerns were discussed in February -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 13:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Heartfox, nominating this many FACs this often them getting archived due to often simply not addressing comments from reviewers, etc is not fair to reviewers who put time and energy into reviewing candidates. I do not know if any precedent exists in regards to restricting an editor's ability to nominate articles for FAC though.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 10:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From memory, at least one editor has been restricted from nominating photos at WP:FPC, albeit quite a long time ago. I tend to, reluctantly, agree that a similar restriction would be in order here. I've reviewed several of this editor's nominations. While the articles this editor is nominating are somewhat under-cooked for FA status, they are generally fixable within the scope of a FAC. As a result, it is both frustrating and disappointing that they keep abandoning nominations (including by retiring on several occasions). It is also disappointing that they have repeatedly renominated articles without addressing the comments left in the previous nomination (and in some cases peer review). This reflects either a lack of realism about the FA process or - to be blunt - a hope that if they throw enough FACs at the wall one will get up. I think it would be both in the interests of the editor and the FAC process for them to be required to stop this, perhaps for a set timeframe. An alternative approach might be to require that the editor work with a FA mentor, and only nominate articles that the mentor agrees are ready. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Without implying any criticism of the OP or others above, may I point out that if we are considering an editing restriction, that really should be discussed at one of the admin noticeboards? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I think that the above is appropriate first as a way of considering editors' views on what is an unusual issue and possible responses. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure an admin board is necessary; maybe that any further FACs are post a PR only, and made, on their behalf, by somebody else who has, eg, nomed a min amount of prev successful candidates. I realise this would be impossible to encode for later, similarly persistent editors, but have sympathy, as was also once that age, long ago, thankfully before the internet. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to say that I do think we would need to go to ANI for this. It’s essentially topic banning a user and needs more eyes for consensus. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aoba47 and Ceoil, and while repeated abandoned FACs are not really fair for editors who have invested time in them, I do have sympathy for Shoot For the Stars. Having confidence to successfully complete an FAC, and internalizing strategies necessary to do so, go hand in hand. We may feel we've given this editor countless opportunities to pick up these strategies (and the confidence that goes with these) and that a "normal" person would have grasped them by now, but this also assumes a certain amount of acquired life experiences, and Shoot for the Stars is by their own admission young. Moisejp (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of anmins here, going to ANI indicates we dont know what we are doing. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

There's already precedent for this. A discussion was started about topic banning a user at GAR, and it was moved to WP:AN. This is something that requires wider consensus with central discussion. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is not possible for individual admins to impose a restriction like that being discussed here. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is. We have always tried to hold this process outside the general sanctions in AN/I's toolbox, and obv Shot is acting in good faith. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ceoil. We do have some mechanisms in place. If warranted, reviewers can oppose early, the coords can close quickly all to avoid wasting other reviewer's time (and honestly, reviewers can just ignore those noms if they don't want their time wasted). Beyond that we can mentor if someone or a group of us is willing to do so. I once knew a nominator who had some difficulties with the process and I tagged along as their copyeditor and helped out - maybe that's an idea. Or a co-nom with someone. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. I'd be curious to know whether the coords have an opinion or suggestions. AN/I seems counterproductive and unnecessary. Victoria (tk) 01:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be guessing that this is a difficult issue for the coords, as the nominations here generally do have a realistic prospect of succeeding if the editor was to follow up on the comments that are left for them. As noted at the top of WP:FAC, the coords have only limited scope to close nominations off their own initiative. I agree that it is a good practice for the community to get in early in pointing out serious problems where they exist with the editor's nominations (I opposed a renomination of 'Cups' soon after it was posted when it was clear that comments I had left in an earlier nom hadn't been actioned, for instance). Per Editing restrictions, editing restrictions usually need to be imposed via one of the admins noticeboards, and the examples of community-imposed restrictions there have all involved AN or ANI discussions. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I agree with Ceoil and Victoria. Reviewers who don't want to engage in the noms don't have to, and those who are willing to help in mentoring can. I guess only the coords might be stuck doing extra work (closing repeated noms, etc.) whether or not they want to, so as Victoria says it would be good to hear their opinion. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all comfortable bringing this to AN/I and asking for an editing restriction. There have been other issues here in the past and as far as I remember, none ended up in AN/I. It would be setting a precedent that in my view would be counterproductive. Also, as long as there's a retired template on Shoot for the Stars' page, we shouldn't really be having this conversation. It can be revisited if necessary. I'm considering mentoring; will give it some thought and wait to see how things pan out re the retired status, etc. Victoria (tk) 02:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been following this discussion to see whether a consensus was forming, now is probably as good a time as any to comment. Obviously I'm pretty familiar with the pattern of noms listed above, I can see I was quoted from an early one ("we can't keep throwing noms at FAC in the hope one will 'take'")... There seem to be three options suggested: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Banning from FAC entirely -- I see this as effectively a topic ban that would require going through the normal channels for such a thing, it's not something for the community here to decide on in isolation.
 * Requiring a mentor's involvement with any future noms -- Nick's suggestion and one that I think merits consideration, whether such a restriction is something that also needs to go to outside adjudication or is simply something this community decides on and the coords police (it isn't a ban but it is a restriction on a particular editor), well I'd prefer to think it's something we just did in-house if the idea gains traction.
 * Carry on as before -- personally I'm not finding the situation particularly onerous to deal with it but I can't speak for my fellow coords or for the reviewers, several of whom are understandably frustrated at the merry-go-round of noms, withdrawals and retirements.
 * Agree with Victoria, I don't think ANI is a good road to go down here. My gut instinct on what would be to do here would be to place a limit on their FAC nominating - in order to nominate, they should have to get an experienced FA mentor who has written music FAs, the article should not be nominated until the mentor thinks it is completely ready, and the mentor should probably be one to transclude the FAC nom to the FAC page to prevent hasty noms.  I would argue that while more the most recent one (Featured article candidates/Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon/archive2) does need some work, it represents a sizable improvement over some of the earlier nominations, so I think there's some improvement going on here.  My concern is that there tends to be instances where previously-addressed issues are not fixed or worked on before renomination - see for instance the 5th FAC for Cups, where Nick-D had to oppose on issues he'd brought up from the 3rd FAC that hadn't been addressed yet.  IMO something probably needs to be done here, or this will just continue over and over again.  It frankly kinda wastes valuable reviewer time, when it's becoming evident that the nominations will just be withdrawn as soon as there's any opposition. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Two other things: we are discussing a very bright but young person here who tends to listen to (editing but not nominating strategy) advice; and at least the goal of having a successful FAC to their name has lead them to be very productive, asset to the project, but maybe they might accept that GA for now might be a more realistic goal for the articles, or at least that they undertake that they will only nom articles from here that are GAs. Personally, I find the former Ultimate Boss pleasant to deal with and they tend to (mostly) take advice, I worry that a solution for a short term prob might loose us a long term contributor. Like, if we take them to AN/I, however subtly couched, is going to be read by Boss that their time here was wasted and unhelpful, and that's just not the case. They have expanded a series of articles and have greatly served projects readers. Should they be FA's - not currently. Should they be publicly hauled in front of non FAC admins - not imo. Ceoil (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that they take most editing advice. In the recent FAC, they withdrew immediately after friendly and helpful comments were left without even attempting to address them or even disputing their benefit. You can still have a "teenage mind" and paraphrase quotations and identify themes... I don't support a "ban" at a noticeboard that's too harsh and unnecessary and traumatizing; their work has benefitted articles and I have seen them take inspiration from FA standards and put them into use in articles. Maybe just a gentle nudge saying hey, please come back in a couple months after consulting with coordinators or something. Heartfox (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point that I have also found - re CUPS, I sandboxed the different issued raised by Nick-D and other reviewers etc, and ticked them off as were addressed.sadly by me only, did not seem like Boss was inclined to revisit post-candidancy. Ceoil (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Shoot for the Stars, would you commit that any future FAC's are at least at GA standard, made by a co-nominator who has at has early nomed a sucesful candidacy, otherwise any editor can remove the nom from the FAC list? Ceoil (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that it could be left to the coordinators to remove any out of process nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In practice, yes Gog. I am mindful of the burden. Ceoil (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, explaining the process, and letting us know that you don't find the issue too onerous. I agree that hauling to AN/I runs the risk of losing a potentially good contributor in the future. He has contributed a fair amount of decent content work, so anything that's done should preserve some bit of enthusiasm, but in a tempered and structured form, so as to keep the content editor.I like the various suggestions re mentoring and restrictions. Re 's suggestions, I'm not familiar w/ music articles, so that seems to eliminate me as mentor, but I'm wondering if I could put on my teaching/mentoring hat and approach in terms of how to navigate the entire review process, GA, PR, FAC, and help shepherd through. I'd be willing to mentor in that capacity, but we probably do need another set of eyes in terms of how music articles are presented, written, structured, etc, if there's another person willing to mentor. If Shoot for the Stars decides to return the mentors can approach him and explain what's what. Would that work? Victoria (tk) 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't commit to be his main music-article mentor, but I can try to help out in little ways, if that's helpful. Moisejp (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a crew to help out is even better. Sarah and I and Valeree and a bunch of others mentored an editor a couple of years ago. It was helpful to have a subpage set up and to have a variety of opinions and input. Something like that might work well. I'm still thinking it through. Also, I'm not around that much, so just keeping an eye out and pulling me in when needed would a help. Victoria (tk) 21:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of template for deletion
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 15 § Template:Done-t. Discussion about a template supposedly mainly used in FA reviews? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Article nomination conflict of interest?
Hello FA contributors,

I come today with a question regarding eligibility to be a FA nominator. and I were discussing how they have so many GAs passed, yet not one FA. This led to us perhaps pursuing a joint FA nomination for Tell All Your Friends. The only problem I encountered with this prospective candidacy is that I was the one who passed this article almost five years ago. I was wondering if this would affect my eligibility to run as a co-nominator, as this would be the only way they are interested in pursuing this, if I do understand them correctly. I know that editing articles extensively beforehand generally is viewed as a disqualification from GA reviewing (unless quickfailing your own work in obvious scenarios), so I wondered if something similar applied here. Do also consider I myself have not edited the article in several years.  danny music editor  oops 01:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that's a conflict of interest (which I would reserve for IRL) or a barrier to nominating the article for FAC. If you are significant contributor it is not possible to be an impartial reviewer later on (judging your own work), but the reverse is not the case. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for understanding what I meant, haha. I did not know what the correct way to describe it would have been, I didn't mean WP:COI. 😂  danny music editor  oops 01:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)