Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive89

Bronze star
Not a major issue (obviously) but out of interest, why does everyone seem to call the FA symbol a "bronze star"? I've always assumed that it's intended to be a gold star, as gold means the best, while bronze usually refers to the third-best thing, after gold and silver, which in Wikipedia assessment terms might correspond to C-class, somewhere below GA standard. Also, our inter-wiki links for featured articles in other languages clearly colour the star in yellowy-gold. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think there was recently an effort to revise the FA/GA symbols to make more sense, but it was rejected for some reason. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that discussion was held at the Pump (proposals), and seems to have died a death as not having 2/3rds support. Personally, I don't really know why it's a matter for outside of the GA/FA projects what icon we use; who would object if—purely hypothetically—we decided to use something completely different? Then we could actually make them gold, :) The only criticism, surely, would be along the lines that "but then everyone else has to look at it", and I don't think we force anyone to look at anything, generally...   SN54129  17:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There may be a reason buried in Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors; I don't speak that language, but it seems intuitive that the darker bronze has better accessibility than gold. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:ACCESS, indeed. Thanks!  SN54129  19:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can read early history at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 4 (in 2006, the idea came from the Spanish Wikipedia, initially rejected as a self-reference). By Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 7, 2007, it was firmly established as "bronze". I can't recall any particular reason other than ... the icon is bronze colored. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for the replies! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 TFAs
See 2021 TFAs (what got reader interest). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot to substitute tq and other templates in FACs
I've noticed some reviewers continuing to use tq, despite the recent change in instructions, and it's a pain to fix them. Would there be any objections to me requesting a bot at WP:BOTREQ that would substitute a start and stop template at the start and end of the tq quote? This would be like collapse top and collapse bottom, which are very cheap in terms of the post-expand include size that causes us so much trouble. I'd create a tq top and tq bottom, and request that the bot substitute these in any article linked from WP:FAC. We could also do this for green if we wanted to, and for other similar templates. This would eliminate most of the template issues (and would incidentally allow us to simplify the instructions). Any reasons not to try this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't see any downside of such a bot. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * +1 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything at tq or its talk page about a "recent change in instructions". Where are those instructions? Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 15:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the only change was in the FAC instructions, which was established by consensus at this page. It does not apply to the use of tq elsewhere and I assume the bot would be restricted to FAC subpages. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot request posted here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The request has been turned down. I'm not convinced by the arguments given there, but it looks like we're stuck with the current situation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for February 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 2022. 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) 12:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, here's the yearly summary for 2021.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Verifiability of animal habitat maps
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Verifiability of animal habitat maps. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for mentor
Well, I failed hard many, many times on SpaceX Starship and really lost on how to make the article to featured article status. The first and second FAC cited stability, while the third cited prose as the main failing point of the article, but there are countless reasons people listed about why the article don't cut it in other reviews. Don't get me wrong, I really do value these feedback, but I genuinely do feel that my efforts are futile at times. Thus, a mentor would help immensely for me, and I thanks in advance anyone who is willing to help on the article quality and its future nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've said this before but this topic you've chosen is not an easy one to get to FAC. Both because it's a substantial, important topic with a lot of sources written about it and because it's subject to change. If you're interested in space, I would pick a relatively minor space topic that is historical and work on that. My first successful FA was for Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz which had the benefit of not changing over time and a small, finite number of sources to consult. There are other editors working on Apollo missions and astronauts, so it could also be possible to do a collaboration. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, it is hard. I will temporarily lay down the article for a while, as I would search something else to do here. Thank you for your advice, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ben McLemore
I removed this malformed nom from the page when it was a red link and left a note for the almost brand-new editor who added the red link (at the bottom of the page), but they started the nom after I removed it, so now there's a housekpeeping matter with Featured article candidates/Ben McLemore/archive1. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ... maybe another welcoming note to the nominator ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Source reviews needed
We're getting back there again with six source reviews requested at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. If any of you could help with the backlog, it would be much appreciated! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hidden template
I'm going through the March FACs to start gathering reviewing statistics, and I noticed one reviewer has been using hidden to collapse sections. See this FAC talk archive if you don't know why this is an issue; it's basically another version of collapse, which is one of the worst templates to use at FAC. If anyone notices hidden being used in a FAC, please ask the editor to use cot and cob instead, as those cause no issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comprehensive source-prose integrity check request
My recent nomination of Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 failed due to concerns over source-prose integrity. A full source review was conducted by (table is on nomination talk page) during the nom, but the nom was still ultimately archived as the source review apparently did not fully assuage these concerns. The nom's closing note suggested asking an experienced editor to conduct a thorough spot-check for sourcing (in my mind, similar to what KS did), so if any editors here would be open to that it would be much appreciated. AviationFreak💬 21:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q 2022 summary
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing very old (VO) and old (O) featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. The goals are to:
 * Review and encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a Featured article review (FAR)
 * Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to FAR
 * List older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and help the TFA Coords check older FAs before running on TFA.

Progress

Monthly progress is recorded at this page. Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:
 * 245 FAs were Delisted at FAR (224 VO and 21 O).
 * 184 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (123 VO and 61 O).
 * FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 67%, with 91% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.
 * 79 editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020, while others nominated, reviewed, and edited articles at WP:FAR.

These numbers do not encompass the full activity of URFA/2020. Once three experienced FA reviewers have deemed an FA 'Satisfactory' (not needing a FAR), it is moved to 'Kept or FAR not needed'. At quarter-end, hundreds of articles have received one or two 'satisfactory marks' or have been noted as having minor issues that should be addressed, work underway, or similar. An additional 155 articles were given notice of the need for a featured article review, and 34 were at FAR.

In January, the Signpost ran an article about the URFA/2020 project called "Forgotten Featured". In February, the project targeted articles that had two "Satisfactory" notations to find an editor to note the third satisfactory. Editors who nominated these articles for FAC were contacted on their talk page and invited to note if they were still updating and maintaining the article.

Project initiatives

The project's initiatives for 2022 are:
 * Clear and complete the 2004–2006 list. Editing, reviewing or nominating at FAR to finish up these very oldest reviews would be most helpful.
 * A notation for every article in the 2007 list.

How to help

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


 * Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
 * Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020.
 * Nominate an article at FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed.
 * Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. If no one is working to restore an article listed in the FARC phase, enter a "Keep" or "Delist" declaration.
 * Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as 'Satisfactory' or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
 * Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your WikiProject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Older reports
 * The year-end 2021 report is here.
 * Other quarterly reports are here.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/1Q2022. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Request For Mentor
I’m considering trying to get The Beatles (album) to FA status, but I’m not sure where to start. Can anyone help me to prep for its candidate nomination? Speatle (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest working on two or three articles to get them to GA level first -- there's quite a gap between GA and FA quality, and getting familiar with GA standards is a good way to get started. You might find collaborators for GA by asking on the talk pages of the articles you're interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:peer review is of course also a good place to start. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a post on the WikiProject Beatles about help getting some of their articles to GA, haven’t gotten a response yet. Speatle (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The way supports and opposes are automatically counted
When I look at the list of FACs to see which need urgent reviews, there is the support/oppose field (don't know if I installed a script to show this), but it is rendered almost useless because it counts every support/oppose within a single review section, as some people tend to add the word support in both the title and at the end of the section when they give it. For example, Levantine Arabic currently lists 10 supports, but looking at the review page, there are actually 5, they're just doubled by being listed in the titles too. Is there a way to only register a single support/oppose for each section so this can be of more use? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes there is ... follow the FAC instructions and never enter a declaration as a heading. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like that is becoming an increasing trend, though, not sure why. And probably won't stop any time soon, so if only one vote could be counted per section, that could solve it either way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:FAC-instructions For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *Support, *Oppose, or *Comment followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient.
 * The "why" is that Coords are actively reverting (in at least one case) when someone adheres to the instructions. See  above (never answered by ).  Since the Coords are not enforcing the instructions, perhaps an RFC is needed so that any editor may remove headings that breach the instructions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I raised it a while ago; it could probably be more proactively enforced.  SN54129  15:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI: Enforcing Template:FAC-instructions will only partly solve the problem as these instructions recommend to strike out text to withdraw an objection, even though the script isn't able to check for support/oppose that's been struck out. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for March 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March 2022. 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) 21:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Time in Finland/archive1
What's going on here? The latest comments seem to be going to the Talk Page. It's becoming a mess.Graham Beards (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's connected to my comment above, .  SN54129  16:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sorry Graham. I have reverted. It has indeed become a mess, so if you spot anything outstanding from the rather complicated revert please feel free to either tidy it up yourself or let me know. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

FAC instructions on subheads
For a decade, Template:FAC-instructions has said (bold emphasis added):

These instructions were established for very good reasons, that have been ignored of late, to the detriment of FAC, with sub-headers imposed on almost every review. Looking at a nomination viewer to determine how many supports, opposes or otherwise have been entered on a given nomination a) allows reviewers or nominators to convey a POV about the level of review, support or opposition a nomination has that is not based on a considered read of the actual reviews, that b) discourages thorough or subsequent review by giving a sometimes false impression about the level of review a nomination actually has, and c) is an unhelpful shortcut that detracts from the purpose of FAC. It also encourages extremely long reviews (FAC is not peer review), which can be done on talk.A promote/archive decision is much more than the sum of its supports or opposes, and FACs should be read through daily now that we have twice as many Coords for half the volume of a decade ago. To know what level of review, support or opposition a nomination has requires reading the review-- not a summary of meaningless headers. Not all supports, opposes, or reviews are equal, and the nomination viewer can give a false impression, and in fact, has been used to create false impressions. I have removed an alteration to my review statement, and reinstated the review in accordance with the FAC instructions. Please stop doing this; the lack of rigor that the nominations viewer promotes is unhealthy for FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Further noting that with fewer Coords and (lately) the same volume as FAC, FAR does fine without excessive subheads creating false impressions or drawing attention to certain reviews. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * this is odd; you are actually edit warring with a reviewer, against the FAC instructions? Is that a good way to encourage FAC reviews?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

what is the image you added at the top? Is that, as I feared, what the nominations viewer does? I have never used it, and deplore its use at FAC, for the reasons listed above, which lead to FAC bloat and lack of solid reviews, along with faulty impressions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the kind of thing. I do think it's useful for quickly identifying what candidates are in greater need of review—not support—than others—I know only too well the languishing at the bottom of the list!—but I agree that it shouldn't be a numbers game: WP:NOTPOLL applies everywhere else on the project and has proven itself a sound system. Indeed, you pointed out that three is not a magic number, and I thoroughly agree. However, I also admit to bottling it at the thought of demanding four reviews, knowing that it will lengthen an already lengthy process. And, I suppose, there is an argument that if an article is ready at three, then awaiting another is a waste of other editors' time and energy. Know what I mean?   SN54129  18:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. :) Three supports means literally nothing (there was not a single aspect of Featured article candidates/Socrates Nelson/archive1 that met WIAFA). Doing it by the numbers is useless and in fact, part of what has damaged FAC reviewing. I suspect no one anymore reads the entire FAC page, top to bottom, to understand and digest trends, problems, concerns, faulty or good reviews, and the like. In fact, considering the solid copyedit that Ovinus gave to the chicken fire, a full read of even my support on that FAC could indicate that the same argument can be made about my review (that my support was premature). My support should not be converted to a lazy nominator view count of support on the FAC, because Ovinus found plenty to question after I supported, and some of it things that I should have found the first time (eg, this). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I was unaware of these rules of style and I will implement them into my reviews from now on. I'm now looking back and realizing that I not only add a subheader, I also add smaller subheaders to split my comments up by sections, which is obnoxious. The reason I was unaware of these rules is that I rarely view the FAC page because of how slow it runs. Even daring to attempt to open the collapsable boxes on the top is an impossible task for my computer and trying to makes me want to break a back in frustration. It's frustrating but not much can be done about it. I wouldn't say FACs are a number's game, and rather if the article is 100 percent "complete". Like how a user will analyze both sides to an AFD and weigh which side is right, a coordinator should determine if users have collectively scrutinized an article to satisfactory levels. Panini!  • 🥪 01:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is something that can be done about it. FAC was never intended to be peer review, and on a talk page, you can add all the fonts, collapses, and sub-headers you need, because they don't add to template limits from there.  The main FAC page is for, as the instructions say, Support, Oppose and Comment. We seem to have forgotten article talk pages, and FAC talk pages (perhaps thinking that a long review = a good review, which isn't often the case). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, the page is running slow again, as it's chock full of greenification with fonts and templates, and hat and hab collapses and the like, also contrary to the FAC instructions, along with peer review-length FACs approaching a month that are too convoluted for a sane mortal to process. FAC can't work when people can't access the page, and when reviewers are discouraged from reviewing by the length of nominations, slowness of the page to load, reluctance to oppose ... add to that a Coord reverting a reviewer who is following the instructions, and it's not a promising picture. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Mainly noting as a coord that I've seen this discussion and have read it; just got back from visiting in-laws 3 hours away and don't have much time/energy to really say anything here beyond that I've always thought that the line is that the subheads really only need to be used for very long or complex reviews - for instance Sportsfan's review at Featured article candidates/Daisy Pearce/archive1 would probably qualify for a subhead in my view, while Featured article candidates/Battle of Glasgow, Missouri/archive1 could conceivably run under just the one subhead so long as it was bolded where each review began (although I've heard somewhere that using the ; at the beginning of a line to force bolding causes issues for some screen readers, so I'd advise against using that markup when possible). Sandy, could you link the original discussion for the subheader rule?  It's beyond my institutional memory, and I'd like to read through it as I don't believe I can really understand a guideline without understanding why it came to be. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive58 Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I made a very bold attempt to enforce the guidelines at Featured article candidates/Time in Finland/archive1. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and in Featured article candidates/Battle of Poitiers/archive1, as it is really long and chockful of tq templates. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice one CactiStaccingCrane for moving forward the discussion by taking action at Featured article candidates/Time in Finland/archive1. I thought the discussion was about moving comments to (in this case) Talk:Time_in_Finland rather than Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Time_in_Finland/archive1, but actually I don't care where the comments are made as long as it all in one area so I don't miss out on what other reviewers are saying. A system has developed over time for all comments to be at (in this case) Featured article candidates/Time in Finland/archive1; I don't mind if we just use that page for supports and opposes. If the bot can't deal with something maybe a new bot is required, especially if people are using formats which break the current bot, however having said that when I started reviewing at FAC maybe a year ago it was clear to me not to use certain formatting and I also found it puzzling the instructions recommended going to the talkpage but everyone used the FAC page, so I just followed suit. If a new format along the lines drawn up by CactiStaccingCrane at Time in Finland is instituted at the stage of nomination, that seems like it might work. Just my two cents. Mujinga (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I for one appreciate CactiStaccingCrane's enthusiasm, but to be honest, I don't think it's necessary to introduce clerking—at least unofficial—since we have co-ords whose job-def is precisely that and more. If editors feel that co-ords aren't being robust enough, then that's another conversation (and perhaps it's something that co-ords feel they would like an explicit local consensus on, since it might verge on breaching TPO occasionally). But as things stand, CSC's attempts haven't been 100% successful, and I expect that's down to general inexperience with the FA process. I honestly don't see the point in writing essays on the FAC process, enforcing the guidelines of the FAC process, without ever having been through the FAC process. Bottom line: let the co-os do their job, and if the co-ords want local community expectations codified for their protection, then we give it them. But clerking is just another wholly complicating, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that we don't (yet) need.  SN54129  13:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more with you, I hate having really complicated and unnecessary processes. However, just like what Sandy mentioned, the situation must be solved somehow, and hopefully my bold edits are the start of that discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to transclude every open FAC onto the main FAC page, and every closed FAC onto a monthly archive? I always thought this (for GA nominations) was much cleaner and easier to navigate. But if it is necessary, can't we just make liberal use of noinclude tags to prevent bogging the main page down, as at PR for example? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Source reviews and checks needed
Currently there are 13 articles listed as needing source review or spot-checking at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. If any of your could help out, it would be much appreciated. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Buidhe Looking over the list to pick which one I'll do, I'm seeing the following issues:
 * NERVA is listed twice
 * Time in Finland is listed twice
 * I think Levantine Arabic needs a full source review, not only a spot check. JBchrch   talk  22:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch, now fixed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Will do Neutral Milk Hotel as am familiar with the sources; from a scan it seems largely fine, but details to follow over w/end. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , are you still planning to do this? I may be able to pick it up this weekend if you're not going to be able to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

FAS update
Back in October, I produced a listing of the FA categories by changes over time and as a percent of overall FA count. I've put together a sort of half-update at six months - since it's only a short time span, I just ran the numbers as of 1/1/2020, October 2021, and today, with the percentage changes of 2020-2022 and of the last six months. Some of the changes are due to reclassifications between categories, which I don't know of an easy way to determine, and the rest represent FAC promotions and FAR delistings. Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 18:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * MILHIST must be slacking, getting beat out by language and linguistics! :D    SN54129  19:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We got beat up by ten other categories . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there's also currently 37 FARs open and 35 open FACs if I counted right, so it will take work on both fronts to keep number up. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Display inactive nominations
I modified the Nominations viewer script. You can use this script instead and it'll display when each nomination was last active, with the inactive ones (more than a week without any edit) in bold. Feedback welcome! [As of now, for instance, the following nominations have been inactive for more than a week: National Front (UK), Kaze to Ki no Uta, Total Recall (1990 film), Battle of Glasgow, Missouri (for 3 weeks, to promote?), SS Edward L. Ryerson (for 1 week, to archive?), and Neutral Milk Hotel (for 3 weeks, waiting for a source review).] A455bcd9 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It's very helpful, nice! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Handy. Yes, thanks indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it! Poke @Gary: would be great to copy/paste this feature in your script so that all users can benefit from it :) A455bcd9 (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Heads-up
See this and this. Due to some job queue/caching errors, the version of each FAC you'll see using the transcluded view on the main WP:FAC page will almost certainly not reflect recent changes (possibly even a day or so's at times). This is not a FAC-specific problem and seems to be happening sitewide. Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This also applies to the image/source requests and the urgent list, at the top of this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for April 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April. 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) 16:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Two versions of a "last month's nominators" stats table
Here are two possible versions of a table per the discussion above.

Discussion
I like the second option better. When posting I might prefix the table with the average number of reviews each FAC requires -- currently between 6 and 7.

Pros: Comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has no effect on current nominations, because this data is for completed FACs. So if you're a one-time nominator nobody can decide not to review your nomination on this basis.  I think that eliminates some of the QPQ risk.
 * The second option eliminates very low-volume or new nominators, which seems only fair to me -- they are adding very little burden to FAC.
 * The 12 month window means that nobody gets penalized for a busy month in which they have no time to review.


 * Make the ratio sortable? And the rest, too? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also prefer the second option. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now sortable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the second option too. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Me also. Late to the discussion, but think highlighting the nom/review ratio is a good thing, and for one it keeps me on my toes; which is a good thing. For eg, stuff and stats like this reminds us that, for eg, we are very fortunate indeed to have Mike who maintains these stats and as the numbers tell, is an irreplaceable person within the process, although that is is as already suspected. But calling out none the less, as needs to be said. Mike rocks. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I must say, I am surprised that I have a reviews/nominations ratio of nearly 7. I was expecting a much lower ratio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ceoil! I appreciate the compliment. Jo-Jo, you're actually the eighth-most prolific image reviewer at FAC; see here and choose image reviews and a date range, and you'll see the list.  That helps your numbers a lot.  (And incidentally there are two image reviews waiting in the list at the top of this page, if you want to move up that list a bit further....) Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This look really good Mike. Thanks for doing this, and I hope that this extra work is not too much trouble. I will be using this to help select which articles I will review. Z1720 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No objections, so I will post a table like the second option above each month, along with the reviewer statistics. Next month's will be delayed till late June as I'll be away from the relevant computer for the first half of the month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC urgents
Any reason Featured article candidates/Second War of Scottish Independence/archive1 is on the urgent list? SN54129 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. Why, can I interest you in taking a look? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it on the urgent list?  SN54129  20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cus it has exactly two general supports. (All FACs meeting that criterion will be (should be) on Urgents.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to use it, though perhaps some minimum age is also a good idea -- older FACs being more urgent, other things being equal. That list used to also be used for FACs which were in danger of aging out and being archived with no reviews or perhaps only one review. I think that was also helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite. That list used to also be used for FACs which were in danger of aging out and being archived with no reviews is precisely how the list has been used, and interpreted, for years. It has never been interpreted as "has two general supports so needs review"; what supports that argument? I think for editors—not me—who are less used to our arcane lore, the optics look exceedingly bad.   SN54129  21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure, and to be fair Gog's technique of threatening to close stalling reviews has pushed a lot of nominators into sticking out their necks reaching out to potential reviewers (a good thing), very often saving the nom from a slow, clogging, death.. I'll fight him to the death on article length, but would not question on his approach to keeping the noms moving along. In this instance would give latitude as also with this mon the review to nom stats are very high. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At the moment there are nine reviews which would be candidates for appearing on the urgent list (nominated ~a week, two or more supports). That would completely swamp the list, and render it completely ineffective. In fact, it would likely be counterproductive; who's going to take the trouble to find something genuinely in need of review when it means wading through a list almost as long as the main page? Even if it's limited to "exactly two supports"—i.e., no more and no less, with no duration limit—that would add seven. And in the meantime, there are five reviews with less than two supports that have been open for at least a fortnight: they're what the urgent list is for.I appreciate the temptation just to phone our own articles in, but we should be looking for transparency, clarity and parity.  SN54129  15:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like you I think putting older unreviewed nominations on the list is a good idea, but Gog's approach to that list is at least as old as this conversation, a year ago, and Ian at that point agreed with Gog. Ian's been around FAC a long time, so clearly recollections can differ.  I also agree that an urgent list with nine FACs is not useful.  I don't think we should legislate exactly what goes on the list, though; for example NERVA is near the bottom of the list and has a source and image review and three supports, one from an relatively inexperienced reviewer and two from very experienced reviewers.  There's a question in that FAC about whether the high overlap between this article and Project Rover is a problem.  If the coords want more input on this point I could see them adding it to the list, though it doesn't meet any of the criteria we've been talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I read that discussion slightly differently: IR says, there, that the list is traditionally populated by mature noms needing a bit more input to get consensus (my emph). Which is not, uh, the same as putting your own nomination on the list after a week! I agree we don't need more legislation; we do need all reviews to get a fair bite of the the cherry, in the context of VOL.  SN54129  16:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. personally I don't think the template is very useful to me personally, but I would oppose putting any noms there unless they've passed out of the first stage (3 weeks) and still need more reviews to promote. Stuff that's just 1 week old still has lots of opportunity to get more reviews without being highlighted. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Per this conversation I've removed another recent nomination from that list. Re the 3 weeks, the position of the divider has varied over time -- here it was around ten days, for example.  The original intent was an approximately halfway divider, so as FACs have taken longer Hawkeye7 has changed the age FACbot inserts it at, but if things were to speed up I think FACbot could be set to reduce the age again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't recall a specific halfway divider. The original intent, established explicitly per RFC, was that a) the divider was placed by the delegates (now called Coords, which it was) and b) to reflect those nominations in the Urgents template, which was also managed by the delegates to be those that were going to be closed (soon) if they didn't get feedback. All established via RFC and community feedback; neither being followed now. See archived discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43. The current method seems to be a continuation of the three supports = promotion notion.  Unfortunate. Can anyone point to the community discussion that led to the current convention? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time the FACBot was written, the delegates said that the marker was to be placed at the 20-day mark. The FACBot updates the marker daily (although often this results in no change). It was proposed at one point to move it so it was closer to the halfway mark, but this was not accepted, and it was never changed. As it happens, the the majority are no longer "older nominations". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting a gentle reminder to nominators who don't review much or at all
We have some excellent nominators who review far fewer articles than they nominate. The statistics I record for FAC let me identify how much everyone reviews and nominates. How would people feel if, once a month, I posted a short notice to a couple of user talk pages, saying something like "Can I encourage you to review more at FAC? FAC always needs reviewers, and the average FAC needs about 6 editors to review it before it can be promoted.  If you were to review just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing, you would be helping speed up all of FAC -- and not incidentally, freeing up other reviewers to review your own nominations." I could include actual numbers ("You've nominated three articles this year but have done no reviewing") but that might feel a bit too hectoring. I would limit this to one or two postings per month, and wouldn't post to anyone a second time until at least six months had passed. Does anyone feel this sort of nagging is inappropriate or might lead to low-quality reviews? I think we have some nominators who just don't realize the impact it has on FAC when they nominate and don't review, and my hope would be that we could turn one or two of them into more regular reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I keep having to remind myself to contribute more and have yet to do so. I don't think that low quality reviews are going to be a problem here; if folks nominate multiple successful FACses they probably know what the expectations of an article are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel some version of your suggestion is appropriate, but it leads to some issues that you would have to decide how to handle. Some nominators are not good reviewers, and you may not want them to review more. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions ... slippery slope towards quid pro quo. Perhaps you could try out your idea on just a very limited basis to only a few nominators you know are also good reviewers and not prone to quid pro quo slippery slopes and see how it goes. Unlike Jo-Jo, I am quite concerned about low quality reviews, even from frequent nominators.  Poor reviews have a much worse effect on FAC than lack of reviews, as they get poor articles promoted, which is a worse problem than good articles archived. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Sounds good to me and I don't see any intractable down sides. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As a reviewer who these days doesn't nominate at all, I think this is fine. The main danger is skimpy reviews, but I think DYK, where there is a strict QPQ actually enforced, doesn't suffer too much from this. I wouldn't object to such a policy here, or publishing statistics in an attempt to name and shame; I for one would be likely to avoid reviewing nominations by those editors. Nominators who don't review would very likely learn from doing more. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * statistics are available for your enjoyment here :)  SN54129  17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also this page, which attempts to summarize the data for the current nominators, though if a nominator has never reviewed they don't show up on this list. That's a bug I will try to fix at some point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "name and shame" is an appropriate term or response. Getting an article to FA status is not an easy feat in most cases. I don't do many reviews because I don't see articles I'm interested in, but at the same time if I'm on here I'm working on building up another article which is generally a 4-6 week endeavor. Should I be named and shamed because I'm both building and nominating articles because I then don't have much time to review others? At the same time, I don't feel refusing to review my nominations because I'm doing a lot of work on the front end but not the back end is fair. If this isn't what you meant I apologize but it's how I've read it. Mike has actually asked me to review more pop culture articles and I did agree to because ultimate that's where my interest lies, they just don't come up often.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there was an element of hyperbole involved. On your 2nd point, yes probably, & on your 3rd, yes that was what I meant. "Fairness" to nominators isn't a big element in my choices of reviews, and don't worry, I haven't reviewed pop articles for years, so you won't miss anything from me. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Like Sandy noted, we do need to make sure we don't get into QPQ here. QPQ may work reasonably well for the DYK system, but DYK is a much lower bar than FAC and a proper DYK review is trivial compared to most in-depth FAC reviews.  A gradual slide down the slope into QPQ would do great harm to FAC.  I'm not opposed to trying to get more nominators engaged in reviewing, but we need to be careful how we go about it. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just add somewhere in the message, as a sort of explicit disclaimer, that reviewing at FAC remains voluntary and that no QPQ is required. JBchrch   talk  17:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Reviews that aren't thorough and even supports based on inadequate scrutiny of the article shouldn't be a problem. We coords should not make the mistake of thinking 3 supports -> promote but rather check to make sure all aspects of the FA criteria have been adequately evaluated. Certainly the potential of possibly attracting some perfunctory reviews shouldn't outweigh the benefit of increased reviews overall. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Taking the QPQ concerns into account, here's an updated wording for what I (or anyone else, I suppose) might post:
 * Can I encourage you to review more at FAC? FAC always needs reviewers, and the average FAC needs about 6 or 7 editors to review it before it can be promoted.  If you were to review just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing, you would be helping speed up all of FAC -- and, not incidentally, freeing up other reviewers to review your own nominations.  There's no requirement for nominators to review at FAC, so if you don't have time or don't wish to review, that's fine, but please consider it."
 * Now revised per comments further below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I encourage you to review more at FAC? FAC always needs reviewers, and the average FAC needs about 6 or 7 editors to review it before it can be promoted.  When you review an article, you are helping speed up all of FAC -- and, not incidentally, freeing up other reviewers to review your own nominations.  There's no requirement for nominators to review at FAC, so if you don't have time or don't wish to review, that's fine, but please consider it.  You may also be interested in reviewing at FAR or URFA."

How does that look? Darkwarriorblake mentioned that I asked him if he'd consider reviewing pop culture articles; it was that conversation that made me think about doing this. But I'm starting to think this might feel like "naming and shaming" no matter how it's handled -- if I leave such a message for an editor with twenty or thirty FAs, it's going to feel like templating the regulars; if I leave one for an editor with under three FAs, they are probably still gaining confidence with FAC reviewing norms. And I don't know how many editors there are in the window between the two. I do think some nudging is needed (and perhaps for those that read WT:FAC this conversation is doing that nudging) but I don't know if there's a better way. We could post the statistics directly on this page, without comment, but that seems pushier than just posting quietly to an editor's talk page. , of the editors commenting above, you're the one with the shortest history at FAC, but you've already jumped in and started reviewing. How would you have felt about such a message on your talk page after your first (or second or third) FA was promoted? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mike, if an editor is reviewing at WP:FAR or WP:URFA/2020, they are also helping maintain the overall FA pool, and we should account for that. Perhaps work in a "FAC or FAR' into your blurb above; FAR is a much easier place for new or inexperienced reviewers to learn the ropes, as there is no risk there that a premature support (keep) will lead to promotion there, as we have seen here. Mentioning those other pages would give you the opportunity to reinforce that the FA process is not only about promotion, as FAs have to be watched, maintained and checked over time, so help at both ends is valued.  Also, what if your monthly summary of reviewers were to include a summary of monthly nominators (promotes and archives from the previous month), along with their ratio? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)
 * I like Sandy's idea above about posting the nominations-to-reviews ratios in Mike's reports on WT:FAC. I check these ratios when I begin my FAC blitzes because I want to review nominations from editors that are actively working to reduce the FAC backlog, even if it is in topics that do not immediately interest me. Posting these stats in a more public space might encourage experienced nominators to do more reviews. Z1720 (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read this and refrained from responding until now, because I don't know if my input adds anything. In fact, I have reviewed more articles at FA than I have nominated though all of my involvement would probably be less than 10 articles. I have no problems whatsoever with a reminder to do reviews and I admit that every article I have ever looked at has been because told me it was nominated. That being said, as a novice to reviewing, this "just one or two articles more per month than you currently are doing" seems daunting. I am a methodical and comprehensive writer. I've been writing for over 4 decades, but WP is an entirely different animal. I enjoy the hunt for sourcing and writing and especially the opportunity to learn, but reviewing is excruciating for me. It is very difficult for me to critique other people's work, as I am constantly questioning is this really necessary, or just something that I would do were I writing the article. I find the learning curve of being an effective reviewer is fairly steep and it's always difficult no matter how many times I do it. If I manage a single review, it is an accomplishment for me. The reminder is worded well, but the expectation of one or two a month (especially being in addition to others) is not something that I think I could ever do because it would take away from actual writing time and create stress. My experience may or may not be similar to other people's, but I think "If you are able to review an article(s), you would be helping speed up all of FAC" gets the message across without setting a bar so high that someone would feel as if they were failing to get out of the gate, so to speak. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this phrasing was unfortunate. These days I only manage "one or two articles per month" myself. We need more reviews, but also (or even more) more reviewers, and it's a lot of work if done properly. We should not put people off by implying there is a base load. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I recently semi-retired and have more time to review than usual; I need to remember my five-day-work-week life in which I often struggled to find time to do reviews. I've revised the text above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I like the revised wording. I do not know if there are a large number of projects devoted to improving existing articles to higher standards, but for example, such a reminder on the talk page of Women in Green might open up a pathway for recruiting new reviewers. I absolutely agree with Johnbod that more reviewers is the key, not necessarily having the existing reviewers increase their work load. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I routinely encourage editors new(ish) to FAC to review as part of their familiarisation. Eg, from a recent post on my talk page: "Review eight or ten FACs yourself. Firstly there is nothing better to give you a real grip on what the criteria need than trying to apply them to another article. And reading other reviewers' comments on an article you have just assessed means more than just reading them in isolation. Secondly, getting your name recognised as someone who is generous with FAC reviews may mean that when you nominate the "regulars" are more likely to reciprocate with reviews for you." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mike Christie I think it would be great and informative. I initially had some comments on the 11:26 draft, but they've all been solved in the 16:15 draft. I didn't want to make too much noise here but I am emboldened by your ping to share a bit more: couldn't we display this figure (1 nom = 6-7 review) more prominently somewhere at WP:FAC itself? Perhaps along with an encouragement to review? Personally, I began doing reviews out of moral obligation when I read on your own user page that you had a goal of doing six reviews for each article your nominate -- the figure made sense to me. In addition, I haven't had and will probably not have the time and the headspace to write a FA this year, so I'm sticking to "lighter" tasks, among which FAC source reviews. These two elements explain why you've seen me around here. In response to @Gog the Mild, I would just note that wasn't clear to me at all that it was "culturally" acceptable to review FACs before having written one, so perhaps this could be communicated more clearly as well. JBchrch   talk  20:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec with Gog) I just revised the text above but I also like the suggestion above of instead posting a table each month of the nominator/reviewer stats. I'm assembling the April stats now, and will see if I can build a table like that. If anyone thinks I shouldn't post such a thing, please say so; I would only post it going forward if there's consensus to do so, but I think posting it at least once would be worth it just so we have an example to look at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I no longer watchlist this page - but saw this after being pinged below. I try to keep up a 5 reviews to nominations limit, but it's not always easy. the stats page above which I'd never seen before suggests that some users get around the same amount of reviews as they take on, and some don't. It's a bit difficult, as a singular number of reviews is a bit misleading. I've seen single line image reviews given the same weight as incredibly detailed source reviews. I don't think messages are the way forward, but publically putting the review percentage down in a well seen area would get me to do more reviews. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC comments on talk pages -- any support for banning this except by coords or when the page is not loading?
Would there be any support for eliminating the option of moving comments to talk pages except when done by coords (for relevancy reasons) or when the overall FAC page is failing to load? Comments can always be collapsed with cot and cob which are very cheap in terms of template load size.

I ask because I read every FAC when I'm doing the statistics, so I'm probably more aware than anyone except the coords of when this happens, and I always find it a pain in the neck to have to go the talk page to see what's going on. I also dislike it when I'm reviewing, because I want to be able to easily skim over the previous reviews in case there are comments there that I want to be aware of when reviewing. I have tried commenting on the talk page in the (distant) past but gave it up; now, the more I see it the less I like it. So how do others feel -- can we change the instructions to eliminate the option of commenting on the talk page?

Also, currently the instructions say "Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive." Does this mean that unresolved comments should not be on the talk page, and that if they post there the reviewer should be asked to move them back?

These comments are prompted in part by the FAC for the 1982 World Snooker Championship and its talk page, so pinging, , and who are the editors there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the main reason we move stuff to talk was because that way editors could continue to use fancy—if wholly otiose—colored graphics, templates, etc., in their reviews. Better idea: continue to forbid the use of swanky graphics etc on a FAC page, also forbid the moving of comments per Mike, but with the caveat that anyone who use such graphics should receive a one-strike warning from a coord to replace/remove them, and if they fail to do so, the coord is entitled by consensus established here to remove the entire review. That will keep both nominators and reviewers up to speed.Incidentally, wrt the particular case that brough MC here: if a review needs to go onto the talk page because of its length, then it should probably be at PR rather than FAC. (Archive with the usual polite message in the traditional fashion.)  SN54129  15:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I thought the review was needless nitpicks with a lot of it not things that are improved with being changed. I don't really mind where the comments go, thought. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, certainly unresolved comments should not be moved to the talk page. I prefer to see even resolved comments collapsed rather then sent to the talk page. If comments are so lengthy they need to be moved then we might need to consider if the FAC is underprepared and should be archived anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to ban this. It's generally fine as long as there is a clear comment on the review page noting that additional comments can be found on talk. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be banned; there are definitely cases where this is quite useful such as lengthy source-text integrity checks. Agree with Buidhe that where this is done, there should be a clear note pointing towards it. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ian. I much prefer any comments relevant to the review to be on the review page, which is what it is for. And am also inclined to wonder if there is something wrong with either the article or the review if there is a case for comments to be moved to talk. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This proposal is not workable; you can't tell people where they can or cannot comment as the basis for an oppose or support, and if reviewers want to comment on FAC talk or article talk, providing a link back on the FAC page as the basis for their declaration, no one has, or should have, the authority to tell the reviewer that the basis for their oppose or support is invalid just because the rationale is not placed in a specific place. I understand the proposal has to do with moving comments from the FAC to talk, but the arguments and the end result are the same as if they started on talk (which is where they belong if they are so long as to constitute a peer review).  THe problem grows as a function of the continual evasion of what FAC has become:  peer review.  Shutting down FACs that become peer reviews would solve a world of problems plaguing FAC. These are relatively new problems (eg five- to seven-year), based on how FAC is functioning now; they weren't problems in the past. The way forward has been clear for a long time.  Experienced reviewers will not engage FAC because it is now peer review and too cumbersome. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Maximum Minimum time for FAC
If an FAC get enough supports and reviews checking off on the images/sources in say two or three weeks, would it still have to wait for more weeks until promotion? What is the maximum time required for a FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My guess is you're really looking for the minimum time from nomination to promotion as maximum times can be up to a couple of months. Last year I think the fastest I got an article promoted at FAC was 21 days, because I'd got probably four supports, a source review and an image review.  But I was writing "cookie cutter" FAs which are generally dismissed by some of the FA old guard, so I think the answer, as with many such queries is, "it depends". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally look at around 20 days as the minimum time, although in some circumstances I could see promoting quicker (things like if a FAC was close to promotion but then was withdrawn due to RL issues by the nominator and later re-nominated or something like that). Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In the past the odd article by a regular got through in less than a week. Cookie cutters as TRM says, with quick responses by the nom, & of a high standard. But there were more reviewers then - really that's what dictates the pace. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's my experience that FACs last ~2 months. Inevitably an FAC will elapse more quickly if the nominator is an editor of standing and renown. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  17:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for May 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 2022. 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) 09:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived last month who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Is three supports enough?
My first FAC at Featured article candidates/Danzig Street shooting/archive1 has been open for a couple months and now has three supports as well as a source check. Is there anything else that I need to do? I was hoping to get it at TFA for the event's anniversary in four weeks. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Redigreg, 3 supports is the minimum required to promote an article. Sometimes more are requested. We're looking to action this FAC but there is currently a lack of available, uninvolved coordinators. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a lack of coords as just a few being involved in that one and me being in the busy part of my year in RL. I'll try to take a pass through the FAC list later this evening. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 2Q 2022 summary
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing very old (VO) and old (O) featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards.

Progress

Monthly progress is recorded at this page. Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:
 * 280 FAs were Delisted at FAR (255 VO and 25 O).
 * 202 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (133 VO and 69 O).
 * FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 66%, with 89% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.

URFA/2020 reached a milestone when there were less than 100 articles promoted from 2004–2006 that needed reviews. Thank you to all the editors who helped with this task. The group is focusing our efforts into finishing those years by the end of the year, and would appreciate it if reviewers could evaluate these articles.

How to help

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


 * Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
 * Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
 * Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed.

Older reports
 * The year-end 2021 report is here.
 * Other quarterly reports are here.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2Q2022. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Glitch in duplink tool on FAs
See here. And ... the editor who wrote the script hasn't edited since January ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Update at Village pump (technical) (in case anyone knows what to do next). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy, find a friendly interface admin (Special:ListUsers/interface-admin) and tell them the scripts are having the problem, ideally linking to their source pages and link them to the VPT thread so they can see what they need to fix. They took away the ability of ordinary admins to edit other people's js and css pages and some of the more critical MediaWiki pages a little while ago, which is probably not a bad thing, but now there are apparently only 11 humans who can do it which seems a bit too far in the other direction. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone put some sort of specialized edit request on the script page ... won't that do the same ? But no one yet has told us why the prose size script is also glitching ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, looking at that list, Izno is an interface-admin and is on that thread, Xaosflux follows VPT, so ... ??? Anyone have a connection to one of those admins ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for June 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2022. 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) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived last month who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Tackling vital articles
I have a proposal to end the stagnation of vital article improvement, called Vital Direct. Basically, start breaking the ice by making two GAs in a drive, then gather up writers, choose the next two articles and repeat the cycle. Once we have enough members at the WP:WikiProject Vital Articles, we can make drives more ambitious (more GAs, FAs), and so on. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

About FAs
Discussion at Talk:Main Page (please confine commentary to there to keep it all in one place). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Formal proposal to add About link to TFA blurb
Please discuss at Talk:Main Page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

FA Coordinators?
Hi all, follow up from Wikipedia_talk:About_Today's_featured_article. Is there a page or page section that describes the FAC volunteer role? (e.g. What is this? How does someone volunteer for this? What are the current expectations for such volunteers?, etc). Thank you! — xaosflux  Talk 14:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't. And generating one would require a very well thought out and pre-discussed RFC, as the role and mechanism for choosing them has been undefined since the last unplanned, undiscussed RFC was launched that did away with the role of FA director, after years of consensus for that role. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's one of our since time immemorial things. To be very clear: I don't want anything to do with that role, or any of the other FC coordinator roles that mostly work very well behind the scenes to get our best content to our readers! Was more interested in the history and a current-state description, and from that other topic trying to see if it was clear somewhere that this was something managed by the entire community of editors via the consensus process (which is obviously is to us, but not to some random reader). —  xaosflux  Talk 14:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A history of the FA process can be found at Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches. In all of archive55 is found the background discussion leading up to the re-ratification of an FA director, in charge of the overall FA process (FAC, FAR and TFA) which happened in the 2012 Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. During the lead-up to that RFC, and for a year after it, the FA pages were subjected to a bombardment of criticism and disruption from three different very prolific sockmasters, including long-term abusers. In that disruptive environment, in 2013, an RFC that was not previously discussed was launched, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive59.   The end result of the 2013 RFC was that the FA director position was removed without a new and clear mechanism put in place.  As things stand now, someone or some group (undefined) put forward—often with no prior discussion of the need or qualifications or goals—a list of proposed Coords for ratification.  The processes that Raul654 followed are no longer used, and it is unclear how candidates are selected.  The overall FA pages no longer work together, rather as three separate pages that are commonly linked via WP:WIAFA.  Altering this would require lengthy discussion and a well-formulated RFC, rather than an RFC surprise launch. My personal opinion is that the director position was part of what led to the esteem in which the FA process was held over a decade ago, and that the absence of a place "where the buck stops" has been part of the demise of the overall process, which is no longer considered (as it once was) the best functioning page on Wikipedia.   This is not intended as a criticism of any current Coord, as they are effective; nonetheless, the ship overall is rudderless. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, wot Sandy wrote ( in their first, short response). One doesn't volunteer, one is drafted. There seems to be a weak correlation between one's disinclination to fill the role and one's prospects of having it pressed upon one. Expectations are loosely linked to those of the community as expressed from time to time. Usually by setting non-binding upper and lower limits to preferred behaviour. Broadly a coordinator is expected to understand this and them while realising their inherent pliability; to be assertive, but flexibly so; to be an enforcer of the MoS, while bearing IAR in mind; to be cognisant of community expectations but not a slave to them; to similarly know the FAC criteria and understand how they are and have been applied; and be aware that not only is there no pleasing everyone, but that there is rarely any pleasing anyone. Umm. Not sure this really helps, but there you go. Probably one of my fellow coordinators can express it better. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the comments! OTD has an unofficial coordinator, POTD has one that is somewhat more official, DYK has a small group of regulars, really only ITN is done "by everyone". Thank you all for your efforts, especially in these areas that require daily work to keep the project quality up! Having some volunteers depth in each area is certainly useful in lowering the bus factor - we have run in to that before when there was only one person doing something (and it is still a critical risk with a few high-profile bots). — xaosflux  Talk 18:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the FA process is at risk of the bus factor, fortunately :) Thank you for understanding, in the context of the discussion of the "About" link to TFA on the main page, that a link explaining the ins and outs of what the Coords are may not be possible.  And it's unlikely anyone would read it anyway!  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of the urgent list
It's been over two months since a coordinator has added an article to the FAC urgents list. I'd like to be able to use the list to help speed up the flow at the bottom of the FAC page, by reviewing articles that the coords would like more feedback on. I know an article with only two supports needs more reviews, but I don't know which of the half dozen month-old articles with three supports most needs a review. And there are articles with four and five supports that are old enough to promote if they've been reviewed properly. Can I ask the coords to put a bit of time into keeping the urgent list up to date? If a coord looks at a FAC that's over X days, and feels it needs more reviews, put it on the urgent list. Or if that's not the criterion, let's agree on what it should be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, quick reply before I head out for the evening... The urgents list (traditionally, and still, to my knowledge) is for articles needing more eyes to expedite consensus; the oldest dozen or so FAC entries generally have had enough eyes but are awaiting some resolution, either the nominator to respond to the last comments or the reviewer to acknowledge recent actions. None of those count as urgent in that they need more reviews, just finalising what's already there. This is not to say that there might not be some older noms higher up the list that could justify a place on the urgents list, but I don't think the oldest there do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Mainly the coords (including yours truly) need to spend more time going through the list and actually promoting articles. The time I have available for Wikipedia has dropped a lot, and I am now available to do coord stuff once a month or so. I am entirely willing to resign if a qualified volunteer can be found to take my place. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The last time I put an article on urgents I was trolled by an editor assuming bad faith. I won't be setting myself up as a target again. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think clear criteria could solve that problem. Re Ian's comment, that's fine, but is it really the case that nothing has been urgent for two months?  If so, and if Buidhe is right that we're just short of coordinator time, perhaps another coord would help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of the slow-down is likely the combination of Buidhe being busy and me being much less active over the last several weeks due to a big exam I just finished. With the exam over (although I may be retaking it in August depending on how things went) I should be able to devote more time to the FAC process. I generally don't list things on the urgent list because I really don't know what the criteria are. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look through the older section today, but I'm still a bit busy with work and won't have time to go thoroughly through the newer ones. Hog Farm Talk 18:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Two promoted, and I gave out pings like candy where status wasn't clear. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Charts reliability question
Posting here because there are probably regulars who can quickly address this. At the FAC for Late Registration I've asked for proof of the reliability of the charts websites published by Hung Medien. They are treated as reliable by WP:CHARTS, but I've been unable to find out the basis for that in the archives. In addition, since these pages are often cited from archive.org, I think we need to know when they became reliable -- they were started as a one-man operation by Steffen Hung, as far as I can tell, so presumably weren't immediately reliable. I have started a thread at WT:CHARTS about this; comments are probably better there than here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Awards
Please watchlist Featured article review/FASA to periodically weigh in on discussions of whether to recognize editors who work to restore Featured articles to current standards during a Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2022. 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) 18:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews.

Note that I've changed this to cover three months rather than one month, as it was omitting some editors' information, because it often takes more than a month to get a FAC promoted.

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well! That change has just trashed my R/N ratio. :-( Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If everyone had a ratio of over 5, FACs would pass in a couple of weeks, so you're in good shape. Actually the change was not intended to change the numbers at all, just to include more people on the list, but I now realize the way I did it includes 12 months back from May, so it's actually 14 months worth of reviews.  I will try to remember to fix that next month. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your efforts to keep these statistics! I can see my reviewing numbers are already suffering from activity drop. Oh well, my nominations are going to dry up pretty soon anyway. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Link to Common tern nomination page
Common tern is a Featured article. There is normally a link on the talk page of a FA to the nomination page.

On the talk page of the Common tern article the text "Featured article candidate" links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates.

It should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Common_Tern/archive1 I don't know how to fix this. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed; it's the articlehistory parameter for the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like this edit broke the parameter, and then removed the correct parameter instead of the broken one while trying to clean up duplicate arguments. Hog Farm Talk 21:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for August 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2022. 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) 12:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FACs about living people are inherently unstable
Not sure where to post this, but since I just saw Elon Musk was nominated for FAC, and coupled with some recent FACs about child actors and very young athletes, it made me wonder what the point is of even promoting such articles? Especially with young people who are in the early stages of their careers or extremely active people like Musk, the articles are inherently unstable, and would become outdated after only a few years, if not less. So I wonder if the implications of this have ever been discussed? Are there any guidelines for this? FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Whenever this has come up the answer has been that the instability criterion of WP:FACR does not apply; that criterion is meant to disallow articles undergoing edit wars, for example. The result is that this sort of article can be promoted, but is more likely to be taken to WP:FAR as being no longer comprehensive in a very short time.  I could see the article on Musk going to FAR within a year or two if it is not diligently kept up to date.  But I think FAC has nothing to say about whether the article will be kept up to date; we can only evaluate the article as it is at nomination time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For almost every topic, updates are necessary. We shouldn't assume that updates won't happen without giving people the chance to make them. For example, a long time ago Barack Obama and John McCain both were TFA together on Election Day, November 4, 2008 (see Today's featured article/November 4, 2008). Unsurprisingly, Obama's article had more changes after the election than McCain's, and suffered more instability/edit warring. But it stayed as a FA for over a decade.
 * I would not wish to discourage people even more from writing FAs on living people / existing cities or countries / current hot topics. Too many FAs are in fairly niche areas (there are often complaints about what gets featured as TFA). People writing FAs about popular living people should be commended, not discouraged. —Kusma (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mike here, although personally I do think it's a waste of time to try and promote stuff that is going to be rapidly outpaced by events (especially in the case of biographies and the like where critical reappraisal and image are always changing.) Stuff like FA's MoS and prose requirements don't really mesh well with text that is continually being revised and importance of certain details or sections shifts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it should be blanket discouraged in general, I think it could be evaluated on a case by case basis at the beginning of a FAC, as per child actors, very young athletes and Musk. Of course it's possible that a nominator will keep it up to date for years and years, but that would be so unusual as to be unlikely, and all this added material would also be unreviewed, probably constituting more text than what was in the article by the nomination. A child actor/singer/athlete will per definition have an incomplete article by the time it gets nominated, so I think those should actually be discouraged in general due to inevitable lack of comprehensiveness. This is not a subject I dabble in myself, so it's not something I will either try to implement or will be affected by, it has just puzzled me a lot. As stated above, such articles are deemed to go to FAR within a short time after promotion. Imagine if, say, Michael Jackson became a FAC as a child... FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that unusual for an FA to be well-maintained & updated, plus for actors, politicians, & no doubt Musk, others will do it, though the standard will need checking. Does anyone actually have an example of an FA that badly needs/needed updating for recent developments? Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A good deal of the articles currently at Featured article review (as well as past nominations) seem to be there for that very reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. I don't see any BLP's there. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You just said FA, not specifically BLP, but yes, Sandy pointed some out, and I'm sure many more could be found. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought the subject here (chosen by you) was "FACs about living people are inherently unstable". Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the percentage of BLPs represented at FAR is higher than any other category, but unless there's a group of knowledgeable FA people on board, they can get into trouble with real consequences. My guesstimate is that they tend to become more POV as more time goes on (but I have no evidence to back that up other than examples like Obama) because others can't change the current "owners" text. There have been examples of very conscientious maintenance of BLPs, but have a look at the old list at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020; there are any number there that have spiraled out of control that just haven't been addressed yet. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not looked myself, but others have said that Angelina Jolie is in great shape. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Roger Waters recent (July 16 de-feature). Without perusing the archives, Barack Obama also comes to mind. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think these articles should still be eligible for FAs, provided that they met the FA criteria. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it stable? Look at the stats history ... who were previously involved editors and have they weighed in? This edit warring disagreement is less than a month ago, and there was also a BLP thread. Too recent for comfort. A BLP of that nature needs extreme stewardship ala J. K. Rowling; is there evidence of that with many experienced FA writers on board ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * PS, for a case like this, it is essential to read the last several talk page archives, to determine how stable the article is and what kind of editor interaction and involvement is seen. The J. K. Rowling comparison is made in talk archives. I'll say right away that JKR had multiple experienced FA writers on board, all sides worked through disagreements, there were a few blocks of one-time editors while it was on the main page, no one was chased off (that I know of), and if any one of the main editors (eg me) died tomorrow, there are multiple editors who are integral at that article and would keep it updated. Can the same be said of Musk?  Has anyone looked to determine what past conflicts, edit wars, issues look like ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlike children, Rowling also has the benefit of having her most well known work behind her. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to add that, but with three corrections already to my text, I thought I'd let someone else have a chance :) :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there any issues with Emma Watson? —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not impressed by the section "2010–present: Independent films and mainstream work" starting with "She also appeared in a music video...". Espresso Addict (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Where to from here?
So, I just received my fourth support at the WBPX-TV FAC. This one has languished here for nearly three months... I see that most of the other longstanding FACs do not have nearly as many supports relative to the number of participants in the discussion. As someone who is still new to this area, what happens next? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If your FAC has a source and image review, a coordinator should review it for promotion. Unfortunately, I am not able to be very active anymore and other coords may be busy or recused. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just promoted it. I've been meaning to make a pass through the list for some time now but have been running on fumes for months. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I feel a bit of the burnout too, especially on larger projects. It really is quite rewarding to have an FA after all these years. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Source and image checks for Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun
I know it's already listed above, but Featured article candidates/Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun/archive1 needs both types of specialized review, and there is reason to want it done soon. I didn't mention this in my nomination statement because I didn't want to seem to be pressuring anyone into supporting, but now that it has attracted substantial support, I will say I was hoping for this article to run as TFA on the centennial of the discovery this November. The window at WP:TFA/R for November requests is likely to close soon, so I would like to get these reviews taken care of if anyone can spare the time. A. Parrot (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Calling all source reviewers!
As you can tell at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests, there is a very sizable backlog of source and image reviews needed. Let's try and make a push to get some quality source and image reviewing done over the next week or so. Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting exemption
My FAC nomination of 1981 World Snooker Championship was archived (see Featured article candidates/1981 World Snooker Championship/archive1). I'm requesting permission to nominate a different article, without waiting for two weeks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - Permission granted. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 3Q 2022 summary
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing very old (VO) and old (O) featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards.

Progress

Monthly progress is recorded at this page. Through the end of the third quarter 2022, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:
 * 324 FAs were Delisted at FAR (289 VO and 35 O).
 * 210 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (140 VO and 70 O).
 * FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 65%, with 88% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.

URFA/2020 reached a milestone with less than 4,000 articles needing review. Thanks to all of the editors who have helped with this task.

Year-end goals
 * Focus on finishing up reviews of 2004–2006 FA: The number of the very oldest FAs needing review has been reduced from 225 to 77; finishing these up by year-end is a goal.
 * Focus on reviewing 2007 FAs: The number of the 2007 FAs needing review has been reduced from 659 to 487; please review an article from that group towards a goal of reducing it to 450 by year-end.

How to help

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


 * Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
 * Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
 * Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

Older reports
 * The year-end 2021 report is here.
 * Other quarterly reports are here.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/3Q2022. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for September 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2022. 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) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Expensive" templates
Question for the FAC regulars: I recall a time when we used collapse (or similar templates) to help keep a review visually organized. My understanding from the talk page archives (and rules on the main FAC page) is that those were removed because they were computationally expensive when transcluding dozens of FACs on one page. Is that the main reason, and if so, has there been any consideration about perhaps not transcluding all FACs? For example, if a bot provided a daily summary visually similar to how User:Gary/nominations_viewer.js works (or any other bot-maintained tables, like at WP:BOTREQ or Requests for adminship/Recent), we'd keep the best of both worlds, no? czar  03:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion here that has a fair amount of explanation. The TL;DR is that there's a built-in limit that causes the page to truncate if too many templates are used; it's not a computational expense issue.  Also, most templates are fine to use but anything that quotes long strings of text is a problem, which includes collapse and tq.  However, you can use cot and cob instead of  ; those cost almost nothing.  Similarly pings are more or less free. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion on Golden Skate (goldenskate.com) source
Hi, I would appreciate a third opinion on the use of Golden Skate (goldenskate.com) in Featured article candidates/Tara Lipinski/archive1 and another recent FAC. My comments are in the review. czar 03:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Signpost
Just to note, I'm a bit burned out, so I'm just doing a very basic Featured Content this month. Lists of promoted articles and their nominators, no summaries. Last month's was utter hell - over fifty articles and lists, and list introductions do not cut down easily. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 23:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1
The FACBot informs me that Featured article candidates/TRAPPIST-1/archive2 was moved to the archive page, but has no template. Could one of you add the require template so the FACBot will be able to process it? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Will be AWOL
- I expect to be only marginally active for pretty much all of November due to an accumulation of real-life stuff. I won't be able to consistently be able to perform my coord duties until December. Hog Farm Talk 17:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hope your RL stuff goes well! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What Buidhe said. This is why we have several coords. In any case, as might be apparent from the reviewing I've been doing lately, I'm a little less busy than usual IRL ATM so we should be cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2022. 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) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning support at top and/or bottom of review
Hi folks. Is there current consensus on whether it's better to mention support at both the top and bottom of a review, or only in one place? The former seems common, and I've done that before too, but I vaguely remember something about a bot that counts the number of bolded instances of "support" per FAC, meaning mentions in two places would be mistakenly counted twice (for whatever that bot does at least). Is that still an issue? And for the FAC coordinators is the support possibly easier to miss if it's not at the top? :-) Moisejp (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tks Moisejp, off the top of my head I can't recall a particular consensus and I never look at any tools that simply count supports but like to see only one 'big' support notice -- AFAIC it can be in the level-4 header at the top of a reviewer's comments or it can be a bolded word at the end, but one's enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominations Viewer counts supports, and it appears that having two instances would confuse it. Not sure if there may be others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This coordinator prefers reviewers to follow the instructions at the head of the FAC page: "To support a nomination, write *Support, followed by your reason(s)" or "To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose , followed by your reason(s)". (Emphasis in original.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Pre-nom question
I'm planning to nominate Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts for FAC shortly, but there's one thing holding me up—IABot hasn't been working since last month, so I can't archive the references. I'd been waiting for the issue to get resolved before I nominated (the cause of the issue is known), but I just wanted to ask: would it be OK for me to start the nomination before the bot is fixed and archives are taken care of? I believe the article is ready otherwise and I don't like being held up like this, haha. JOE BRO 64  14:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Archiving links is not a FAC requirement, so I don't think this would be a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Awards
There are four active Featured Article Save Award nominations (for Planet, Josquin des Prez, H.D., and Alfred Russel Wallace). Please join the discussions to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary deadlines
Why is there an arbitrary deadline? Who determined this? Why are three users granted full dictatorship of a process that determines which articles are worthy of the main page? Why is there a two week break for articles that are not failed? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The coordinators do just that, they are not dictators, they work on our behalf. The two week wait has been agreed by discussion and this rule has been in place for donkey's years. Graham Beards (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Archiving discussions for no reason other than a lack of comments in a 28 day window seems pretty dictatory to me; the two week hold off just bolsters that. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the way it is with FAC. I suggest you work on the article and re-nominate it when the two week waiting time has elapsed. Calling FAC coordinators names will not win you many friends around here.Graham Beards (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not, I'm calling the bureaucratic process names, because its garbage. "Thats the way it is" may fly with democracy, but not here. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham and thanks for the explanations. Floydian, perhaps you could start a discussion on proposed changes, with a view to bringing any conclusions to an RFC? At the moment the coordinators are restricted by community consensus to implementing the policies you find unpalatable. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I may just do so, but I will need some time to formulate said proposal. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric aside, I am concerned that general inactivity on a nomination is considered a pocket veto, which tends towards a favorable bias towards trendy and popular topics. I think this is the crux of the issue. --Rschen7754 17:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia is a volunteer system, the coords cannot make other editors go to certain nominations to give reviews. Without reviews the FAC cannot be promoted so, in order to avoid excessive clutter on the FAC page, I don't see any way around removing nominations that have not attracted a consensus to promote after a certain time. Another factor is that some underprepared noms are archived from inactivity due to many editors' reluctance to formally oppose. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Floydian has written multiple FAs so I don't think the latter is the case here. Has there been thought to using Featured article candidates/FAC urgents? --Rschen7754 17:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The community feeling seems to be that FAC works better with a reasonably regular turnover of nominations, not letting things stagnate and wind up with a large list of noms that our limited pool of reviewers -- obviously a key resource -- find hard to dent. This does result in noms getting archived if they don't seem to be attracting reviews and therefore don't look like achieving consensus to promote in a reasonable time. There are things a nominator can do to help gain reviewers, among them reviewing others' noms, or making neutrally worded requests for commentary at user or project talk pages; first taking the nominated article to GAN or PR (or A-class review at selected projects) can also sometimes provide a ready-made set of reviewers at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing I've noticed at FAC is that editors who commonly review other editor's noms tend to get more reviews on there own. Per the FAC stats tool, Floydian has not reviewed a FAC nomination since 2016, and the next one before that was 2014. If you don't contribute to reviewing others' nominations, I don't you how you can necessarily expects lots of review on your own.  This is NOT a suggestion that quid pro quo plays a role in FAC, it is simply an observation based on general reviewer behavior. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a quid pro quo to say that you can expect to get more out of a volunteer process if you put more into it. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But why the deadline? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean the time after which a nomination is removed, it's to avoid the list getting too long with unreviewed nominations. If you mean the requirement that there be a delay after a failed nomination before the article can be renominated, that was introduced to prevent nominators simply renominating a failed FAC without bothering to address the problems identified by opposers.  If a nomination is archived because of a lack of reviews, the coordinators can choose to give permission to renominate early. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a relative newcomer to the process, I think it would be useful to have a page explaining the reasons behind the consensus for FA proceedings. You pick up bits and bobs just from being here (I know that there was a director who then left and ... stuff happened?), but short of going through the talk page archives, I don't see an explanatory note of any kind. This goes for FAR as well—why is it divided into two? Seems a bit of a faff, really. Some explanation would really help. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

FAC mentorship request
Hello! I posted a version of this message on Vanamonde93's talk page, who indicated that their expertise was too far removed for any advice to be useful. I looked over the list of mentors and didn't see great overlap, so I'm opting to post this request here for more eyes. For the last few months I've been working on Competitive debate in the United States with the goal of bringing it to Featured status. I'm aware that this is often a daunting task for newcomers to the process - Having gone through WP:FLC before I think I'm more familiar than some, but prose is a different beast and any advice or feedback y'all are willing to give beforehand would be much appreciated. Does anyone have expertise with debating or history of education who would be willing to take a look at Competitive debate in the United States? Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 01:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for November 2022
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November 2022. 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) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Bot error report
Featured article candidates/Verrado High School/archive1 has not been transcluded on the nomination page. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 8/archive2 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * it looks like you removed it from the FAC page. I don't disagree but do you think it should be marked as archived to avoid the bot error? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is there and functioning for me. What seems to be the error? Re "I don't disagree", is there some procedural issue? Rereading that and your comment on the nomination page, I wonder if you are confusing the article with First Punic War; which you picked up at A class review for a number of sourcing issues (for which you have my thanks) and which has since been promoted to FA? Any hoo, suggestions for improvement - either general or specific - are, as always, welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I think because we correctly removed the Ontario Highway FAC from the list as an out-of-process nom, but we took no further action, the bot is wondering why it's not in the list. Suggest we have three choices: 1) let it ride and when the two-week hiatus is up shortly the nominator can put it back in the FAC list for review (but we have the procedural discussion at the top); 2) detonate it as we sometimes do with OOP noms (but then we lose the procedural discussion completely); 3) archive it in the normal way and let the bot do its thing (preserving the procedural discussion and letting any new nom be fresh).  As might be deduced from the way I've listed the options, I'd personally go for 3)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 3 seems the way to go. Sounds like this was my error; apologies to all and I shall try to watch for this in future. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we still stuck in the traffic? Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My personal thought is that option 1) would be best given that it's just a couple days from now, kick the procedural discussions to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 8/archive2 so they're both preserved and out of the way, and ignore the error report until it gets put back on. Seems like less red tape going forward to me; but if the consensus is for option 3 I'm happy with that as well.  If we're going option 3, one of us will need to go ahead and formally slap the archived template onto the FAC (and in that case, add back the procedural comments, which have been blanked by the nominator). Hog Farm Talk 22:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This item has been renominated, but it seems the dating has confused the bot, leading to the nom being moved halfway down the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - We're going to need you to re-sign the nomination statement so that it gets in the right spot chronologically. Hog Farm Talk 19:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since Floydian already signed the introductory nomination paragraph with a later timestamp, I just copied that. Floydian, I hope that's OK with you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, sorry for buggering up the list! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Mary Martha Sherwood
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Mary Martha Sherwood/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

March 3 TFA, Socrates Nelson
Socrates Nelson, nominated at FAC by User:TheTechnician27, was promoted FA in December 2021, and runs TFA on March 3. That's at least three weeks that could be well used for a copy edit, and to reduce the amount of trivia contained in the article. (Sample: But there is more. This 1,900 word article contains a good amount of trivia, worthy of DYK, including detail about the subsequent family of his wife who re-married after he died, and what his family did to his estate after he died.) If the trivia is removed, this is in the running for one of the shortest FAs; could it at least be well written? The lead could particularly benefit from the services of a good copyeditor. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This is more a question for TFA, but, what do you think of these comments? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was recently nominated at FAR where it was quite thoroughly scrutinized by highly experienced editors; meanwhile, I fail to see even a single specific criticism of the copy-editing leveled here. Also, Heaven forfend fewer than 15 words be dedicated to saying what the life of a subject's spouse was like before they married. Maybe the line "Porter's wife Elizabeth (née Jervis) (otherwise known as "Tetty") was now a widow at the age of 45" should be removed from the article Samuel Johnson as extraneous trivia. To be perfectly candid, I think can kick rocks and learn to stop being such an abrasive, arrogant child.  TheTechnician27   (Talk page)  23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove anything you'd like from Samuel Johnson; neither Mally nor Ottava are around to defend the text they wrote, and you'll get no argument from me. (If you want to discuss Johnson's TS, then I'm your target.) Our definitions of "quite thoroughly scrutinized" are not in sync.  Just out of curiosity, could you explain why him owning a horse (in an era when, well, everyone owned a horse, is relevant, and why we should care that what later became the oldest courthouse in MN happens to be on land he provided?  Or how you came up with Wabasha and Stillwater being the same place, re mouth of the Chippewa River, when they are 75 miles apart?) Good luck on TFA day; with the current level of TFA readership, it is probable that the excessive trivia won't be read, but I do hope the reviewers on this page are taking a thorough look and digesting the amount of trivia. No, this is not a question for TFA; TFA schedules what FAC provides. This is a question about FAC standards and whether leads are being thoroughly vetted.  That the amount of trivia was never even questioned is also a FAC matter. TFA can only work with what FAC and FAR give it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * x2 - Agree with Sandy about the pony bit. Have some other concerns as well, but those will have to wait to be posted until I'm not getting edit conflicted on mobile. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's more than the pony. And there's ample time to address the issues before TFA day.  Just to be clear; FAC has never prohibited (and I have always supported) short articles for FA, so a) there is no need to pad an article up with trivia to meet some size requirement, and b) there is no reason for the prose on a short article not to shine. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please reread it; I did no such thing. Nelson started a trading post near Wabasha, then went back down to Illinois, then traveled back up the Mississippi, this time to Stillwater. "In early 1844, he traveled up the Mississippi River to the mouth of the Chippewa River in the Wisconsin Territory and opened a trading post [...] [Footnote here clarifying the post was near Wabasha] On October 23, he married Betsey D. Bartlett [...] in Hennepin, Illinois [...] Later that year, Nelson took a steamboat farther north [emphasis mine] to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse". If this implies that Wabasha and Stillwater are purportedly the same location, then I don't know what to tell you.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  05:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More on that below, with detail. I'm sorry to have singled out your article here, but the nomination was not well served, and fortunately there is time to correct the issues. FAC should be doing better than promoting DYK or GA-level material. That said, I've now looked in greater detail and found more problems, so unless others here are able to take on improvements, it may be worth thinking about whether to pull the article from TFA (which would have to be raised on that talk page).  I am hoping that can be avoided if others here are willing to work on the article to bring it to FA standards, since it was so recently promoted (it is not a candidate for WP:FAR, per the presumed wait period from promotion). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, no personal attacks. You may disagree with Sandy but there's no excuse to call another editor "an abrasive, arrogant child". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, personal attacks are never called for, and in any case Sandy is right. The article is decent, GA standard certainly, but some of the language used would need to be polished for it to match the FA standard of what we used to call "refreshing, brilliant prose". Just as a quick examples, the sentence "That May, he also named the township of Greenfield just east of Stillwater after his former Massachusetts home, which was later renamed to Grant Township in 1864" is confusing and not-well structured. It sounds like his former Massachusetts home wqas renamed to "Grant Township", which I don't think was the intention. And phrases like "the Nelsons had twin girls", "On January 27, 1867, during his twilight months" are not what I'd consider the best possible encyclopedic tone. Interested to hear what Hog Farm has to say too, but as Sandy says we should attempt a decent copyedit on this before it runs at TFA. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've got some smaller sourcing quibbles too, but will be posting on the talk page of the article itself instead, because there will be a few and that's the better place for extended discussion. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My daily giggle, courtesy of Amakuru :) Clarification on Refreshing, brilliant prose for the history books! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SG
From this version. Sample: Looking at the two sources:
 * Odd Fellows
 * This source lists five charter members of Minnesota Lodge No. 1, and officers; Nelson is not among them. It does have Black and Nelson as the first men initiated; how do we get from there to them being the co-founders of Lodge No. 1? Perhaps I am misreading; I don't see it.
 * The second source given lists five trustees as of 1852. It doesn't include Mahlon Black, so it's hard to understand what is going on here.

Sample:
 * Minnesota Historical Society
 * The source given lists him only as one of the oldest members (not as a founding member).
 * The Minnesota Historical Society does not mention him at all, but does say that Charles K. Smith, Minnesota’s first territorial secretary with a reputation as a political rascal, drew up the legislative act, wrote the founding charter, and attached the names of eighteen distinguished supporters (several of whom had not given their permission).

Here is the text that was in the article on December 23, 2020 when I saw it in the queue after the article was promoted at DYK and these other basic errors were corrected). (The mouth of the Chippewa is in Wabasha, which is 75 miles from Stillwater. The sources have it correct; the text inserted did not reflect the sources.) That incorrect text was inserted here. While I am glad that these errors seem to have been corrected after the DYK appearance, the combination of this basic error with the other two source-to-text integrity issues above indicate that a thorough source-to-text integrity review is warranted.
 * Stillwater


 * Trivia or unrelated, to be removed
 * At some point later in his life, he came to own an Indian pony mare named Lady Maguire.
 * Four years later, Emma married attorney Fayette Marsh, a former engineer and chronic alcoholic who had studied law and moved to Stillwater to co-found a firm.[60][100] They built a house in 1873[101] and had three children – Ella N., Nelson Orris, and Faith Marsh[102] – before Emma died on November 23, 1880, at age 32 of what was described by her obituary as "a short but painful illness".[100][103] From 1873–74 until 1876, Betsey continued to manage Nelson's estate while living in the Marsh residence.[101] In 1882, she moved next door,[12] having had disagreements with Fayette over Nelson's estate for years.[104] She died five years after Emma of heart complications on October 8, 1885, at age 72, having been ill for two months prior.[12][14][101]

Sample: How about something like: Sample: Assuming that can be verified; because of other issues found here, someone should dig in to verify the content.
 * Lead
 * Was the Minnesota Historical Society ever located in Stillwater? Not as far as I can tell, so what does it have to do with him being "involved" in Stillwater?
 * Can the sentences be recast to (more correctly) reflect two separate sets of facts, more directly and without the gerunding? (The text as stated is unverified by the sources; see above.)
 * Prose, two paragraphs with "was involved in" "was involved in" vary the prose.
 * Successful is redundant.
 * More direct to avoid gerunding:

These are samples only; all of the text should be checked for verification. If others plan to take on improvements, please feel free to move this section to article talk. I post it here for several reasons: to highlight the importance of a) checking sources at FAC rather than just adjusting prose, b) making sure the lead shines, as the TFA Coords have to rely on a good lead for crafting the blurb, and c) the need to simply archive nominations when they aren't attracting reviewers (there is often a good reason a nomination can't attract reviewers, and if they have to be drummed up, the reviewers might not be as uninvolved or impartial as is optimal). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I see fixed some of the awkward prose while I was typing (thanks!), but there is still the issue of source-to-text integrity in the lead; depending on how that all shakes out,  may need to adjust the TFA blurb when work is finished.  Thanks, all! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)