Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive91

Cookies for the coordinators

 * September 25 although that's still subject to change, especially over the next couple of weeks since TFA nominations could still be submitted. But it should run in September. Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh not at all . Pretty much what I expected, plus, a lot of fun in learning. Thank you for the support on TFA!, sounds good! Next time I will have to try to nominate a FAC in time for National Roller Coaster Day (August 16). Got a whole year to jump on that opportunity. :D Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 21:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone FAs
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Load-time issues
Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2023 is encountering the old load-time problems; perhaps one of the Coords will identify the overly long reviews and move some portions to the talk pages of those reviews. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's displaying correctly and fairly quickly (under two seconds) for me. I think there have been a couple of recent MediaWiki issues that have slowed down display times until they were fixed; perhaps that's what happened to you? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so (but will check later), because it's been going on for a couple of days now ... will check when I am home later today, though. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Last time this happened in the featured log it was excessive use of the green highlight template and I had to go through and manually remove transclusions until it worked. I will try to see what/if the issue is this evening after work. Hog Farm Talk 16:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it might be lang in the Maurice Suckling and Raymond III, Count of Tripoli FACses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not the problem this time -- the post-expand include size limit is 2M and the page is barely over half that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not having any load time issues - maybe a bad internet connection or a resolved MediaWiki bug? Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2023
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2023. 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) 14:10, 6 August 2023 (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) 14:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Notifications
Is it possible to be notified (for example, by bot) when an article I have expertise in and thus may be interested in reviewing is nominated? Specifically, I am interested in the more earth sciences and math-related articles, being an engineer. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is a bot which can do this, Reaper Eternal, although others may know better. The coordinators will endeavour to ping you about anything nominated which broadly fits into those categories. Affine symmetric group is currently at FAC and you may care to offer a review, or, better still, a source review. Many thanks for flagging up your interest. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be possible to make automatic notifications for people who somehow indicate they'd be willing to review FACs within specific fields of interest, defined by which projects they're tagged with? For example if I'm interested in history, birds, and rock music, I could subscribe to notifications about nominations of articles in the relevant projects. Or maybe there could be a table or alterative page that groups current FACs and FARs by subject? I've thought about something like that before, because I've sometimes missed FACs I actually wanted to review since I didn't know by their titles that they covered subjects I was interested in, or was otherwise too late for the game. Would probably be a lot of work, but could be cool (GAN is already much clearer on what an article is about because nominations are grouped in categories). WP:PALEOPR, the internal peer review page for the paleo project, automatically lists articles that may be of interest (though there are of course also misses), perhaps could be something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a lesser substitute, there is always Article alerts; for example I watchlist WikiProject Germany/Article alerts and WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts. I don't know whether there is some clever way to extract only the FACs. —Kusma (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought. Maybe there could be template pings in the same vein as which ping possibly-interested editors to a new FAC?  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable that there isn't. Thanks anyway! (Unfortunately, the affine symmetric group article is a bit outside my more applied math background.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1 source review
Jo-Jo Eumerus's nomination, TRAPPIST-1, has been waiting for a source review for nearly a month. Jo-Jo has done practically every other review in the queue, a laudable way to try to get one's own article reviewed. Jo-Jo is also one of the most selfless reviewers we have, having done over 300 reviews for the 27 FACs he's nominated. I am guessing reviewers are shying away because there are scores of sources, so perhaps if anyone is up for it, a shared source review could be done? If anyone is interested in trying a source review for the first time, this might be a good one to start with, if it's a collaboration. I would be willing to review it myself but am busier than usual in real life, though if nobody gets to it I'll try to do it in a few days. I'd be happy to help any new source reviewers with any questions, and for anyone who isn't scared of a couple of technical things, I can share some of the tricks I use to speed up my own source reviewing (mainly Ling's script, and a macro to collect together all the citation templates and display them in a reviewable format). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow 331 footnotes. I would be willing to give this a try as part of a team.  --JBL (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the review page, suggesting we start individual source review sections stating which parts of the article we intend to cover. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Typically a source review doesn't focus on a section of the article. (A spotcheck can do so, but this article doesn't need a spotcheck.)  You could split it up by range of footnotes or range of sources, but since it's using sfn the footnotes are easy to verify as being correctly formatted (up to things like p/pp errors, anyway). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed "doesn't need a spotcheck". What exactly is needed to check this article properly (so that I don't end up trying to do more than anyone wants). -- Mirokado (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Guidance on source reviewing at FAC minus section 3. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What Nikki said. When I do a source review I divide it more or less as follows:
 * Are the sources reliable and high-quality? There are a couple of scripts you can install that will highlight sources known to be problematic.
 * Are the sources correctly formatted and consistently formatted? These are two different things; a cite can have a publisher location, for example, or not, but if one book cite has it they all should have it, for consistency.  Ling's script catches a lot of these and is a huge time-saver, though it won't spot everything.
 * Do the links (in the citations) all work? The guidance article recommends a tool, but I find it better to start a separate browser instance and go through half a dozen at a time, right-clicking to pop them into separate tabs and make sure they all work.  Takes a few seconds per link.
 * TRAPPIST-1 relies almost entirely on journal articles so the source reliability shouldn't be nearly as hard to determine as for a pop culture article. The above three bullets might be a way to divide the work, if more than one person is going to do the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I will start by checking the citation links (bullet 3). I will start with Abstracts. If anyone else wants to join in, I suggest starting at Gizis or Meadows and letting us know. -- Mirokado (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll start at Meadows. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting here (will bring it over to the actually FAC page later) that there seems to be inconsistent use of ISSNs in citations. --JBL (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting here (will bring it over to the actually FAC page later) that Morris, Brett M.; Agol, Eric; Hebb, Leslie; Hawley, Suzanne L.; et al. is listed as The Astrophysical Journal but is actually to the (related but different) journal The Astrophysical Journal Letters. --JBL (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure that ia aware of these posts. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've copied these comments over to the FAC page. --JBL (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Source in cite
Does anyone know how to strip a (e.g. ODNB) citation of its TWL access link? I've done it loads of times, but. Ta! SN54129 17:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Like ? This shows:  SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the one SchroCat, many thanks! Obvs we get bollocked for forgetting to strip the info out here, but it always occurred to me if it was part of the advertising that was being sold to e.g. Oxford, etc., that their name would be found in a million WP citations. Where, of course, thanks to the ubiquitous disparity between what we say and would we actually do, is rarely the case :D  SN54129  17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Need mentoring for Outram Park MRT station
I am thinking of promoting this to FA status, and I’m sure it looks great. However, I would like someone to help me bring it up to it.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 08:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mentoring request for Angela Merkel
Hi everyone! I recently brought Angela Merkel up to GA, and I'd like to take it through the FA review process too. It would be my first FAC, so I'm looking for a mentor; I already reached out to two people from the list a while ago, but they seem to be currently inactive. Thanks :) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 14:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but IMO the article needs to cite a lot less news reports and a lot more scholarship (historians etc.) IMO before it can pass at FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! Could you elaborate a little? Does this refer to any specific sections, or is it a general sentiment (at FAC)? I wanna be as well-prepared as possible :) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's fairly general. The featured article criteria require high-quality sources: I would expect a much greater proportion of academic scholarship, especially for someone as high-profile and well-discussed as Merkel, in comparison to the routine news coverage which dominates the sourcing now. See for example the ratio at J. K. Rowling.
 * As an aside, I wouldn't suggest Merkel as a first FAC. It will either not go well, or take a really, really, long time to get to the required quality. Set your first bar lower, and build up. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good to know. When you say that I should set my first bar lower, do you mean choose a shorter article? Or one that's already quite close to FA standards? Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally think that you should do whatever motivates you most – and if it's this article, I think you should go for it, since it is a very important one. With this article, you will probably get a lot of comments from which you can learn the most. Another shorter article might be theoretically easier to get to FA level, but if there is a risk that you will be less motivated because it's not precisely what you wanted to do, I wouldn't do it. I looked over this article very quickly and there are many small things that are easy to fix but that should be best done before nominating (e.g., sources in the lead, unresolved maintainance tags, some spelling errors etc.). I recommend you to list it at WP:Peer Review first, and, while waiting for comments, work on the sources issue that others have pointed out above. When you don't get any more comments and you don't know how you could possibly improve the article further, it's time for nominating it at FAC. But don't be disappointed if it needs two rounds nonetheless, getting this kind of article to this level is a lot of work (but very satisfying if you can achieve it finally). Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest finding a shorter article that is supported by your Merkel research, such as (say) one of the federal elections she won. That way, you gain experience in the expectations of FAC, which will probably make Merkel a better article, and you build your bona fides with the FAC community. Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's good advice. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As it is the article has a heavy reliance on news sources. Due to the limitations of such sources, it is likely better to rewrite based on scholarly sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound discouraging, but having spent a good bit of my time here writing about contemporary political figures, I would generally discourage bringing them to FAC: the source material changes too quickly for the articles to remain representative without constant and extensive updates. Merkel is now retired, but I would expect the scholarly literature about her legacy is just starting to develop. As such I particularly agree with Wehwalt's advice about choosing an article with smaller scope; something about an election, or a policy, Merkel was involved in early in her career will likely have a reasonably stable literature about it, and will let you write a longer-lasting article. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a very valuable piece of advice, thank you! I would expect the scholarly literature about her legacy is just starting to develop; I suppose that's part of the reason behind the current state of the article's sourcing. I found some scholarly analysis of German policies during her Chancellorship, but it was all quite limited.
 * Thanks also to everyone else, there's lots of valuable input here, particularly for someone new to FAC. I'll probably try to find a different article for FAC. Happy editing! Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that there is already a lot of scholarship out on Merkel. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a new candidate in mind: Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Being a book, I think the requirements for both scope and sourcing will be a bit easier to meet than with Angela Merkel. I've taken a look at some literature FAs, and I think this is quite an achievable goal for a first FA, perhaps more so than a complex political biography. What do you think? Small note: when I started working on it, it was stub. I've already added some content, but there's a long way to go before FAC. I'm really just wondering if you think this is a more suitable subject for a first FAC. Thanks again for your time everyone! Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 14:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation casing
In doing source reviews, a point I commonly have to raise is about the casing of titles. MOS:CONFORMTITLE states that all citations must use the same casing (title case or sentence case) in their titles. This point has been challenged by a number of editors, but my understanding of it came from other FACs and FLCs of my own where this point has been raised. I brought this here sine I was unsure whether it's actually a valid point, so is this casing problem actually a part of the FAC/FLC criteria? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The number of things that aren't required by FAC rules but are still requested as if it was holy writ can be surprising. And perhaps irritating, depending on the placidity of your nature. However, bear in mind that FACs have to adherer to MOS, and that is an even greater collection of ad hoc, sometimes seemingly random, often certainly contradictory, instructions, so quite often you might find that there's something you should do, but not because it's in the FAC regs, but because it's in the MOS. HTH!  SN54129  14:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying that! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS also says at the tippity-top that ... it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. If an editor can articulate a good reason for disregarding MOS on a specific spot, then that should generally be accepted. I have to say I am not a fan of your declaring in reviewing that [a]ll citations must use the same casing when that is contradicted by both the notice at the top of MOS and by that specific guideline which says that [g]enerally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works .... The word generally implies that there may be exceptions. For example, I would not apply title case to a French source or sentence case to a German one. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The linguistic exceptions do make sense- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do want consistency in English-language sources, but I wouldn't dream of requiring it for foreign languages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all weird to me; shouldn't source titles in citations preserve the formatting of the original source? That seems both more intuitive and more in line with the purpose of citations, that being to identify sources and aid readers in locating them. The more accurate a citation is to the original source, the better, no? Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 14:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See MOS:FOREIGNTITLES.  SN54129  14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Problems arise when the source uses all caps, as many newspapers do. Another is that Worldcat puts titles in sentence case, as do several academic citation formats like MLA, regardless of whatever case is used on the printed book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I linked to the MOS, I did not grant it my approval! we should do what is usual in every other encyclopedia/academic work, and use the house style. It will be occasions very few and very disparate that doing so might have a material effect on the meaning of the title, and of course if there's ever a chance that we are going to mislead the reader by using the house style, then it should be discussed on a case by case style. But man, the MOSheads have got the whole thing sewn up to the super slam. Cheers,, well met.  SN54129  16:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * True. We always have IAR if there's a real problem :) Actualcpscmscrutinize, talk 16:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone for their input, very helpful in understanding the MOS's place in reviews. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mentor needed
I'm trying to get Fleetwood Park Racetrack in shape for my first FA. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've only done this FA thing 4 times myself, but from looking at the article I think you should just go ahead and nominate. I did not see any major issues that would preclude a successful FAC. And even if it fails, you learn from it. My first FAC failed and now I've had 4 of them that succeeded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reads well, but an awful lot of the refs are contemporary press press reports. Aren't there any books covering the period that have stuff on it? Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I responded at Talk:Fleetwood Park Racetrack RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed wording change to WP:CITE
As a result of a recent conversation at a FAC, I have proposed a wording change to WP:CITE. Please comment there if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The change to CITE has been made. I have now suggested a corresponding change to the close paraphrasing essay, here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for August 2023
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2023. 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) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (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) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Mentoring request for "Borderline (Madonna song)"
I recently re-expanded all articles related to singer Madonna's first album with more relevant, previously missing information. I'd like to take "Borderline", my favorite song from said albun, to FA status. It would be my first FAC, so I'm looking for a mentor who can assist me :) Thanks in advance! Christian (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Are leads being reviewed adequately at FAC?
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today%27s featured article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Bot error reports
Please resolve. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 has not been transcluded on the nomination page
 * Featured article candidates/List of Bath City F.C. managers/archive1 has not been transcluded on the nomination page


 * Featured article candidates/List of Bath City F.C. managers/archive1 has not been transcluded on the nomination page
 * This is a list, so probably should go to FLC. Suggest speedy close. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers . It seems to have been reverted, so should I just stick the archive template onto the blank page? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No need. Fine now. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about urgent FACs
Are the nominations listed at Featured article candidates/FAC urgents ones which have been taking too long or at risk of being archived or both? The reason I ask is because one of the current listings is my nomination, which has picked up three supports and two general supports, and I think is about ready. I don't see why it should be at risk of being archived. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've got three supports, ; image and source reviews have to be passed regardless of however many supports the candidate has: they have legal implications. In other words, image and source reviewers won't support an article on those grounds, but they can fail it. Good luck, though; you've stuck it out this far.  SN54129  19:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you review other people's articles, there is a possibility they will review yours, which will secure your nomination. Although there is no quid pro quo, people are more open to reviewing people's articles if they see nominators doing some of the heavy weight of reviewing. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was listed among the urgents almost two weeks ago, but I think we can safely remove it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't at risk of getting archived. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nonmetal
It looks as if User:Sandbh will be nominating Nonmetal again at some time. The presentation of article milestones on the talk page is quite clear, but the 6th (!) FAC happened while the article was renamed and is thus ...Nonmetal (chemistry)/archive1. Sandbh has already clarified this in the intro to the 6th FAC. The article is now back with its original name. I suggest the following changes to make the FA history clear for the 7th FAC: -- Mirokado (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * create the 7th FAC page at Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive7 rather than ...Nonmetal/archive6.
 * either
 * rename ...Nonmetal (chemistry)/archive1 to ...Nonmetal/archive6 leaving a redirect
 * or create a redirect from ...Nonmetal/archive6 to ...Nonmetal (chemistry)/archive1
 * this will help anyone going from one review to another by editing the urls, and may help the bots maintain the Archive7 page.
 * Thank you User:Mirokado. I intend to nominate Nonmetal again, shortly. Barring any other action, it will show as Nonmetal/archive6, as you say, rather than as Archive7, due to the name change from "Nonmetal (chemistry)" back to "Nonmetal". I was going to explain this in my FAC nomination notes. Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Buidhe has sorted this out. Thank you, User:Buidhe. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, has not sorted this (which was not a problem to begin with). Buidhe, articlehistory is designed to work so that FACs do not have to move when articles change names, and moving the FACs to a new name causes problems in other ways. I wish people would stop making those faulty moves, which then  and I have to spend huge portions of our lives re-sorting (User talk:SandyGeorgia/archFASorting).  When an article changes names, do NOT move the old FACs. If there was such a concern about identifying which FAC number it was, a hatnote could have been added at the top of the new FAC. Who is on board for the work to undo this now ? If it was clarified, why muck around?  The article history is and was clear, and is designed to not be messed up when articles move. Let the system work; it does.  Chasing down errors because people make moves is no fun.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Faulty ping, . Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is a standard procedure, but I think what I did made the most sense in this specific case.
 * If the article has been nominated for FAC 5 times under 1 name and 1 time under a slightly different name, depending on how you find the FAC pages it may not be clear what's going on without the move.
 * Redirects were preserved so anyone looking for the previous FAC page under its old name would have no trouble finding it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard procedure (which works) is that when you subst a FAC, it picks the next open archive, and articlehistory works even when articles move. I haven't tracked back to see if everything is in place; this is more of a general note for future reference, along with general dissatisfaction at positioning of the original issue. I hope most people who can write an FA can also count, and the articlehistory was correct.  There's no reason to mess with a functioning system to highlight it being FAC number seven. So what ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandbh, when you subst the FAC, the script chooses the name and the next archive; please ignore this tempest in a teapot. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * May help what bots maintain what archive page? The bots work with the AH templates as intended. This bit says all that was needed: The presentation of article milestones on the talk page is quite clear; please stop mucking with article milestones for what looks like pointy/counting reasons.  The scripts work, the bots work, the AH works.  If you need an archive counter to know it's the seventh FAC instead of the sixth, priorities are off. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

After strainin', heavin' and complainin', We was getting nowhere; And so, we, had a cuppa tea...  SN54129  18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * We are starting to reach the point of needing a trip to AN --Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? It's within the rules that, if actionable comments have been resolved since the last FA nomination, it can be re-nominated (within reason). Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another nomination does not seem unreasonable to me. I would imagine that it can be collegiately handled without needing a trip to AN. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would a trip to AN be needed? (sorry, I don’t know the full back story). I’m not sure it should be done on the number of attempts - I helped someone get S&M (song) through FAC a long while back on its tenth attempt, but the previous nine noms were all done in good faith. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless AN was a threat towards SN54129 for his Right, said Fred! interjection. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. In that case, I'm all for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * but Bernard Cribbins was The Man :) "Whoops Mrs McGinty, You're Sitting On My Artichokes" etc   SN54129  15:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Another nomination is not abusive, and if a nomination in any case is abusive, the Coords can usually handle it without any admin/AN intervention (were previous objections addressed). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Re "don't know if there is a standard procedure", now that the FAC is up, that can be more easily viewed. At the top of Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive7, you can see a list of all previous FACs and FARs. That list (which is removed when FACs or FARs close) picks up anything based on a prefix, and would have also picked up Featured article candidates/Nonmetal (chemistry)/archive1, had it not been moved to Featured article candidates/Nonmetal/archive6. The number of FACs would have been easily viewable, anyone can count, and it would have left a more accurate history, showing that the article had moved. No one who views the FAC would not have known it was number 7, and would have seen why it was listed as 6. There was no need for the issue to be raised, and no need for the move, which in fact makes the article history less easy to understand (hence, tempest in a teapot); when people start moving around FACs, they also risk introducing errors in FAC archives. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

TfD of possible interest
See Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 23; the template in question is part of the FAC pre-load so it may be of interest to the regulars here. Hog Farm Talk 23:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Help with a source
I've been thinking of bringing Banana slug to FAC. I'm wondering if the book Banana Slug: A Close Look at a Giant Forest Slug of Western North America is good enough as a source for an FA. Its been cited by some journal articles but I don't much about the education background of the author. This is her profile. LittleJerry (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is probably best asked at WP:RSN, but if the work has been cited by experts in academic journals, it's likely to be fine to use. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2023
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2023. 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) 17:41, 1 October 2023 (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) 17:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Pending resignation
It has been an honor to serve the community as a FAC coordinator since late 2021. I've had significant life changes in the time since then, and I frankly haven't been active enough to functionally serve as a coordinator for several months. As a result of those same changes, I don't anticipate regaining my 2021 and 2022 levels of activity. I'll hang around until a suitable replacement can be found, but I'm not going to be able to regain the degree of activity I had before. I just thought it would be best to give some degree of early awareness here. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all your work, it's been much appreciated! Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded; sorry to see you go, and we really appreciate the dedication you've shown. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per BN: thanks so much for all you've done, and it's been an honour to share the project with you. Best of luck in all your pursuits. Vaticidalprophet 01:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service; I'm sorry to see you go. Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for piling on, but I also wanted to thank you for your time and dedication to this community. It is greatly appreciated and I wish you the best for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also butting in to say thank you for all you've done, HF. Wishing you the best :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work, HF. Is a replacement coord needed, or is the process able to operate with three? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your work, .  Ergo Sum  00:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FAC co-ord structure brainstorm
Thanks Hog Farm for taking on the role of co-ordinator and for agreeing to stay on until a replacement is found. To respect HF's wishes and not prolong their departure, I want to start a conversation about the FAC process. What should we be thinking about while looking for new FAC co-ords? My observations are below, and I hope that they focus on the functionality of FAC and avoid evaluating an individual editor's performance.

In 2021, FAC decided to go from three to four co-ordinators. Looking at the FAC page history, Gog the Mild and IanRose promote most of the articles, and Buidhe focuses on archiving nominations quickly and occasionally promoting articles. Is this model working? Does the community feel like we are sufficiently avoiding the bus factor and delays? Do we need a fourth, fifth, or more co-ordinators, or will three be sufficient?

Another concern brought up in the past is the diversity of expertise among coordinators. Should this be a consideration when looking for future co-ords, whether that is now or in the future?

Looking forward to your thoughts below. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think three coordinators are enough and if by expertise you mean depth of knowledge of an academic subject, it should not be a consideration. The coordinators decide if a consensus has been reached. If they have comments other than procedural questions, they recluse. Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that editors have raised the concern that too many co-ords write articles concerning Military History subjects and that there should be a greater diversity of subject expertise among co-ordinators. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That sort of diversity is desirable, all other things being equal, but I don't think it should prevent the selection of a qualified coordinator that did not come from an over-represented area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been an explosion in the amount of music FACs (four songs are nominated right now). There should probably be someone music-focused on the coord team for greater quality control. 2/4 of the current coords do not touch music-related nominations.--NØ 18:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Four coords seems sufficient unto the day (although, more the merrier, of course). Many thanks to, whose announcement above I missed. We're effectively down to two coords again, and as you have noted yourself , it is only right to take a coord's activity into account in these circumstances.  SN54129  18:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Three or four seem OK to me. Just because we have some music going through now, I'm not sure that means we should automatically have someone music-focused there: aside from the fact topic areas come and go and four FACs is too few to make much of an impact co-ords don't need to be experts in topics, they have to be there to keep the process running and judge whether consensus has been achieved. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen some Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor recently, but no music...  SN54129  18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @SN I Knew You Were Trouble... ;) <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Three is probably enough for now, but definitely no lower than that. Four is probably ideal, but not essential. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi y'all and apologies for the delay. Buidhe, who has been quite open about taking a lesser role before this, has indicated she'd like to retire entirely if we find a fourth coordinator acceptable to the community. (There is consensus among the coordinators that four is an appropriate number.) This has extended the process, but we are, I think, well along with it. We hope to have something to put to the community before too long. (We are aware of the comments about becoming MilHist heavy and are taking this into account.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some transparency in terms of who is chosen and the process by which that's done. Furthermore, it would be nice to see a coord familiar with humanities or with science/medical. The number depends on the amount of time available to volunteer, but again, shouldn't the community get some input? Victoria (tk) 19:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why we can't suggest a name here, or in an offline communication to one or more existing coords. Currently the coords contact editors who might be future coords to be sure they are willing to take on the role, and I have no problem with that process being behind the scenes -- I wouldn't want a nominee to think they were the eighth choice, and be upset by that, if seven people turned down the role.  The community will approve or reject any nomination. The coords can't select, they can only propose, and they know what the job entails better than anyone, so I think it works well as is.   Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * if we're on the topic of suggesting a name, is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Mike, re "the Coords can't select, they can only propose", when has there ever been a time when those put forward were not chosen? I'm afraid that what you say is theoretically true, but practically, simply not the case. I also agree with you that suggesting names here could head down the wrong path in more ways than one (unnecessarily hurt feelings being the main one ... ) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a sort of "coord emeritus" that's mostly retired but steps in on occasion when one or more coords are unavailable for a time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As it happens, Coord Emeritus is a concept that's been in place at MilHist for many years... But I think with a team of four active FAC coords we have good backup for almost any eventuality. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Three is enough. If Hog Farm is replaced, the replacement should not be another MilHist person, as diversification is needed.  But more importantly, the selection process has become a closed (MilHist) circuit.  In the previous process (meaning, pre-Ian Rose), all FA Coords/delegates (TFA, FAC and FAR) were consulted; now we don't know who is being consulted, or who is putting forward the nominations, but it's obviously not all FA process Coords, which puts all FAC Coord decisions in the hands of pretty much one or two people, with no apparent concern for diversification beyond MilHist, moving around Coords between FA processes, or bringing in Coords with different skillsets, complementary to those already represented.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose, you've got (an unprecedented) more than 11-year term in now; what are your thoughts re new blood ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, the coord selection process has nothing to do with milhist.
 * Anyone can self-nominate to become a MILHIST coord and the results are determined by a public vote (which is ongoing). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, I suspect you're talking about something different than I'm talking about. Ian Rose (MilHist) has been the person putting forward new FAC Coords for 11 years, and that input has ceased to include a broader perspective of all process Coords, so it is not entirely surprising that MilHist nominations have dominated, while nominations of individuals with other skillsets have laggged. One of the main areas that has lagged is people (like Hog Farm) encouraging participation on FAC talk for innovative ideas or change. It happens that Hog Farm was also MilHist ;) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's correct to say that Ian is the sole person suggesting coordinators or that attempts have not been made to get a more diverse range of coords. I'd guess that MilHist has been well represented among coords because a lot of very good editors are active in that project, not for any other reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we knew, rather than having to guess. We have no indication Ian is consulting other FA process Coords (,, ??). We know (from me) he's not consulting former FA process Coords (?). At least once in the past, selections were put forward as if all current and former Coords/delegates endorsed the selection when they did not. We have then the same FAC Coords now in charge of TFA blurbs, with an independent editor who works at ERRORS kicking in to clean up blurbs, as leads aren't always fully reviewed at FAC. We have statements made at FAR and at TFAby FAC Coords which show a disconnect in how the overall process works and all pages should work together towards WP:WIAFA. As far as we know, the choice for successor coords is made now by Gog and Ian, with possibly Hog Farm and Buidhe contributing, and in that group, I see Hog Farm as the one who understands and works towards FA quality at both ends (FAC, FAR). This is simply far more "dictatorial" than Raul ever was, it's leaving the overall process in the hands of two or three people, and it's not a healthy or transparent process. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In short, my suggestion is that the retiring FAC Coords not be replaced until an RFC is held to clarify what's up with this process gone astray. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I hope Ian has no plans to leave -- his long experience means we have consistency and continuity that will smooth out transitions when we get new coords. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating that he should leave, rather pointing out that the old criticism of Raul as a "dictator" should look ridiculous in hindsight since a) he consulted all process Coords for nominations, and b) he didn't serve 11 years. If Ian is to continue, then at least he should broaden and make more transparent what his selection process for successors is. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why FAR and TFA necessarily need to be consulted. I think that the skills to be a coord at either of these are actually rather different than FAC. Furthermore, the people who are chronically active on FAR are also on FAC as well and are definitely on the radar of the FAC coords. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That you (and the current crop of Coords) don't see why all parts of the process should be considered and consulted, or why the three pages should function as part of an overall, is precisely my concern. Re whether the skillsets are different, I wonder what  (who does a fabulous job on both bookends), thinks about that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a FAC coordinator who recently became a TFA coordinator - with no consultation with other parts of "the process" - I see no reason why there should be such consultation, any (recent) precedent for it, or any benefit to be gained, The process takes long enough as it is, why add needless complications? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that since the move to four coordinators, the time taken for an article to go through FAC has been reduced. This may be coincidental, but I would prefer four coordinators to three. I have no objection to the appointment of a coordinator from WikiProject Australian rules football, WikiProject U.S. Roads or WikiProject Music, but if Ian departs, and I would very much prefer that he did not, I would push for someone from WikiProject Military history to be appointed. The large number of nominations from the Military History project reflects the project's commitment to the production of quality articles and to quality review processes. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware only three projects were allowed to contribute coordinators (one of which just did their own Brexit). You're really not satisfied unless every single coordinator is a member of MILHIST? This is demonstrating exactly why we need people who do more than just MILHIST to be part of the coord team. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)}}
 * Just got interrupted while I was typing is all. All projects are welcome!  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In fairness the WP projects mentioned have many of their articles brought up to FAC. There's probably way more FAC articles from other WP projects, but fewer in number each.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MILHIST is one of the few projects that are not mostly dead, so it is fairly natural that people who are associated with a WikiProject are associated with MILHIST. I don't think project affiliation matters much; we just need coordinators who can act without prejudice in most topic areas and know when they need to recuse. —Kusma (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As a TFA coord, I would not expect to consult or be consulted by the FAC or FAR coords concerning a vacancy in whatever project. In my six years on the job it's never happened and the projects seem to be doing pretty well, if I can judge based on my 16 years or so of involvement. There have been ups and downs in the past, but things seem good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

BLPs at FAC
An interesting point has arisen at the Liz Truss FAC about whether a BLP of a relatively young (aged 48) and still active politician should be a viable candidate for FAC, given the article may go out of date quickly. The article itself is certainly strong enough in terms of prose etc to pass FAC, but comments would be welcome on the suitability as a subject. Pinging as the person who raised the original concern, to ensure I'm not misrepresenting their argument. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't buy this myself. It's one thing to pick up articles that aren't complete because known information is missing, and if something is really active in real time over a period of hours, days or weeks, then sure. Wait it out. But the mere fact that someone is still alive and other things may yet happen in their lives shouldn't preclude an FAC. It's always understood that FAs will be added to if further information comes, and there's WP:NODEADLINE on "completing" anything. This is particularly so for Liz Truss, who's probably already finished the most high-profile role of her life. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this one, but there have been 12 PMs (if I remember correctly), who have held the post more than once. Although highly unlikely Truss will return to be PM, most ex-PMs have still made news in their own way afterwards. Her memoirs are likely to be published soon, as well as those works from biographers and political scientists examining her, her role and the effects of her short-lived premiership. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I nominated Truss, no idea if I'm allowed to comment here: I will note that Obama, McCain, Clinton (Hillary), Brown, Bush Jr, Elizabeth II, Charles III and Miliband etc. all were GAs or FAs whilst they were still holding the most important role of their lives. With the exception of Clinton and Obama, they all retain their status today. If this was not an impediment to those articles, then Truss, who has no chance of returning to government, should be able to pass FA if I (and I will) promise to update the article source-wise and fact-wise. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're definitely allowed to comment! As this is a wider point than just the current nom, it's open to all. I'd ignore the GAs - they operate on different standards to FAs. I wouldn't rule out Truss playing a further role in a future cabinet (not in this parliament, but after a Labour government, anything is possible), or as an eminence grise in the background. Milliband is in the shadow cabinet, while Ted Heath didn't give up his seat until 2001, some 28 years after he lost the premiership. Tony Benn was as active and notable after he lost his cabinet position in 1979 as he was before that. Blair and Brown have made headlines for the activities (between them) in the Scottish national referendum, Brexit, Middle East, etc. And while new material can be added to any FA at any time, there is always a danger that the new material weakens it - it's added without the formal and rigorous review that is needed to ensure the standards are retained (look how long the current review is and how many changes have been needed to get the article up to the standard it currently is). I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here as I'm sitting on the fence. There are good arguments on both sides and I haven't settled on where I am going to land. Have no fear though, I will still review the article once UC has finished with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As a different pointand I don't want to sound like a whiny kid saying "no' fair!"but I've invested quite a lot of time (and also a bit of money on books and papers) on the article, and I'm not generally in the habit of putting in a lot of effort for no result; especially just to be foiled by the fact that "Truss isn't dead yet". We will see. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons why BLPs are risky as FA candidates, including:
 * While people are alive, their future is uncertain and their lives might change radically. When I've spoken to acquaintances who have articles on Wikipedia, they are usually quite concerned that these are not accurate or up-to-date.
 * BLPs require special care, per WP:BLP. For a fresh example, see Lisa Nowak which caused quite a stir recently so that their time on the main page was cut short.
 * Putting someone's photo and details on the main page might be considered promotional, contrary to WP:NOTPROMO. For example, right now, we have a picture of Taylor Swift in the TFA slot, plugging one of her singles.  If the person is an active, campaigning politician then this might be even more controversial.  There are already some election embargo rules such as WP:DYKELECT for this reason.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 15:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We could always not run it as TFA. Maybe we could when Truss retires, as I get your concern about promotion. Like I said, I'll keep Truss up to date. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who would be promoted by putting Liz Truss on the Main Page. Reminding mortgage holders of her tenure as PM is possibly not good for the Tories... —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Might not help the Tories ... just Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, UKIP, Reform, Reclaim, Alba, etc. ;) Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the suitability of BLPs as FAs. We should perhaps be quick with FAR and similar processes if the article does get out of date, but "the article may go out of date quickly" applies to almost all subjects, so it is a non-argument. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 – I agree completely with . While we should consider allowing expedited FARs, I can't see any reason to exclude them from FAC. There might be certain individual cases where it is deemed an article is likely to become very unstable due to changing events in the near future, but that might be more of a tweak to criteria 1e than anything else. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 15:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Concurring with Harrias. Of course BLPs need keeping an eye on - whether FA, GA or lesser ranked - but that's no reason to suppose that there should be no FAs about living persons. I have chipped in at this FAC in support.  Tim riley  talk   18:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is more a problem with biographies of very young people, but that hasn't kept them from FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * We now have a fourteen-year-old (pictured at age 11) on the main page as a featured article. With most of her life ahead of her, I don't see how this can be said to be complete and stable and the BLP aspects are now under discussion at WP:ERRORS again. Both the article and review seem quite short and perfunctory because there isn't that much to say.  This doesn't seem to be a serious encyclopedic process – just a rubber-stamping of fannish, recentist material.
 * Note that the UK recently passed an Online Safety Bill in which child protection is mandated as a duty for online providers such as Wikipedia. Running this sort of material gives a blithe, anything-goes impression which is asking for trouble.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the connection to the Online Safety Bill here? I thought that was about protecting underage website users.
 * It would be quite sad if we could never feature living children, even those who can serve as heroes for underrepresented communities. —Kusma (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Taken to a logical but overly cautious step, it would mean not having articles on anyone under 16/18/21 (pick whichever jurisdiction you’re in), even if they appeared at the Olympics or in a film, let alone people like Greta Thunberg etc. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia tries to claim exemption from such regulation on the grounds that it's a respectable public institution. But this is not an article about a more historic figure such as Shirley Temple.  The subject is still at school and her fame is associated with platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and Twitter.  It indicates that Wikipedia is a similar sort of service and so should get the same treatment.
 * Note also that Shirley Temple was a candidate for FA status but was rejected. But I suppose most readers would say that it's actually a better article in most ways.  A subject that has not lived long or done much is easier to cover than the full life of a more accomplished person.  By allowing incomplete biographies of living people, you create a systemic and recentist bias.  You see the same thing at ITN where accomplished and prolific individuals such as Jimmy Buffett are snubbed because they did so much.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not talking about former juveniles, but people on this list, or the 16-year-old Ethan Nwaneri who plays for Arsenal. Should we delete all these articles, despite these people having relativelynhigh profiles and reaching the standards of GNG? - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Are you suggesting no article can be written to a high quality just because the subject is young? Because that is what will happen, taken to its logical conclusion. The FA process is just a means of accurately grading the article's quality; it doesn't automatically mean that an article has to be frozen in place forever. Any BLP article has to be updated, FAs are no different. Just as C Class articles might be demoted to Start Class if they become inaccurate or out of date, so might FAs. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I took an article on a 2,264-year-old naval battle through FAC. 80 ships sank during it and most years archaeologists pluck some of their remains or their cargos off the sea bed and/or publish research based on these finds. Some have fundamentally changed our understanding of the event. Ongoing research is likely to change it further. Perhaps I should have waited a decade or two for our information about the event to stabilise? I suggest that contributors to this thread meditate on the meaning of the first two syllables of the encyclopaedia's title. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Andrew but I'm not suggesting we delete these articles. Notability is a much lower bar (I would argue too low; Andrew would probably argue the opposite. Ironic that we agree here!) than featured article. Of course these articles can be well written but FAC is no longer "brilliant prose". Comprehensive, neutral, and stable are all part of the criteria. A comprehensive article is best written about a person after their career (which may be longer for a politician than a sportsperson, for example), of which Liz Truss may be an example; or once they've reached the pinnacle of their career, eg Taylor Swift. I wouldn't say nobody could reach that point at the age of 14, but it would be a rare exception. I don't think Shaylee Mansfield is that exception. The author has done an excellent job of researching and writing the article but there simply isn't enough to say about her (yet) to write a comprehensive article. Which is why the article is heavily padded out with quotes, tabloidy entertainment websites, and social media posts (including for the subject's date of birth ffs!) instead of high-quality reliable sources. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of sources for a lot of articles seem to be "tabloidy ... websites". To my subjective eye some appear dubious candidates for "high-quality". Possibly a community debate around this would go a long way towards addressing the separate point being raised here? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem also isn't that such articles shouldn't exist, but that they're inherently too unstable for becoming FAs. Stability is one of the main FAC criteria, and how can the career of a kid still in school, or even someone in their early 20s, be considered stable? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The criterion on stability is "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day" [emphasis added], which is clearly referring to stability in Wikipedia terms, not not some sort of end to the flow of new information. In FAC terms there is not a problem with this article. Of course, the criteria are subject are subject to community consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt that the choice of Main Page TFAs will have any influence on how Wikipedia will be treated by the UK's online censors in the future. —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strange that this is how I found out that the OSB was finally passed, even though it lost its main proponent along the way. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I nominated the OSB for ITN but it was vetoed by a crowd who are naturally not keen on the idea that they have to pay any attention to UK laws. We'll see how that works out as the previous Children's Code has made a significant difference... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Shame. I don't monitor ITN very often at all, but if I did, I probably would've supported. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me, all BLPs would be banned from FAC. However, I don't think that UK legislation is relevant to us since the Wikimedia foundation's servers are based in the US and we should avoid allowing government censorship to influence our content. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion,, which should get universal acclaim from anyone who knows that a 'free, universal online encyclopedia' is not the most important thing in the world!  SN54129  14:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that describing the OSB as "government censorship" is just wrong: it's a bill to protect people from harmful content online, not a crackdown on free speech. As Dorries herself puts it "is it true it will impact freedom of expression? / no, we've put in legal protections in the 19th section". Catchy lyric. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not researched the content of the bill, but if it would affect what content we can legally host on the encyclopedia, it is government censorship by definition, whether you approve of it or not. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Like you said, Wikimedia's servers are across the pond, so Ofcom has no power there. If it was based in the UK, it might mean no images of extreme violence or pornography without a disclaimer saying "this content is not child-friendly". Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I was the first to raise the issue (on article talk, or peer review, I forget), and this was merely in terms of the best analysis probably not having been published yet, perhaps making meeting the "comprehensiveness" criterion hard to meet (in a way it wasn't for eg Elizabeth II when that passed). Neither conventional BLP concerns nor any potential UK legislation were on my mind at all, and I think these are complete red herrings. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On Tim riley's talk page, it was. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've written a lot of articles on living people, mostly athletes. Writing articles is easiest when the sources are available, and the half life of sports reporting is not too long. I also took articles on The Six astronauts to featured. Of these, two (Resnik and Ride) are dead. The other four are still living, and Kathryn Sullivan, Rhea Seddon and Shannon Lucid ran without any problems. Same with Buzz Aldrin, Frank Borman, William Anders, Jim Lovell and Charles Duke. Never had a problem with an astronaut article until Lisa Nowak. I don't know if the article has been stricken out of process or not, but I would like to see it run. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The astronauts have all reached the pinnacles of their careers. There's not likely to be much more to say about them until they die and a few years later a new biography is published so once you've written something to the standard that you do, Hawkeye, the article isn't likely to change much and anything new can be easily incorporated. Nowak is the exception to the rule because she's better known at the minute for something in her personal life and nothing grabs public attention like a scandal, especially a fall from grace. It'll be a few more years before public perception shifts to viewing her whole life and career in context. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 10:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree in generalities that I'd personally wait for subjects to likely be towards the end of their career before trying to feature them; especially with a teenager it's very hard to craft something that won't have to be substantially rewritten. With that said, we don't have anything in the FAC criteria about it (I suppose you could argue stability, but that's clearly not what the criteria was written to address.) If it falls out of compliance, it can go to FAR, same as any article (and we have plenty of issues with FA subjects lapsing out of date, it's not like this is specific to BLPs.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there is no reason why a BLP can't pass FAC, but they shouldn't be run as TFA unless they have been QA'd just prior to going up on the main page to ensure they are fully up-to-date, recent biographies have been consulted etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wearing my TFA coordinator hat I agree. If there is a BLP rolling off FAC I am inclined to schedule it rapidly, while all of that scrutiny is still current. Eg DiCaprio was promoted on 11 September and I have it pencilled in to run on 11 November. Which fortuitously is his birthday. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A little late to the conversation! Since the majority of my Featured Article work revolves around BLPs, particularly those of immensely popular figures, I felt I should also chime in. In my view, BLPs, like any other article, should be evaluated strictly based on the FA criteria. Since Taylor Swift's article, which I took to FA status almost seven years ago, has been mentioned several times here, I will use it as an example. It was promoted when she was in her late 20s and already a leading pop star. Today, she's even more significant, yet the article's quality and relevance have not dwindled one bit. If anything, I'd argue it has improved in both sourcing and prose quality, as more academic sources have since become available. Ultimately, it boils down to how dedicated the article's author remains post-FAC. As some have pointed out, there's always the option to take articles to FAR if they no longer meet the FA criteria. However, an outright ban from FAC for BLPs seems unwarranted in my opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

All the Light We Cannot See FAC dispute
I am currently in dispute with on my FAC nomination of All the Light We Cannot See. For context, this was my second nomination of All the Light We Cannot See, which I had been working on in some capacity since March 2021, with a successful GA nomination on January 2023. My previous FAC nomination on July 2023 I withdrew due to circumstances in my life rendering me unable to address major concerns. This brings us to the current nomination. Before I begin my complaint, I do recognize that Nick-D is an administrator with experience in FAs, mostly related to WWII. Even with this mind, I do feel my complaints are legitimate.

Nick-D, at least from what he claims, reviews the article from the perspective of having taken the article for the novel's setting, the Battle of Saint-Malo, to FA-status. A lot of his requests stem from a desire for the article to have a comprehensive critical analysis of the novel, which while I admit I am struggling with due to inexperience and the lack of viable sources, I do respect his wants. This isn't why I'm taking our conflict to talk page. The reason why I am taking our conflict to the talk page is because in the edit that voted opposition to the nomination, he refused to engage with some of my latest concerns with his critique on the basis of me being "rude" and opposed on the grounds that I was apparently "looking for reasons to not cover aspects of the book". I do try to remain civil on Wikipedia, but regardless of my tone, all the responses he has dismissed do have legitimate weight to them.

He disengaged from my explanation of why I think the article should not place more weight on the negative reception. The direct sources for "All the Light We Cannot See has received critical acclaim", the awards, and the number of positive reviews compared to negative reviews attest to the novel's positive reception and ignoring this in favor of emphasizing negative critiques would result in WP:UNDUE information. He disengaged with my refusal to replace Anthony Doerr's reaction to his novel's commercial success with analysis of the novel in the context of previous books with positive Nazi portrayals such as the Albert Speer memoirs. What he was asking was impossible given the available sources and the publication's actual context, and his justification for disengagement was that I misread his request, something he doesn't elaborate upon. Finally, he disengaged with my genuine request for additional sources in response to him wanting analysis on the novel's place as a historical novel. Of the three sources he had proposed, two were from sources considered biased by WP:RSP and one was too insubstantial to be useful. If he was also intending me to use the New York Times review for this, he did not make that clear due to the different contexts.

In my opinion, it is the reviewer's duty to take the proposer's concerns seriously if they have shown to be willing to cooperate. In my time on Wikipedia, I have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate through both GANs and FACs, including in this very nomination. The fact of the matter is that while Nick-D wants me to "[make] the best of these sources to ensure that the article is excellent", I'm just trying to make sure the article is balanced and follows WP:NPOV, something that comprehensiveness cannot supersede. Nick-D seems to ignore this point of mine, opting to call me "rude" as justification, demonstrating a refusal to take my genuine concerns seriously.

I did not want to do this. I shouldn't have had to. But by explicitly dismissing my concerns and opposing my nomination under the imagined premise of me not wanting to cover its critical analysis, showcasing a refusal to take me seriously, Nick-D has forced me to bring our dispute to the FAC talk page. However, if the talk page discussion proceeds and the consensus turns against me, I am willing to withdraw the nomination and take a break from this project of mine, which has admittedly been the most difficult since my 2022 FAC nomination of Fallout (video game). I hope the consensus doesn't turn against me, but who knows. Lazman321 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * FAC coords evaluate the totality of support and opposition that a nomination receives. An article needs support to pass but if the support is more substantial than the opposition it could be promoted even with an oppose outstanding (not saying that this will happen in your case). We weigh each comment based on the FA criteria.
 * Posting a complaint on this page about an oppose does not change this process. You shouldn't be pressuring someone to withdraw their oppose even if you think it's misguided. If you disagree with it, note it and move on. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lazman321 brevity is the sole of wit! <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I didn't realize this wasn't standard procedure for FAC disputes and didn't mean to inadvertently pressure Nick-D into withdrawal; I was just looking for outside discussion. I will post a brief note in the FAC and then we'll see what happens. Lazman321 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lazman321 this is probably not what you want to hear, but I'm afraid I mostly have to agree with @Nick-D, especially on "there's quite a bit of material on the book available, but not much that goes beyond reviews dating from when the book was released". For example, have you considered using the following academic sources that could strengthen the article?
 * https://doi.org/10.14321/crnewcentrevi.19.3.0241 where the reviewer discusses the themes of "seeing" in literature, drawing inspiration from Anthony Doerr's All the Light We Cannot See
 * https://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/Lingua/article/view/9068 - this explores the interconnectedness of Marie-Laure's blindness, thinking processes, and language in the novel.
 * https://doi.org/10.18485/bells90.2020.2.ch21 (a journal backed by Modern Language Association) - here, the reviewer says the author weaves together past and present elements, both in the narrative structure and within the characters' minds. The reviewer aims to explore the narrative techniques employed by the novelist to seamlessly integrate these elements.
 * I think the best course of action would be here to withdraw your nomination and work with both Nick-D and @UndercoverClassicist to resolve the issues and reattempt FAC with a much stronger article. I know it's really frustrating for your nomination to not work out the way you want it to (believe me I've been through this multiple times) but the best thing to do is to work with the reviewers outside the pressure of FAC. I'm sure they would be happy to help but FAC is simply not the venue for that. I hope this helps. FrB.TG (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It takes a few weeks for a candidacy to close, I believe, and I already have one support. As such, I'm not withdrawing. I won't quit just because I'm receiving pushback when I still have enough time to address said pushback. Here's my course of action. I will implement the sources above, keep searching for more sources (particularly academic sources) to improve the article's comprehensiveness, copyedit the article through the Hemingway Editor, and ask around for image and source reviews. Perhaps then, I will be able to set the article back on a trajectory to FA-status. Lazman321 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven’t looked at the article or FAC, but co-ords can close a nomination sooner if they don’t see any chance of it passing. With two opposes and one support and a couple of others here saying the opposes are justified or suggesting withdrawal, then that’s a step I’d reconsider. There’s no harm or shame in withdrawing and working on it outside the review process before resubmitting. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually they can't. The rules state "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators ... a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn." Note the last ten words. No reviewer has suggested this. You will be able to find past examples where coordinators have been a little inventive in uncontroversial cases, using "actionable objections have not been resolved" or "consensus for promotion has not been reached". But this didn't seem to be one of those. I have just archived the nomination as requested by the nominator, which resolves this case. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You know what. I'm currently copyediting the article and just realized that you might be right. If I want this article to improve any further, I have no choice but to withdraw the candidacy. Go ahead and archive it. I'll come back at a later time. Lazman321 (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good move. Please ping me when you bring it back and I’ll be happy to review the new version. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with revise and resubmit. A fuller treatment of the available sources is required, and it seems possible that there are more available. I'd also suggest, that when you do go back to WP:FAC, you do so in a more civil frame of mind and less inclined to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks. However, good luck with nom next time!  Serial  12:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Need help with Liz Truss
I embarked on an image review of Featured article candidates/Liz Truss/archive1 but ran into issues I did not know how to resolve and probably did a disservice by making the attempt. The gist is that several images appear to be covered by OGL but I can't find a solid way to verify that. Could somebody who is better versed in image licensing than I am please take a look? RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting here that @Nikkimaria did a mini-image-review a while ago when the article was at PR. Nikkimaria, if you'd like to take another look at it, go ahead. If not, no problem. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Marked as historical
I just marked these two pages as historical:


 * Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index - Old list of unsuccessful FA candidates, alphabetically sorted;
 * Featured article candidates/Featured log/Summary - Old list of successful FA candidates, sorted by month.

See also this edit request at Template talk:Article history. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been reverted by User:Mike Christie, who clearly doesn't get it. Oh well... - Manifestation (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Featured log" vs "Archived nominations"
NB: this is related to my thread above.

I noticed that successful FA nominations are being archived here: Featured article candidates/Featured log.

And that unsuccessful FA nominations are being archived here: Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

This difference, "Featured log" and "Archived nominations", is puzzling me. I tried to clear up any potentional confusion with these two edits.

I noticed something else too. Every successful nomination is concluded with this statement:


 * The article was promoted by [user] via FACBot (talk)

But every unsuccessful nomination is concluded like this:


 * The article was archived by [user] via FACBot (talk)

However, it is not the article that is being archived, but the nomination. The correct wording would be:


 * The article was not promoted by [user] via FACBot (talk)

Or:


 * This nomination was closed as not promoted by [user] via FACBot (talk)

Or:


 * This nomination was closed as unsuccessful by [user] via FACBot (talk)

I can understand that we seperate the noms that passed from those that failed. But I would argue that the "Featured log" vs "Archived nominations" terminology is unneccesarily confusing, and that the closing statement about archiving a Wikipedia article is flat-out false. Wouldn't it be better to do this:


 * Featured article candidates/Successful nominations
 * Featured article candidates/Unsuccessful nominations

Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good luck discovering the internal logic to FAC, Indy—I'd suggest a good starting point would be to practice spooning custard with fishing net  ;)    Serial  17:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When you're done with that, you can come over the DYK and see if you can figure that out. RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you *know* that the system is not user friendly, and difficult to get for newcomers, then how about making it *more* user friendly? - Manifestation (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Roy of course,, but it's a lighthearted groan every time someone comes along with a suggestion for improvement—however big or small—that would almost certainly improve the project—again, to whatever degree—but is almost equally certain to never get anywhere because of a small-c conservativism that sometimes seems to be embedded in the project's digital DNA. Resistance is often usually along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", where "broke" means utter chaos and Level I encyclopedic extinction and "fix" means "tinker with it ever so slightly except so cosmetically that no one will notice anyway". When defined like that, of course, then it's true: nothing is really broken. But it doesn't necessarily mean that something could not still be improved. "Perfect is the enemy is good" is another well-rehearsed argument against doing anything, again with a couple of elastic definitions, whereby "perfect" = a slight improvement and "good" = leaving things as they are :)  I suppose a good analogy would be an old house, which has had many occupants, all with different styles and tastes, who add to it as they go, bit by bit, and until the house, as it stands, is a slightly ramshackle affair, held together at the seams on shakey foundations, in a permanent state of disrepair (or rebuilding. In this house, the words are synonyms)... now imagine this project-wide.   Serial  13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok, I think I understand what you mean. I don't believe that what I proposed was very radical, though. - Manifestation (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was either ; unfortunately it doesn't have to be :)    Serial  16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The closing statement comes from a combination of Fa top and the closing bot. I think if there is a desire to change the wording, the simplest possibility would be to change "article" to "nomination".
 * As to the subpages, I'm not convinced the effort necessary to change this would be worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this was confusing when I started dealing with these pages as a coord, so changing it would be a lot of effort for little benefit. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you are smarter than I am, I guess. If I worked at an office, and approved documents would go into "Featured" and unapproved documents would go into "Archived", then I would probably have a question on my first day. - Manifestation (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm.. "Archived" is our polite way of saying "failed". Graham Beards (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm starting to understand that. But how was I supposed to know that when I first stumbled upon "Featured log" and "Archived nominations"? - Manifestation (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's much on Wikipedia that you have to learn by experience, as you must have already discovered. Although I agree with the 'article' to 'nomination' change, you are going on a little too much about our use of of "archived". I think its usage has been explained to you well enough. Graham Beards (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This feels like the sort of thing we should fix once the encyclopaedia is finished. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An archived nomination has not necessarily failed. Sometimes the nominators asks for a nomination to be closed for other reasons. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Graham Beards (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with changing the FA top and bottom from 'article' to 'nomination'. On the rest, I've explained to the OP on the articlehistory page why we don't use the word "fail" (we already have enough stigmatization when a FAC is archived without labeling them as 'failures') and removed the unnecessary changes to the log pages.  The OP thinks that is unmitigated nonsense; maybe it is, but you should know something about a process and its history before changing its pages. I oppose the use of the word 'fail' anywhere we use it in the FA process; we want people to accept critique in a nomination and want them to be encouraged to make improvements off-FAC and come back for a better chance at 'promotion', not 'success' or 'fail'.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem more interested in political correctness than clear language. - Manifestation (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not "political correctness" or anything remotely similar. There is often pressure on FA writers, particularly when their work is critiqued and people don't think it reaches the necessary standard. Not rubbing salt into the wounds is a small enough courtesy to them and encourages them to return. As a couple of people have said above, it's best to know a bit about the background on how and why things are done in a certain way before demanding changes. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to take sides here, but I don't think @Manifestation was demanding anything, just pointing out something that was confusing to them as a newcomer and suggesting something that would make it less confusing to them.
 * One thing I've learned in a career doing software development is that it pays to listen to newbies. People who write software (this generalizes well to all people who develop systems humans interact with) know so much about the system, it's very difficult to stand back and understand how a novice would interact with the system.  Things that seem obvious to you may be totally befuddling to newbies.  It's really enlightening to do blind user testing.  Take a person who has never worked with the system, sit them down, give them a task to perform and watch silently.  That's the hard part: just sit on your hands, shut up, and watch without trying to help.  It's often useful to do this from another room so the test subject can't see you squirming and sputtering "What's wrong with you, just hit the damn blue button!"
 * Anyway, I understand that things evolve, and you can't be constantly changing things in response to the latest input, but don't blow off newbie comments as demanding changes. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With the pushing on the thread here, including and comments like this, I'll stick to "demanding", but people's mileage on these points will always differ. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree with any of that, but perhaps the OP in the future will inquire first, edit next. And I hope they will stop pinging me to this page, which I follow closely. My real concern is that the not be mucked around like the log pages were. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another newbie here- personally, I think changing it to Successful vs Unsuccessful archives would, in fact, be clearer than the current pair. With the caveat that I don't spend much time on the internal processes of FAC except reviewing. But for any newbies that might want to, being clearer would make learning the ropes easier. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "unsuccessful" either: often, not promoting an article at a given moment is the right outcome for both the article and its nominators (because it's ultimately what allows the article to become the best it can be), and it would be wrong to describe that as an "unsuccessful" outcome. As others have noted, it would be a shame if FAC became an adversarial process, and putting nominators in a position where they are batting for their own "success" would be a move in that unfortunate direction. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And you seem more interested in incivility than civility, on all possible counts. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Backlog of source/image reviews
There's a big backlog of source and image review requests at the top of this page. I've just picked off one that was over a month old. If everyone who is commenting on the various threads on this page would also consider picking up one source or image review, there would be a lot of grateful nominators. I know the topics drawing attention are important, but so are languishing nominations. I'm not qualified to give advice on image reviews but would be happy to answer questions from anyone wanting to help out with source reviews. For short articles they can be quite quick to do -- they don't have to be a slog. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll have more time now, I'll see if I can handle anything. Also need to do something about Rupperswil murder case, while not a FA it's pretty badly written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review
It has been a long time since I have been active on FAC. The unsuccessful Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 (which ended a 7-year nomination hiatus) stated that prior to renomination the FAC coordinators should assess whether the prior issues have been resolved. Before during and after the nomination the article has been under rigorous rewriting. The article continues to have a lot of visual content that needs FURS. During the nomination and subsequently at WP:MCQ (Media copyright questions), reviewers (User:Nikkimaria and User talk:Masem) have stated that beyond the main image, there are a lot of images that in general need their FURs to be refined or need to be removed. However, I believe that I need a reviewer to assess FURS/images on a file-by-file basis. Each file has some content in the article referring to it. Each has a FUR declaring that relation. Thus, it is difficult for me to assess whether individual files should be removed or whether they are essential enough to just need a better FUR. Since 2 reviewers have given what I consider a general overview review, I am just here confirming that a full/normal image review actually assesses each individual image/FUR and that this is what I really need.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but if you're just checking that an image review should be looking at the FUR or other licensing information for every single image in the article, the answer is definitely yes. An image review these days is supposed to check that everything is licensed correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was trying to make sure that remains the current standard because the only image review engagement I have been able to get so far has been generaral and I am makiing sure I am not asking for something that isn't done anymore (since I have gone 7 years without a nomination before last months nomination). I know the FAC reviewer actually evaluated each one, but the response was that nothing was sufficient, but I sort of need more direction on what is needed for specific images. It is not clear to me which ones are because the article content it supports is too trivial and which are because the FURs just need to be better and which are because in the context of abundant FURs this one is considered excessive although with fewer other FURS it might be OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm no image expert, but I think what you probably want is a sort of image peer review -- another set of eyes to evaluate the questions you have about those images. Perhaps someone here with confidence in their image policy understanding will comment, here or on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I am hoping for. I sort of thought posting at WP:MCQ would serve that purpose. However, the issues there are subject to archiving without action. I was hoping for a queue somewhere, where as a request ages it becomes more prominently urgent. The type of image peer review that I seek would require someone to dig into a pretty deep article to assess the propriety of each image..-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * this is probably not what you want to hear, but what I would do if I were you is remove all non-free media unless, in the existing article, there are more than three sentences in the prose discussing the image. After you do this, there will be a lot fewer images to fix the media rationale for. While you're at it take out the (right) and similar because it doesn't display like that for all readers and it's contrary to MOS. You might consider adding relevant free images if you can find them, such as the 1898 and/or 1962 version of the soup can label (look for ads, many were not copyrighted and would be PD-US-no notice). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, Tony the Tiger—roooaARRR!—that I personally can't see the justification for all those images. Certainly, the cheese soup with gold banners and beef soup with black font could be easily covered in prose (I've almost literally just done it), and the image itself is discussed significantly enough to justify its presence. I googled "cheese soup can with gold banner" and various iterations, and so little came up under either news or books that I doubt they've been studied in independent depth to make them worthy of inclusion.  Serial  12:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting margin case of WP:NFCC and it wouldn't surprise if different image reviewers have a different view on whether the numerous non-free images are warranted under WP:NFCC. With some there is the question of whether they are actually copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Would an image's absence "be detrimental to [readers'] understanding"? If the FUR and the image's use does not clearly persuade a reviewer that the answer is "Yes", then the image needs removing. Obviously there is room for honest disagreement over specific cases, but IMO the emphasis is on the editor defending an image's use to fully justify this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, my understanding is that images of artworks are usually only fair use in the article about that artwork. Of course, all rules have exceptions, but generally fair use comes in when we otherwise wouldn't be able to illustrate an article at all not when the extra images are "nice to haves" that make an article a bit better or more interesting. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This comment shows a lack of understanding of NFCC and unwillingness to learn despite many people explaining it to you. Being mentioned in the article text is not sufficient for the inclusion of free images, let alone non-free ones, since this is an encyclopedia all article content has to increase readers' understanding of the article topic or it doesn't belong. I doubt you are going to get a successful FAC unless the attitude changes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am finally working through an file-by-file review with User:Masem, with a few being punted over to Commons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. User:buidhe, Yes I do not understand NFCC. However, unwillingness to learn is not the issue. I am attempting to work with one of the file experts on a file-by-file basis at WP:MCQ (Media_copyright_questions). You contest content such as File:The Souper Dress, American paper dress, 1967 (cropped).jpg. I am unable to tell if it is properly licensed as free or if it even requires a FUR. As I look at dresses in the recently promoted Irere (Alexander McQueen collection), it is not clear to me that fashion needs FURs. I am awaiting feedback on this particular image at Village_pump/Copyright. You also contested the current images of the art gallery (from the outside) as uninformative. I explained on the article talk page that the windows and doors are original (although signage has changed). You have not responded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new coordinators
Greetings to you all. As has been mentioned previously, both Hog Farm and Buidhe are standing down from their coordinator roles. I would like to pause here to express heartfelt thanks for their work in this role. The time and effort they have put into keeping the FAC process going has been remarkable and I hope that it is appreciated by all who have been involved in FAC over the past two years.

Ian, I and the two outgoing coordinators are in agreement that the community decision two years ago to have four coordinators seems to be working well. We would therefore like to propose that and  become coordinators. Both are experienced FAC nominators and reviewers and both have wide experience of the processes around articles at this level and of the standard required for featured articles. Considerable detail on what they have nominated and reviewed, and what they said there, can be found by using the "Editor query" facility on Mike Christie's excellent FAC statistics page. Ian, I, Hog Farm and Buidhe commend both of them to you and look forward to seeing the views of the community. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support both; excellent choices. And I'd like to echo Gog's thanks to Buidhe and Hog Farm; sorry to see them go, and if their time frees up in the future perhaps they can be on the shortlist for any future vacancies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re the comments in a couple of places below about FrB.TG's relative lack of experience, one thing that has impressed me about their work is that they have successfully nominated articles such as Taylor Swift, which are very difficult to get to a high standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * just found out I am forced to agree with you :)  as I said something very similar a couple of years ago! (  "fancruft" for simplicity.)   Serial  11:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support --- Sandbh (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support David Fuchs. I guess I could support FrB.TG, but their stats are lower than mine, and they've only edited this page nine times in their whole career and once in the last seven years. Communication, here we come, right back where we started from. And with solidarity thanks too to Buidhe and Hog, too; I look forward to seeing you both either around here or elsewhere.  Serial  09:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, fair play on there.   Serial  17:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both - Great choices and a huge congratulations to both! Thanks to the departing coordinators and hope they enjoy some time off.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 09:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both . Non-committal on . Like I have some concerns about FrB.TG's experience in the wider FAC process. I have no particular reason to believe they won't be able to carry out the role effectively, but on the limited evidence presented, nor can I see significant evidence that they would be able to.  Harrias  (he/him) • talk 13:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Amended my !vote, based primarily on my trust of the current coordinators to nominate suitable candidates. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 12:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both -- easily on David. I'm not as familiar with FrB.TG, but their work seems good, and I have little doubt they would make a good co-ord. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support David Fuchs. I have no concerns about FrB.TG's qualifications to write and review material to FA standards, but I share some of the concerns above about experience with communication. Effective coordinators need to be able to handle situations in which nominators or reviewers are being difficult, and that's a skill separate from evaluating article quality. I also wonder a little about whether their activity level is high enough. None of this is a reflection on FrB.TG's value as an editor, only on their preparedness for a difficult role. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Addressing only the concern about "activity level", according to Mike's stats, since January 2022 FrB has nominated 10 times (not always successfully) and reviewed 72 times. David's figures for the same period are 2 and 15. The numbers for any other editor can readily be found. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What about 2022? Career stats, please.  Serial  16:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To find career FAC stats for any editor (back to late 2006) go here and enter the editor's name. You can scroll down and expand the list of nominations and reviews, which then link to the FAC pages if you want to review them, both for the reviews and the nominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps have been more specific: I mean activity levels on Wikipedia, rather than at FAC specifically. It's one thing to nominate and review articles, which FrB.TG has been doing productively; quite another to monitor a large number of reviews and meta discussions here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(ec)
 * Support both and many thanks to the outgoing pair. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support David Fuchs, have no idea about FrB. TG (probably a perfectly nice guy, this is no jab towards him; I'm just not familiar with his work or style. Brief glance at his userpage makes him look reasonable as a coord, though, although "brief glances" aren't great metrics to use). Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both, and thanks to HF and buidhe. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both I trust the current crew to recommend good people for this role. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support David F - stalwart. FrB.TG I don't know from around, so oppose- hesidant given that recently co-coordinators have been acting more like arb clerks, or FAC admins. Ceoil (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both, with thanks for the previous coords. —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed when we decided to appoint our FAC coordinators solely by election, but that aside, David has my full support. I have reservations regarding the other "candidate"; it's not a name I recognise or indeed one I can pronounce, but I trust the judgement of the current coordinators.Graham Beards (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "I trust the judgement of the current coordinators", frankly I don't (on a minority of now ex-coords and have already made clear my my issue with Buidhe's blind spot re images, and their tenancy to throw weight and torpedo noms with an early "official" oppose) and I think we are going down a wrong pathway, electing somebody who is not well known to the community, but just a buddy of the current incumbents. It certainly marks a change in FAC culture. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "frankly I don't", frankly I do. Changing to support for FrB. TG after seeing his review of October 1 which looks to have the right attitude for a coord. In other words, has a clue. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a question about reviewing, (which does go to where I'll land regarding the process): if a reviewer leaves comments on a FAC and doesn't lodge either a support or oppose, how is that dealt with? Are the comments considered a neutral or is the reviewer pinged back? Victoria (tk) 23:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Victoria, that can depend on the nature of the comments. You sometimes see drive-byes (even labelled as such) which, if accompanied by a support or oppose, would not count for much anyway because of their brevity. If more substantial comments seem to have been dealt with but there's no declaration, they can still contribute to building consensus (per the FAC instructions, "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support"). If I see reservations in such comments I tend to ask for clarification from the reviewer, at least to determine that they feel their comments have been resolved. Gog will often invite such reviewers to declare support or oppose if they feel they can, reminding them that there's no obligation to do either. Some reviewers new to FAC say they prefer not to declare because they're newbies. I myself, when I've recused coord duties to review, have sometimes not declared a position because I couldn't wholeheartedly commit to support (perhaps because of lack of familiarly with the subject) but any reservations were not such that I felt I needed to oppose either. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I appreciate that you noticed my post and took the time to answer. I would have wanted to hear from Gog too, but I've noted the pinging and wondered if declaring is now mandatory. On a meta level the question goes to the issue of gauging consensus and coordinator neutrality. In my view coords should value every review, with or without declaration (and as it happens there's an open FAC for which I have subject matter expertise, but I'm unsure/hesitant/nervous about how to go about that without committing to a full review). It's more welcoming here if there's no pressure and there are times, as you note, when its difficult to commit. Or perhaps a reviewer simply can't get back to a review for real life reasons. My concern is this: I think that some things are being modeled that aren't necessarily in the spirit of this place. Pressuring for declarations is one; having coords chiming in on questions that affect the outcome of the nomination (there are three examples on this page since I last posted here where former/current/new coords should have maybe stepped back), is another example. How does someone who maybe lacks the experience we'd like to see learn, and from whom? In my view coords should step back from reviewing, engaging too closely with reviewers in regards to an ongoing review, handing out barnstars, etc. There are other examples I have, but I'll leave it now because this would get too long. I'm supportive of the work you do and am happy to see you continue. I'm happy to support David Fuchs. I'd like to see the two of you build a new team and decide how to do it in a transparent manner. Well, that's the pipe dream, but I thought I'd throw it out as food for thought. Victoria (tk) 22:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not responding Victoria. I felt that Ian said pretty much what I would have, and as he got in first felt no need to second his comments, but I do. I also agree with the thoughts in your first paragraph above. I find this a difficult balance and I realise that I don't always remember/know/guess the level of encouragement that each regular reviewer prefers. Re coordinator comments, there are views in this thread explicitly querying the ability to be an effective coordinator without a strong track record of of commenting on this page. If the community were to express a consensus otherwise, I imagine we would be happy to stop addressing queries here and in nomination discussions. Re reviewing, it seems improbable that an editor could become a coordinator without a strong track record of reviewing, which I would expect speaks to an enjoyment of this side of FAC. Certainly, just for myself, if the community preferred that coordinators not review, I would be happy to drop the coordinating role. There is probably grist for several discussions followed by RFAs in your thoughts, but possibly not in this thread. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that coords benefit from reviewing and keeping up to date with that side of the process. We simply recuse from nominations that we have commented on and other coords shouldn't/don't weight our comments more than any other editor. I think answering queries on this page and on nominations is part of the coord job because the ultimate goal is to help people get their articles through FAC successfully. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is how to model the job of coordinator, which requires 100% neutrality and impartiality, in a process with all kinds of permutations and unwritten rules, and can at times be a bit fuzzy. Anyway, I got my answers. Thanks all. Victoria (tk) 02:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No issue with either, and I have every confidence that both will do the job well. Should we, however, have or have had a slightly more formal process to gather and vote on potential candidates? I'm not sure if the process for selecting FAC co-ordinators is codified anywhere, but if it isn't, this might be a good moment to move towards making it so. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support David. Neutral on FrB. Both are excellent nominators but I haven't seen much of of FrB in the internal-facing parts of FAC, though I couldn't possibly oppose the editor who brought Taylor Swift to FA status. It wasn't asked, but I'd support Mike Christie or Hawkeye if ever their names were put forward. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, but I'd decline the honour if I were nominated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, great candidates both, and—speaking in the absolute abstract—I honestly can't see why we don't get to choose such candidates instead of a pre-chosen slate. Ho hum.  Serial  19:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose both. While both David and FrB.TG are well credentialed, with FrB.TG having good expertise with pop culture articles, I'm afraid that I can't support an all-male four person strong FAC coordinator team. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, what is the smallest all-male team you could countenance? And the same question for an all-female one? Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As it's 2023 and issues with gender representation in Wikipedia have been prominent over the last 5+ years, I don't think that's a sensible question to be honest. We should be taking mixed gender teams as a given, which is why I think that the proposed team is disappointing. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, most people are anonymous here so anyone could just declare their gender on their user page and bypass this policy, should the community be foolish enough to enact it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral on David Fuchs when I'm not very familiar with that user's work. On the other hand, I am familiar with the contributions of FrB.TG, and wholeheartedly support the latter as a very qualified editor who's an expert on making FA-worthy pages. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Query: I would have appreciated a transparent process that allows one to ask these questions before we are asked to opine on candidates, but that's not the case.  could you help me understand if I am using the FACstats tool correctly?  If I am reading it correctly, I see that FrB.TG has a grand total of 3 opposes in their FAC reviewing career, and I don't really understand how a reviewer who never opposes can be equipped to pr/ar FACs.  Am I misreading the tools?  Similarly, it would have been considerate for the rest of us to be able to ask questions like this and others beforehand -- things like how they view the role, what is the most difficult FAC they've ever reviewed, what are their stats so we can see they aren't being supported by only those they have given soft reviews to, and the sorts of questions/answers/platform one gets in any other normal process. I don't have to ask these kinds of questions about David Fuchs, who has a demonstrable reviewing record at both FAC and FAR and URFA over more than a decade, that includes Opposes, but nonetheless, we should all be able to ask these kinds of questions before a non-transparently-generated list of candidates who will always be named is foisted upon us.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the person who suggested FrB.TG, but I think 3 opposes is very different from no opposes.
 * If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to choose FA coords, they are welcome to propose it on this page and I'm sure if there's consensus the coords would abide by it the next time someone steps down. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think a FAC reviewing career of 3 opposes is indicative of full engagement with or understanding of the process? Should the broader FA community not expect a process where candidates are queried in advance, eg, how would a candidate, with essentially no experience of opposing FACs or possibly engaging tough cases, have dealt with closing a FAC with about 20 Supports before the first oppose, or any of the five Catholic church FACs, with pile-on fan supports over considerable sourcing concerns? How would they have passed this, which had to be pulled from the TFA queue, after which Hog Farm and I re-worked it thoroughly?  How can we expect good pr/ars from candidates who haven't dealt with tough FACs?  Shouldn't a candidates at least offer a statement of their preparation, a la RFA, so we know what they consider to be their most difficult reviews and nominations and how they would deal with the tough ones?  Should we not be concerned to ask whether candidates are being supported by others precisely because they don't oppose, rather give soft reviews, leading to a self-propagating downward spiral at FAC?  Where are these candidates when some of the problematic recent FACs have passed ?  There seems to be a trend at FAC (a large list of prose nitpicks, Nikkimaria with her consistent image reviews, and done/pass), but with four Coords, maybe they all aren't even reading every FAC enough to identify trends.  Why do we need four Coords to process half the amount of FACs that two processed in the past, when those two did read every FAC?  Is the workload being broken up so much that Coords aren't aware of trends?   Another trend is seeing FAC Coords recuse to review towards Support, which lessens their impartiality; what happened to the past practice of Coords rarely recusing, maintaining impartiality, and typically recusing only when absolutely necessary as they observed a sub-standard nomination getting unworthy supports ?  That in itself is another indication there are too many Coords, and not enough being done in the leadership department to encourage more reviewers-- and reviewers are the backbone of FAC, not prima donna nominators.  Re, propose it on this page, I think you're well aware of the modern history of any proposals for change or improvement being shut down, and dissatisfaction expressed by multiple people who have been here long enough to see the problems, yet this charade went forward anyway.  Thankfully, you struck gold with David Fuchs, a long-time experienced FA participant who not only knows how to oppose, but also participates in FAR and URFA and has demonstrated leadership for years and brings diversity in content to the team, in spite of a flawed process that brought him forward.  My suggestion is that three Coords is enough, and David Fuchs will do the job; I don't expect Fuchs to lack in the leadership or listening department, but neither will I participate in another FAC charade by lodging my clear support for a good candidate.  Mike, thanks for the info below, as I have frequently misunderstood the printed stats. I had composed this before you responded about FrB's ratios, and they may be in line with current reviews, but that is precisely the problem that plagues FAC; they are orders of magnitude below, for example, Buidhe, Fuchs or me. They are not enough to show full engagement with the process, not enough to answer the concerns I've raised, and I do not believe anyone with an oppose/support ratio that low is sufficiently prepared to be promoting/archiving. There is nothing to indicate to me that this candidate will do anything different than further the downward trend towards FAC as peer review. But then, this process didn't allow for questions to be asked of the candidate about their reviewing record or views before the backchannel slate selection by a self-propagating small group. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I welcome constructive criticism regarding my experience in writing, reviewing, or communication. However, I kindly request that, unless accompanied by concrete evidence, you refrain from suggesting possibilities such as the notion that "...candidates are being supported by others precisely because they don't oppose, rather give soft reviews." Such insinuations not only cast doubt on my integrity as a reviewer but also implicate those who have supported me. I have only reviewed nominations for a select few among those who have supported me, and among them, many boast impressive track records with 30 or more featured articles. I want to emphasize that my involvement in this role is driven by a genuine commitment and wish to help out, and I have no personal agenda or gain to be engaging in such questionable activities. FrB.TG (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * FrB, I offered a list of questions that should be asked, and would be asked in a process more like, for example, RFA; I did not say that was the case with your reviews. And this is precisely what has long been the problem on the FAC talk pages; one cannot question the processes without people taking it personally, and that is also why this format doesn't work-- if you criticize the process, it is then taken personally.  But while you're here, would you like to answer any of the qeustions I've asked like ... what is your toughest review, how would you have handled some of the examples I've brought forward, what are your thoughts on opposing ... etc ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, you're going to need a thick skin, an ability to take flak, and a disinclination to take process concerns personally to be a Coord. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about the selection process, and I'm certainly not opposed to being asked questions like how RfA candidates are but that remark came across as a bit accusatory rather than a general concern. Maybe I was just reading too much into it. I'll give detailed answers to your questions tomorrow. FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * please accept my most sincere apologies for writing in a way that made you feel all my general concerns were aimed at you specifically; like a few others who have entered declarations on this page, I barely know you, and did not mean for the general to be personal. My concern about you is, as you can see, the lack of opposes, but even that can hardly be construed as a criticism of you personally, since the oppose button has generally gone missing at FAC, and you are probably just modeling what you've seen here in recent years, and that conversion of FAC to peer review is what I believe has damaged peer review and  slowed FAC processing down and made it harder to give adequate attention to the worthy FAC candidates. No hurry on the questions I've asked. And my apologies again. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Your concern about my lack of opposes is understandable, and it's not something I took offence with, but just the remark about reviewers supporting a candidate because of easy reviews of their own nomination. I realize that it was just a general concern and not specifically directed at me. I'm going to answer your questions below for readability purpose. FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy ... it's just Wikipedia. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. Now, in the realm of medical articles, WP:MED was once one of the growing segments of FA production.  These days, most medical FAs are FAR saves.  The lack of medical FAs means the overall level of quality has declined, as skills are being lost.  Sorry that may not matter to you; it does to me. FAs were once examples of WIkipedia's best work, and helped others see how to do it right.  We're losing that in medical content. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with you dunking on FrB.TG, though. It's not the coordinators' fault medical articles are declining. If you care so much, get on your bike and write some. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Like, what?  Serial  19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129: Don't know. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume that's a joke. But, now then, Tim O'Doherty, not everyone finds schizophrenia a joking subject. On the other hand, as a particularly level-headed chap once said, "Thank God we English can laugh at each other, eh? Yes, wh... Where were you born? Scavenger or down here in the West country?", etc. Although, of course, re. psychiatry, it was also professionally established that, with him, "there's enough here for an entire conference".  Serial  20:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. It's fine for you to pipelink to two medical FAs but when I do it ... "now then, Tim O'Doherty, not everyone finds schizophrenia a joking subject". It's nothing to do with schizophrenia. I could have linked to menstrual cycle or lung cancer or polio. I'm not exactly rolling over laughing at dementia with Lewy bodies either. Generally, SN, I like your brand of surreal humour, as I often spectate it from the sidelines. Sometimes though, I can't tell whether you're joking or you're being serious. Not sure why I was hit with the "Like, what?" either: I'm not the one pining for more med FAs in a coord RfC. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The two articles that SN linked are articles that Sandy has been highly involved in writing and maintaining. I think it was in response to your saying If you care so much, get on your bike and write some.-- SN was noting that Sandy already has. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, I didn't clock that bit. Still think my point stands: "not everyone finds schizophrenia a joking subject". I mean, what? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * RE: "It's not the coordinators' fault medical articles are declining", a) what has been the role of Coords lately towards bringing forward trends for discussion, maintaining and reviewing stats, identifying problems, and the like? Best I can tell, Mike Christie does some of what was once done; the Coords (with the exception of Hog Farm) no longer consider the kinds of things we used to do as their role.  I'd like to hear if new Coords are going to be more in that vein, or in the vein of Hog Farm.  Point being, it's not only medical; it's widespread, MilHist and a few others are rare exceptions, and whenever we have attempted discussion of the trends and problems and possible changes at this page, discussion is shut down in ... just the way you're doing it.  I'll come back with links to the last time we generated those stats, unless someone else does it first, as right now my husband is doing the driving through a remote part of the country while I have spotty internet access and a battery-powered hotspot.  For the same reason,  I saw and appreciate your long response below, but won't be able to get to it 'til tomorrow. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The only way coords can actually get more medical FAs is to write them. It's all well and good bringing forward topics for discussion. Nothing will change. Nothing will change: even when pushed to FAR, more often than not (but not always) there's little motivation from people to improve the article - after all, this is a volunteer site. Look at the morgue that is WP:AFI. Unless people want to write articles and take responsibility, nothing will change. You have to take matters into your own hands if you want to improve things. Like Dr Suess said: unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you're reading the stats correctly; FrB.TG has done 90 content review (as well as 43 source or image reviews). They have declared an oppose in three of those 90 reviews.  The ratio of opposes to supports dropped significantly from the start of FAC almost every year until it stabilized in 2015 at about 0.09 -- see this page for details, though unfortunately that page doesn't do the arithmetic for you.  FrB.TG has been reviewing for about seven years, and their oppose/support ratio is 0.04.  If you're curious you can see our most prolific recent reviewers' stats by going here and limiting the query to the last two or three years.  Then running the editor query on those reviewers will give you comparable numbers.  FrB.TG's oppose ratio is within the same range as that of our prolific reviewers.  There are certainly reviewers who oppose more than they do; I don't have a canned query to find that sort of information but could write something if it would be interesting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A significant fraction of the total opposes are run up quickly to ill-prepared nominations that never had a snowball's chance of passing FAC. That's why, even though my oppose numbers are higher than average, I'm not convinced that the total oppose ratio is a useful metric to evaluate reviewers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, you're not engaging the gist of my concern. Three. Opposes. Ever.  Ratios aside, not enough experience to be judging the difficult ones.  Brought forward in a completely non-transparent process which, apparently, none of you are willing to explain (I've told you what it used to be ... Raul consulted all delegates of all three processes, which was at least a broader pool than what seems to be going on now, where a small group self-propagates, but Raul was "fired" for being a "dictator", and the process now is more "dictatorial" than it ever was then, as who promotes/archives is decided now by less people than ever). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why anyone would bother opposing when nominators can personally attack opposers and then re-nominate the same article a few weeks later with the same issues and it sail through. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposing on the nom page is helpful to document the issues for future reviews, i.e the article discussed in the thread down page that two reviewers opposed. Jill Valentine is an example of an article that came back multiple times & finally made it through - but it was a lot of work and demonstrates that not all reviews are equal on the stats page. Victoria (tk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And such attacks have not been discouraged in the last several years, resulting in the loss of very good reviewers, as many have switched the focus at FAC to how many stars you have, rather than how good you are at reviewing. A turnaround in the prima donna mentality is needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's my answer to your questions; it's a little long but please bear with me. I'm not sure about the toughest review, but one of the reviews that stands out as a significant learning opportunity was this FAC (maybe not the best example of what I want to demonstrate but this is what comes to mind right now). In this particular review, I invested considerable time nit-picking nearly every sentence, prompting the transformation of the FAC into a peer review. My approach to reviewing involves a thorough assessment of prose, MoS compliance, random spot-checks of sources, and sometimes casual research to identify potential gaps. That takes long enough as it is; add to that the nit-picking of every sentence, and it then takes hours.
 * While the end result was the article achieving FA status—an outcome that brought me satisfaction—my involvement extended beyond the initial support. I then had to copy-edit it further, and it took the involvement of two additional editors to elevate the article's quality to the desired standard. Reflecting on this experience, I recognized that such exhaustive reviews, while well-intentioned, could inadvertently hinder the FAC process by transforming it into a prolonged peer review, and that this time can be better spent to review deserving FACs, which don't get the attention they deserve. And at the same time, the peer review process begins to decline.
 * To address this, I have since refined my reviewing approach. Rather than immediately delving into a review where I nitpick every little sentence, I provide comprehensive examples of identified issues to the nominator. This approach allows them the opportunity to address concerns and make necessary revisions before my subsequent review. This has worked most of the times, where the nominator does address the issues beyond the examples I've provided. I oppose when I encounter a nomination that appears fundamentally ill-prepared, with issues so significant that a comprehensive overhaul would be required. An example of such a situation is this, which I didn't formally review, but I would've immediately opposed it, as the necessary revisions would require substantial revamp beyond the scope of the FAC venue. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why my oppose rate is not so high. You can see that I also have a few undeclared reviews here and there. I understand that there are reviewers who would oppose in such instances, and that is perfectly fine, but my way has also worked. And there definitely have been FACs which had several supports and no oppose but were still archived because of outstanding issues.
 * I'm going to use your example to clarify what I would in a situation where an FAC garnered many supports but also received a notable oppose. I think it's important to recognize that the FAC process isn't about the numbers; it's about achieving consensus. Even with a majority of supports, a single actionable or unresolved oppose can hinder promotion. In such cases, I would assess the quality and validity of the oppose. If, as in your scenario, the opposing review highlighted several deficiencies that previous reviewers had overlooked, it indicates a justified concern.
 * My approach would be to provide the nominator with an opportunity to address the raised issues. While granting them some time for revisions, it's crucial to consider the overall duration the nomination has been open. If the FAC has been ongoing for an extended period and significant issues persist, it might be wise to archive the nomination. This would allow the nominator to resolve the identified shortcomings outside the confines of the FAC process. I firmly believe that when substantial and valid concerns are raised, the number of supports becomes less significant. The focus should shift towards addressing and rectifying the identified issues to ensure the article meets the required standards for FA status. FrB.TG (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to leave this here. I have done a few reviews over the years, and I don't oppose much. I think I am a pretty critical reviewer, and I'll oppose if needed. But I focus on reviewing articles in my area of interest, and often written by editors whose work I know. The collegiate nature of the Milhist project means that editors know each other's work and tend to take criticisms on board seriously, so there is rarely need to oppose. However, because I work in controversial areas, I occasionally get opposes from POV pushers. I have found the current tranche to be discerning about handling such things. Not sure where that takes this discussion, but thought it was worth adding. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies to for not responding in time; the last post was four days ago, and I've been on a road trip to see the eclipse. I just sat down today to respond, but didn't make it in time. Thank you at any rate for the consideration, and there's no point now in adding what my declaration would have been. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for chopping off your discussion Sandy, but I think you can see why I had thought it closed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RBP history
See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward at WP:PR regarding Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2
I have done an image overhaul and a severe reedit to beef/clean up the article. The article that was demoted in March 2021 was 23086 characters. The version that failed at FAC a month ago today was 32492 characters. The current version is 44121 characters. So the article has been beefed up with well sourced content. I have attempted to address issues. No specific issues related to "unattributed opinion" and "uncited text" are apparent from the failed FAC or the FAR, so I have addressed the most glaring ones that I see. The failed FAC mentions WP:NOTPRICE, which I think is more relevant for current prices of items not historical art auction sales. The failed FAC mentioned an MOS review needed. I assumed that this is what WP:GOCE and WP:PR are for. So unless there is objection to this moving to PR (which requires failed FAC review issues to be addressed in advance), I am going to go forward as if I have done what is necessary to bring this to a PR-ready state.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For those interested in the details of the image discussions, see Media_copyright_questions and Village_pump/Copyright.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, you are kind of bludgeoning here (and elsewhere, frankly). Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I will take that as clearance to open a PR request.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. not following this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

test
To test archive basics. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

/FAC co-ordination
Great improvements are happening. There is now a smart table instead of ad hoc commentary (thanks Gog, looks much more professional). Ian has removed the remaining 10-year-old commentary. The only thing left, I think, is to to move the page from its current backwater as a subpage of an editor who'se been barely active for ten years to somewhere in the FAC project. WP:FAC co-ordination, perhaps. In any case the new target can be thrashed out here. Serial 17:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. It does look strange doing it on the subpage of a user who has nothing to do with FAC anymore., perhaps moving it to Featured article candidates/coordination (or the one suggested by SN) makes more sense? :-) FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * actually, your suggestion is probably best. I think all our main pages use the long form, with the short form for redirects, etc (of which, in any case, I only found three!).  Serial  19:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the page has been labelled FAC coordination for more than a decade I have stayed with that. I went the long way round creating it, seem to have got there. FrB.TG, feel free to change or undo anything you wish to. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The long way round, quite. It's on the talk page though, not the main page? I'm sure Uucha won't mind either way.  Serial  20:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We use it for talk, no? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we can talk about what we like anywhere. However, the purpose of the project page is to record co-ords' non-co-ord participation. The talk page is where people talk about co-ords' recording of their non-co-ord participation. The 'General discussion' section on the project page is where the co-ords discuss their co-ordination with each other. 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Going the long way round, whilst neat, means that the page history's now been deleted. Any way of getting it back? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone competent could undo it and do it again, the right way? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a huge deal, just thinking about whether it might bug Ucuha. In the end, it's not really my business; just some Wiki-archaeologists who might protest. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll perform a history merge. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool. Cheers, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if anything still looks wrong. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Thanks. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed the page. Due to bureaucratic nonsense it has to be in the Wikipedia space -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 08:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We could have it in talk space if we want. To avoid bureaucratic nonsense, the main page would need to exist (for example as a redirect to the talk page). No big deal either way, as WP and WT spaces behave reasonably similarly. —Kusma (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

FA stats
Percentage Growth in FA Categories, 2008–2023, Legend: Considerably above average, Above average, Average  Below average, Considerably below average

FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note A: Total is off by one; not worth looking for the error.
 * Note B Three food biographies moved  per discussion at WT:FAC
 * A discrepancy of 2 in the total prompted me to re-check my calculations four times and question the capabilities of Excel. Only later did I discover that two empty lines in WP:FA had caused the miscounts. It made for a rather amusing hour spent trying to find the error.


 * Thank you for re-running these numbers -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 11:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is "Religion, mysticism and mythology" marked in orange as considerably below average? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And why are the "considerably below average" numbers bigger than the "below average" ones, ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * AirshipJungleman29, my bad. I must have swapped the conditional formatting formula for "below average" and "considerably below average" in "Pct chg Sep 2008 to 2023" in Excel. Thanks for spotting that. I'll fix it later unless someone beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair use images in FAs
There's a discussion here Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1 which would benefit from more comments. Thanks in advance. Graham Beards (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Books by Michael Ashcroft
Weighing up doing a full rewrite of Rishi Sunak when I can find the time, using The Advance of Rishi Sunak as the main piece of "relevant literature". The book, though, has an Achilles' heel: it was written by Michael Ashcroft, who started some trouble over an unverified fact in his biography of David Cameron. I've read some reviews of the Sunak bio, and I can't find anything dodgy crop up in them, and AFAIK Ashcroft has no beef with Sunak unlike what he had with Cameron, but I thought it'd be good to get your opinions on this. If rewritten, I wouldn't nominate here at FAC until Sunak's ditched next year to avoid opposes over stability, but if I did rewrite it, you'd probably see it here in a year or two's time. Wasn't sure whether to go here or to RSN, but since a BritPol bio's just come fresh off of the FA press, I went for this one. Thanks in advance - Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN would be the better forum for this, as it's about weighing up whether a specific source is OK to use. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One quick note here is that the publisher of Ashcroft's book is Biteback Publishing, which according to our article was jointly owned by its managing director Iain Dale and by Michael Ashcroft's Political Holdings Ltd, until 2018 when Dale stepped down; it's unclear to me whether Ashcroft still has an interest in the company but there's certainly a potential conflict of interest there which could raise potential questions about the extent to which publication demonstrates reliability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only does he still have an interest in the company, he is classed as a "person with significant control" with over 75% of the shares. - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. Does this mean that the book will be any less reliable, though? Ashcroft might be a big cheese in Biteback and he probably has a say in what gets published, but does it make the actual factual content of the biography any less accurate? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, our normal rule is use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer; it strikes me as against the spirit of that rule if we say that anyone rich enough that they straight up own a publishing company can just have their book published by their own company. Given that WP:WIAFA has a stricter than WP:V requirement of "high-quality reliable sources", I would personally be uncomfortable seeing Ashcroft's books published by Ashcroft's company used as sources about living people. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a big issue. If someone owns the publisher that their book is published at, it's effectively self published and needs to be treated as such for Wikipedia purposes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. So, @Caeciliusinhorto-public, @Buidhe, in more explicit terms, this is disqualified from use in an article. Just need that confirmation in those bleak terms, if, of course, that's correct. Not a fan of wasting time and if I rewrite an article which turns out to be unusable then that's pretty much as wasteful as it gets. Cheers - Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes because of BLP reasons as explained by multiple commentators. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Caeciliusinhorto-public's comment is right to the point. Ashcroft's role as a politician also makes anything he says about another politician suspect. Sorry, but I don't think this would cut the mustard at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks, Gog. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tim but I agree. I'd be nervous about including anything controversial in a BLP that I couldn't verify from an independent source. Contemporary politics is a minefield but kudos for trying to improve the articles' quality. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah well. I've not bought the book, so no money wasted. Thanks anyway, HJ. Best, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Archive mess up
Can anyone figure why the automatic archival tool is messed up on this page? I just auto-archived two threads, and they went to Archive 91, when they should have gone to archive91 (that is Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive91 is the correct target). I can't decipher where on this page the target is being misdirected from archivex to Archive X. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't, but it isn't a new thing. We also have Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 14, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 18, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 19, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 88 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 89, which all look to be from using OneClickArchiver too. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 19:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... crap. Harrias, you are everywhere solving problmes!  OK,  is there some default mechanism in the auto archiver that is sending archivals to the wrong page?  Is it because our archival naming system is non-standard ?  (It was archivex eons ago, maybe the auto archiver requires Archive X ?) You seem to be some sort of wiz on archiving stuff :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , auto-archival is highly configurable, including the base name of the archive set you want to use; you should be able to change that by adding the correct config param. I'll have a brief look. (No further pings needed; I'm subscribed.) Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't think that's the problem, as I have a non-standard archive format on my talk, and it works. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The miszabot archive params (also used by Lowercase Sigmabot and others) shows the archive name it will use with this param:
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)2d
 * which means they should be named 'archive01', 'archive02', ..., 'archive10', 'archive11', ... 'archive90', 'archive91' and so on. Because the miszabot counter is now at 91 for this page, with maxsize=250K, and since archive91 exists with a size of 194K, which is less than the configured maxsize of 250K, a few more threads could be auto-archived into archive91 by Lowercase sigmabot III before it needs to switch to (non-existent) archive92.
 * But that's for bot archiving, not one-click archiver, which I've never used, so that's where I'd look next. I don't have time to do that now, nor have I ever looked at it before, so I'm probably not the best choice to investigate further. If you run into a roadblock or nobody is available, lmk and I'll take a look. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

, I believe the problem may be in line 95 of the script. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Mathglot, awesome ... but I don't know what to do next with that :) I did post to WP:VPT. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I commented there, linking user:Evad37, whose script it is. Either they will have to adjust it, assuming they're willing, and if not, you can seek a script writer who might be willing to fork it and update it to handle a configurable archive name. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks so much --- we'll just have to be sure not to use it on this page ... but I wonder why the non-standard format works on my own talk page then ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I take it back; line 95 is just the default value; they go on to assign the value later. That may mean you need to supply your archive subpage name to 1-click archiver, but forgot to do it, so it's using the default, which is capital A. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like this, which is on my talk page ? But to /archiven ... can't believe we never did that, or maybe someone moved it when I wasn't looking. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All set! Thanks again, Mathglot ... I will call off VPT.  I always used auto-archiving on this page, so all I can think of is that someone removed it around the time archive 88 and 89 were created.  Everything working now! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That config looks like it would label your archives .../arch1, arch2, arch3; is that what it's doing? If so, just do something similar at the top of this page, setting param archive to what you want, and if you want it to continue adding to continue adding to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive91 until that one is full, then code:
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d
 * Don't copy over the 'counter' value of '120' from your personal config to here; the counter value should stay whatever it is now; '91' last time I looked. When 'archive91' gets full, 1-click archiver will create Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive92 next time it's needed. If lower-case-a "archiveNN is *not* what you want, then adjust the line accordingly. but looks like you've resolved it. Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad it's resolved, and that I could help! Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea, I got all that ... I'm dumb, but not that dumb :) :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Extracting Harrias's list so I can begin cleanup. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 14
 * A redirct from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive14,
 * Done, but the way I did 18 and 19 is better for attribution purposes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 18
 * Same,
 * Done with move over redirect, left the old /Archive N Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 19
 * Same,
 * Done with move over redirect, left the old /Archive N Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 88
 * Same thing happened here to Buidhe as happened to me, but Buidhe left a redirect, while I db-author'd the faulty one
 * The redirect here works fine--- no action needed.  I'm done here, with no need for you to db-author anything after all.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 89
 * Curiously, the last FAC issue, similar to current, same thing happened to Buidhe with one-click archiver, but uncorrected, and overlaps archive89
 * Fixed. This was a mess, and explains why I could never find the old Socrates Nelson FAC kerfuffle in archives; the whole thing was in the wrong prefix.  I moved the contents of /Archive 89 to /archive89 and left the redirect for attribution purposes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start cleaning this up, and then try to figure out why one-click archiver malfunctions on this page (I suspect I'll have to go to WP:VPT). After I finish getting everything in the right place, can I ping you so you can put a  on the faulty ones from your one-click archives (88 and 89)?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a G6 could also be applied here if you want to bypass the extra person. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 22:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a G6 on one (no. 14), but I suspect (guess?) that creates more investigative need on the admin side than a db-author does ... and that a db-author is less drain on admin time. So I'm going to hold off now and see how 14 goes ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seemed okay! :P Harrias  (he/him) • talk 22:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I'll get back on this a bit later ... don't want to get out ahead of Buidhe, and maybe we can solve the script problem. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, how come I'm just now realizing you're an admin :) Why aren't *you* a FAC Coord then? You seem like a most calm and sensible sort. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion
There is a discussion taking place on a topic of potential interest to members of this project. Serial 16:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Another relevant discussion
... at Administrators%27 noticeboard. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches; ten years on. (And one of the only two FAC newsletters in those ten years; by letting things like go, the FA-process community slides into obscurity, but I digress.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what isn't obscure, if one of the most prominent internal processes on Wikipedia is apparently sliding that way... AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for October 2023
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October 2023. 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) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (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) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce citation clutter
... at Village Pump. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy. Looks like that will hopefully get a WP:SNOW close sooner rather than later. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Biting my tongue :) :) But my bigger point is, folks, we've got to a) start paying more attention to Village Pump stuff, and b) start supporting other FA writers better by always watchlisting the daily TFA. It's a jungle out there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Citations in leads
In that now withdrawn discussion, there is a side discussion between and me, about a point raised by the sensible  at Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Might be worth exploring here, as this is the place where Wikipedia's best work is contemplated. Amakuru may be too busy to follow through on this, but I wanted to excerpt it here so it's not lost. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * PS, this very issue led to a problem at FA The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film). An IP added a cn tag to the lead years ago, and then (after three years tagged) removed that info as POV, although the content is cited in the body. So, bringing us to another problem:, back then our most experienced film FA writer, hasn't edited for years, and it would sure be helpful if others would watchlist and help maintain this FA. I missed the cn tag being added to the lead by an IP. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My main concern with citations in leads is that as a summary of the article, a statement in the lead might require a lot of different citations to support it. How much value would "This is a sentence summarising some stuff that has happened in this article.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] really add? Verifying the sentence from a range of sources would be pretty difficult anyway. I appreciate that would not always be the case, but if we mandated citations in the lead, I think it would make it harder to have natural summaries of the article without risking citation overload. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a problem. Before WP:ARBMED, we had a miniscule group of editors trying to force citations into the lead of medical articles, and I (and others, like ) objected for this reason. As a compromise, I added inline comments to the lead of Dementia with Lewy bodies (you can see them in edit mode), indicating which sources supported the text. That would help someone as in cases Amakuru mentions, trying to deal with WP:ERRORS issues for example, but not the readers that Sphilbrick mentions.  And I should also add, that in spite of carefully chosen words and inline sources mentioned, I still had to deal with a faulty word change at WP:ERRORS on TFA day, so I'm not sure adding citations will help in that sub-problem. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I generally prefer using lead citations when it can be meaningfully done. I have seen and had to revert too many removals of valid content that was supported by citations in the body but not the lead. As such I'd oppose a mandate, but I don't think we ought to discourage their use as we sometimes do, and we should certainly check if uncited lead content is in fact a valid summary of cited article content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The footnote density would be very great. I would probably resort to footnoting sentences or phrases rather than paragraphs to avoid the issue Harrias raises (which would defeat the purpose) but there would be a lot of clutter. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)