Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive94

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for March 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March 2024. 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) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, is the underlying data compiled by hand? Edge3 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Partly. A bot creates its best guess and puts it in User:Mike Christie/sandbox.  I then go through with the FAC archive on a second screen and edit it to correct things the bot wasn't able to spot -- e.g. I remove edits that are not reviews, such as formatting fixes.  Then the bot returns and generates the text posted above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What is a FAC review's purpose?
What is to be done if a GA which is a FAC does not meet basic GA criteria? It contains original research, copyright violations and close paraphrasing, does not address the main aspects of the topic, its sourcing is also problematic. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC) This discussion has now escalated to WP:ANI. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what the oppose is for. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, you'd probably not want an article in that state becoming an FA, so definitely oppose the candidacy. If you feel like its good article status should be stripped, the next course of action would be a good article reassessment. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have come across this situation. I opposed the nomination, noted that I would have closed it as a WP:QUICKFAIL if it were a WP:Good article nomination, and suggested that the nomination be archived so the article could be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. TompaDompa (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaur colouration image review
Not sure if this is the right venue, but it is relevant to a lot of articles, so I thought it was best to discuss it in a more general place than a specific FAC. At the Nasutoceratops FAC, asked for citations supporting the specific colour patterns shown in the life restorations of dinosaurs used in the article (some of which are depicted with eye spots and other bold patterns), or if it could be stated in the captions that the colours shown are conjectural. I replied that while we have sources that say that dinosaurs generally could have been boldly patterned for display as in modern animals, we don't have sources that mention eye spots or these animals in particular (we do know partial colouration of a few other dinosaurs), though we do have artwork by palaeontologists that show such patterns in related dinosaurs (though without the captions of these images pointing out the patterns). Note that the used images do have citations on Commons that support their general anatomy, and have been reviewed at WP:dinoart.

I objected to stating directly in the image captions that colours are conjectural, as this isn't how relevant sources caption their images (as it is assumed to be a given that their colours are generally unknown, and colouration is only mentioned in captions when actually known), and we should follow how the literature covers it instead of in an original way. It would also set a precedent whereby we have to mention this in thousands of image captions across Wikipedia where we use life restorations of prehistoric animals whose colours are unknown (which is also why I don't think a single FAC should be testing ground for such a proposal, it should be discussed widely first). I instead suggested it could be mentioned in the alt text that the images show conjectural colours, or that reliably published images which show similar colouration could be referenced in the Commons description, to keep it out of the already very long captions. Gog failed the review because he thinks we should solidly source anything we say or portray in the article itself I presume, but I disagree in this case for the reasons mentioned above, as well as per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE (policies which have been brought up in previous discussions of paleoart), hence I would like to hear some more opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gog. what is a simple assumption for you is likely not for a general reader. Adding "colouring conjectural" or similar is not that big of a deal, and keeps readers firmly aware of what we know and don't know. I'm reminded of that story where a scientist from a future where spiders are extinct time-travels back to now, and is absolutely flabbergasted when he learns that they have webs. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the difference between Wikipedia's presentation and in reliable sources is that, despite being based on sources and reviewed by other contributors, Wikipedia's reconstructions are fundamentally amateur work, and especially when dealing with content one cannot verify (besides they're gone, or extinct, or whatever) it's fair to explain the limits of what can be assumed versus evidenced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's a historic image I absolutely oppose colorization because the colors are not known to us. This image being entirely original, I don't see the issue because if you can draw the dinosaur you can also add color, even if it's consistent with what we know there must be quite a bit of originality. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As Gog's request seems to just add the two words "colouring conjectural" to the caption, I'm not sure what the problem is. The colouring is conjectural, after all. If scientists crack some genome that shows they were really purple and green, then new images can come and the two words removed, but I don't think the request is a problematic one. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that captioning it "Three ceratopsids...." seems misleading. Would folks be satisfied with a caption along the lines of "Paleoartist's representation of three ceratopsids..."? Just clicking through some arbitrarily selected dinosaur FAs I see a lot of "Restoration of...", "Hypothetical feathered model...", "Artist's impression of...", "Life restoration of...", "Reconstruction of...". In fact, I don't really see other FAs (though I haven't looked very hard) where artist's renderings are referred to as fact. I don't love "colouring conjectural" as I assume(?) much more than the colouring is left to conjecture. Ajpolino (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a novel suggestion, yes, I've never seen it before. But if we assume this is the road we want to go, we should clarify how exactly we want to do this, and what the wider implications are. So for the proponents, how would the article in question look? It has three such palaeoartistic reconstructions, should they all have a note saying the colouration is conjectural, or is it enough in the caption of the first restoration? And should every single usage of such palaeoart anywhere on Wikipedia have such a caption? Either way, I think it would be good to have a note on use of palaeoart in the general WP:manual of style for images, as issues relating to their creation and use are recurring themes, and the WP:palaeoproject's internal WP:palaeoart guidelines probably won't be accepted as "official", Wikipedia-wide guidelines by non-members. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ajpolino—each artist's rendition image should be clearly labeled as such so that it cannot be confused with an actual photograph. Once it is labeled clearly (in each caption), it's obvious to the reader that some aspects (such as the coloring) are creative rather than documentation of information. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually we mark them like that by stating it is a life restoration/life reconstruction, which links to the article on palaeoart. FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a novel suggestion... I've never seen it before I assume you mean specifically "Paleoartist's representation"? To be clear, I'm fine with the other examples I quoted from dinosaur FAs (e.g. "Life restoration of...", "Artist's impression of...). I suspect that would be fine with many others, though I'm extrapolating a bit from their actual comments. Clicking at random through some of your other FAs, I see you typically use versions of that when captioning artists' renderings. I'm not sure why you chose not to do that at Nasutoceratops. But I think if you caption File:Kaiparowits fauna.jpg in the typical way (by explicitly calling it out as a life restoration), most people will be happy. Ajpolino (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I've never seen "colouring conjectural" in a caption of a paleoartistic work, as this is usually a given. Writing "restoration/reconstruction" and similar is already the norm for such captions. In this case, "restoration of" could be added to the other captions as well, but the issue at hand was whether the captions should specifically mention colouration. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Below, Gog stated that he would be happy if the captions would just start with "hypothetical life restoration", without specifically mention the colouration. If you agree too, and nobody else objects, this would solve the issue. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so I wonder if I should make a vote of options, or if and others would agree that the above caption would be fine if it said "Hypothetical life restoration of three ceratopsids from the Kaiparowits Formation: Utahceratops, Nasutoceratops, and Kosmoceratops". And this should be done with every restoration in a single article, just to be clear? FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So far as the image review that started this is concerned, if you were to do that I can't see why I wouldn't pass it. And it seems an acceptable way of handling any future similar cases, although I am sure there are other broadly acceptable turns of phrase. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, consider it done (in a few moments), and yes, that could be implemented in future nominations. And I think this and related issues should be formulated into a guideline somewhere, at least somewhere at the palaeontology and dinosaur project pages. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I had also hoped that marking all those images as "life restorations" or "artist's impressions" in the captions would be clear enough (still missing in the example caption btw). While I do see some merit in explicitly pointing out that the colours are created by the artist, I fear that this statement – added under all such images – very quickly feels repetitive. If we decide that such a statement is required, I would suggest to be pragmatic and limit this requirement to the first such image in an article, and to FAs only (since these are much more exposed to readers without any background knowledge). However, I do not particularly like the wording "conjectural" or "hypothetical", because this could imply that scientists have some vague hypothesis about the colors, which is not the case – the colors are merely an invention of the artist. Therefore, we would need a statement such as "colours in ceratopsids are unknown", if we decide to include such a statement. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think one issue here is that folks may interpret the lack of colouration as evidence that dinosaurs were colourless. Certainly that's how white statues from antiquity were interpreted before we found evidence that they were coloured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo, I don't think that any one is suggesting that - if they have, I have missed it. By all means let us have a best guess as to how the creatures were coloured and patterned in reconstructions. My view is that in such cases we should clearly tell a reader that they are just that - a guess. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you would find stronger wording like "hypothetical life restoration" in the image captions sufficient? I fear that, if we are specifically stating that the colors are guesswork, the reader might assume that all other aspects are not guesswork, but that is only partly true (for example, we don't know how fleshy these animals were, how the skin folds looked like, and how long the horns were exactly because only the horn cores are preserved but not the keratin cover). Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Jens, you won't get an argument from me over any of that. I think that this discussion is an attempt to establish a consensus on the principle, using my comments as a concrete example. As points out, a local consensus for a different approach has developed. There seems to me - I am more than open to correction - to be a consensus among the FAC community that reconstructions should labelled as conjectural, and that this should be in each and every case. I would (further?) propose that every such image has its caption start with "A hypothetical life restoration of ..." or something similar in meaning. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I misunderstood. My question was just if you would personally be satisfied if the image captions in Nasutoceratops would start with "A hypothetical life restoration" (a change with witch I would fully agree), or whether you think that an additional note explicitly stating that the colors are unknown is also necessary. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally would be happy with that. Barring further more convincing arguments from others. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems very reasonable and in line with existing practice for palaeontology FAs. Any further and the text written to justify the restoration could very well become more OR than the restoration itself. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This would work best, I think. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Columbian mammoth article has a few art examples, which have captions including "1909 life restoration by Charles R. Knight based on the same specimen", "life restoration (right) based on same; the extent of the fur is hypothetical", "by Robert Bruce Horsfall, 1911", "Fanciful restoration of a Columbian mammoth hunt, J. Steeple Davis, 1885", and one piece of art which has no explanation in the caption. I would agree with Ajpolino and Jens Lallensack that if some indication of restoration/impression is clear then there isn't a need to also explicitly point out colours in the article caption. CMD (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Nominate / support TWL partners
Only just found this out, but here's the Magic Cave's suggestion box for future Wikipedia Library resouce partners. Lots of solid potential vis à vis both newspaper and academic texts. Scroll down the list and upvote at your leisure. (Note that some of them have been partnered already some time—I have no idea why there're still there.)  ——Serial Number 54129  15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * They even added one of my suggestions! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Goldfinger! Wot one was that ? :)   ——Serial Number 54129  19:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Central and Eastern European Online Library (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Voted a few up. Shame that few people use Lyell or GeoScienceWorld. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, there seem to be a fair number of duplicates in the list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a mentor for first time nominator
Hello, I'm ! I primarily create content related to Christian liturgical and American architectural subjects, with six GAs in those areas. I've been interested in the FAC process for a long time but have never felt comfortable participating when I still sometimes feel like a novice regarding the higher-level considerations. After much work, consultation, and further self-assessment, I finally feel ready to nominate an article: Free and Candid Disquisitions, on a mid-18th-century religious pamphlet by John Jones that had a substantial impact on Anglican and Unitarian worship practices. The article passed as a GA earlier this year and underwent a low-turnout PR more recently. Given my inexperience, I am extending a request for a mentor.

Some considerations for a possible mentor:
 * I live in the Eastern Time Zone of the United States (presently UTC−04:00)
 * My work schedule causes peaks and valleys in activity on-Wiki but I edit daily. For the next couple months, I'll be fairly available with four-day weekends
 * I have access to the Wikipedia Discord but would prefer to communicate either on-Wiki or via email
 * I'm more than willing to offer my help in any tedious project on-Wiki as compensation for mentorship (maybe you need someone who can swap umlauts for diaereses across a couple hundred articles?)

If you're interested or wish for me to offer further details regarding myself and my proposed FAC, please reply here or on my talk page. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

New statistics tool to get information about an editor's GA history
I mentioned this at WT:GAN, but there may be editors here who would be interested who don't watch that page: I've created a GA statistics page that takes an editor's name as input and returns some summary information about their interactions with GA. It shows all their nominations and reviews, and gives a summary of their statistics -- number promoted, number that are still GAs, and the review-to-GA ratio. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * A useful summary! Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Very handy. Thanks Mike. Although "Promoted GA nominations: 108; Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 50" caused me to panic before I realised that it was because 58 GANs had been promoted to FA, and so - technically - they ceased to be GAs. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out my Promoted GA nominations: 17 but Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 37 ... followed by a lit of 19! - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a combination of two things. One was a bug -- if a nominator put spaces around their username, as happened here for example, the tool was not removing them, so that nomination was credited to ' Schrodinger's cat is alive' with a leading space.  That's now fixed, so asking the tool for GAs for that old user name will now correctly report those old GAs.  The "still GAs" number is maintained by SDZeroBot, which automatically tracks username changes -- that's why it shows 37 for "SchroCat".  I decided not to automatically connect old usernames to new ones because not everyone wants their old usernames advertised, but I can do so on request.  I'm going to assume in your case you do want to connect them since the signature was "SchroCat" even back then, so I've added your names to the name-change list.  You should now see the correct results -- let me know if anything still looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah - that looks much more like it. Thanks Mike! - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice work, and thanks to Mike for fixing the GAN bot's count of successful nominations for those of us with apostrophes. Cheers Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This GA statistics page sounds very useful! By consolidating the interactive summary information of editors on one page, it provides a convenient way to understand the contribution and level of participation of each editor. This not only helps to improve transparency, but also encourages more participation and interaction. Hhhlx (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Mike! I've been hoping for something that would track my articles promoted past GA. That said, there a few oddities that might cause issues for somebody else. My own tally of my GAs is 924, including the one promoted today, while your bot says 941, not including the one promoted today. Obviously I haven't tried to reconcile them yet, but it's entirely possible that I might have missed a few over the years. And I'm very suspicious that my ratio of reviews to noms shows as exactly 1:1. The reviews and noms for this year seem to be complete, for what it's worth. The first two noms on my list, Stalingrad-class battlecruiser and Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship, don't show as promoted because the articles were renamed after the review. Not sure exactly what needs to be done to fix that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with those two was that the GA subpages hadn't been moved to follow the parent page move. I've now done that and updated the database so those two should be OK now; there are probably some others like that around.  There's now a bot that cleans up after incomplete moves of subpages so those issues should gradually go away.  I'm going to make a change to the tool to see if I can speed it up by checking the GA and FA pages for the name of the article, rather than checking each article page for the GA or FA template; that might run into a different problem in that it won't detect that an article is a GA if those pages still list it under the old name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I just tried that change and reverted it; it was unreliable because so many GAs are still in the GA pages under names that are now redirects. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. I will note that the bot has now caught my one failed nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Spent a couple of minutes trying to figure out why my tally doesn't match the bot's and noticed that it's not counting at least some of my noms on which I collaborated with other people. Talk:HMS Ramillies (07)/GA1 is one; maybe it matters who's listed first, I dunno.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently GA stats don't allow conomination credits -- it could probably be done but for now the nominator is assumed to be either the editor who adds the nomination or the editor whose name appears in the nomination template. This is the relevant edit, so Parsecboy is listed as the nominator. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)=
 * I was wondering if that was the reason, but now I'm even more perplexed about the difference between the tallies as I've done a lot of collaboration, although I was often the nominator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up on your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Template usage
Is it ok to use cot/cob in FAC discussions for reasons other than to hide offtopic discussions? I’d like to use them to hide lengthy threads that have been resolved. YBG (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

PS, is it really true that there are only four FAC coordinators? My hats off to y'all for performing this important service!!!! YBG (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Speaking just for myself, I would rather you didn't. It would make life slightly more difficult for me every time I look at the nom to consider if it is ready for closure.


 * It is, an all-time high I think, and thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild: My idea would be to put cot/cob only around those things I consider resolved, and clearly mark them as so. I thought this would make it easier, not harder, for you to tell if it is ready for closure. YBG (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The role of the cords isn’t vote-counting the number of supports, but weighing the strength of the review. Capping means they have to uncap everything to be able to read it through and make a judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, @Gog the Mild/@SchroCat so if I understand correctly, the coordinators still want to read the full discussion about areas in which I at one time found fault but have now been modified to the point that I no longer find fault. YBG (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They may wish to, and having to open cots to decide adds marginally to their workload. They are not in any way forbidden and you are free to use them if you wish. If a week or two later you feel your ears burning, it is probably a coordinator closing the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Per the instructions, many templates are deprecated from use at FAC, but . Perhaps somewhere else where community expectations have out stripped our decades-old instructions.  ——Serial Number 54129  10:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The instructions are there partly to keep the page size of WP:FAC under control but also for the archives because the reviews (for reasons I've never really understood) are all transcluded in the archives. So it's not just an arbitrary rule from years ago that doesn't reflect current practice. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't even try and fucking patronise me HJM. I know perfectly well why the limits are there, and either you deliberately misunderstand me in order to make a different point, or you just do not understand. You will at least apologise for insinuating that I have not read the instructions I have just cited: slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. This a distinct point to that made by the OP. Firstly is the fact that, per the instructions, templates are avoided because speed, etc. Secondly—the ease with which a co-ord should be able to read a candidature—is obviously a different reason. My point, at the end of the day, is that as it stands, the OP would be within his rights to use cob etc because it is one of the few explicitly exempted from the disallowed templates (i.e., cot and cob are allowed). All I am saying is that if we want to forbid closing/hatting any sections, then go ahead, but ensure that the rule allows it. Which it does not at the moment. This would not be a new codification. It would be expanding upon an extant codification. And, incidentally, I seem to remember moving discussions to the talk page is deemed acceptable, but I fail to see why having to click the  is more onerous on a co-ord than opening a new page. Cheers,   ——Serial Number 54129  13:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:PEIS is probably a good rationale to keep the rule around. Sohom (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * cob and cot have no noticeable effect on the PEIS; that's why they are exempted. They are alternatives to collapse which requires all the collapsed text to be within the template, which can have a very significant effect on the PEIS.  That's not to comment on whether they should be used to collapse anything other than offtopic comments, just to say that PEIS is not a reason to disallow it.  SN, I didn't think Harry was being patronizing; I might well have posted the same comment that he did and I wouldn't have intended to patronize you if I had done so.  I don't think he deserved the response you gave him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yell, fucking fuck it then, since you vouch him. Struck, with apologies to HJM for my unnecessary brusqueness. For the record, replying to a point that hasn't been made while appearing to ignore one that has, can certainly lead—albeit mistakenly—to a sense of being gaslit. And gas is very good at lighting blue touch paper. Cheers!  ——Serial Number 54129  17:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasn't expecting such a hostile response! Not the swearing, swear all you fucking like. But I'm not the template cabal telling you what you can or can't do with your templates! ;) HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think cot and cot should be disallowed for PEIS. But having the general "keep template use to a minimum" rule in it's current form makes sense since PEIS exists. Sohom (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The selected article candidate page on Wikipedia is a very interesting place to showcase potential selected articles nominated by editors. Browsing this page provides readers with an opportunity to discover high-quality knowledge. Hhhlx (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a reviewer, I prefer everything to be easy to see. For one thing it stops the same points being re-raised. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for April 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April 2024. 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.

Due to some temporary technical issues I have not generated the rolling 12-month summary I normally add to these reports. I doubt if anyone is too upset by the omission, but it should be back next month. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

FACs needing feedback
If anyone is looking for a nomination to review, there are (currently) four in "FACs needing feedback" - at the top of this page, on the right - which would all benefit from another review. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of source titles
Question about how to apply the consistent citation format requirements came up here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Time limits?
I just nominated Featured article candidates/Heptamegacanthus/archive1 and it was closed because there was no significant movement. But two hours before it was closed there was a long and excellent list of recommendations. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to make all the changes within 2 hours. Did I cross some time limit that I was not aware of? Mattximus (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's up to coordinator discretion, but FACs are not intended to be indefinite peer reviews. Even if you had quickly addressed those comments and the user had supported, you still wouldn't have had a consensus to promote, hence it was archived. You can work on the edits and engage with the commenter on the talk page or another venue to prep it if you intend to renom in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Second nom?
, would it be okay for me to put up a second nom? My current nom has been open a fortnight and has several (six) supports and passes on images and sources, so the heavy lifting seems to have been done there. No probs if you want me to wait a bit further, but I’d be grateful for a second too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * SchroCat go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks David: you're a star. Cheers- SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Idea
What does everybody think about a process chart at Featured Article candidates? It'll essentially be a board that includes how many supports/opposes the nomination has, as well as including if a source/image check have been done. Thoughts? 750h+ 12:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested a couple of times, and has never gained traction. One reason is that not all supports are created equal -- a drive by support from a new editor with no comments is not as helpful to the coords as a support that makes it clear exactly what has been reviewed and what the basis of a support is.  A support on prose is not the same as a support from a content expert.  I don't think it's a good idea to reinforce the idea that the coords are just vote-counting.  One could make the same argument against the support/oppose summaries in the FAC viewer, but I think those are useful since they help reviewers quickly spot FACs that are short of reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

2nd nom time?
Yo apologies if this is premature, but my FAC finished up its prose reviews, and seems to just be sitting around until promotion. Would it be okay to begin a second FAC nom now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

next nomination
hi may i nominate another article? my current FAC (Aston Martin Rapide) has four supports, and the source review and image review have been done. 750h+ 11:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As soon as Gog's comments are fully resolved and he has no further concerns, you may. FrB.TG (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * okay. 750h+ 12:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, 750. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. per the comment left by Gog, i believe the nomination can be closed? 750h+ 13:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will look at it the next time (soon) I go through the FACs list unless one of my fellow coords beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild already left his comments. Gog stated "I have ended up contributing more to it than I had anticipated, to the edge of being involved. From an abundance of caution I shall recuse, support promotion and ask one of my colleagues to close." 750h+ 11:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see that, but the closing coordinator still needs to thoroughly check the FAC and article to ensure everything is in order. Considering the number of FACs that need attention, this process takes time. So please be patient. FrB.TG (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. 750h+ 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to FAC and GAN statistics tools
I have combined the two statistics tools that I maintain into one location. The GAN tool will continue to be at the same URL, but that site now hosts the FAC statistics tool as well. The FAC statistics will no longer update at the old location, here; they will only be updated at the new location. I will add a banner to that page making it clear that the data is no longer being updated.

The only FAC statistics tool I've moved is the editor query, since I think it was the one most often used. If anyone is in the habit of using any of the other queries available from the current FAC statistics tool, let me know, and I'll add it to the new location. Please let me know of any problems with the new tool. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A small thing, but on the new FAC tool if I enter the name of an editor with no FAC history I get "500 Internal Server Error" rather than a page showing no FAC noms/reviews. On the old tool, I get what I assume is the intended behavior. Ajpolino (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A gentle ping to make sure you saw this. Not that it's an emergency or even needs to be fixed; just thought you'd like to know. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I'd missed this. I won't be able to work on this till next week but I'll take a look then -- as you say, it's a minor issue, but I'd like to tidy it up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , this has been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The old toolforge has a page that shows the review ratios of all editors with nominations at FAC. I use this chart to decide which articles I want to review (as I like reviewing articles from editors who are actively helping other FACs become promoted). Can this feature be returned to the new toolforge? Even a simpler chart that only showed reviews-to-nominations would be helpful, as I ignored most of the other stats and it takes a long time to pull up those stats. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the "Current FACs" query? Yes -- might take me a week or two.  Will post here when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the old one the link is labelled "Current FACs". However, it returned so much information that it took a long time to load. If possible (and if less work for you) this query can return less information for me, as I only used the reviews-to-FAC ratio stat. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll look into abbreviating it, but if I recall correctly the slowness was caused by having to access each of the active FAC pages to find the nominators. If so it will be hard to speed up, but I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the difference between FA and GA again?
I have been thinking for a long time about the difference between FA and GA, and it feels like they both somewhat look the same. WP:GVF describes "featured articles must be our very best work; good articles meet a more basic set of core editorial standards and are decent." In this case, does this mean that FA must comprehensive&mdash;meaning that the article contains a lot of perspectives, research, and many other facts globally&mdash;whereas GA means that the article is broad in its coverage (GACR3) but needs some further expansion? Speaking of comprehensiveness, as one of the criteria in FA, I have seen a discussion where a user asked about it based on the reviewer's perspectives, but I would like to understand it more strongly. Regards. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The distinction between FAs and GAs is indeed nuanced, but it essentially comes down to the level of quality and comprehensiveness expected for each category. I'll try to compare them in regards to a few criteria that set them apart.
 * FAs must be thorough and cover the topic in depth. This means that the article should include a wide range of perspectives, extensive research, and all relevant facts to provide a complete understanding of the subject. It should leave no significant aspect unexplored or inadequately covered. GAs, on the other hand, should cover the topic broadly, addressing the main aspects sufficiently. However, they do not need to delve as deeply into every nuance as FA articles do.
 * The prose of an FA must be of the highest quality—clear, engaging, and free from errors. The article should be well-structured, with coherent flow and readability. For GAs, the prose should be clear and readable, but the standards are not as stringent as those for FA. It should be free of major errors but can tolerate minor issues that do not significantly detract from the reading experience.
 * For FAs, sources should be of the highest quality, comprehensive, and fully verifiable. The article should follow Wikipedia's citation guidelines rigorously. GAs require reliable sources and appropriate citations, but the sourcing does not need to be as exhaustive as for FAs. The key is that the sources must support the article's content sufficiently.
 * In essence, while GAs are solid articles that meet core editorial standards and are well-written and informative, FAs represent the pinnacle of quality on Wikipedia, requiring meticulous attention to detail, balance, and thoroughness. The distinction lies in the extent of coverage and the rigor of the quality standards applied. I hope this helps. FrB.TG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is worth saying that the gap between GA and FA has narrowed over time, as reviewing standards at GA have got tighter—simply copy-pasting a tickbox template is no longer considered an acceptable review there. However, there is still a large gap. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the multiple-reviewer-plus-coordinators approach at FAC, the overall review quality is more consistent than with the single-reviewer approach for GANs, where there are no mechanisms to guard against particularly sloppy or overly picky reviews. —Kusma (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good assessments above. Another major (actually, pace above, I would say possibly the most important, as the process rests on one of Wikip[edia's core principles) difference is that one is peer-reviewed, and a consensus on quality and standard is formed; the other is not.  ——Serial Number 54129  13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Serial Number 54129 TIL a new definition of pace ("an expression of deference to someone's contrary opinion"). Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks Roy :)  for what it's worth, I had to look up TIL as well!  :)    ——Serial Number 54129  13:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And one more point: some MoS related issues are not required for GA but are required for FA. Similarly, GA citations can be inconsistent and badly formatted -- all that is required at GA is that the source can be reached via the citation.  FAC requires consistency in source formatting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also say that the image review and use of visuals is far more scrutinized in a FA as well. Alt text for the visually impaired or those without access to images is required on FA, as is the substantiation of an image if the information is not cited in the body. Licensing requires analysis, i.e. beyond checking that the licensing is appropriate, does it meet other requirements, licensed in both the US and country of origin, does it comply with "freedom of panorama" rules, if applicable, etc. Tables should be used sparingly in FA with thoughtfulness as to whether they are necessary or would be better presented as prose. FA also requires mindfulness on use of colors, if one must use a colored visual, is it in a spectrum that will be helpful and not cause confusion for the reader. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alt text for the visually impaired or those without access to images is NOT required on FA, though reviewers often ask for it. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, rightly so. Any editor unwilling to spend a couple of providing ALTTEXT is basically fucking over our visually-imparired readers... who are often listeners, of course. Just tie it closer to MOS:ACCESS and be done with it.  ——Serial Number 54129  14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The main issue with alt text is that we only ask for the presence of some alt text, ignoring the question whether that alt text is of any use for a visually impaired reader. Opinion on what constitutes good alt text seems to vary widely (and depend on the image and context), so it is difficult to improve the situation without some dedicated alt text experts helping with reviews. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed - and the "dedicated alt text experts" don't seem to agree either, as we found out many years ago, when there was a big push on this, which then collapsed in the absence of agreement as to what was actually useful. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Many years ago", when accessibility was not deemed as important as it is now. Have the same discussion today, and you'll likely see very different results. I think there's a lot more resonance between access (a lack of) and in/direct discrimination. These are very serious issues for the WP community of 2024, even if they may not have been, or, gently, of such importance a decade earlier.  ——Serial Number 54129  15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My take away from diversity training I have had is that alt text should describe the image to someone who cannot see it and not repeat the caption information, as both are read by a screen reader. For example on a wall mural with multiple images, I would use alt=painting on a wall caption=Mural depicting X, Y, Z on the fence outside the stadium in Timbucktoo, 2013. I literally just reviewed an article that had a map with alt=see caption and the caption=X's childhood home in Timbucktoo. To my eyes the alt is not remotely helpful. Doesn't say it is a map rather than a photograph of either the town or the actual house. And yes, totally in agreement, SN 54129. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I think there's some confusion about what alt text is actually supposed to be and I've seen people trying to conform it to the caption when in reality they serve very different and complementary purposes. I do think it's reasonable to suggest adding it back in as a featured article criteria but we should probably get some much clearer guidance and examples for editors to use as a guide before that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some alt text is easy. A text-based poster? Say what the text is. The difficult bit in my opinion is alt text for portraits, where I am unsure what information is needed. At Ulf Merbold (one of my FAs), the infobox image alt text is "Ulf Merbold wearing an orange spacesuit". Do we need to point out also that he is not wearing the helmet, that we can see his hair going grey, or that there is a model of a Space Shuttle in the background? Probably not all of them, but I would really like to have some guidance to follow. In particular, are there cases where "refer to caption" is a good alt text? —Kusma (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of this is covered at Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images, both in terms of general guidelines and specific examples. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the examples there are the best we can do (the very first example is alt "Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte in His Study at the Tuileries" for an image with caption "The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries by Jacques-Louis David" which seems fairly redundant, and later there is alt "Refer to caption" for "Comparison of three different types of toothbrush", which at least could mention that they differ in bristle arrangement while all three are made of plastic). The examples in the table seem better. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you . A lot of what is in that essay is directly contradicted by training I have received. Its examples seem contrary and create redundancies, IMO. Barring better instruction, I use my best judgment on how would I describe an image to someone who cannot see it. (Who knew my observation on differences between GA and FA would generate so much discussion?) SusunW (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: as a first step take this discussion to that page so that it can be improved, and then when that's felt to be in a good state bring the conversation back here to discuss whether it should be considered part of the criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation to all users here. I can understand the difference between FA's and GA's criteria, including the comprehensiveness, prose, and sources. Speaking of the images and alternative texts, maybe this can be discussed later. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm of the camp that pushes for more and better ALT texts. But, I've slowly come to think this may be the wrong direction.  I recently bought a new car.  Correction: I bought a new computer that happened to come with 4 tires and a steering wheel as peripherals.  It's not quite a self-driving car, but it does come with enough sensors to "semi-automatically" execute parallel parking itself.  It warns me about things I'm about to run into.  It warns me about approaching cars when I go to open a door.  It notices that I'm wandering over the painted lane stripes on the road .  It reads street signs and tells me I'm speeding if I'm going faster than the last sign is saw said I could.
 * @Kusma suggests above that the ALT text should include a transcription of text that's visible in the image. At one level, I agree, and I do that, but we're long past the point where OCR software is capable of doing that for us (not to mention providing automatic translations to other languages).  It can be doing full-on image recognition.  This should be happening automatically for every image uploaded to commons.  Maybe it's not quite at the point where it can write good ALT texts for us, but it's certainly at the point where it can do a reasonable approximation and then the article author can fix it up. RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Um. I'm really not sure we're at that point right now, particularly given Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Alternative_text_for_images. (And particularly given peoples' tendency to assume that automation can get you 100% of the way there rather than only 80%). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking for a mentor for first FAC
Hello, I am looking for a mentor as I am approaching the FA nomination for Hogwarts Legacy. In case someone is willing to do it, let me know, thanks! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for May 2024
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. The queries used to generate this summary have been updated to point to the new tool location, and I've checked the output for consistency, but please let me know if anything looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentor request for Chinese characters FAC
I feel like I'm asking an awful lot from the community all of a sudden, given I've received an enormous amount of help—especially in Kusma's GAN review—plus the pending peer review, but I hope another line cast here couldn't hurt. It seems that articles like this one are comparatively distant from the areas of interest and comfort of FAC regulars, in aggregate.

I think I am well on my way to potentially diversifying the crew as such but even if one doesn't have area expertise here, I think that would be perfect: a highly perceptive and thoughtful person without particular area expertise is most certainly someone I'd most like to hear a review of this article from the most. Of course, that is also true for a highly perceptive and thoughtful person with area expertise, but that would be for distinct reasons! Ultimately, I want this to be better than any other collection of 8–10k words in existence to educate people on the subject.  Remsense  诉  12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

MSincccc
They have been told already not to post a source review check (here) without, per rule, have[ing] attracted several reviews and declarations of support. Yet earlier today they did so again, this time with the summary Article has had multiple reviews and image review has also been conducted. This is not the case. Their article has picked up one tentative-leaning-support, and at least one other review refuses to give a verdict for their own reasons, while others have likewise not stated either way. So either MSincccc deliberately misunderstands the instructions for their own ends, or they do not understand basic instructions in English. If the former, then it is disruptive behaviour and if the latter then they should be reminded that competence is required to edit. ——Serial Number 54129 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Users Sohom Datta and Ssilvers have confirmed that further comments will be posted tomorrow. User Tim riley has not opposed the nomination, and I have received support from user 750h+. Additionally, the request for a source review has been addressed. My intentions were never disruptive. Co-nominator can confirm these facts. Furthermore, user @Serial Number 54129 has been leaving comments like Good to see the royals getting the same respect at FAC as they get from the rest of the country! on other users' talk pages, where I did not expect a response from him. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your interpretation and fully accept that you were acting in good faith, but the nomination has not "attracted several ... declarations of support". You will save other editors and the coordinators, of whom I am one, time and effort if you do not list it for a source review until it has. Once it has, someone else - possibly me - is likely to list it reasonably promptly anyway. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response @Gog the Mild. Would you mind leaving your suggestions at Catherine's FAC then? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MSincccc, there are currently 52 nominations going through the process, of which yours is only one, and yet yours is a name I see popping up on my watchlist on a great number of talk pages begging for reviews. Please stop doing this. It's annoying for people to be badgered constantly for review requests, particularly when everyone here has limited time available. We certainly don't need 52 people going round harassing for reviews if people want theirs to be driven through faster. Have patience, stop the badgering, review other people's articles (without asking for any reciprocation) and just wait for the reviews to come to you. You need to take on board that your review may take up to two months to go through the process. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SchroCat Apologies if my frequent requests have inconvenienced you at FAC. As a young user, I acknowledge that I may sometimes feel vulnerable. I will make an effort to be more patient in the future. I won't trouble any of you with further review requests for my FAC. Thank you for your valuable advice. I will remember it as I continue to grow both in age and in my understanding of English Wikipedia. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * MSincccc, In my experience, I find that it is only really appropriate to ask for reviews if the person has specific knowledge in the field and thus would be able to give a more in-depth and accurate review. This... does not seem to be the case when you request this sort of thing. A few months ago you asked on my talk page to review your Mark Zuckerberg GAN because I had written a number of GAs in the Economics and business category. This would be understandable if I focused on, I don't know, tech executives? But these GAs were on coins. A few days ago you asked again for a source review on your Catherine article, emphasizing our "past collaboration on a DYK review". This behavior really comes off as desperate, and I would suggest not asking people for reviews in the future. I know you're young, you mention this a lot, but I know some pretty young editors, and they don't need to beg for reviews. They just write good content and know that with enough time, reviews will come. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Generalissima Thanks for your suggestion. I will refrain from endlessly requesting other users for reviews in future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can Iemphasise SchroCat's advice "review other people's articles (without asking for any reciprocation) and just wait for the reviews to come to you"? Nothing is more likely to attract reviewers than their seeing you selflessly engaging in detailed, courteous and well-reasoned reviews of other FACs. It is also likely to improve the quality of your own articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Second nom?
FA Co-ords, Would I be OK in putting up a second nom? My current one is a couple of weeks old, has a few supports and the image and source reviews are complete. No probs if you'd rather I waited a while though. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks FrB.TG - that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Statistics for current FACs added to the new tool
Pinging, who asked for this; posting here in case others are interested. The FAC & GAN statistics tool now has the "current FACs" statistics feature, taken from the old tool. Current FACs shows the review and nomination stats for all nominators of active FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * FYI—when I go to https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/current_facs I get
 * Internal Server Error
 * The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request. Either the server is overloaded or there is an error in the application. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now -- I had done something careless which meant it was intermittently failing. Let me know if you see the error again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks Mike. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Proportion of articles that are featured
One for fellow geeks, nerds and anoraks. The proportion of Wikipedia main space articles that are featured has just hit a 20-year high. As of the end of May there were approximately 6,830,000 articles on Wikipedia, of which 6,504 were featured. That's 0.0952% or about 1 in 1,050. This is the highest proportion since the end of January 2004 when, apparently, there were about 201,000 articles on Wikipedia, of which 194 were featured; that's 0.0965%. The end of last month was the best in this respect since then. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)