Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 15

Option for Randomly-Selected Featured Articles
Hi, just wondering if there were, until recently, an option to choose a featured article at random? Besides the fact that I'm losing mind (chronologically-induced decrepitude), if that option did exist, why was it deleted? Or have we always and forever been at war with East Asia? I would like to be able to get a randomly-selected featured article, but I am often just a minority of one.

IronHerder (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was such a tool (http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php), but it has been disabled for this Wikipedia, presumably because the size of the en.wp database made the cost of the query prohibitively large. Ucucha (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is - Raul654 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetization
I think it would be good to have a way to view all Featured Articles arranged alphabetically (for example, a button that would switch between them as they are now and an alphabetized list). Inter change  able | talk to me  18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will Category:Featured articles get what you want? It's not necessarily as accurate as this list, but should always be very close. Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What (if anything) should happen when an FA is moved?
At the time of its FAC wife selling (English custom) was named wife selling, for which there is now a separate (not very good) article. Therefore of course the link from the FAC review now points to the wrong article, which may surprise some if they follow it and see what was apparently passed as an FA. Is there any protocol for what should happen in cases like this? Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed as much as I could-- let me know if you find anything I missed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FA and linking
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

More subsections, please
More of these sections are looking awfully cluttered. For instance, "Media" could stand to have "TV episodes" and "Films" subsections and "Music" would benefit from "Songs" and "Albums" subsections. And on a unrelated note, the "Media" section is vague and confusing as it exists now, considering that music, video games, and literature all fall under the umbrella term of "media".--Remurmur (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree fully, though I vote for a simpler alphabetical listing which would eliminate subsections altogether (except the letters themselves. Inter  change  able | talk to me  01:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

New biology subsections
Biology articles currently have a subsection 'Animals', but other organisms (plants, fungi, prokaryotes) are listed in the general biology section along with more general topic articles like Evolution. I propose we lump all articles about specific species into one subsection 'Organisms.' Alternately, if anyone thinks it important to keep a separate 'Animals' subsection, we could just add a 'Other organisms' section after 'Animals.' Spencer Bliven (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * please read the talk page and Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 13-- I don't really want to type it all again. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, SandyGeorgia. I see your point about not wanting a lot of subsections. However, as a biologist it is frustrating to continually see the general public treat animals as a special class, while they represent only a tiny fraction of the diversity of life.
 * This isn't the place for a discussion of biological philosophy, so I'll make a more pragmatic argument. There are now 68 non-animal FAs, which obscure the mere 22 FAs which highlight general biology concepts (See my mockup User:Quantum7/Wikipedia:Featured articles). This is considerably more FAs than in the biography subsection, and splitting them into a 'Other Organisms' subsection would be more consistent with the existence of an 'animals' subcategory. Spencer Bliven (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason animals were separated wasn't that we considered animals special, but rather that there's a lot more FAs on them than on other organisms. I agree that we don't want to create the impression that we are treating animals as special when they are not, but if we have a section "other organisms" that will also give the impression that animals are a class of their own. Ucucha (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going merely for a 50/50 split of the biology pages, we should just split them alphabetically. Instead, we should recognize that the subsections provide a meaningful classification. I consider the 'Organism/General' classification to be much more meaningful than the 'Animal/Everything else' split. The 'Animal/Other organism/General' seems like a good compromise between balancing the number of pages in subsections with providing a meaningful organization. Note that I am not advocating a deep heirarchy of FAs, but I also think that in this particular case, adding another category would be helpful. Spencer Bliven (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

French interwiki link
Currently, clicking the French interwiki link takes you fr:Wikipédia:Articles de qualité, which appears to be their equivalent of WP:FAC. It should link to fr:Wikipédia:Contenus de qualité, which like this page is a list of featured articles. I would fix it myself but couldn't find the interwiki links in the edit view- are they on a subpage or something? Thanks,  Litho  derm  04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

List markup
I've just been reverted, in the middle of implementing Flatlist on this page, per WP:HLIST. This uses proper, semantically-correct, standards-compliant and accessible list markup, instead of bullet characters which are none of those things. My next step was going to be to point out here that, with over 3,400 links the page is far too large and should be split into sub-pages, by section. I suggest that the latter would remedy any issues of slow rendering. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the flatlist template created a few problems, which I'd like to understand or see discussed before implementation. The page for me was extremely slow loading, and considering the way this page is used, the extra markup would make checking and other maintenance chores more difficult.  Subpages would also not be optimal, in terms of checking, reorging when needed, and routine page maintenance.  The page works fine as it-- I'm unsure what advantage is gained by the flatlist, but others may explain and convince me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The flatlist makes for more semantically meaningful markup—Andy probably knows more about the precise benefits, but I think it makes it easier for screen readers and text browsers to process the page, and in general for computer programs to process the rendered page. All else being equal, I'd prefer for the flatlist to be introduced, but Andy's version does seem to be somewhat slow-loading. For what it's worth, I believe my bot wouldn't have trouble processing Andy's version of the page; whether that also goes for Gimmebot I'm not sure. Ucucha (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * [ec] The extra markup, which is minimal, should cause no difficulty for editors; nor has any such difficulty been reported in thousands of other instances of Flatlist. Splitting such a large page is needed, regardless of whether or not Flatlist is used. I have explained the advantages of Flatlist, above, and inked to page with further info. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know why it's so slow loading or if anything can be done about that? I can't work with that.  I'd like to hear from Gimme on Gimmebot, since his checking and updating is key.  At any rate, please don't make major changes to this page without first making sure all the bot operators are on board. I do not want the page split-- it loads fine now, and splitting it will result in maintenance issues and won't serve our readers well, where all FAs are listed in one place.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Splitting this page would require recoding the script. I don't think the flatlist thing would affect the script code, but I'm not sure. If people really want flatlist, I would suggest putting it in one section only for a while - at least a week - to see if there are any issues. I don't have an opinion on flatlist itself, yet. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am failing to see what we are gaining from this, and why we need to make so many editors and bot operators jump through hoops and spend time on something that is currently working fine. I was hoping to work on an article today.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The answer is no; I can't even load the diff or the page, Wiki hangs, and I have to exit Wikipedia and re-enter to access the talk page here. Pls revert for now, until we can sort this out.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've re-implemented the flatlist as flatlistblahblahblahendflatlist on this page rather than blahblahblah.  If it's still slow then revert again. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've already said, it is too slow to load, in fact excruciatingly so, such that I have to exit Wikipedia and re-enter to access this talk page. Again, please revert until this can be sorted out.  I've pinged everyone who has to use the page-- someone may know what the problem is, but I can't use a page I can't load.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, reverted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I use Internet Explorer, but I just tried to load the last diff from Firefox, and the computer hung, had to restart. Perhaps its the interface between flatlist and the code I have installed that highlights which pages have been TFA? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was about to use endflatlist as it is lighter weight due to the whole page not being a template parameter. The page loads ok for me. As above, this is all about proper structure and accessibility. I too would suggest that this page be split up as it is unwieldy and will only get more so as thousands of more articles are 'featured'. This will make any residual page-load issues moot. Alarbus (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We add about one article per day-- no need for alarm, the page works fine and will for a very long time. Is anyone able to determine if my problem is the interaction between the code that bolds TFAs and flatlist?  If anyone wants to test this business, please do so in sandbox and not on this page, as this is taking time unnecessarily.  In fact, it would be optimal if the whole business were moved to a sandbox, including the TFA bolding code by those testing it, and working with the bot operators to make sure everything is correct before changing this page.  This page is a definitive list of FAs, we work hard to make sure it's correct, and I will not support splitting the page at its current size.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The page already does not "work fine" for all our readers; for example people using screen readers will hear "cat dot dog dot horse dot…" not "cat dog horse…" (with brief pauses between links), as they will once Flatlist (or class=hlist") is deployed; and its already hard to edit and preview such a large page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Curious that Graham87 has never complained-- I'll ping him in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not alarmed. Picking up the pace would be goodness, though. I've no idea what code highlights TFA or how it might interact. I need to look at this page, more... Alarbus (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css (Raul also uses it). Picking up the pace would be lovely, but with all of Wikipedia in decline, and FAs under fire from the underinformed, I see zero chance of that happening, hence no reason for concern.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The monobook.css doesn't seem to me to be related. I didn't notice it taking longer than without, or rendering oddly, but I haven't checked IE. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's not the script; I don't have it, and the page is still slower for me with the flatlist in. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps use  in lieu of the template? Same thing, but different. Alarbus (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but will those wanting to implement this (which I don't find necessary, but what do I know) please sort it in sandbox first, and be sure to install the code that shows which articles have been TFA in case that's part of the load time problem. And please bring in all the bot operators, gain consensus from everyone who uses this page, and make sure everything is right before fiddling with the page.  Could this whole issue please move to a sandbox?  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can confirm as well that it is slower in IE for versions < 9 due to the compatibility scripts in MediaWiki:Common.js running to make hlists look nice. Not that noticeable for a smaller hlist in a navbox at the end of a page but for a big page such as this, adds about 4 seconds for me with IE 9 in compatibility mode & I've got a fast PC. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that with the template, or just the class, or both? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on my laptop, haven't tried faster desktop, but laptop is where I usually work, and I don't think we should add something that can only be used by those with fast processors, so we need to sort this before making a change that isn't strictly necessary for any reason I can decipher. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's with the lighter flatlist/endflatlist templates. I've now put a copy in the sandbox. Have a try of loading the original page in IE<9 (or IE 9 in compatibility mode) and some other browser and then try again with the sandbox and see if you notice a difference. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was so hoping to do some article work today :( Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was more a reply to Andy's question, just above your reply. Just that I posted it below your reply. That's all. No need for you to test anything. I know it's slower, Just wanted to demonstrate that to Andy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In that case, would &lt;div class="hlist"> help, or would the scripts till be invoked? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The script looks for the hlist class. The template itself, or Sandy's CSS, is not a factor. I also see the slowdown in IE8 (4 seconds), even worse so in compatibility mode where it has to add the bullets (40 seconds). The number of items is just too much for the helper script to swallow. I have no immediate solution. I guess Sandy is using IE in compatibility mode (which I strongly recommend to turn off). — Edokter  ( talk ) — 17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm ... I don't know what compatibility mode is ... so as not to sidetrack the discussion here, could someone post to my talk page telling me what it is, where to find it, and how to turn it off? As to the arguments here against dividing the page not being convincing, I haven't seen a convincing argument for why we should divide it-- right now, we have all FAs on one page, and changing that is not at all desirable, particularly since we're only growing at about one article per day, and no one yet has presented a reason why we need to alter bots, alter maintenance, alter everything (why)-- even Graham87 says the screen reader argument isn't key.  In other words, please get consensus for why this page needs to change, and explain why we need to invest all this effort into fixing a not-problem.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The best immediate solution would be to sub-divide this ludicrously-full page. The arguments against doing so, above, are, frankly, unconvincing. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said consistently, I support the use of flatlists, but tepidly. I just get used to hearing the dots, and know to skip right past them, as other advanced screen reader users would. IMO flatlists are nice to have, but not essential, and especially not if they increase page load times unacceptably. Graham 87 16:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Not replying to anyone in particular)Just saw the ping from Sandy on my talk page. The diff given above with the new styling does load more slowly for me, but not significantly. However, I have a computer with a fairly fast processor and a fast internet connection, so there's not much that loads slowly for me... I'm using Firefox, just FYI. Dana boomer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Firefox should not load slower, as the helper script only runs in IE8 and below. Diffs from the history always load slower since they are not cached. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 18:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Icons
The page says:

"A small bronze star icon … on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured… Additionally, if the current article is featured in another language version, a star will appear next to the language page link, in the list on the left of the page…"

However, there is no such icon on the mobile version of our articles, which thus makes the above worse than meaningless. Also, the language links are not on the left of the mobile version; and, as I've blogged on my own site, spatial references to page layout are harmful.

How can we reword the above boilerplate, to avoid these problems? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that everyone who uses the mobile version knows that it stinks and most things don't work there-- why are we any different? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Headline for Apollo 8
I think that Apollo 8 belongs under Engineering and Technology rather than under Physics and Astronomy. --Ettrig (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly (Shuttle–Mir Program is there), but please let's wait for others to opine before doing any moving (like to keep this page as stable as possible, recognizing that categorization of topics is sometimes difficult). Also, if that is the case, aren't there other articles listed in Astronomy that might also be moved to Eng and Tech?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked through all the articles listed under 'Physics and Astronomy' and the other 'science research' ones there are Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope and Astrophysics Data System which are all fine, IMO. The only one that looks out-of-place is Apollo 8. I agree that Shuttle–Mir Program and Apollo 8 should be in the same section. Where was International Space Station when that was an FA? One possible solution: call the sections 'Physics, spaceflight and astronomy' or 'Engineering, spaceflight and technology', depending on where the spaceflight ones end up. Unmanned research space probe missions (e.g. to Mars, the other planets, the Sun or asteroids and comets) should go in 'Physics and astronomy'. Some Earth observation satellites could go in meteorology, but categorising some of those is difficult under the current structure - though obviously the articles have to be featured first! Anything involving human or animal spaceflight should go in whichever section gets 'spaceflight' added to it. On balance, I'd go for 'Engineering, spaceflight and technology' (even if the section name stays the same). Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in! OK, five days is long enough to wait for others, so I'll go ahead and move Apollo 8, but I think the reasoning is clear enough without needing to rename the section.  Thanks again, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Image quality in FA candidates?
Yogo sapphire is heading towards FA. However the quality of the gem images has been questioned. Are these adequate? Is a notion of image quality even within FA's remit?

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This question belongs at WT:FAC; I'll move it there now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think it does. This is a general question about FA as a standard, not about one particular article. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and questions about FAC standards are more likely to be seen and addressed at FAC, a much-more watched page than this one.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC to make FA leaders elected, not appointed
An RFC is underway to consider a proposal to make the Featured Article leadership elected.

TCO (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation tool?
I frequently find both the good article and featured article icons pasted into articles that really don't appear to be up to snuff. Is there such a thing as a "quick confirm tool" that can tell us if the icon should be removed? Do any of our bots perform this task? -- WikHead (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hard to use list
As I've tried to find an example of an article on a newspaper, I had problems with the list due to the lack of descriptions/classification of articles. It seems that a better way to organise it would be to put articles in separate lines and add a short description of the topic to each. If this would make the page too long, at least more subheadings should be introduced. This was already proposed by another editor in September. --Eleassar my talk 09:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the leadership of the featured article process
An RfC on the leadership of the featured article process has been opened here; interested editors are invited to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper Wikipedia
Hi all,

I would like to breach the subject of a possible Paper Wikipedia (discussion here). A Paper Wikipedia would include a limited number of articles, as we've got over 3 million (how are you going to fit 3 million articles into a multiple-volume encyclopedia on one bookshelf?). So it would probably be limited to featured articles and good articles only. Tell me what you think.

Thanks,

The Doctahedron, 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That still totals nearly 17 000 articles. I uploaded just the twelve or so articles about the solar system and the planets to PediaPress and that must have taken nearly a half hour. How long would seventeen thousand articles take? Wikipedia 1.0 already seeks to put this site to paper, so you might say we've been beaten to the punch. In my opinion a book of FAs, like the one I am using, would be best - users would be able to download it or upload it to PediaPress as they desired. Inter  change  able | talk to me  23:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about featured articles
This is a question I've had for a while, and on first glance, this page doesn't seem to answer my query. Is featured article status just a level above "A"/"GA" - like the creme de la creme of Wikipedia articles, or is it ONLY awarded to articles once they make the main page? I.e. Is "A" the same as Featured except that these articles haven't been featured on the main page? I.e is you have 20 articles ready to be upgraded to featured article status, can you do it in one hit, or do they only get upgraded as they get featured on the main page? Whatever the answer is, I think this should be make more clear in this article. It sure confused me.....--Coin945 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the description? "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. ... Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria." I think that should be enough to answer you question, but just in case the description alone is not enough: an article must be carefully reviewed to see whether it meets the criteria for becoming a Featured Article; if it passes then it is added to this list. Only after having a date selected for it at Today's featured article/requests will it appear on the main page. If you had 20 articles that you believed met the FA criteria, you would have to nominate them separately at Featured Article Candidates. (By the way, do you? We need a lot more featured articles.) Inter  change  able | talk to me  21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for your thorough answer. Thats just been a little nagging question at the back of my mind...--Coin945 (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Book
I thought I'd let everyone know that I'm working on collecting all of these articles into a book, which can be found at User:Interchangeable/Books/Featured Articles. I hope this will be useful. Inter change  able | talk to me  18:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd like to get a copy of this book. How can I download it? Thanks. Wikipedia brown (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted, actually; I requested its deletion when I discovered that would be too large to print and maybe too large to download. This is because the PediaPress software is fragile, and can't handle more than ~100 articles at a time. If you are interested in making a book yourself you may want to read Help:Books or look at some examples of books, such as this one. Inter  change  able | talk to me  16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Main Page affecting April Fools Day Tradition
There is a discussion on the Main Page relative to the April Fools Day tradition that would affect this page--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lemurs to Biology
I think the article Lemurs of Madagascar (book) should be listed under the Biology headline. Currently it is in Literature and Theatre. On the Origin of Species, another biology book, is listed under Biology. --Ettrig (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ettrig, I have moved the listing as requested. Graham Colm (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Flight feather and toothcomb to Biology
The articles on the flight feather and toothcomb should be listed under the biology headline. They are not animals, just parts of animals. LittleJerry (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How about adding a random featured article link?
I think a random featured article link would be a great addition to help people explore the best of Wikipedia. We could add something like this:

To view a random Featured Article, click here.

--Taitcha (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea! I've just added it to the page. Inter  change  able  15:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How does one find the version of a featured article as reviewed?
How does one find the version of a featured article as it was reviewed? This question must have come up before, but I can't find any reference it. Ideally there should be some easy way to see the article in the state it was reviewed and then get a diff to the current version of the article. Such a mechanism would be valuable for all articles that have been formally reviewed, e.g. good articles.--agr (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles often change considerably during the review process. Hitting the link at "identified" takes you to the FAC page, which gives you the date of promotion, and so you will (eventually) find the exact version promoted via the history. You could find the version nominated the same way. I don't think there's a quicker way, does anyone know. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Under "Article milestones", the date next to "Featured article candidate" will generally provide a permanent link to the promoted version. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried several random FA's and "Featured article candidate" does not appear under "Article milestones".  Hitting the link at "identified" does get you the promoted version if you figure out where to look. However this method seems far too complicated for an average reader and a bit tedious even for experienced editors.  It seems to me there should be a straightforward way to get to the version of the article that was promoted, ideally from the article itself, or at least from the featured article banner on the talk page.  The later now says: xxxx "is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." Perhaps "previous version of it" could be a link? --agr (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To the right of "Article milestones" there's a clickable link that says [show]. Click that and you'll see the milestones, one of which will contain something like this:
 * May 14, 2012        Featured article candidate          Promoted
 * Clicking on the date on that line will take you to the version of the article you are looking for. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Featured article milestones are on every FA talk page, period, as is a link to the featured version. Until such time, that is, as folks chase Gimmebot off the job, and then folks are on their own. CLick "show" on article milestones, click on the link in the date next to the Featured article candidate page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They indeed seem to be, but they are not always labeled as such, e.g. Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. In any case this way to find the reviewed version seems too complex to recommend to general readers. I'd like to see something simpler.--agr (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current method seems straightforward enough to me. Sure, I've been using for a long time but I can't recall finding it that complex when I started. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's that straightforward, perhaps you'd be willing to write a few lines explaining it to our readers?--agr (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why?
Is this page protected? 88.110.119.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Because, frankly, there is very little reason for anyone to edit this page except for myself and my delegates. Raul654 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is so, I am in the wrong place. But where is the right place to say that the DYK section is playing nice music for Mother's Day, Music for Our Mother Ocean, whereas the typical mother detests video games, TFA Limbo (video game). Chosen intentionally so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Featured Articles are based on quality, not the day on which they appear on the main page. If a Mother's day-related article had been promoted at the proper time, it might have appeared today, but that was not the case. Inter  change  able  17:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that for example Kathleen Ferrier was featured on the day of her centenary, April 22 (with blurb that didn't mention why she is still venerated, unfortunately). So there is relation to a day, no? On Mother's day, I would not have expected a specific related article, but a topic mothers would rather like, something about children, a poetess, a flower, music (see above, also not directly related), you name it, but not a video game, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would depend on the mother :-). Anyways, Gerda, I think the page you want would either be WT:TFA, the talk page of whichever delegate scheduled that article, or Talk:Main Page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My 64-year old mother regularly plays video games. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We should TFA appropriate FAs on special days and Mother's Day is certainly one of those days. See my comment below too. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both of you, of course there are exceptional mothers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:FA and type mom and mother into the search box and in mere seconds anyone can see there are at least 4 FAs dealing with motherhood. It only takes a few seconds. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and only a few seconds more to see that most have already appeared on the MP. Sasata (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I learned yesterday (thanks Bencherlite) that the list to look at is this, offering Mothers of the Disappeared, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most but not all. Pumpkin Sky  talk  09:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Point? WP:TFAR is that-a-way. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will keep it in mind. Thanks for today's, well of loneliness, well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Music biogs
There's a new user at BLP/N who's asked for music bio recommendations:
 * "As a helpful contribution to my learning curve, can you please suggest two or three ideal examples of Wikipedia articles which I can study ... which contain similar biographies of living persons/musicians, not working within an obvious mainstream category, who have work extending back over 30 years and more."

I thought newer (or re-reviewed) FAs might be suitable. The few names I clicked didn't jump out as obvious candidates for his requirements though. Would anyone here be able to suggest any? --92.6.200.56 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Subdividing the sections
Can we please subdivide the sections? This page is practically useless, as there is just so many articles that you can't really find anything unless you already know what you're looking for. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For an example of what I mean: I would like to find featured articles on, say the history of Africa or places in Africa. There is no way to do that easily without checking each article – how am I supposed to tell whether or not Manzanar, Convention of 1832 or Kingdom of Makuria are related to Africa?
 * I'm not saying that the categories necessarily need to be sorted geographically, just that any subdivision of the page would improve it immensely instead of just lumping everything together by the highest common denominator, like it is now. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"My Happiness" (Powderfinder song)
"My Happiness" (Powderfinder song) is correctly Powderfinger song. 46.35.192.86 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Waltham, The Duke of 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Article size
One section of a guideline is disputed, so you can discuss it there. The section is a recommendation of prose reading and/or markup size. Even changes are not easy to adapt. Also, one user made some remarks about Featured Articles with larger sizes. --George Ho (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation
Does translating a feature article from another language wiki make the article a feature article?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No; the article must be nominated at Featured article candidates before it can become a Featured Article. If it is of the same quality as the original article it will most likely be promoted. Inter  change  able  19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Physics and astronomy split (revisited)
I know this has been brought up a few years ago, but I think it is worth re-evaluating because of the numbers. Of the articles that have been featured, I would (uncontroversially I think), group them this way:

Astronomy
243 Ida · 90377 Sedna · Andromeda (constellation) · Ariel (moon) · Aries (constellation) · Asteroid belt · Atmosphere of Jupiter · Barnard's Star · Binary star · Callisto (moon) · Cat's Eye Nebula · Ceres (dwarf planet) · Comet Hale–Bopp · Comet Hyakutake · Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 · Crab Nebula · Cygnus X-1 · Definition of planet · Dwarf planet · Earth · Enceladus (moon) · Epsilon Eridani · Eris (dwarf planet) · Europa (moon) · Extrasolar planet · Formation and evolution of the Solar System · Galaxy · Gamma-ray burst · Ganymede (moon) · Globular cluster · GRB 970228 · GRB 970508 · H II region · Halley's Comet · Haumea (dwarf planet) · Hubble Deep Field · Hubble Space Telescope · IK Pegasi · Io (moon) · Jupiter · Jupiter Trojan · Kreutz Sungrazers · Kuiper belt · Magnetosphere of Jupiter · Main sequence · Makemake (dwarf planet) · Mars · Mercury (planet) · Moon · Neptune · Nebular hypothesis · Oberon (moon) · Oort cloud · Planet · Planetary habitability · Planetary nebula · Planets beyond Neptune · Pluto · Proxima Centauri · Rings of Jupiter · Rings of Neptune · Rings of Uranus · Saturn · Scattered disc · Sirius · Solar eclipse · Solar System · Star · Sun · Supernova · Tau Ceti · Titan (moon) · Titania (moon) · Transit of Venus · Triton (moon) · Umbriel (moon) · Uranus · Vega · Venus · Volcanism on Io · White dwarf

Physics
Atom · Electron · Equipartition theorem · Photon · Quark · Speed of light

Arguable either way
Astrophysics Data System · Big Bang · General relativity · Introduction to general relativity · Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector · Redshift · Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory

and for the biographies

Astronomy biographies
Ben Gascoigne

Physics biographies
George Koval · J. Robert Oppenheimer · Louis Slotin · Edward Teller

Arguable either way biographies
Johannes Kepler · Gerard K. O'Neill · Zhang Heng

That's at least 81+1=82 astronomy articles compared to at most 6+7+4+3=20 physics articles. I wouldn't normally care if it weren't for the fact that WP:TFA/R asserts underrepresentation of a category whenever "The category where the article is listed at WP:FA has fewer than 50 featured articles." By my count, physics articles are underrepresented whereas astronomy articles are not. Counterarguments, anyone? Teply (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now: In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! Ocaasit &#124; c 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.
 * HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries.  There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.
 * Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries.  There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.

Kappa Kappa Psi, wrong grouping?
I believe that Kappa Kappa Psi as an band fraternity belongs in Education (with Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha) rather than Culture and Society. What needs to be done to move it? Is it WP:Bold, a new FA review or somewhere in between?Naraht (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can just move it. Graham Colm (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Date of feature
I can't understand why featured articles aren't given a 'date-stamp' next to the bronze star. It's an obvious enhancement to an article for readers to be able to know how recently or how long ago it was presented on Wikipedia's front page. There must have been some thought given to this already, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul White (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Check the article's talk page. The promotion date is there. Raul654 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Question (out of curiosity)
Given that featured articles are held to higher standards than good articles, is it safe to say that a "featured article" is a good article, automatically? Would an FA promoted from, say, A-or-B class without a GA review (though this would be unlikely), then delisted, revert to GA status? I was just wondering this out of curiosity based on a quick perusal of FARs and GARs. dci &#124;  TALK   02:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, when an FA is delisted, it does not automatically acquire GA status, even if it was previously a GA. Delisted FAs frequently have deteriorated in quality to such an extent that they no longer fulfill even the GA criteria. Ucucha (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Might that be a reason or a factor in why we should have featured articles more often permanently semi-protected? Or maybe we should have some inbetween permanent full protection and permanent semi-protection, where only those who have demonstrated competency in being able to maintain FA standards can handle edit requests. Biosthmors (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

List of most viewed featured articles
I would love to see a list of the most viewed featured articles. Does one exist? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

One that ignores main page appearance (days or months?) would be optimal, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

See also: User talk:West.andrew.g/Popular pages. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple page changes
I have reverted several page changes here: Please discuss proposed changes here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 8; "Mysticism" was arrived at after long and difficult discussion led to consensus.  Please discuss changes.
 * 2) I see no divide by zero error; please explain.
 * 3) Churches are in many different categories because some articles about churches are about buildings that no longer have a congregation (art or architecture), while others may be about active congregations.

Mauna Loa
I'm busy shining this oldie from 2006, and I was wondering if there is any prior precedent on rewriting old FAs before putting them through FAR? Leaving a comment here because the FAR talk page seems inactive (as it logically would be). Res Mar 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh, guess this page is no better huh. Res Mar 01:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bedtime For Bonzo???
Altho Reagan was the star of Bedtime For Bonzo, surely it was not a 'notable' film, as stated in the intro. It certainly doesn't begin to compare to Knute Rockne or Kings Row, both distinguished features. In fact, it was such a weak film that supporters of the 1984 Democratic candidate, Walter Mondale, would hold up signs stating, "It's bedtime for Ronzo." This reference should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.87.117 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Mental health
Several mental health topics have been listed under "Health and Medicine". I think these topics should be moved to the "Psychology" section. These include Asperger syndrome Austism Major depressive disorder Schizophrenia Tourette syndrome

In addition, "Philosophy and psychology" should be divided into two sections, because Philosophy relies upon rational argument and Psychology relies upon empirical data. To avoid making sections that are too narrow, "psychology" could be combined with other social sciences, such as "anthropology" and "sociology." Kim Barchard (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Integrated GA reviews
Before I outline the proposal, here's some background: People always whine about the lack of FA and GA reviewers. Many editors feel humiliated by their FAs failing or being delisted. Some of these even leave Wikipedia in despair.

So to improve these two situations, which are what is currently grinding the FA and GA processes down, FAR reviewers should get the option to delist an article to GA (instead of stripping it completely of every rank, as they do now), provided the article still meets GA, but not FA, requirements. Furthermore, in the regular FAC process, a reviewer who opposes the FA status of an article could instead say promote as GA. This would create a steady steam of GAs, save reviewer energy (since new GARs wouldn't have to be opened if a former GA was delisted from FA), and be less humiliating for nominators (Wikipedia would become a friendlier place, with less rivalries).

It's practically a win win, unless you're the sort of person who wants the two processes being arbitrarily separated at any cost, including the demise of both. It will also become much less "evil" to be an FA reviewer, as one can still hand out the GA status if the FA requirements are not met, and I'm sure it would become much more enjoyable to be a reviewer when nominators don't hate you afterwards. For the discussion that created the idea, see here: And just to make it clear, no, I'm not suggesting the GA process should be replaced, I'm simply saying FA reviewers should also be given the option to promote to GA, if an article does not meet FA criteria. Yes, that is sidestepping the regular GA process, but seriously, who cares? What matters is that the criteria are met, not how the article reaches its status. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In what sense is removing an article's FA status a promotion to GA? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not about promoting or demoting it is about assessing the article's overall quality and assigning the corresponding class label FA, GA, B, C or start class.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're confusing things. In a regular FAC review, one could oppose promotion to FA status, but support promotion to GA status instead. This is a new proposal, seperate from the FAR delisting issue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest giving notice of this proposal / these proposals to WT:FAC, which will be on more watchlists than this page. BencherliteTalk 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're expecting the diminishing pool of reviewers to assess an article simultaneously against two different criteria? I pity the poor nominator who has to go through that Hell. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting it is "hell" to remember the very simple GA criteria, which are basically just laxer versions of the FA criteria? And yet again, it would be optional, not required. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever taken an article to FAC? I have, Little Moreton Hall, and I found myself almost overwhelmed by demands for floor plans, and explanations of architectural terms such as "arch-braced truss". So much so that I had to spend a great deal of time adding content and illustrations to the timber roof truss article, which true to form is already degrading into the usual Wikipedia grey goo. To have to deal with comments from both FA and GA reviewers simultaneously would have been a nightmare. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In little over six months I've taken five FAs and nine GAs through reviews, and reviewed several of either, so yes, I know what I'm talking about, and that it is possible. And there is no difference between a "GA reviewer" and an "FA reviewer" during a FAC, all FA reviews are GA reviews by default. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a particularly good idea, as this will move the backlogs to FAC, which is not designed for that much strain; it will encourage people to skip GA, also not something that we want. --Rschen7754 22:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This does not follow, how do you propose that someone would skip GA and gfo straight to a FAR? To be at FAR the article needs to first go through FAC which is a much much harder process than GA. How do you imagin that anyone would first go to FAC in order to be nominated for FAR and then given GA status? Read the proposal, it is not proposing to replace or skip GA only to allow reviewers demoting current FA articles to assess the article for the GA criteria within the FAR process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet again, the GA process is not replaced. I've already made this clear. Nominators obviously cannot sidestep the GAR, since they know that the FA criteria are stricter. Someone who has reviewed an article for FAC would already be able to tell whether it could be a GA instead, since there are no GA requirements that are not already inherent in the FA requirements. There is no "strain" involved, unless one has the mind of a four-year-old, which I doubt most reviewers have. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it would encourage people to send their ill-prepared articles to FAC and they would have no reason not to since they would get a GA as a consolation prize. With the backlogs at FAC that is not something we want to do. --Rschen7754 22:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you don't have much faith in your fellow editors. In any case, your concern is entirely hypothetical (not to say dubious), and could only be demonstrated to be true in practice. And remember, these are two separate proposals, please consider either separately instead of just making blanket statements that do not apply to both. One is about FAC, the other about FAR. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you address the substance of my concern rather than dismissing it because it is "dubious"? --Rschen7754 23:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the articles they want to nominate do not reach the FA requirements, they already know it will not pass if they have half a brain. So why should they take it to FAC, instead of GA, knowing how long this usually takes? They won't gain anything, they will waste their own time as well. However, those who think their articles do reach the FAC requirements are also those who are most likely to nominate an article that actually does so. And those are the people who we could benefit from optional GA passing during FACs. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is that there are plenty of ill-prepared FACs that hit the page every single day. And now the delegates can't quickly close the nominations but have to sit there and let them go to GA? This idea keeps getting worse and worse. --Rschen7754 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because an article that does not meet FA criteria does meet GA criteria more often than not (GA reviews are inherent in FA reviews). So the failed FA can quickly be promoted to GA instead, and then kicked out of the backlog. Problem solved, everyone is happy. If the article doesn't meet GA criteria either? Well, then you do as you always do, fail it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support GA consideration within FAR, but Oppose GA consideration embedded within FAC. I think it is relatively easy for FAR folks to determine that an article should be delisted from FA but that it retains its old GA status, or that it now meets GA requirements. On the other hand, I do not think we should embed GA considerations within the FAC process, or the GAN process will be abandoned. I prefer having a fairly standardized two-step assessment procedure, from whatever to GA, then from GA to FA. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the GA process would almost certainly be abandoned if any proposal such as this came to pass. But who cares about that? Isn't this all about prizes? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Every FA I've ever written is a former GA. Have I abandoned the GA process? No, I use the the GA process as a springboard for the FA process. It is one continuous process for me and many others. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It should also be pointed out that a GA review is already inherent in an FA review, since all GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria. This means that the FAR reviewer wouldn't have to do an "extra" review (though some people here seem to believe so). So to spell it out: if you've FA reviewed an article, you've already GA reviewed it. This means that you do have the judgement to promote it to GA, without further work. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It should really be pointed out that a GA review is in no sense a subset of an FA review, but it appears that very few are listening. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a subset of it, it is embedded within it. All GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria. An FA review is already a GA review by default. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really certain which planet you're broadcasting from, and your use of the word "inherent" is rather confusing. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so tell me this: is there even a single GA criterion which is not also an FA criterion? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you this. You used the word "inherent". Do you understand what that means? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes: "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element". Do you? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words you don't have a clue. I'm done here. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are very incivil I hope you don't act like this when you review articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And now you add an unwarranted charge of "incivility"? This is intolerable. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking someone about whether they understand the meaning of everyday English vocabulary and then calling them clueless is the very definition of incivility. Let me say it squarely: You have being extremely rude and condescending throughout this discussion. That is intolerable, and for a reviewer it is inexcusable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to check your facts Maunus, as I've never reviewed any GA. And maybe you could explain what "extremely rude" means on your planet, because it doesn't compute on mine. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So if you admit to never even having reviewed a GAN, why exactly are you contributing to this discussion? How does it affect you? And isn't it a bit ironic since you questioned my credentials earlier? Only nominating but not reviewing GAs is considered bad etiquette, not to say selfish, you know. FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling other people clueless is extremely rude on my planet. If it is not on yours then I will make sure to stay away from there in the future.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But on your planet calling someone "narrow minded" is OK? That's one crazy mixed-up planet. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair cop. That was rude of me to make that characterization and I apologize. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat: is there even a single GA criterion which is not also an FA criterion? Please address the question instead of all this useless emotion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This selfish attempt to press FAC and GAN together would perhaps have been more kindly received had it been more honestly presented. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And you would perhaps be taken more seriously if you could defend your arguments instead of just complaining. Answer the question, if it is so obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The question has been answered many times. That you are unable to read it, understand it, or rationally discuss it, is not my problem. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then please help out this poor dimwit and point out exactly where. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a move towards an integrated review process beginning with GA consideration within FAR. This is clearly the best for both reviewers and for content writers. The aim should be to use benchmarks to improve articles in collaboration between reviwers and nominators, not to have a culture of antagonism between reviewers and nominators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this belongs at VPP, with notices to GA and FA/FAC/FAR, rather than hashing it out in threads here, here, and here. Maralia (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems there is quite some support for the FAR proposal, but not the FAC proposal, and this page is a mess, so yes, I will try to post the former proposal there. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The FAC proposal isn't practical. With long waits at GAN, people will come to FAC with articles that can't pass, hoping for a faster route to GA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will repost my previous rebuttals to that argument here: If the articles they want to nominate do not reach the FA requirements, they already know it will not pass if they have half a brain. So why should they take it to FAC, instead of straight to GA, knowing how long the former usually takes (longer than GANs, in my experience)? They won't gain anything, they will waste their own time as well. However, those who think their articles do reach the FAC requirements are also those who are most likely to nominate an article that actually does so. And those are the people who we could benefit from optional GA passing during FACs. An article that does not meet FA criteria does meet GA criteria more often than not (GA reviews are inherent in FA reviews). So the failed FA can quickly be promoted to GA instead, and then kicked out of the backlog. Problem solved, everyone is happy. No more work is needed, so why let the FA reviews go to waste if they demonstrate the article is already ready for GA? If the article doesn't meet GA criteria either? Well, then you do as you always do, fail it. Your concern is entirely hypothetical (not to say dubious), and could only be demonstrated to be true in practice. It also shows you don't have much faith in your fellow editors FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose both proposals – I'd say that most FARs that get demoted don't meet the GA criteria anymore, usually because of sourcing deficiencies. I'd hate to see reviewers give those articles a free pass to still have GA status that isn't deserved, which is a possibility. I'd also hate to see people recommend delisting in favor of GA status because an article doesn't "have the look" of an FA; this has nothing to do with FA criteria, but reviewers might say that anyway, and I want to avoid this type of implied threat. As for FAC, please don't assume that all reviewers consider both sets of criteria; I don't, and if I was an expert in the GA criteria I would review there as well. If an article is made GA but not FA under this proposal, and the nominator wants the star, then it wouldn't really make them happy, would it? If an FA nom fails, I don't see how getting a GA out of the deal makes it less "embarrassing". Also, I don't think most people who have failed nominations know that their articles fail to meet FA standards; I see issues raised at FAC all the time that people with strong knowledge of the standards would have caught beforehand. You'd be amazed at some of the things that GAN fails to detect. Honestly, if this proposal comes because one of your FAs needs more specific page ranges, I'd recommend just adding/modifying the ranges to that article and cutting off the issue at the pass. Then you won't have to worry about an FAR. Overall, I don't think that this would be in the best interests of the FA process, and I agree with Dank over what would happen at FAC. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things: GA criteria are inherent in FA criteria, so there a no "both" to consider. No more work is needed, so why let the FA reviews go to waste if they demonstrate the article is already ready for GA? Secondly, there will be no "free passes", a failed FA does not automatically become a GA, only if it is judged to reach the requirements during the FAR. That is part of the very proposal. FunkMonk (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes+++
Was wondering what would be the normal recommendation for FA articles in regards to the amount of templates at the bottom of an article? Moxy (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaking wikitext
There is wikitext leaking into the content at the top of this page. I was confused as to how to fix it. Can someone take a look and please take care of this? • Jesse V.(talk) 20:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit vandalized a template used, and I've reverted it, restoring this page to its normal appearance.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Better edit summaries when updating please
Sometimes editors must go thru the edit summaries to look for something in particular. What makes it a daunting task is having to click on each and every edit when the summary says merely "add 1" or "add 2" - to what?. Just asking for a little more specifics to go by, if only to add which category a new FA is being added. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Take your point but frequently we add more than one at a time in which case it'd be unwieldy or impossible to include all the FAC titles/links; the suggestion of simply noting the category (or categories) might be feasible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Art, architecture and archaeology
Art, architecture and archaeology doesn't be together - must be separately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.9.210 (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Yay and thanks for the tip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.168.84 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre-FAN review
I'm making this post as I've just thought there appears to be an issue with the Peer Review system. I've noticed that many people reviewing don't often make comment on PRs requesting an opinion if an article is ready for FA meaning the PR often becomes stale and expires leaving people without any guide on how to improve it to reach FA standards. I was wondering if there could be a part of the Peer review system specializing in peer reviews for FA purposes somewhere around the FA project. I'm only asking as I had this happen to me when I asked about 2000 UEFA Cup Final riots getting a check before I took it to FA as I don't want it closed quickly and not be able to try again for 2 weeks.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

 * 768,586 hits
 * Today's featured article/Most viewed
 * WP:TOP25
 * YEE HAW Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Random article
I was wondering whether the Random article option on the left hand side could be linked to random featured articles only. The number of small and specific articles in wikipedia is so great it is basically a useless function. However if we could introduce a random featured article option then a random article worth reading would be presented. What are your thoughts? 124.254.75.48 (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusion on star colours
Sorry if I've spent several years before noticing that featured articles on wp:en have a grey star on top right of their page instead of having the golden/yellow one. Moreover this uncorrect grey star also appears inside their Talk page. Both these errors are very confusing for a French reader/contributor which is used to read different/separate colours for these stars, to avoid mixing up the type of label.

I dunno when and how this practice has been decided/voted on wp:en and I also dunno how other language wp do regarding this matter (I can only speak Englsih), but a minimum of harmonization (matching) would be highly welcome, in order not to disturb both foreign readers and contributors. --Bibliorock (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The star at the the upper right corner of the page on Featured Articles is generated by featured article, which uses File:Cscr-featured.svg, which is a golden or bronze color.
 * The star on the talk page generated by Article history is File:Featured article star.svg, which is the same color.  Imzadi 1979  →   15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, but on wp:fr, we have a very distinct/separate yellow or gold for featured articles (AdQ) vs. a grey for good articles (BA). No confusion is allowed and I cannot but say your colours are not at all as clear as ours are. --Bibliorock (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our good articles use a green plus sign, and only featured articles/lists/etc. use the star.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if English Wikipedia Featured Articles used a gold star (either [[file:cscr-featured1.png|15 px]] or [[file:Utmarkt Guld.svg|15 px]]) rather than the bronze star ([[file:cscr-featured.svg|15 px]]). Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ads
While waiting for the bot to promote Drowning Girl, I saw that it just got tagged with wikipedia ads. What is that all about?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a banner used for displaying ads for WikiProjects. The user seemingly did not know that it is supposed to go only on select talk and user pages. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles in FA?
I have proposed that a limited number of newly-promoted Good Articles should appear below or within the Featured Article slot, i.e. to get a hook fact on the Main Page for a day. Comments would be welcome in the RfC. Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a point - the proposal actually is to get a link and definition (see the mockup).-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 10:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual vs. gay in FA
I'm not sure if there is a style preference, but could someone comment on the merits of this edit to a FA, which changed the style. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like a "find all/change all" change that introduced an error: one of the early names for AIDS was GRID (gay-related immune deficiency/disease). As for the style change, I've reverted this. The issue was discussed on the article's talk page in 2010, and the article appears to have consistently used both words since it was promoted as a FA. Removing the one term completely appears to be pushing a POV (some anti-gay activists refuse to "gay" and will only use "homosexual") and comes across as vandalism.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems the revert was best. Thanks for making the edit. I'd only venture to quibble with the way the revert was done (no meaningful edit summary and it was marked as minor when I don't think it should be considered WP:Vandalism). It could have been good-faith attempt, I suppose. But we don't have unlimited time to be perfect around here. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing categories
Most academic fields are covered in your listing but of the five major disciplines in the Social Sciences (Anthropology, Economics, History, Political Science and Sociology), you don't have areas for Anthropology and Sociology. I looked under "Culture and Society" but I don't see many articles there that are related to these two important fields.

They are both underdeveloped areas on Wikipedia (Sociology, especially) but it doesn't help that they are not acknowledged in how you organize knowledge. At the very least, they should be mentioned as being in association with another category or, ideally, a separate category created. Right now, I see no place for FA in these academic disciplines. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Since Featured Articles are a very small subset of all Wikipedia articles, we keep them in broader categories to make browsing easier. If you take a look at WikiProject Sociology/Assessment for example, you can see that there is only one Featured Article within the scope of WikiProject Sociology (W. E. B. Du Bois}. Since that is also a biography, it's categorized as such on this page. I'd be interested in hearing arguments for using narrower Featured Article categories. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

4000th FA
I pinged to announce this, but he seems to have opted not to. Before it is no longer timely, I wanted to relay that with this edit, Ian Rose promoted the 4000th FA when Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar, Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel), Battle of Hastings, Quagga, Diamonds (Rihanna song), A Song Flung Up to Heaven, Confusion (album), and Jesus were all promoted. It seems that based on the order in which the FAC discussions were closed by Ian Rose, Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel) has the strongest claim at being the actual 4000th when this edit occured. However, Confusion (album) also has a strong claim based on the order in which promoted the articles ( and ).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fuck me, I was hoping it wouldn't be BRDTj. I don't want any articles I've written receiving any pseudo-recognition from an editor who reverts edits he disagrees with (note the edit summary, which directly contradicts Tony's own definition of the topic) then leaves patronising talk page messages claiming I "have not become acquainted with the FAQs of the project" when Tony himself gives contrasting definitions. This "milestone" should die a quiet death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you might be a tad confused, Crisco. Tony is referring to Wikipedia reaching it's 4000th FA, which is a notable milestone, not his Four Award concept. Resolute 16:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused, and I recognise that 4k could be considered a sizeable milestone. I'm well aware that an article must be the 4000th FA on Wikipedia, and have been worrying it would be BRDTj since I saw Tony's post on Ian's talk page. He knows better than to give me a FOUR "Award" for that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who watchlists this page would probably have noticed we've ticked over to 4000. I daresay Ed (and of course Crisco) at the Signpost are aware of it too if they want to publicise. Given I promoted a bunch at the same time, which one was the 4000th is pretty arbitrary and probably not worth worrying about. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup but all of the space in this issue is devoted to Wikimania. We may give it in-depth coverage next week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So long as there's no guesses which one was 4k, I'm all for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe when we hit 3000 - all the articles promoted at that point were considered as part of the 3000th promotion - we didn't get down any finer than that. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Featured Articles getting sloppy
This month I have been noticing things are getting sloppy at WP:FA. Suddenly, articles are getting promoted without their WP:PRs being incorporated into their T:AHs. I have seen about 2000 FAs as part of my FOUR duties, and I believe I just saw my first article where the article got promoted without having the GA and DYk in a T:AH (Wordless novel).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The time volunteers have to give to this naturally wax and wanes. Tony if I didnt know you better this might seem like an attempt towards a power grab. But I do, so whatever. Still though....FOUR duties? Please. Ceoil (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How would it be a power grab for me to point out that I am seeing my first FA without the GA and DYK in the T:AH. This nomination is so screwed up look at how the FAC closed. I have probably edited the talk pages of 1200-1500 of the current FAs. Do you think there are any diffs of me editing one without either the GA or the DYK incorporated in its T:AH in the last year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, relax a little. A lot of that stuff was automated. GimmeBot used to convert all of the templates for wiki-wide stuff into entries in T:AH. However, GimmeBot isn't active anymore, so GAs, PRs, DYKs, etc aren't being merged into a T:AH on a regular basis. VoxelBot only seems to have taken over some of GimmeBot's old work load, not all of it.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exacly. Tony, no offense meant towards you; I'm just defensive towards Gimme, who I see as a great unsung. Apologies for seeing conspitracy...you didnt deserve that charactisation. I see FA is now in good hands, with other bots taking up the work. Still miss Gimme, thats life. Ceoil (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell has been closing FAC since February and updating article histories since February. Now in July all of a sudden no one is closing GAN/GAR/DYK/PR etc templates into T:AH. What is different about the procedures since July from the February to July procedures. Either VoxelBot was closing GAN/GAR/DYK/PR etc templates into T:AH from Feb to July or the FAC delegates were. Whoever was from February to July has stopped doing it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * VoxelBot was never involved in that process. Merging GAN/GAR/PR/DYK information into T:AH isn't part of the FAC process, and frankly your tone here comes off as accusing people of failing to do a job, that isn't theirs, whether or not that is your intent.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Several July FAs never closed
I am just starting to investigate the Voxelbot era via Goings-on. It seems that some older FAC were never closed. Here is what I have uncovered so far:
 * 1) SMS Nassau
 * 2) When God Writes Your Love Story
 * 3) Banksia speciosa
 * 4) William Hely
 * Will report more as I uncover it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Although it has become common not to incorporate WP:PRs into the T:AH of late, there don't appear to be cases where FACs were not closed too much prior to the abovementioned. However, I also saw another where the the GA and DYK talk were not incorporated into the T:AH at Gertie the Dinosaur (joining Wordless novel and Aleeta curvicosta). These cases have been frequent for the last month all of a sudden. I am not sure this is Voxelbot's fault. Don't the FA admins (delegates, directors and such) handle this part by hand. I doubt Voxelbot suddenly got lazy or lost functionality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We never have in the past, Tony. FYI, I left messages at the bot and bot admins' talk pages on these articles, and more, some time before you posted your first comment further above. Those guys are volunteers like everyone else here, in the past they've rectified issues reported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, as I explained above, all of those tasks were handled by GimmeBot, and they were never the FAC delegates' "job". GimmeBot used to merge all closed GAN/GAR/DYK/PR etc templates into T:AH, but GimmeBot is no longer active.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So is any human or any bot going to close the FAs that never closed in July?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll nominate you to take on that task for now, unless or until some bot is set up and approved to relieve you.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two different issues here:
 * T:AH is not getting updated for GAN/GAR/DYK/PR. From what I can tell, 's last FAC close was Featured article candidates/Elephant/archive1 on January 30. However, it use to also convert GA to T:AH. The last one was Zong_massacre on January 31. Thus, when GAs got to FA, they already had T:AH incorporated in many instances. In the spring, a User:Maralia seemed to be volunteering to pick up the slack be adding T:AH when they were needed for post January 31 promotions, based on a random sample of FAs from the Goings-on/May 5, 2013. Now, it seems that a lot of FAs have several post January 31 GAN/GAR/DYK/PR templates not being merged into T:AH and Maralia seems to have better things to do.
 * There are the four abovementioned July FAs that were never closed. What I am asking is whether anyone is going to close the FAs. How do you tell the bots to close FAs? It seems that VoxelBot does these. Why hasn't VoxelBot closed those four.
 * I do not intend to take up either of these tasks. However, the FA people should tell the bot to close the FA nominations for the four July FAs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tony, you've already been informed above that messages were left with the bot admins about this and, while we're at it, you ask volunteers to do things for you, you don't tell them to. In any case Maralia has manually closed those the bot missed, as she's kindly done on similar occasions in the past. Perhaps you'd like to thank her. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

VoxelBot seems to be random now
As I look at the last dozen articles at Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2013, there is no logic as to which ones it is doing and which it isn't.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have posted three messages to the bot's talk page, and a fourth on the bot operator's page. We're all quite aware that there's a problem. Maralia (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that you did a lot of the ones that the bot should have done by now. Thank you very much for your hard work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Press
FYI, per my rationale at Talk:Jesus, User:Biosthmors/Jesus is a draft I've shared with some WMF staff about getting a blog post/press release on featured stuff. Feel free to make edits or discuss at the user talk page for it. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) when u sign ur reply, thx 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of starting a RfC
Hi all,

I'm thinking of starting a RfC about the obvious failures of the vetting process at FAs and the subsequent inability for this group to address issues that are brought up with articles that are listed that should be delisted. It is clear that a cumbersome and needless WP:BUREAUCRACY has developed with a clique of users who seem to revel in following arbitrary processes rather than actually addressing the concerns. I believe that the way FA, FAC, FAR, etc. are handled are bringing disrepute to the project. I think that something needs to change, but I'm not sure what. Perhaps you guys need some outside consultants to come in and clean house.

jps (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any obstructionism, which is what you seem to be claiming between this posting and the one immediately above. Rather, I saw a good-faith acknowledgment of one of the weak links of the current system: if no one comments that something is missing in an article, and there are no objections to promotion, and the consensus of the reviewers that do comment is to promote, the article gets promoted. It seems that there is a healthy level of discussion toward improving the article on its talk page. FAR is a drastic step, and the goal is to retain the star on articles, not summarily remove it. In my opinion, if an article shouldn't have been promoted recently over deficiencies, the solution is to resolve them, improve the article, and leave it listed in a much better state going forward.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is FAR a drastic step? Can you explain how this is considered to be such a big deal? I mean, it's not like we can't put the star back on if somehow the undeserving article gets to a quality article. jps (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "You guys need..." -- unfortunately that doesn't seem a very helpful mindset. FAC is not a process belonging to some "clique", but rather to everyone on WP who takes the time to be involved in the nomination and review process. Instead of waiting for an article to appear on the front page before you decide it's not up to your standards, why not join the hard-working reviewers who help determine whether said article should be promoted or not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, that seems to be jps' general attitude, and its not one likely to gain a lot of friends. As it is, the editors who have to put up with them have offered considerable more patience and good faith than they are receiving. Resolute 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I'm always more than happy to have a good faith discussion about ways to improve article quality and enhance the FAC process. Personally I'd endorse a requirement for all articles have at least two formal reviews, i.e. GAN and either PR or A-Class (as applicable), before they ever get to FAC, just to help iron out basic prose and content issues. I'd be happy to see articles get outside expert review, but at PR or ACR, not in FAC, where the process is slow enough as it is. It's been suggested to me that the delegates (or coordinators or whatever we are now) post notices of noms that are on the verge of promotion to encourage any last-minute reviews. In the meantime, I think the vast majority of FAs have the star because they deserve it, and with the length of time we tend to leave reviews open I don't see a lot of excuses for people missing out on commenting. While noms are scrutinised by experienced editors, and get through their required checks, and garner clear support for promotion without outstanding actionable objections, they will continue to be promoted. If some do fall through the cracks -- and no system is perfect -- the most obvious thing people can do to help is lend their scrutiny at the review stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But when people find problems after the star has been applied, you guys are basically saying, "Too bad. Wait six months and if the problems are still there we'll have a discussion about whether to have a discussion about removing the star." I assume these hoops are put into place to prevent people from removing articles, but it has the effect of preserving bad articles in place. I appreciate your ideas about improving FA. In particular, it's pretty bad that there is no criteria that the article have the character one would expect from a serious reference work. jps (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they are saying to discuss changes on the talk page, come to a consensus and improve the article. And then go to FAR if the article remains deficient. Looking at the talk page, I am seeing editors willing to discuss and improve. You, on the other hand, seem to expect your demands to be followed to the letter without question or debate.  And now you are pouting because you aren't getting exactly what you want, exactly how you want it. Take a look in the mirror dude.  The biggest problem here is your own attitude. Resolute 13:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If an article is bad, why should it remain featured? There seems to be this attitude that we shouldn't even discuss this problem. We should only try to "improve" the article, but it's painfully clear that such improvements are not moving in a direction that will result in a high-quality article any time soon. I'm not the only person who thinks that. So, I go to FAR only to be told that it's "too soon" because of some silly rule that's being slavishly followed. Like I'm in some sort of Yakov Smirnoff comedy routine. The article should not be featured, and, ironically, even some of the people arguing for the process acknowledge this. I may be difficult to get along with, but at the end of the day you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot if you don't come to terms with the fact that you've developed a system whereby bad articles are protected once they get a badge. jps (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * " In my opinion, if an article shouldn't have been promoted recently over deficiencies, the solution is to resolve them, improve the article, and leave it listed in a much better state going forward." (wouldn't the act of making massive changes to an article indicate that it was actually not a stable article?) If an article was promoted despite very large deficiencies it calls into question the quality of the actual review and so another more thorough review should be done. What if changes to improve the article are rejected? What if an article can not be improved due to an absence of sources? It is not possible for every topic to reach featured status ... and sometimes process fails. Arbitrarily requiring a six month waiting period to bring up valid concerns is purely a bureaucratic pointless measure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with jps & IRWolfie - if good arguments can be made to establish why an article is below the threshold of FA, then maintaining its status as such is suboptimal and we should not. But I do think it reasonable to allow editors time to address/redress such concerns once they have been identified and we don't need to rush an article into FAR in order to remedy the problems if they can be resolved through expanding/improving the content.That said, the article that we are referring to is very unlikely in my view to make it up to standard and I suspect it will be back at FAR in a few months. But I, for one, am happy to give editors plenty of time to prove me wrong and indeed will be happy when they do so. Eusebeus (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is usually more time-effective just to fix the problem. After all, that is what you are supposed to do when a FAR is filed. No one is in a mood for an RFC on the FA process as we just had one on the leadership that didn't make anyone happy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Major Breakdown at FA: When God Writes Your Love Story
C'mon folks, how the hell did this get through the FA process as is? To my eyes, this is soufflé puff piece that basically offers the summary of an inconsequential book (and that's ok), but makes no effort at all to frame it within the larger Zeitgeist of American evangelism that actually explains why such a book is written and finds an audience - which is surely a critical part of an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. What is happening here? Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the nomination page, it seems no one raised the issues. This problem is hardly new. The article editors look for sources, find them, write an article. Reviewers come through and comment on whatever their skill-set allows them to comment on. We have more or less tackled the issue of plagiarism and copyright by requiring source and image reviews. We haven't tackled the issue of subject matter expertise in reviewing FA candidates. If neither the editors nor the reviewers are aware of table stakes for sourcing articles about literature (as seems the case here), the FAC is going to go through unless someone shows up and objects. No one showed up here to say, "Hey, you need scholarly criticism, discussions on themes, and other things when you write about literature." The editors and reviewers might very well go through the whole process in good faith without ever knowing. That's what's happening here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting out-of-hand. Not only are you guys ignoring the major failure of FA, you are preventing discussion happening to fix the problem. Right now you are insisting that a terrible article be listed as a "featured article". Something needs to change. I'll be asking for more input in other venues. jps (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you put down the pitchfork, then perhaps other people may be more willing to listen to your concerns with the article. --Rschen7754 03:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been working on trying to get people work on the article for some time now. The only time I seem to get you guys to pay attention is when I talk about how your system is problematic and getting in the way. jps (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Subject matter experts, as a requirement for FA have been proposed in the past. The difficulty is recruiting them to work as we do, for free.  I do ask experts whenever possible, on an informal and one-time basis, to look over my articles, I had Ezra Meeker checked by Dennis Larsen, who has his third book on Meeker coming out soon, and he helped me through a fair number of issues and supplied some good references. As is often said of FA, that is the sort of thing that cannot be scaled up.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference nerds needed
Greetings FA people. Please excuse a somewhat off-topic post, but I know featured content editors are sticklers for high-quality referencing. There is an important workshop to improve the reference editing abilities of the new VisualEditor software. I know there is some disagreement over what is the optimal style of refs for WP articles, and I know FA editors have some valuable opinions on the matter. Feedback on use-cases, basic requirements, and what templates it should support would be welcome. Workshop is here. Thanks, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be a little more willing if the last time I had tried the answer wasn't "SFN shouldn't even be possible" (i.e. no way we'll support that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Who told you that, Crisco? As far as I know, it's possible to support any of the existing cite templates. Sfn is a bit more complicated, as it requires a second template in another location to be fully functional, but, AFAIK, nothing's off the table. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't recall who. It was at Wikimania in Hong Kong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Delayed delisting
I noticed today that Girl Scouts of the USA had a FAR that closed as delist about a month ago, but the article and talk page haven't yet been updated. Is it related to the bot issues mentioned a few sections above, or something else? Chris857 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikki and I (and maybe Dana?) have been closing FARs manually since Gimme left (the new bot doesn't do everything that Gimmebot did). We seem to have both missed the four FARs that closed in September; I'll take care of them. Thanks for pointing this out. Maralia (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)