Bencherlite (talk | contribs) →Kenneth Walker: one dead link |
→January 9: concern |
||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
:::Yay, someone got [[Dead Parrot sketch|the reference]]!!! :) — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
:::Yay, someone got [[Dead Parrot sketch|the reference]]!!! :) — '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' Fantastic article, centennial anniversary -- of course! [[User:Evanh2008|Evanh2008]] <sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Fantastic article, centennial anniversary -- of course! [[User:Evanh2008|Evanh2008]] <sup>([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]])</sup> 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' I had not noticed that the instruction set had been massively changed without significant discussion. I am reluctant to allow the article to run given the arbitrary nature of the changes, and now, of the instructions.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 07:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
===January 10=== |
===January 10=== |
Revision as of 07:22, 13 December 2012
Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
– Check TFAR nominations for dead links – Alt text |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
| ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from July 1 to July 31.
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific 1 | |||||
Nonspecific 2 | |||||
January 5 | Kenneth Walker | 3 | 70th anniversary of death; 1yr FA | 5 | 0 |
January 8 | Stephen Hawking | 8 | birthday, vital article, no scientists for 6 months, 1st TFA for author | 9 | 1 |
January 9 | Richard Nixon | 11 | Centennial of birth, Vital Article (level 4), one year FA | 8 | 0 |
January 10 | Metropolitan Railway | 5 | 150th anniversary of opening, nom's first TFA | 8 | 0 |
January 14 | Adelaide leak | 1 | 80th anniversary, 1yr FA, similar subject within one month | 2 | 0 |
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.
Nonspecific date nominations
Nonspecific date 1
Nonspecific date 2
Specific date nominations
January 5
Kenneth Walker
3 points: Two points for date relevance, being the 70th anniversary of the battle in which he won his medal of honour, and one point for being promoted in July 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. A fine article, suitable for Main Page representation on the suggested date unless there is an American military biography featured previously with too little separation in time. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, agree with analysis by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs), above, as well as date relevance. — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support, convincing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, there's a US aviator who also won the Medal of Honor scheduled for December 4. Don't know how that influences "points" but looks like a run on "US aviators who won the Medal of Honor". MathewTownsend (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- See the TFAR page instructions at the top of this page-- the date requested is more than a month from the last one. Still, considering the similarity and how few of same we (might?) have, I agree it's unfortunate that they can't be spaced out more; there must be other significant dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Per Cirt and Binksternet. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Reference 66 is a dead link and has been flagged as such since March 2012. BencherliteTalk 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
January 8
Stephen Hawking
- Widely covered physicist on his 70th birthday, 6 points or more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- 71st birthday, not 70th (1); vital article (4); no scientists in 6 months (2); total
7 points8 points (see below).BencherliteTalk 10:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- 71st birthday, not 70th (1); vital article (4); no scientists in 6 months (2); total
- Thank you for the corrections, I should stay away from math ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Looks good! A quick skim of the article shows no major changes since the version featured back in September. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The article has citation needed tags, has information in the introduction not mentioned below, and could use some copyediting. Kablammo (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: The cn tags are all in one sentence, placed on separate clauses by a user with a contribs history that shows an obvious POV to push- an put there only a week after the article was promoted; apparently the lead editors haven't gone back and cleaned them up. This is an extremely minor nitpick. The TFA is appropriate, and any minor copyediting can and undoubtably will be completed prior to the main page appearance Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Good faith should indicate that an established user, who says that an assertion is not in the cited source, is familiar with that source. Good faith should also make us reluctant to accuse established users of pushing a POV. Articles appearing on the main page should be free of such concerns. Has anyone active on the article, or this nomination, contacted the user who added the tags? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi everybody, I was the editor who took the article though GA and it's various FA stages (which I couldn't have done without the help and support of a large number of other editors) - and it is really extremely gratifying to find out that it is being considered for front-page status. Thank you so much for the nomination. For some general information, the editor who added the citation tags is an admin, and so it should probably be taken seriously. I'd really appriate it if a senior editor would have a go at straightening those sections out. I can certainly put some time into any other concerns raised - Kablammo - can you give me some examples of sections were copyediting would be particularly useful? SandyGeorgia has raised some issues on the talk page and I'm going to potter down and respond to them now. :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would be happy to, Fayedizard. I cannot today, but will post them to article talk page, or (if you wish) copyedit myself. Nudge me if you don't hear from me soon. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's great - looking forward to working with you. By the way - I'm( I believe) the significant contributor to the article, and I've never had a front-page before - does that mean we get another point? (I'll be honest, I'm a bit out of my deapth with the process...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Normally, the easy answer would be yes, but there was just a change to the instructions about the nominator point that is still Greek To Me, so I asked for clarification on talk. With 7 points, you won't likely need any more :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- The easy answer is still yes. You can claim the point, but no-one can claim it on your behalf - that's not changed. 8 points. BencherliteTalk 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Normally, the easy answer would be yes, but there was just a change to the instructions about the nominator point that is still Greek To Me, so I asked for clarification on talk. With 7 points, you won't likely need any more :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's great - looking forward to working with you. By the way - I'm( I believe) the significant contributor to the article, and I've never had a front-page before - does that mean we get another point? (I'll be honest, I'm a bit out of my deapth with the process...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would be happy to, Fayedizard. I cannot today, but will post them to article talk page, or (if you wish) copyedit myself. Nudge me if you don't hear from me soon. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Saw Hawking at the Paralympic Games in London. Wonderful idea to put him on the front page. Well done Fayedizard and everyone who brought the article to this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, high quality article, educational and encyclopedic. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, definitely. And we really haven't had any scientists for six months? Make that definitely, times two. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I participated in the GA and FA efforts so I know the quality of the writing. Recent activity at the article is moving to clean up some niggling worries about the speech synthesizer. I am fully confident the article will be in masterful condition very shortly, in time for TFA. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support I believe I can without exaggeration say that the whole of WP:WikiProject Disability are very pleased with this nomination and congratulate Fayedizard for the excellent leadership in getting the article to this point. (So this is the first scientist in six months, but when last was someone with a disability featured?) Roger (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. - Per "notes". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
January 9
- 11 points Centennial of birth (6) level 4 vital article (4) 1 year FA (1).--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. - Obviously. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support 100th birthday! Canuck89 (what's up?) 08:34, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Support. - Obviously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support important topic. --Rschen7754 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment blurb is about 1,570 characters, or 25% over the standard target length of 1,200 - Wehwalt, would you mind trimming it when you get a chance? Thanks, BencherliteTalk 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: No question. Points probably irrelevant here, but does the 20-day rule for noms with 5+ points not apply? Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but the rule is 20 unscheduled days, not 20 days. At the time of writing, the next unscheduled day is 22nd December, and the 20th unscheduled day is 11th January, so this high-scoring (record score?) nom is legit. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support; very much looking forward to seeing such a prominent article featured. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Centennial is a one-time opportunity not to be missed, topic timely and interesting. Plenty of time to fix any minor glitches, none of which are significant to the issue of this excellent article being TFA for the date stated. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion made, suggestion answered. Hatting to ensure that nobody accidentally says something that someone else might regret. BencherliteTalk 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please audit the prose; a search reveals 16 instances of the word "however" in this version. (See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however.) Although this issue was brought to Wehwalt's attention in a previous FAC after DCGeist copyedited an article and among other improvements, reduced the uses of "however" from 12 to 3, [1] the overuse of "however" persists. Several of Wehwalt's recent FAs have improved on this score, but the older ones should be audited; it shouldn't require more than a few moments to review each FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
|
- Support, high quality educational and encyclopedic article on a dead politician, who has passed on, is no more, has ceased to be, bereft of life, may he rest in peace. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic article, centennial anniversary -- of course! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I had not noticed that the instruction set had been massively changed without significant discussion. I am reluctant to allow the article to run given the arbitrary nature of the changes, and now, of the instructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
January 10
Metropolitan Railway
On 10 January it will be the 150th anniversary of the opening of London Underground's first line by the Metropolitan Railway between Paddington and Farringdon. There are four points for the anniversary, and one point as I am a significant contributor and I have not previously had a TFA. I'm not claiming any 'similar article' points as we had Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania) on 13 November — although that's placed in the Geography and places section on Wikipedia:Featured_articles and the previous article to appear from the Transport section was Herne Hill railway station on 25 August — therefore 5 points. Edgepedia (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful choice, given the anniversary, historical aspects, iconic stature of subject, and face it, Trains to Underground was a significant step. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, excellent date selection, educational, encyclopedic, high value for the site. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Global significance & per above Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. An excellent choice. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support ....for all the trainspotters out there....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, per Cirt, - moved another train article to later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, timely, major centennial, major technology innovation, highly significant. Montanabw(talk) 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
January 14
Adelaide leak
Two points for 80th anniversary of the incident, one point for promotion over a year ago (February 2011). However, last sports article scheduled is for 22 December, so loses two points (the last cricket article was October 13). So that makes 1 point I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Good anniversary, and the Dec 22 article is much different from this one.--Chimino (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support, high quality article and good date relevance. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support per the above, - not only sports, also press, not really similar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)