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 | William Henry Harrison | 4 | 2 yr FA, widely covered | 1 | 0 |
Apr 4 | Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas | -1 | Author's birthday (no points for that though) Next to be replaced | 1 | 0 |
Apr 11 | Parkinson's disease | 8 | Vital article, Parkinson's disease day, no medical articles in 6 months and medicine articles underrepresented at WP:FA | 7 | 0 |
Apr 21 | Royal Maundy | 1 | date of 2011 service (also the Queen's 85th birthday) | 7 | 0 |
Apr 23 | Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall | 4 | 2 years since FA, date relevance. | 4 | 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.
Nonspecific date (1 only)
William Henry Harrison
William Henry Harrison (1773–1841) was the ninth President of the United States, an American military officer and politician, and the first president to die in office. He originally gained national fame for leading U.S. forces against American Indians at the Battle of Tippecanoe. As a general in the subsequent War of 1812, his victory at the Battle of the Thames brought an end to hostilities in his region. After the war, Harrison was elected to the United States Congress, later serving as a member of the Senate. In 1828, he was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary to Colombia, after which he retired to his farm in Ohio until he was nominated for the presidency in 1836. Defeated, he retired again to his farm before being elected president in 1840. Harrisson was the oldest president elected until Ronald Reagan in 1980, and last President to be born before the United States Declaration of Independence, Harrison died in office of complications from pneumonia, having served the shortest tenure in United States presidential history. His death sparked a brief constitutional crisis, but that crisis ultimately resolved many questions about presidential succession left unanswered by the Constitution until passage of the 25th Amendment. (more...)
Total: 4 points6 points. April 4 is the 170th anniversary of Harrison's death. While not normally used as an anniversary (over the more usual birthday), Harrison was the first U.S. President to die in office and his death sparked a constitutional crisis, so I'd say it's worth the two points. Another two points for age (7 March 2009), and another two for being a widely-covered article (equivalent articles in 79 other Wikipedias). The most recent article on a politician was Herbert Greenfield on February 10 (or Frederick III of Germany on February 28 if you count royalty), so no points either way on Main Page representation. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The guidance from Raul is that death dates do not count, until I hear something different, I'm running on that. Four points (two for age, two for widely covered). Getting interesting here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that death dates shouldn't normally count, but I'd say that there's an exception when the death itself is particularly significant. It would be silly for, say, the article on Martin Luther King, Jr. not to get points for appearing on the anniversary of his assassination. If the link to the death date doesn't count, there's no particular reason that this can't run on another day and leave April 4 open for the one above. Should I shunt this into the non-specific slot?GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll concede you that, but Martin Luther King this is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to say that in this case, the death date is legitimate. Raul's argument is that the subject's death isn't significant from Wikipedia's point of view and that the appropriate anniversaries are the things which made the people famous—but in Harrison's case, dying is his best-known "achievement". We had a similar case with John Lennon a few months ago. – iridescent 20:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll concede you that, but Martin Luther King this is not.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that death dates shouldn't normally count, but I'd say that there's an exception when the death itself is particularly significant. It would be silly for, say, the article on Martin Luther King, Jr. not to get points for appearing on the anniversary of his assassination. If the link to the death date doesn't count, there's no particular reason that this can't run on another day and leave April 4 open for the one above. Should I shunt this into the non-specific slot?GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since the death-date link doesn't count, it seems churlish to deny the other article its time in the sun. As such, I've shifted this to the non-specific slot and removed the mention from the blurb. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Date requests (5 max)
April 4
(more...)
Just a few points (at least 2--1 for Dr. Angelou's 83rd birthday, 1 for diversity; no articles about African-American literature in the last six months), but it's a perfect way to honor the great Maya Angelou on her birthday, which is also the anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Christine (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, diversity? Where is that coming from? I'm seeing -2 points. I do not think a partial autobiography that does not cover the author's birth can take anything from the author's birthday. We have had literature articles (and we cannot infinitely divide categories by ethnicity or nationality) on March 8 and 14. Zero minus two equals minus two.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's the third volume in six! That's highly unusual in memoirs; Angelou's series is the only time that's happened in the genre, I believe. I stand by the diversity claim. I think it's important for the main page to present articles about African-American literature, since there are so few FAs about them. Christine (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree. However, the diversity point (perhaps we need to change that name) is given only when there are 50 FAs in that category at WP:FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is pretty standard here and very reasonable to give a single point for date relation to a work on the birthday of that work's creator. I thought we only didn't allow more than 1 point when there isn't a very direct connection, but allowed 1 point in cases like this. However, Wehwalt is correct that the "diversity" point is only given for articles in categories with less than 50 FAs (Christine, read footnote 4 linked from the diversity section). So I think this should be -1 point. Calathan (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree. However, the diversity point (perhaps we need to change that name) is given only when there are 50 FAs in that category at WP:FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's the third volume in six! That's highly unusual in memoirs; Angelou's series is the only time that's happened in the genre, I believe. I stand by the diversity claim. I think it's important for the main page to present articles about African-American literature, since there are so few FAs about them. Christine (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Support-ignoring the points, I still would love to see this on the main page to commemorate this important author's birthday. --SkotyWATC 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, we haven't done that recently, but it's fine with me. Minus one point, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
April 11
I believe it gets 8 points: 1 for being Parkinson's disease day (stated in the blurb), 4 for vital article, 1 for under-representation of medical articles at WP:FA and 2 more since no disease or medical article has appeared in the main page for 6 months (If I am correct last one was Osteochondritis dissecans, on August 18).--Garrondo (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support important article - we need more diseases on the main page1 Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment points look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support – Luton can wait another year, this is more important. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Topic lacking on the main page and a good date connection.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per above. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support these high-traffic medical articles can also deteriorate rather quickly if not watched closely, so mainpaging sooner rather than later is prudent...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support It has been a long time since a medical article has been on the front page, so this is a great one. And of course, the nominator was instrumental in Alzheimer's disease, so it's doubly cool! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
April 21
One point, the date the 2011 Royal Maundy will occur.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - very informative article and highly appropriate date. The blurb looks quite long to my eyes, but that might just be me. Bob talk 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I just happened upon a more recent edition (in fact, a retitled edition) of the Robinson book on the Royal Maundy, a major source for the article, plus I bought three Maundy bags and an Order of Service for the Royal Maundy, so I would expect that this article will be further improved by the 21st. Though I think it's pretty good as it stands. I've also swapped the image to show one featuring the Queen, in view of the fact that (I just realised) April 21 will be her 85th birthday. As the image is horizontally oriented, I've taken the liberty of upping it to 130px, so you can see who is in it (although who else wears dresses like that? )--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I've been a fan of this article for a while now. I don't like the current image though. Maybe a cropped version to show only the queen would look better, because it's still impossible to tell who's in the photo by the picture on my screen, except for the gawdy dress.-RHM22 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support will be popular, & a lead up to the wedding. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support by far the most appropriate date for this fine article and added bonus for the birthday as well. BencherliteTalk 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would support with a better image. This one makes it look like the queen has three legs and three hats. Jonathunder (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The best alternative is File:Wakefield queen4.jpg which I would use with regret as it does not show the entire nosegay or order of service which the Queen holds, and no matter how you crop it, you'll get a piece of the other woman looking too intently at the camera. Absent that, I could go back to one of the 19th century woodcuts, but the idea was to show the Queen on her birthday. Yes, three legs and all. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I cropped that, and I think it is better, but substitute with an even better image if there is one. Jonathunder (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the editor who uploaded the 2005 images has more. It seems doubtful, due to the time span, but I'll give it a shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- No response from him. By the way, this is the first time Maundy Thursday has fallen on her birthday since at least the 19th century, when she was not around, and I checked through 2078 and it won't happen again at least through then. So this is the first and last time the Queen will be at Royal Maundy on her birthday. And she's giving the gifts!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I cropped that, and I think it is better, but substitute with an even better image if there is one. Jonathunder (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The best alternative is File:Wakefield queen4.jpg which I would use with regret as it does not show the entire nosegay or order of service which the Queen holds, and no matter how you crop it, you'll get a piece of the other woman looking too intently at the camera. Absent that, I could go back to one of the 19th century woodcuts, but the idea was to show the Queen on her birthday. Yes, three legs and all. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support If you can survive Fat Tuesday, you deserve some Maundy Money.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
April 23
5 points 4 points?
Comment: Following is my reasoning: two points for being promoted more than two years ago, four points for a semicentennial anniversary (Garland's concert, considered to be one of "the greatest night[s] in show business history" was recorded on April 23, 1961), and one point for being a significant contributor without a previous TFA credit. This total comes to 7 points, but I subtracted two with the assumption that another album article has been featured on the Main Page within the past month. Even if the semicentennial anniversary is a stretch, I'd still like to proceed with the nomination. Do keep in mind that this this article is somewhat different from other album articles in that Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall is a live, double album (and tribute album) that also focuses on a series of live performances. Much thanks to Wehwalt for writing up this blurb, per request. I am not familiar with the TFA process, so please be patient and accommodating if I am going about this the wrong way. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment on points - I don't know if it is acceptable to claim the four points for timing when the semicentennial is for the event this is a tribute to and not this event itself. However, if you can count this as a semicentennial, then you have made the request too early. Requests with 5 or more points aren't allowed as early as requests with less points. Currently, requests with 5 or more points are only accepted for dates through April 14 (see the line directly above the summary chart). Also, I don't think there has been another album since Is This It on February 20th, which is more than a month before the requested date. So if this is allowed to have the semicentennial points, I think this would have 7 points (and should be removed for now and requested again once it is closer to the date). However, if it isn't allowed to have the semicentennial points and you instead only claim 1 point for a related date, I think this would have 4 points (and could be requested now). Calathan (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I was expecting the semicentennial anniversary points to be questioned--I even mentioned above that requesting those points might be a stretch. Since it is up to reviewers to determine the validity of the points, I will go ahead and leave the nomination for now and revise the count to four if consensus produces the same conclusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since I helped AB write the blurb, I'm going to recuse myself on the question of points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the number of points to four, for now. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I was expecting the semicentennial anniversary points to be questioned--I even mentioned above that requesting those points might be a stretch. Since it is up to reviewers to determine the validity of the points, I will go ahead and leave the nomination for now and revise the count to four if consensus produces the same conclusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a Simpsons or Family Guy episode by this name:?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- By the article name? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I think the relevant dates are the concert date and the album release date. The date of the original album would be relevant if this article were written in a manner that extensively compared and contrasted the album at issue with the original and thus had extensive content regarding the original. The substance of the reference to the original album is a track listing. I don't think that qualifies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Let's not get too bogged down by technicalities, the article is on-topic for the concert. Hekerui (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - good date relevance. Jonathunder (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)