Pages, tools and templates for |
Featured articles |
---|
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 (April Fools 2005)
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Archives by topic: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Image/source check requests
FAC mentoring: first-time nominators
A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FAC source reviews
For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.
Is a source needed for film casts?
I'm doing a source review for High School Musical: The Musical: The Series, which has no separate source for the cast list. I'm aware that a plot summary is regarded as implicitly sourced by the work that the article is about, but I have never heard that for casts. I checked some of the films in WP:FA and about half the ones I checked do not source the cast list, so apparently at least some reviewers think it's OK not to source it. Is there a guideline that says this somewhere? Or is this an oversight in those articles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:FILMCAST is the key one: only uncredited actors need a citation - the rest are on the primary source of the film. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's what I was looking for. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:FILMCAST is the key one: only uncredited actors need a citation - the rest are on the primary source of the film. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed Featured articles: year-end summary
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
- 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
- 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
- FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
- Biology
- Physics and astronomy
- Warfare
- Video gaming
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
- Literature and theatre
- Engineering and technology
- Religion, mysticism and mythology
- Media
- Geology and geophysics
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
- Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
- Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
- Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
- Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
- Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Nomination viewer wonky ??
See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#FARC header not showing on WP:FAR SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- There appears to be a related issue on this page (the “older nominations” header doesn’t appear on the page, even though it’s in the contents). This only appears to be the case if you have the nominations viewer script installed. (I’ve commented at FARC too, but flagging here). - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- See discussion at FAR for a solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like this one was opened erroneously. I'm happy to delete the page, but I'm not sure if FACBot needs to be involved. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- That should be a housekeeping delete (or at least, it was in my day), that doesn't belong in articlehistory. Since it hasn't been transferred to FAC archives, it should not engage FACbot. Best I can tell, it can be housekeeping deleted, FAC template removed from article talk, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- And this, too: Draft:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Donaldson (snooker player)/archive2. I'm not up on the various user rights, but it looks like something needs to be removed from that editor, who first created a FAC in Draft, then moved it, then indicated it was promoted by FACbot when it wasn't. Should that editor be able to move pages ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, my: [2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: the wp:page mover right is what allows the move with no redirect (among other things); lacking that right you always leave behind a redirect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; someone told me that once before, and it didn't stick :) OK, I removed the FAC template from the article talk page. Now we just need an admin to delete the two pages, and WikiCup to deal with things on that end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've deleted the page. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed it, although now I suppose that was probably a job for @Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth:. Apologies! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the editor could benefit from a mentor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- And a {{whale}} while we're at it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say no whale. To a new user presumably unfamiliar with wikihumor I don't think that would seem helpful or funny. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, you say that, but they've successfully gamed obtaining ECP status, and now they've tried gaming the Wikicup. Anyway, a squish is always better than a bite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well ... they did significantly improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've issued a contentious topics alert (an uncited edit to Feminism), posted to WP:PRIMATES for help with OR, and made a first attempt to get their attention here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, you say that, but they've successfully gamed obtaining ECP status, and now they've tried gaming the Wikicup. Anyway, a squish is always better than a bite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say no whale. To a new user presumably unfamiliar with wikihumor I don't think that would seem helpful or funny. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- And a {{whale}} while we're at it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps the editor could benefit from a mentor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; someone told me that once before, and it didn't stick :) OK, I removed the FAC template from the article talk page. Now we just need an admin to delete the two pages, and WikiCup to deal with things on that end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: the wp:page mover right is what allows the move with no redirect (among other things); lacking that right you always leave behind a redirect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, my: [2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Would anyone else be willing to start following User talk:20 upper to help answer questions and provide guidance ? I see it may take more time than I can invest alone. Preferably a biology editor, but anyone could help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Seeking mentoring for FAC with my work on the "David Bentley Hart" article
Would any mentors be willing to consider mentoring me with my recent work on the David Bentley Hart article as I hope to put it forward as a featured article candidate? Thank you for considering. Jjhake (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt is willing to offer me some mentorship with this, so should be all set here. This kind of community help is much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Templates and transclusion
I made this edit to a FAC subpage to resolve a floating reference issue. Does anyone know if this will cause issues with templates and transclusion issues? @Mike Christie:? Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's fine -- I'm not aware of any problem that could cause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Script to highlight unreferenced passages
I wanted to let you know that I wrote a script to highlight unreferenced passages. It may be useful to FA reviewers to get a first quick impression of whether a nomination lacks references and where the problems may be. Nominators may use it to make ensure that their nomination is well-sourced. It does not understand articles and is only meant to assist editors, not to replace their judgment. More information can be found at User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages, including instructions on how to install and use it as well as information on its limitations. Questions and feedback on problems or new ideas are welcome. See also Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Script_to_find_unreferenced_passages for a similar discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's amazing! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
In-depth sourcing spot check for first-time nominators
Pages for February 2023 GAR reassessment and Copyright contributor investigation |
---|
Main pages
Lists Notices Scripts and bots |
Why is this no longer happening ? In the wake of WP:DCGAR (Doug Coldwell Good Article Reassessment), I'm surprised to see this falling by the wayside. Are Coords remembering to check for this and request that one be done? Checking for citation formatting and reliability of sources only is not the same as a check for copyright issues or source-to-text integrity. And now that it hasn't been done, how will you all know who was missed when checking WP:WBFAN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- User:SandyGeorgia, sorry, can you clarify who or what WP:DCGAR is or was? The page contains no material and I've not been around for a couple of years so don't know the background. (I make no comment on your main point re reviews except that I hope first timers are facing a full and rigorous source review, including spot checks - that's certainly how it should happen) Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, multiple issues with close paraphrasing and source-text integrity were discovered in articles written by one editor, who has dozens (hundreds?) of GAs to his name most of which ostensibly rely extensively on offline sources but the extent to which they support the claims made in the articles is ... ambiguous at best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- And blatant OR, POV, and all manner of source-to-text integrity issues. The more you process through Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315, the more you see just how bad it is. If everyone would pick one diff a day in there, the cleanup could be faster ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, DCGAR is the sidebar shortcut that contains links to the Copright contributor investigation, the community ban per AN, the SPI for socking, and the massive cleanup of GAs needed in the wake of DC (click on the main page in the sidebar which takes you to the AN) -- Doug Coldwell and socks. With over 200 GAs and over 500 DYKs, he never showed up around FAC, and presumably if he had, the copyvios would have been detected here as all new nominators used to be subject to an in-depth spot check of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- PS, it may be less than clear as I avoided spelling out in the sidebar that DC = User:Doug Coldwell because the CCI folks point out they don't like to impugn all the other Doug Coldwells of the world, which is part of why CCIs are named by date rather than editor name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. Oh dear... that's very bad. Good to know it's not touch FAs, but still terrible. Any help needed on the clear-up, or has that all been done now? - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- I linked the CCI above, the sidebar contains info on the planned mass delisting of GAs, and the cleanup will take years. That's why I ask that others do one diff a day at the CCI. Most diffs you check are just messy as all heck to track down, as you have to determine if the source is accessible, and then it becomes not just a matter of copyvio, but all manner of source-to-text problems. WP:PDEL applies, but the AN agreed to hold off until the planned GAR merger is completed, so you unfortunately really have to read the main page that I link in the sidebar to get the full picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- PS, and because one of DC's main problems was too-close paraphrasing, you unfortunately have to read through archaic and hard-to-read pages like newspaper.com clippings ... very hard on old eyes ... to find the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. Oh dear... that's very bad. Good to know it's not touch FAs, but still terrible. Any help needed on the clear-up, or has that all been done now? - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- In a nutshell, multiple issues with close paraphrasing and source-text integrity were discovered in articles written by one editor, who has dozens (hundreds?) of GAs to his name most of which ostensibly rely extensively on offline sources but the extent to which they support the claims made in the articles is ... ambiguous at best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Which recent first-time FAs did not go through spotchecks? I am willing to do them once I am done with my FAC -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not to worry, Guerillero; I'll check the ones I know of myself. Per my usual habit, I'm not naming innocent nominators ... not their fault if the process here glitched, and I don't want to offend first-time nominators by singling them out. In the event I find problems, only then will I name the nom. I am pointing out that everyone should be checking WP:WBFAN, and now since some have been missed, if you encounter a second- or third-time nominator at WBFAN, it will be necessary to go back to the first nom and double-check if an indepth source check actually occurred. Checking citation formatting and reliability of sources only is NOT the indepth spotcheck needed to determine source-to-text integrity or copyright issues. That's what we're supposed to watch for on first-time noms. DC could have been stopped sooner at GAN if there had been a process like this, but none of the subsequent GA reviewers had any way of knowing the first had copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)