Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive75

Mean and median prose size over long time range?

• @Mike Christie:, do we have or could we get stats for mean and median prose size of all successful FAs over a meaningful time period? "Since forever" would be the best time range, of course. The tricky thing might be that the ideal outcome would be to find prose size at time of promotion. It is reasonable to assume that prose size might not change much after promotion to FA, but it is far from guaranteed.Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have those statistics, but the ArticleHistory template captures a link to the promoted version, so working from WP:FA to get to the talk pages it ought to be possible to script a query to get the prose size, using the prose size code.

  One thing I have started looking at is the size of reviews, as opposed to articles. It's interesting that in December of 2018 reviewers generated more total text in reviews of FACs than they did in December 2011, despite the fact that there were 43 FACs promoted or archived in December 2011, and only 34 in December 2018. I think this may be part of the reason why fewer reviews are done nowadays; each review takes more time. I don't have enough data to generalize with confidence but should have more in the next month or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have enough edits on this username to get AWB, but if we could simply get the actual article wikitext from every article and append promotion year/month/day to filename, it would be trivial to run through, strip out everything between curly braces, angle brackets and square brackets and then simply look at the size of the resulting text file. That would have the benefit of reducing coding time to nearly nothing at the (small) cost of temporarily storing all those files on my laptop. I do not know if the first step, actual file gathering, is impractical...is it?Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't have a way to do that. The best I can do is give you a list of article names, with dates of promotion/archiving. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

  I haven't used awb in I dunno how many years, but after thinking about it, it should be very doable. I will look into it. Tks.Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for December

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Mike, I have 3 reviews in the lower table, but none in the top table. November also gave me no reviews, which surprised me. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Should be fixed now; I was careless about the range of data I included in the table, but I double-checked it this time. Will take a look at November in a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the November table was correct in not assigning you any reviews. The three for December were Ludwigsburg Palace (2nd FAC), Gothic boxwood miniature, and Deseret alphabet; the three you reviewed before that were Ludwigsburg Palace (1st FAC), Biblical criticism, and Aldus Manutius, which were archived in October, October, and September, respectively. Did I miss a review? Checking my own work I've found an error rate of about 2% so it's entirely possible I've missed one of yours. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers for December 2018

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Image Source Content Total Adityavagarwal 1 1 Aoba47 1 3 4 Attar-Aram syria 1 1 AustralianRupert 2 2 Bagumba 1 1 Bloger 1 1 Boothsift 1 1 Casliber 3 4 7 Catrìona 2 1 3 Ceoil 5 5 Ceranthor 2 3 5 Czar 1 1 Damien Linnane 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered 1 1 Dmass 1 1 Double sharp 1 1 Dr. Blofeld 1 1 Dudley Miles 5 5 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 Factotem 1 1 FunkMonk 2 6 8 Gerda Arendt 3 3 Giants2008 1 2 3 Gog the Mild 1 1 Graham Beards 1 2 3 Hawkeye7 1 3 4 Hoppyh 1 1 Ian Rose 2 2 Indrian 1 1 Indy beetle 1 1 Ivan VA 1 1 J Milburn 2 2 Jehochman 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Jimfbleak 2 2 Jmar67 1 1 John 1 1 Johnbod 3 3 Jo-Jo Eumerus 5 2 7 Kaiser matias 2 2 KJP1 2 2 4 Laser brain 1 1 Lee Vilenski 1 1 Lusotitan 1 1 Maile66 1 1 MaranoFan 1 1 MarchOrDie 2 2 Midnightblueowl 1 1 Mike Christie 2 2 Moisejp 1 1 2 Moxy 1 1 Mr rnddude 1 2 3 6 Nick-D 1 2 3 Nikkimaria 13 8 2 23 PaleoGeekSquared 1 1 Peacemaker67 2 2 ProtoDrake 1 1 Renerpho 1 1 RL0919 1 1 SchroCat 4 4 Sergecross73 1 1 Serial Number 54129 2 2 SlimVirgin 1 2 3 Smerus 1 1 Sturmvogel 66 3 1 4 Theramin 1 1 Tim riley 5 5 Tintor2 1 1 Tkbrett 1 1 Tony1 9 9 Urselius 1 1 Usernameunique 1 3 4 Vami IV 2 2 Victoriaearle 1 1 Wehwalt 3 3 Grand Total 27 29 136 192

Supports and opposes for December 2018

# declarations Declaration Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Grand Total Adityavagarwal 1 1 Aoba47 2 2 4 Attar-Aram syria 1 1 AustralianRupert 2 2 Bagumba 1 1 Bloger 1 1 Boothsift 1 1 Casliber 2 5 7 Catrìona 3 3 Ceoil 5 5 Ceranthor 3 2 5 Czar 1 1 Damien Linnane 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered 1 1 Dmass 1 1 Double sharp 1 1 Dr. Blofeld 1 1 Dudley Miles 3 2 5 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 Factotem 1 1 FunkMonk 5 3 8 Gerda Arendt 3 3 Giants2008 1 2 3 Gog the Mild 1 1 Graham Beards 2 1 3 Hawkeye7 3 1 4 Hoppyh 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 2 Indrian 1 1 Indy beetle 1 1 Ivan VA 1 1 J Milburn 1 1 2 Jehochman 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Jimfbleak 2 2 Jmar67 1 1 John 1 1 Johnbod 2 1 3 Jo-Jo Eumerus 7 7 Kaiser matias 1 1 2 KJP1 4 4 Laser brain 1 1 Lee Vilenski 1 1 Lusotitan 1 1 Maile66 1 1 MaranoFan 1 1 MarchOrDie 2 2 Midnightblueowl 1 1 Mike Christie 2 2 Moisejp 1 1 2 Moxy 1 1 Mr rnddude 3 3 6 Nick-D 1 1 1 3 Nikkimaria 3 20 23 PaleoGeekSquared 1 1 Peacemaker67 2 2 ProtoDrake 1 1 Renerpho 1 1 RL0919 1 1 SchroCat 1 2 1 4 Sergecross73 1 1 Serial Number 54129 1 1 2 SlimVirgin 1 2 3 Smerus 1 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 3 4 Theramin 1 1 Tim riley 5 5 Tintor2 1 1 Tkbrett 1 1 Tony1 1 2 6 9 Urselius 1 1 Usernameunique 3 1 4 Vami IV 2 2 Victoriaearle 1 1 Wehwalt 2 1 3 Grand Total 14 86 91 1 192

WT:TFA#WT:Today's featured article/January 2019

Just a ping. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot error report

00:05:30 Fri 28 Dec 2018 WARNING: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive1 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Actioned -- tks Hawkeye/FACbot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

00:05:28 Mon 07 Jan 2019 WARNING: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phuraloung/archive1 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Actioned -- tks Hawkeye/FACbot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

FAC archive sizes by month from April 2004 to December 2018

On the right is a stacked area graph showing the size in kB of the monthly en-wiki FAC archives for both archived and promoted FACs. Data is drawn from the pages listed at the featured log and the archived log. The green is the size of the archived (not promoted) pages, and the purple is the size of the promoted pages, determined by using Dr. pda's script.

Two caveats:

• Any restarted FAC will only include the second iteration of the FAC
• Talk pages of the individual FACs are excluded. Most FAC talk pages are empty, but there have been periods when some material was occasionally moved to the talk page.

I don't think either of these materially affects the results.

This implies that the decline in reviewer activity is real but less than would be implied by the raw promotion/archive numbers. Fewer reviewers are active now, working on fewer articles, but they are putting more effort into each review.

The second graph shows the average size in kB of the individual FAC pages for both archived and promoted FACs -- the number is calculated by dividing the archive size for that month by the number of FACs that month. It seems that the big jump happened in mid-2008, and FACs have been getting gradually bigger since then. The later data is a bit more erratic, probably because there are fewer FACs, which magnifies the normal statistical variation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify your caveat, did you mean this instead: Any restarted FAC will only include the most recent iteration of the FAC

I think this is really interesting data, since pre-2008 FACs seem to be considered lower quality than more recent FACs. Kees08 (Talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if a FAC is restarted more than once, only the text of the last iteration is included in the size. Here is an example from 2011; that's the text that would be included in the size count, and the link added by Sandy near that top of that review takes you to the first iteration, which is not included. So far I have data back to mid-2010, and I've not yet found a review with more than two iterations.

I don't know if the improvement in FAC standards happened in 2008 exactly, but it was about then. Certainly things improved between 2006 and 2009. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

For pretty graphs purposes, you could probably smooth the data out by using years instead of months. Would be easy to generate graphs for that, if you feel like it (and keep the month graphs too, obviously). Kees08 (Talk) 20:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That, or perhaps a rolling three month average, which would retain a bit more granularity. I'll try to post the raw data to a table in my userspace some time this week so others can access it if interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Now done: here. This contains all the data I have so far back to 2011; I'll add each year as I complete it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I have my own opinions on the underlying causations, but they are of course unprovable. Thanks as always Mike for providing this data. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A way to increase reviews

I now have enough FAC reviewing data to test an idea I had a few years ago. In February 2015, I think because of a conversation on this page, I started tracking on my user page all the reviews I did (here), listed against the FACs I nominated. I set a goal of six reviews per FAC, since it appeared back then that there if everyone contributed six, that would get every nomination a full review. I increased my target to eight reviews per FAC in February 2017.

Here are the total FACs I nominated and reviewed in the relevant time periods. "R/N" is the average number of reviews I did per nomination in that time period.

Dates	Nominated	Reviewed	R/N
Oct 2010 to January 2015	18	121	6.7
February 2015 to January 2017	9	85	9.4
February 2017 to January 2019	8	79	9.9

I am quite sure the increase is because I was keeping track -- it prevented me from shirking without realizing it. If all the regulars here were to keep track of how many reviews they are doing per nomination (and perhaps some already are), I suspect we would get more reviews as a result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Do you get involved in peer reviews as well, or just FAC reviews? (I know—even if I combined the total of both for me—I wouldn't match your level of reviews, so kudos to you for such a good balance). PR as a pre-FAC step can be more time consuming than FAC, as there are more rough edges to rub off and more polishing needed. Still, it's a good habit to get into, to try and keep up reviewing levels in either forum, to keep a balance which is beneficial for turnover here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to just try to produce at least 1–3 reviews for whatever content audit category I'm nominating—FA, GA, PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat: I have put articles into PR a handful of times, and my reviewing ratio there is not as good as it is for FAC. I think if anyone does start tracking their contributions, it would be reasonable to combine their peer reviews with their FAC reviews, so long as they include PR on their own articles on the other side of the ratio, along with their own FAC nominations. I think the key is to encourage people to give slightly more than they get: since some (new nominators etc.) won't do that, others can take up the slack if they're willing.

DWF, I think anything above 1 is a good ratio for GA, but since FACs take multiple reviews to be promoted/archived, a ratio of three would be a net drain on FAC resources. I should be able to post some numbers this week for average number of reviews it takes per nomination, by year. Whatever that number is, I think all the old-timers here should consider trying to exceed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The table below shows the number of reviews per FAC, on average, including both archived and promoted FACs, for the last eight years. I don't have the exact 2010 numbers yet, but it looks like it will be between 7 and 8. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Year	Reviews per FAC
2011	7.3
2012	6.5
2013	5.4
2014	6.4
2015	5.8
2016	5.7
2017	6.3
2018	6.0

• I suspect the average for promoted will be higher - only one or two Opposes based on extensive problems is enough to have an article pulled early, which will drag down the average - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, I suspect the word count per FAC will have escalated significantly (my guess would be a sharp rise up till abt 2012 and maybe a gentler one or plateau since then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Gah! just saw pervious thread (facepalm) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

FAC is dying on its feet

This is a cry from the heart. Am I alone in feeling increasingly perplexed and dismayed by the glacial rate at which the FAC process now moves? All dynamism, indeed all life, seems to have departed; well over half of all current nominations are at least a month old, some with scarcely any comment, and many have been on the page for two or even three months. When and how did this state of affairs become acceptable? We seem to be set in a vicious spiral of inactivity: fewer nominations, fewer reviews, fewer promotions (averaging around 16 or 17 a month, or half of what was once considered the healthy norm). Many of the once regular nominators and reviewers seem to have given up and are no longer contributing. I can't understand why nobody seems bothered that what was once the proud flagship of the project, the forum which regularly encouraged the developoment of our best articles, has become such a pale shadow of itself. I wonder if the current "management" even recognises that there is a problem? As things stand, the downward trend seems to be unstoppable: is this the FAC that we want, or is it possible, even now, that some new life and vigour can be reinjected into the process? Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have been saying repeatedly recently that in the absolute final analysis, FAC is by no means a test of article quality. It is at its barest bones a test of reviewer good faith. That is simply because there is no final authority who bears the responsibility of evaluating the merits of Support or Oppose !votes. Despite any surface appearance to the contrary, FAC coordinators do not do that. There is absolutely no final backstop here except collective reviewer good faith. The latter can fail and/or be abused. Therefore, I have a proposal which will have several very beneficial effects: we need to permanently retire the position of FAC coordinator. Bear with me, please. First, if there are no FAC coords, and the current coords retire into the status of ordinary reviewers, we automatically gain a set of experienced reviewers. That is an immediate and significant benefit. Second, my suggestion will remove the murky patina of "test of quality" that FAC currently (and undeservedly) enjoys and foreground FACs true nature of "test of good faith". The way to do this is to unbundle everything the coords do and relocate it elsewhere. AFAIK, coords have 4 jobs: closing FACs, determining (alleged) !Consensus, workaday adminnish moving archives around etc., and discounting fanboy !MeToo !vote stuffing. [I am not referring Me Too movement]. All can be done by some mechanism other than a FAC coordinator. I suggest the following: 1) All FACs automatically closed by bot after 21 days inactivity. No one person closes them. Two exceptions: nominator withdrawal, and malformed FACs. These can be closed by placing a template requesting bot closure. 2) Draw up a list of as many as possible "Trusted Reviewers" (TR) who can determine !Consensus (I no longer refer to Consensus without a bang prefix). That even includes involved editors, and even includes the nominator, if she or he is on the TR list. TR list could be determined here at WT:FAC or could even better could just automatically be extended to anyone who has meaningfully participated in... maybe 20 FAC reviews (?). The test of good faith becomes extremely explicit here. No TR can call !Consensus until after bot closure, but any TR can do it. That TR (again!) does not evaluate the merits of +O or +S, but can discount all !votes which show little or no engagement with the content of the FAC (saying "I did this in WP:PR or A-review" can also count as engagement). That takes care of everything but workaday adminnish tasks. If we need more admins, send TRs to WP:RFA explicitly reuqesting single-purpose admin status.... The only probelem here is that it seems like the gaming might increase. And maybe it would, initially. But let's say a nominator tries to keep a FAC open past the 21-day deadline by tweaking punctuation etc when the deadline draws near. Just let 'em play. Ignore them. If they go on past 30 days, they will probably get tired of it. If not, then someone can scold them. NBD. Another gaming opportunity could occur if the nominator calls !Consensus Promote on a FAC that has 4 +S and 3 +O or something. Then we discuss, either here at WT:FAC or at a new forum analogous to WP:GAR. Eventually the (small) FAC community will win out, especially after perhaps an initial transition period... This whole scheme might seem to make things more chaotic, but I doubt things will be as terrible as may be feared. I think we can handle it. Plus it explicitly distributes reponsibility to all reviewers, making the test of good faith very open and explicit instead of hidden and implicit. It is simply a more honest system. It also, as stated before, frees current coords to be completely active reviewers.
• I would really love to get a system where someone does have final authority to bear the responsibility of evaluating the merits of Support or Oppose !votes, but that would be professional, and we ain't professional, nor even close, and we ain't ever gonna be professional, nor even close, and that's the way we are gonna stay.Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem seems to be lack of reviewers rather than any one mechanism, and since editor loss appears to be a Wikipedia-wide problem, I guess there's not much we can do about it. I doubt changing anything related to the process itself would attract more reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts echo FunkMonk's. It has gotten quieter in the past few weeks. Maybe busy in IRL in the lead up to Xmas. I had noticed some new faces. I have been really busy IRL I know that. I worry about trusted reviewers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm loath to be too emphatic, only watching FAC from a bit of a distance over the last decade… But to me, FAC has become a shadow of its former self and I attribute it to the lack of strong and opinionated leadership. Once upon a time Raul654 (as Director) made those calls that Lingzhi refers to, and, when I last participated in the process for real, SandyGeorgia and the other coords acted with similar delegated authority. The result was a process that was opinionated and, certainly, flawed, but one that was motivating for both reviewers and nominators, and that produced a lot of very high quality articles. We can't recreate the Golden Age of FAC, but perhaps we can at least learn from what worked then? In every little controversy that has surfaced lately, I have felt that a stronger hand from the coords would have prevented or ameliorated it; and been frustrated that the coord role now appears to be mostly a secretary with no independent mandate. There are risks and problems with establishing a local "dictatorship" for FAC, but it also has a lot of benefits that pretty much mirror the drawbacks of the status quo. And as history has proven, there are safety valves if the community around FAC for whatever reason feel the benevolent dictator has strayed. --Xover (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: And just to be clear: that is in no way shape or form intended to be a criticism of the current coords. So far as I can tell they are acting entirely in line with what they perceive their mandate from the community to be, and are doing a good job within those limits. My complaint, such as it is, is regarding what that mandate is, and what the current conception of the FAC process is. And it is entirely possible that I'm just nostalgic for a "Golden Age of FAC" that never existed. I have no blueprint or solution; I just want a discussion, and Brian's post gave me the opportunity to express my point of view as one input to such a discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all those thoughtful comments... A lot more articles were promoted a decade ago, but if I look at the promoted versions of some of my own successful noms from back then, I cringe a bit -- workaday prose, unattributed quotes, dubious image licensing -- yet the community at the time (and I of course) considered them entirely FA-worthy. Over the years I've improved most of them because I didn't want my name associated with them as they once were. So while some may disagree, I believe the standards are higher now than they were then, just using my own articles as a yardstick. There may be differing interpretations of the coords' role and mandate, but I don't think anyone wants us to compromise standards for the sake of more promotions (and I'm not saying at all that you're suggesting that). The corollary is that, with fewer reviewers, it takes longer to get the comprehensive commentary needed to comfortably determine not just that there's consensus to promote but that the supporting reviews have been reasonably in-depth. Also on the subject of the coords' mandate, I acknowledge your point: "In every little controversy that has surfaced lately, I have felt that a stronger hand from the coords would have prevented or ameliorated it" -- there have certainly been a couple of instances where, looking back, we should have been in there trying to hose things down sooner. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: By 2007–08, as I recall it, the standards were getting a lot better; but prior to that there were a lot of gaping holes, certainly. And there's no doubt the Wikipedia community's standards in general has risen significantly, partly as a result of the standards at FAC (and to the chagrin of some prolific early editors: having to use inline citations at all fell heavy on the heart of some, and more than one per paragraph an absolute travesty!). However, along the way we also lost the "brilliant prose" criteria. And on that one I disagree that the bar has been raised. "Brilliant prose", nebulous and problematic as it is, attracted passionate reviewers and inspired passion in nominators. Granted, not everyone were lucky enough to recruit the help of copy-editors like Awadewit and Qp10qp as we were, but it was a clear goal to reach for.

The FAC process as it stands now seems to me—and, again, caveat, this just my subjective and limited perspective—far more mechanistic and bloodless. Not that the blood doesn't run a mite hot at times on individual nominations, but the focus in aggregate seems to be more on technical (image licensing, ref formatting) and procedural issues ("Why was my nom archived?") than in previous years. And that is, I think, a systemic issue pertaining to the goal of FAC and the role of the coords. Cont'd in my reply to LB below. --Xover (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks for the thoughts. I've been active in this space for a long time, first as a reviewer, then working as a delegate with Sandy and Karanacs, then working as a coord with Ian, Graham, and Sarastro over the years. The culture was markedly different in each era. I think your read on the current climate is correct—the changes I've seen mandates for are limited to swifter archiving and more proactive hatting of off-topic remarks when things get heated. --Laser brain (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I concur, and cf. my reply to IB above. Brianboulton is concerned that nominations take too long and requests biweekly archival passes, and Iridescent and Ealdgyth are concerned with TFA scheduling (in this thread; not speaking to in general!). Both of which are worth discussing, but both are also fairly technical and procedural issues. Meanwhile the perennial bugaboo of too few nominations and too few reviewers has merit: it's just that the mechanical and procedural stuff doesn't really address that. It removes some speedbumps, certainly, but it does little to entice fresh blood. For that you need that passion that isn't engaged by checking boxes: there needs to be something more. Among the complaints during previous watershed changes at FAC (in particular surrounding the "brillian prose" criteria) was its subjectivity (often framed as "arbitrariness"), cliques and quid pro quo (the in-crowd get easy supports and easy promotion), and a cabal of reviewers that impose their own standards at FAC (implicitly, that they do so in contravention of wider community consensus: cf. the periodic spats with the MoS community). And a criteria so inherently subjective is certainly apt to create such issues. But guess what: I still meet that attitude towards FAC even though 1a was nerfed and the process rectangularized.

I'm a strong believer in FAC as the single most important mechanism to produce high-quality articles; and as our breadth (major areas of knowledge covered) and depth of articles (detailed knowledge within each area) each approaches saturation and diminishing returns, the quality of our coverage only becomes more pressing. In that context, FAC is critical to the continued success of Wikipedia.

To achieve that I think we need to shift the focus away from the mechanical, technical, and procedural. Not by abandoning these aspects by any means, and not necessarily by bringing back the "brillian prose" in 1a. I see FAC as essentially fine, it just needs a slight readjustment of emphasis. Maybe the last few course adjustments have simply over-compensated for the perceived problems? In any case, I think the first step that's needed is to give the coords a clearer and stronger mandate; both to ride herd on nominations (as, as you note, there is already some movement towards) and to excercise individual judgement. I think the mandate from the community needs to be even stronger and more extensive. And I think we need something like "brillian prose" in 1a to harness the passion and bring out that creative spark that I see as the biggest driving force to write featured quality articles, and, by extension, to involve oneself in reviewing them.

And while feeding TFA is a fine thing, I see FAC primarily as a tool to encourage improvement in the quality of our articles. That FAs get featured follows from that, not the other way around. I feel like that sometimes gets forgotten in the heat of battle. --Xover (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Mike, do the stats reflect a longer term decline, or is a seasonal one a possibility, or is the picture more complex than that? Woulmd you be able to have a look with this in mind? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• My thoughts are aligned with FunkMonk and Cas. FAC suffers from a systemic issue that mirrors the rest of the project... anything that requires substantive participation has gone wanting for a few years now. Go over to AfD where seemingly simple posts are relisted over and over for lack of participation, etc. Participation also waxes and wanes with how busy people are. I've been busier than normal recently to be sure. It's true that some folks get burnt out or have poor experiences and end up walking away, but that's true of any volunteer org. I'd welcome proposals to make the process leaner without sacrificing rigor. --Laser brain (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I was OK with what you said until you used the word "rigor", which is laughable.Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the main problem is the lack of reviewers (the same problems occur at GAN and PeerReview). I think that the importance of reviewers is underestimated. Declining reviewing activity has very negative consequences for both article quality, author skills, and author motivation, and may lead to a downwards spiral affecting the whole project. We need to do a better job in advertising reviewing, getting people from outside of the project (i.e., our readers): Lets place a note directly on each article (not only on the discussion page) that is currently under review, strongly encouraging everybody to participate in the discussions. Reviewers attracted by such banners will likely be unfamiliar with the manual of style, but they can give valuable hints regarding the content and prose, and these are the most time-consuming things to review. Maybe we can try a pilot project to see if there is an effect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Re. placing a note directly on each article currently under review, not simply on the discussion page, that happens already but from memory you need to switch on something under your user preferences to see such banners (if that's the case it was so long ago that I did it that I can't recall where you find the option under your preferences, perhaps someone else does). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Make a bot that editors can sign up to that alerts them whenever a new nomination is made "(User:XYZ has nominated article ABC as an FA, and since you have taken an interest..." or somesuch); that way potential reviewers will ever miss anything of interest that they otherwise might. And it should only be at max a couple of messages a day by the current rate; if it ever gets to the point that the number of messages becomes disruptive, then the problem it was meant to solve...will have been resolved. ——SerialNumber54129 11:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I believe that lack of reviewers at any level is due to the negative response from article nominators to any criticisms or constructive suggestions raised. Article nominators need to respect reviewers comments and take them on board. To help achieve this respect experienced reviewers who regularly give sound and practical advice could be awarded a 'reviewer user right' which would give some indication of the reviewer's competence. Poor reviewers do exist, my last attempt at FAC was an exercise in 'how many times will the dog retrieve the stick' i.e. a suggestion was implemented then another trivial (in my view) suggestion was added. The FAC delegates and process also need to be respected, have lost count how many times I read on here 'why was my nomination archived'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that last sentence a sign of a communications problem rather than an indication of lack of respect?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with Wehwalt here. Someone questioning the action of a coordinator is simply inquiry and indicates lack of communication at its worst. I've been experimenting with "this will be archived soon" type notices and I've seen a drastic reduction in nominator bewilderment when their nomination is archived. --Laser brain (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at one archived FAC and the clarifying note you added is indeed very useful, it should be standard practice. There is still a problem at lower levels (A class, peer review, B class, C class and even stub to start class), I have been 'roasted' by the article 'owner' on more than one occasion! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's long been common practice for the archiving coord to give a rationale when closing and, generally, make some recommendation regarding next steps; the advance notice that a FAC is in danger of being archived soon is, as Laser brain says, a more recent thing and something we could do more of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Per SchroCat's request above, here's a graph back to mid-2011; it seems 2016 was actually the worst year to date. This is the number of FAC nominations (archived plus promoted) by month and year. There does appear to be a small seasonal effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but if the precedent being proposed here passes—which appears likely—I'll certainly refuse to have any further involvement in FAC and will encourage everyone else to likewise withdraw any cooperation. That articles which pass FAC eventually end up on the main page once is something one accepts as an inevitable and manageable consequence of taking an article through FAC; that articles can be rerun five or more years later isn't something I particularly welcome but is something I can live with. Allowing the delegates to re-run TFAs as often as they like, with no time limit between appearances, means that any nomination for FAC is accepting a permanent punishment beating in which at an infinite number of random times in the future the nominator will either be expected to waste four days cleaning up vandalism and replying to an endless stream of comments and complaints, or will unwatch the article and be bombarded with complaints for not maintaining the article in question. Presumably those TFAs that prove popular will be those singled out for re-running, and as a consequence those of us who write high-traffic TFAs will be expected to be regularly forced to interrupt our own work through no fault of our own to clean up messes caused by others, and those articles whose authors are no longer active or no longer monitoring changes will deteriorate at an increased rate, simply because the TFA schedulers want to appease the whims of a moribund project with nine active members. It ultimately makes no difference to the readers whether or not an article has a yellow star in the corner. ‑ Iridescent 12:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll point out that as a TFA scheduluer - it's not that "simply because the TFA schedulers want to appease the whims of a moribund project with nine active members" .. it's because I really prefer to operate from a position of consensus ... I don't want to make this sort of decision by fiat - if there was indeed a huge groundswell of support for running this article a third time (and from folks outside the WP Elements, I'll add), then I'd bow to that consensus. That's one reason why I said I wouldn't opine. Frankly, I've never interpreted the first RfC that allowed reruns as meaning that we should be actively looking for articles to rerun. I don't think I've actually scheduled one during my months I'm set to schedule. I will rerun one if it's requested, otherwise, I try to schedule new. That's the consensus I saw in the RfC - occasional exceptions IF 5 years had passed, but not something we should be doing often. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This thread was started in order to provoke discussion about the failings of the FAC process, not to discuss aspects of TFA policy. That issue should be confined to its own thread. Otherwise, diagrams simply reinforce what we already know about the falling-off in FAC activity, and citing the shortage of reviewers as the source of all problems is merely the complacent fallback position. I was hoping that discusion would address issues such as: does the process need to be so impossibly prolonged? For example, could coordinators' promotion and archiving passes be regularised, at say twice a week, rather than the present ad hoc bits and pieces approach? Should there be a standard cut-off point, maybe four weeks, whereby other than in exceptional cases candidates that are not close to promotion are automatically archived? I am not seeking far-reaching structural changes in a process that has served us well in the past, more a change of attitude and approach, but the introduction of even a few mechanical procedures such as these might begin to introduce a sense of purpose that is largely missing at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Tks for clarifying, Brian. Firstly, yes, there are more older noms around at the moment than I would like. Like Andy, I'll plead a heavy RL workload in the run-up to the Christmas break for not knocking off more of them. That's over now and I'd expect more regular passes in future. As to arbitrary cut-off, that comes up as regularly as the fewer reviewers argument, and I've yet to see consensus within the community for that. Back on the question of reviewer participation, it's not simply the numbers and depth of reviews that help determine consensus, it's declaring a position, and declaring it early. We could certainly do with more early opposes to under-prepared noms, to help us take them out of the list until they are really FAC-ready. Just throw us a bone -- the last nom I archived early didn't even include a formal recommendation for withdrawal, only an oppose on fundamental referencing grounds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting points, Brian. I think I saw recently that the “average” FAC takes c.6–8 weeks to clear the process. If a well-prepared article that has gone through a good PR is posted, what do you think should be the optimal/average/ideal time it should spend at FAC? Maybe if we work back from the time it takes a “perfect” article to clear FAC, we may be able to see when the ‘best of the worst should be cut off to return later?

I understand that I’ve posed largely hypothetical questions, but if we can look at the difference between those that just make the grade and those that just don’t, we may be able to work out an optimal timeframe of the optimal number of “solid” reviews that make the difference, as long as some reviewers have not set out to sink a review for other reasons? - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A way of measuring that might be to look at how long it takes for articles which have first been assessed as A-class through a Wikiproject to pass at FAC. The Military History Wikiproject's A-class criteria are deliberately set at near the FA criteria, and articles which pass them have a very high success rate at FAC. I know I bang this drum a bit, but IMO part of the solution to the issues at FAC is having much wider availability of A-class processes: they really are helpful in preparing articles for FAC, and weed out those which need more work. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This process seems broken. Jehochman ^Talk 03:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue is simply lack of (experienced) reviewers. On my 5 FACs it took over a month and once several months, the reviews were high quality but there were only a few of them and I noticed that two people that I've worked with elsewhere (and sometimes summoned for pre-FAC review) did review each of these 5. One could say that there were 8-9 reviewers for 5 FACs. So I think we need more reviewers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding complacent:

• If participation in Wikipedia is generally in decline, then doesn't it stand to reason that articles will spend longer at FAC due to lack of reviewers?
• If that's the case, then it seems to me that imposing a time limit on FAC is a case of treating the symptom rather than the problem;
• A time limit would result in candidates being archived, not because they do not reach the requisite standard, but simply because of a lack of reviewers. This does not seem fair; there's no recourse except to nominate again, but if the candidate did not attract reviews the first time round, will it fare any better the next time round?
• It seems to me that candidates that are genuinely close to FAC standards should be allowed as much time as necessary to determine whether they deserve promotion, whether that's weeks or months, but...
• ...moving away from a culture of FAC-as-final-fix-up-service (demonstrated by candidates with long lists of suggested improvements) and being less tolerant of issues might constrain FAC to a leaner, more manageable process. Speedy archival of candidates that require more than the very lightest of polishing might keep the list short and focus the attention of the limited pool of reviewers on articles which, if they don't already meet the standard, are very close indeed;
• I would also support giving the co-ords a stronger mandate on policing behaviour at FAC. Enforcing civility more strictly would, I think, foster an environment that might encourage greater participation from reviewers who may be nervous about the drama an oppose can sometimes attract. Factotem (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that "FAC-as-final-fix-up-service" is a major issue at this time? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The syndrome of FAC-as-final-fix-up-service relates to what I said above about noms still attracting commentary but not gaining declarations of support or opposition. This effectively turns some noms into Peer Reviews -- lots of helpful give-and-take on coverage and organisation and potential sources but it should have been largely resolved before FAC. Now I don't have a hard-and-fast rule about archiving in this situation. Generally the more accessible or well-known the subject, the more I think it's likely to benefit from PR. More obscure or specialised subjects will probably be hard-pressed to get attention anywhere, but they still deserve their chance at the bronze star if they generally meet the criteria. Given that PR can be a bit of a graveyard, I feel some sympathy for editors who might think the only way they'll get commentary is to come to FAC, but it does happen quite frequently and it's not what FAC was designed for. As Nick-D indicates above, those of us in projects with A-Class review processes are in a fortunate position because we can put our articles through a community assessment that's also generally more stress-free than FAC, and better patronised than PR. The bottom line is that the more eyes an article has on it before FAC, the better, and it'd help if more editors sought out commentary, formally or informally, before coming to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Giving coords more leeway to "shut down drama" without ALSO requiring them to call win-lose-draw on all and every Oppose Reason is a clear-cut case of not only blaming the victim but also giving even more power to gamers (as if they needed more). Let me speak very slowly and clearly and publicly, though it's considered bad taste : I. Was. Emphatically. and Objectively Shafted. Please feel free to pile and and blame the victim if you wish. But before you do, have the courtesy to actually read the FAC. there was one early point raised that was legitimate, and I worked hard to fix it. After that, bullfeathers. If you have the courtesy to read, start with the discussion of references and Khan. See the large detailed table I took 3 or four hours to make. Use common sense. Many points raised were either peripheral or not actionable. I do not care if people shout me down and calle an asshole. I do not care if people simply silently avert their gaze and move on. Do not judge without reading the entire FAC..Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• In my experience, well-prepared articles by experienced nominators who also do their share of reviewing tend to progress well, whereas articles that need significant work tend to linger. There are inevitable exceptions to this, especially for length or technical articles that can be heavy going if it's not a subject you're particularly interested in. For example, Spaghetti House siege is looking ripe for promotion after 11 days, whereas WAVES has had extensive commentary on prose flaws. AirTrain JFK has been open for nearly seven weeks and was lacking feedback; when I picked it up, I opposed—had I or another reviewer raised those concerns earlier, the FAC might have been over and done with by now. I'll admit I looked at it a week earlier and decided against commenting at first because I don't like opposing FACs (although in this case, I hasten to add, the nominator is keen and responsive). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that's mostly a side-effect of the declining utility of peer review. More articles that could have been improved or shooed away as not ready at that stage end up here instead, artificially inflating the sense of overwhelming numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Perhaps it's because I've been actively discouraging everyone I can from reviewing. Tony (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You should certainly keep telling yourself that. ——SerialNumber54129 10:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

One-nom-at-a-time instruction

• My thoughts:
  1. I have no objections to articles with long lists of proposed changes that would take more than two weeks to resolve being archived. However, some agendum items are quickly resolved while others can take longer. The length of the issue list does not necessarily mean that the article is not FAC-worthy.
  2. By the same token, I would have no objection to some of the articles on the current queue being summarily promoted forthwith.
  3. Occasionally we get issues that are really just personal preference about how an article should look. There is more than one way to present the same information, and these views need to be discounted. I had one where a reviewer wanted a completely different article to be written. Not something that can be done.
  4. Featured articles should remain front page worthy or be delisted by FAR. Appearance on the front page is the ultimate discipline of FAC. You don't usually get much feedback though.
  5. The long time that it takes articles to get through makes the one-at-a-time rule particularly odious. It forces us to game the system.
• Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd be open to removing that rule. I can recall maybe one time I ever refused someone's request for an exemption, and it was because that person already had an open nomination that was very active and using lots of reviewer resources. --Laser brain (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Having a queue of too many FAC-ready articles is an unusual (but good!) problem to have, so removing or relaxing the rule seems sensible. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

My current problem is Kees08 and I are trying to get the Apollo 11 articles TFA-ready by July 2019. Neil Armstrong is already Featured, Apollo 11 is currently at FAC, and Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins are at MilHist A class. Time is very short. The last two are a long way from being promoted, but working backwards from the TFA schedule, an article has to pass FAC at least two months beforehand. The two articles at A-class therefore need to be at FAC by February due to the three-month FAC review time, and we can't co-nom them under the one-at-a time rules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You can nominate them as they're ready. --Laser brain (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Heh, before we get too carried away, if I recall correctly this rule would've been brought in for similar reasons to the two-week waiting period following a nom being archived, i.e. to reduce the number of under-prepared noms chewing up valuable reviewer (and, dare I say it, coord) time. Speaking as an editor with, like Hawkeye, a backlog of A-Class articles that would probably go though FAC without too much trouble, I'd personally be happy to see the one-at-a-time rule relaxed; apart from anything else, it would almost certainly have the happy effect of increasing the number of articles promoted each month. My view as a reviewer and a coord is obviously somewhat different. Now I'd prefer that experienced editors with a track record of nominating FAC-ready articles were not penalised by the one-at-a-time rule, but have we considered how we'd exercise judgement on that? I'm pretty sure it was an RFC that brought this rule in -- I'd expect an RFC to remove or significantly change it as well. OTOH, the coords have, as Andy says, always had discretion to give nominators whose FACs are clearly getting close to promotion leave to open a new one and, again as Andy notes, such requests are rarely refused. I'd say more of our experienced editors could be making use of this without necessitating any change to the current instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

While self interest would demand that I support removing the one-at-a-time rule, I wonder if we might end up creating a huge FAC backlog by letting people file arbitrarily many FACs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, though it would seem to make sense in theory, if the main problem we have at FAC is lack of reviewers rather than ill-prepared nominations, as I suspect, it will do more harm than good if we allow multiple nominations by the same editors. In any case, it will skew the nomination/reviewer ratio dramatically, and little will be gained in regard to waiting time. FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Would support relaxing the rule on a case by case by basis...increasing coord discretion. I dont have a backlog myself, but it seems that those who do come to the process well prepared, and also give back, ie hold their own weight wrt to the nom/review ratio. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Co-nomming allows two at a time - which I think is a Good Thing as anything promoting collaborative editing is good and makes for more hands dealing with issues that arise at FAC and quicker responses and hopefully a smoother FAC. Self-interest wants the rule relaxed of course but I can see the flip side too. The coordinators have also been good in allowing a second sole nomination if asked and it seems clear that nom #1 is on its way to passing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

TFA as motivator

A different angle: does WP:TFA help participation at FAC, hurt it, or neither? - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Some editors have stated their dislike of having the articles they nominated run at TFA, but others seek it out. On balance my guess is that it motivates more than it dissuades. --RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't make much of a difference to me anymore, though it was a bit thrilling the few first times, and still seems to motivate some first time nominators (Balfour Declaration was expanded with a TFA date in mind by a first time nominator, for example). FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RL0919 and FunkMonk both mirror my thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it really varies. I've gotten good feedback from TFA, and old FAs from the misty forgotten times of 2007 and 2008 going up on the main page is a nice deadline to war on for improving articles to better standards, incorporating that new source I've been putting off, but at the same time it's never fun having to relitigate old discussions about content or having driveby vandalism you have to clean up while trying to evaluate and protect useful changes. Overall though, it's not something that's ever really been a consideration of mine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I rather like it - it's good seeing an article you took the lead with on the main page on one of the world's most popular websites. Aside from the ego boost, it's satisfying to encourage other people to learn about a topic you find fascinating. The vandalism is usually painful, but I find that there's also typically lots of quality edits which strengthen the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 8 was improved back to FA standards because of TFA. I was putting it off until I finally had a good reason to put the work in. Kees08 (Talk) 00:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes yes - some things I write about I'd really like on the mainpage, others I am indifferent about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

If anyone has a little time on their hands...

As we know, technical articles sometimes struggle to get attention at FAC. There is currently one open here, which is on the urgent list, which needs a few eyes. We actually have got comments about the technical side of it, so it would be good to have a couple more reviews looking at how it reads to the general reader, and for prose etc. Thanks, Sarastro (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like three people heeded the call for this so far. Do you suspect more will be needed? Kees08 (Talk) 07:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to have too many reviews. Sarastro (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, kind of, to take it to an extreme if we have 100 total reviews we would not want to have all 100 of them on Planar transmission line, we would want them spread out on other articles at FAC. I try to review articles that do not have a sufficient number of reviews to pass FAC. It seems like if everyone supports it that is reviewing it, there would be a sufficient number of reviews and I could spend my time on a different article instead. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A-class and FAC

As many of you know, the Military History project operates its own internal A-class review system, and I think a couple of other wikiprojects have a similar setup, and many of the articles that come through A-class are destined for FAC. Some of us use it as preparation for FAC because the criteria are deliberately set close to the FA criteria. If I review an article at A-class and believe it to be of featured quality, is it helpful if I leave a one-line comment to that effect on the FAC (perhaps linking to my ACR review to show that I've thoroughly scrutinised the article), or are the coordinators more interested in generating fresh commentary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've wondered this too. In the past, it has been given almost the same weight in my experience, but at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington State Route 522/archive1 those supports don't seem to have counted for much. --Rschen7754 19:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I would think it was helpful, but I am not an FAC coordinator. Also, the article may have been edited and altered between A-class review and FAC, so clarifying current satisfaction would be prudent (if one was still happy with it) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess the only question would be how rigorous the MILHIST process actually is. Since it presumably draws its participants from a smaller pool of editors, many of whom may share particular points of view, is it possible that some things that would raise questions at FAC would be overlooked? This is a genuine question BTW, I haven't looked at the A class process over there at all so perhaps it's fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, A-class is very useful and if someone linked to their A-class review (as long as it was a recent review of an article that hadn't changed too much), I would always check; in this way it is no different to linking to a peer review or to comments on a talk page made in preparation for FAC. Certainly a "Support based on A-class review" (with a link to the review) would not be classed as a drive-by support. We would usually look at an A-class review to see if any issues arose, or even to look for more evidence that an article met the criteria. The only two qualifications: first, the comments at the review must be able to be applied to the FA criteria (e.g. discussing sourcing, prose, etc). The other slight concern is that at FAC we need a broad range of reviews, not just from members of a particular project; we must always consider the general reader so having only reviews from members of Military History or Highways would not really give us enough different viewpoints. Hence with the Washington State Route 522 we had two supports based on the A class review, but perhaps needed some non-highways reviews as well. Hope this helps. Sarastro (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Echo Sarastro -- A-Class Reviews, like PRs, are generally very helpful, but we want to see a mix of commentary from lay readers as well as those familiar with the subject matter, to properly vet comprehensiveness and accessibility. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Image/Source check requests

Not that I'm seeking to push mine to the top of the pile!, but I think this needs updating. The first has a Source check in train and the second's been promoted. Happy to update it myself if that's allowed. KJP1 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley - Ours has now been picked up so I've removed it. KJP1 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

KJP1 that ping won't work. Failed pings need to be put in a new line and with a new signature or they won't fire. Tim riley, someone's attempted to ping you. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, and for tidying the request list. I'm sure I'd read that somewhere else, but can't remember where. KJP1 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Review now done, so you can put a green baize cloth over KJ's cage. Tim riley talk 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I nominate a featured article?

Jeff Loveland 1970 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, and the section near the top headed "Nomination procedure". - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11

@FAC coordinators: As described above, we are trying to get the articles on the Apollo 11 crew ready for the 50th anniversary in July 2019. Buzz Aldrin has now been promoted to A-class, and Michael Collins (astronaut) will follow shortly. Unfortunately, we have a couple of roadblocks.

• My last FAC nomination, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polaris (UK nuclear programme)/archive1 was archived on 17 January, and the rule is that None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. That would be 1 February (Friday). If leave could be issued to nominate it immediately, that would be appreciated.

• Furthermore. my co-nominator, Kees08 currently has one article at FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger B. Chaffee/archive1. While we can co-nominate Buzz Aldrin, to co-nominate Michael Collins when it is ready would require Chaffee to be withdrawn. Kees08 is willing to so so, but then we'd be into an enforced two-week wait. I could nominate it by myself, but would prefer to co-nominate it in view of the amount of work he has put into the article. Thus, I am asking for a second fiat for Michael Collins. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

In case it is needed, that is indeed my view. I expected Collins' article to take significantly longer than it did, which is why I thought I could sneak Chaffee through. I will give him another try in a couple of months, after these clear. Kees08 (Talk) 21:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as a bystander, given the 50th anniversary that is coming up, I think this is exactly the sort of situation in which leave should be given. I don't think Kees08 should be required to withdraw Roger B. Chaffee. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As another bystander, I agree with Mike. I see no reason a nominator should be compelled to withdraw a well-prepared nomination in order to nominate another article in time for a major anniversary. The reasons for the failure of Polaris don't really have any bearing on the Apollo 11 series, so the only possible problem is that Hawkeye and Kees can't keep up with all their concurrent reviews but both are experienced writers and nominators. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The rules on FAC nomination limits certainly make sense, but this is a very good time to honour one of our five pillars and ignore those rules.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: We are fine with both of your requests for leave. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I will nominate Buzz now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Kees08 (Talk) 01:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins has passed A-class now, so nominating it too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for January

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for January. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers for January 2019

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Image Source Content Total Nikkimaria 17 5 2 24 Casliber 1 9 10 Peacemaker67 2 6 8 Tim riley 8 8 Ceoil 2 5 7 Serial Number 54129 1 6 7 Sturmvogel 66 3 2 2 7 Jens Lallensack 7 7 FunkMonk 1 5 6 MarchOrDie 6 6 Buidhe 5 1 6 Sarastro1 1 5 6 Jo-Jo Eumerus 3 2 5 SchroCat 4 4 Hawkeye7 2 2 4 Wehwalt 1 3 4 Brianboulton 4 4 Mike Christie 1 3 4 HJ Mitchell 4 4 MaranoFan 3 3 Brandt Luke Zorn 1 1 1 3 Aoba47 3 3 Moisejp 3 3 Usernameunique 1 2 3 Mr rnddude 1 2 3 CPA-5 3 3 KJP1 3 3 JennyOz 3 3 David Fuchs 1 1 2 Rschen7754 1 1 2 Opabinia regalis 2 2 Ian Rose 2 2 Tony1 2 2 J Milburn 2 2 Nick-D 2 2 A. Parrot 1 1 2 Dudley Miles 2 2 Kees08 1 1 2 Squeamish Ossifrage 2 2 Laser brain 2 2 Xover 1 1 2 Giants2008 2 2 Tvx1 1 1 Factotem 1 1 Ro4444 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 The ed17 1 1 Homeostasis07 1 1 Wugapodes 1 1 Cognissonance 1 1 Dweller 1 1 Kosack 1 1 Ss112 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Fitzcarmalan 1 1 Lingzhi2 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Lusotitan 1 1 Ceranthor 1 1 Magiciandude 1 1 Attar-aram syria 1 1 Argento Surfer 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 AmericanAir88 1 1 Gog the Mild 1 1 Favre1fan93 1 1 Damien Linnane 1 1 TheAmazingPeanuts 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Jimfbleak 1 1 IJReid 1 1 ArturSik 1 1 Indopug 1 1 William Harris 1 1 Dough4872 1 1 Ww2censor 1 1 Indy beetle 1 1 Canada Hky 1 1 Maury Markowitz 1 1 Grand Total 32 35 157 224

Supports and opposes for January 2019

# declarations Declaration Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Oppose switched to support Grand Total Nikkimaria 24 24 Casliber 9 1 10 Peacemaker67 6 2 8 Tim riley 8 8 Ceoil 3 4 7 Serial Number 54129 3 4 7 Sturmvogel 66 2 5 7 Jens Lallensack 5 1 1 7 FunkMonk 5 1 6 MarchOrDie 2 3 1 6 Buidhe 1 4 1 6 Sarastro1 3 3 6 Jo-Jo Eumerus 5 5 SchroCat 3 1 4 Hawkeye7 2 2 4 Wehwalt 3 1 4 Brianboulton 4 4 Mike Christie 2 2 4 HJ Mitchell 1 2 1 4 MaranoFan 2 1 3 Brandt Luke Zorn 1 2 3 Aoba47 1 2 3 Moisejp 3 3 Usernameunique 2 1 3 Mr rnddude 1 2 3 CPA-5 3 3 KJP1 3 3 JennyOz 2 1 3 David Fuchs 2 2 Rschen7754 1 1 2 Opabinia regalis 1 1 2 Ian Rose 2 2 Tony1 2 2 J Milburn 1 1 2 Nick-D 1 1 2 A. Parrot 1 1 2 Dudley Miles 1 1 2 Kees08 1 1 2 Squeamish Ossifrage 1 1 2 Laser brain 1 1 2 Xover 2 2 Giants2008 1 1 2 Tvx1 1 1 Factotem 1 1 Ro4444 1 1 Kaiser matias 1 1 The ed17 1 1 Homeostasis07 1 1 Wugapodes 1 1 Cognissonance 1 1 Dweller 1 1 Kosack 1 1 Ss112 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Fitzcarmalan 1 1 Lingzhi2 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Lusotitan 1 1 Ceranthor 1 1 Magiciandude 1 1 Attar-aram syria 1 1 Argento Surfer 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Cplakidas 1 1 AmericanAir88 1 1 Gog the Mild 1 1 Favre1fan93 1 1 Damien Linnane 1 1 TheAmazingPeanuts 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Jimfbleak 1 1 IJReid 1 1 ArturSik 1 1 Indopug 1 1 William Harris 1 1 Dough4872 1 1 Ww2censor 1 1 Indy beetle 1 1 Canada Hky 1 1 Maury Markowitz 1 1 Grand Total 12 120 89 1 2 192

Source-reviewing script recommendation

I know it's been mentioned here before, but I'd like to re-recommend Ling's source reviewing script. It's been significantly improved recently, and can now be turned into a sidebar link. I find it invaluable and strongly recommend it to all editors, regardless of whether you do FAC reviewing or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Citing ebooks without page numbers

I have just run into a problem I never encountered before; while expanding an article with FAC as end goal, some of the books I used as sources were only available to me as ebooks. These don't have page numbers, so I looked at Wikipedia guidelines for how to cite them, and all I got was this: "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title."[1] Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my experience, this wouldn't fly during FAC (where we have to be very specific with page ranges and so on)? What to do then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk - I've used the loc parameter previously to specify a chapter or section where page numbers weren't available. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Where can I see an example of this (not sure I know of that parameter)? The ebook reader I use shows "percentages" for how far I am into the book. Would something like "64%-69%" fly as page ranges? Wouldn't it be nice to have some parameters for the citebook template which account for ebooks (if they don't already exist)? FunkMonk (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

From the FA's I've written: Pyramid of Unas cite 23a-c, 97a and b, and from Pyramid of Neferirkare cite 22, 40a-f, 45, 72 a and b, and 73a-e. In cases where I need to refer to a chapter without page numbers I'll write {{sfn|Verner|2001|loc=Neferefre's Pyramid}}. The p= parameter expects page numbers, so loc= (meaning location) allows for greater flexibility in citing sections of books. Alternatively, if the book gives you percentage marks then all you really need to know is how many pages the book has. E.g. 64-69% of a 250 page book would be pages 160-173. Although I guess you could just use 64-69% with the loc parameter as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Seems the chapter and section parameters could also be used for the same thing then. So it seems to have been acceptable during FAC before. But I have seen many FACs where source reviewers complained about too large page ranges. Wouldn't that apply here to, when citing entire chapters? FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Each "page" in my ebook viewer shows two pages, so I'm not sure if the percentage shown corresponds to a single page. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• What's the difference between a chapter and a page dance of 50 pages? None. No need to ask about this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that if I give a fifty page range, I'll get yelled at by a source reviewer (I've seen the issue come up plenty of times, including on this talk page). Hence this section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is that just because a reviewer complains, doesn't mean they are right. If a reviewer brings it up, you can just explain to them that page numbers weren't provided in the source. There is nothing you can do to overcome that fact. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've used loc in a few of them without complaint too, but used the numerical location provided, rather than the chapter (See the DeVito references in A Christmas Carol) Just make sure you clarify in the biblio that it's a Kindle or ebook edition - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've used Kindle locations quite often, not always to the happiness of reviewers, but we've worked it out. It would be good to have a field in the template that generated "Kindle location(s)" in the references. For an example of a FA that has passed despite using them, see Billy Martin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if there was some way to show that a citation is an ebook, so we won't get the inevitable questions about where the page range is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I used chapter and location in my current nom (Southampton Cenotaph) because I figured the chapter would be more useful to someone who had a print version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

WT:TFA#Blurb reviews

Just a pointer ... I've stopped pinging for the blurb reviews, but reviews are still welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Another RFC affecting the FA process

See Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Unfinished" candidacy removed from talk page

On the talk page for The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí), a current featured article candidate, FACBot recently removed the notice of candidacy, with edit description "Removing unfinished candidacy from talk page." Does anyone know what caused this? I'm not if this was an error, or if I neglected to do something. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: The bot has done the same to several FA candidates whose candidacies are still open. All I can figure is that it's a bot malfunction. A. Parrot (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawkeye7, can you take a look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, A. Parrot and Mike Christie. Just undid the bot's edit. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Working on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. Changes to the Bot runs were mandated by a recent move to a new server. I made a typo (a small 'f' instead of a capital) which confused the Bot. This has been corrected, and the invalid changes have all been reverted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Allison Guyot/1257 Samalas eruption request

Greetings,

at the risk of sounding impatient, I was hoping that the Allison Guyot FAC would be completed this weekend since I have a week holiday and wanted to nominate 1257 Samalas eruption; it's a more complex topic so I'd like to get it going during the holiday. Assuming that Allison isn't entirely ready yet, is it OK to send Samalas to FAC already? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this, where upcoming holidays mean people can just steam though, especially given the Allison Guyot was not plain sailing. Why not wait a week so you can not leave reviewers pile up unanswered. I'm not sure where the bar rests for a request like this lies. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Seen from that perspective, hmmm, maybe not... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

After a bit of thinking, I'll retract this request. I don't know where the bar lies either but it looks like it could become a problematic precedent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, precedent is the issue. Ceoil (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Fact checking

Can anyone tell me who verifies all the sources? I think it is one of the most important parts of reviewing. Suppose an article has 400+ sources, so who takes the responsibility to verify all of them? If a source is already verified, how should I know? Please ping me while answering. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard: Spotchecks of sources are done for new nominators, and intermittently for experienced nominators. Search this recent archive of promoted articles for the word "spotcheck" and you'll see declarations of "spotcheck not done" in the source reviews, and also of spotchecks and their results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My reviews of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planet Nine/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwandan Civil War/archive1 are examples of spot-checks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both of you for your valuable insights. I wish there were toolboxes and bots which could have made the process quicker. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Randum Number Generator is useful to obtain a list of references to spot check, if you go by the "random sample" method. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I usually do spot-checks based on the article itself. Which sources are used most often, and which statements seem like they potentially could either have the greatest possibility of either plagiarizing wording or getting malformed are the ones I focus on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

These are some really valuable lesson! You guys are the ultimate professionals! I wish more people knew about these and were willing to learn. Spot checking is severely underperformed, especially at GAN. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure where you get Spot checking is severely underperformed, especially at GAN from, but if it is from looking at review pages you have to remember that some people (including me) spot check but do not write that they spot checked. I have never reviewed any article without spot checking some of the sources, but typing out that I spotchecked X, Y, or Z would be really tedious so I never do (as a side-note, I would just fix blatant errors during my review, but if I do that I can get chastized because my review looks too short, so I often point them out instead of fixing them). If spotchecking something is required (like first-time nominators), then I will document all that I spotchecked. Is your impression of spotchecking at GAN from looking at reviews, or finding that things in articles do not match up with citations? If it is the former, I might start pasting a blanket statement in my reviews that I spotchecked sources and try to ballpark the percent that I spotchecked. Kees08 (Talk) 23:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Kees08 no not at all. You can just continue with your style. However, it's just I have seen some editors falsely claiming to have done it (even controversial content of the article). You may say I am assuming bad faith, but I am just trying to have an objective view and minimize mis/disinformation to the readers. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, I was just curious. If there are specific instances you can nominate the article for WP:GAR, and if there is a repeat offender you could try to get them to improve their reviews, and if they fail to improve (and if it is a problem) editing sanctions could come into play. This GA talk is getting a bit off topic from your FA question though, and I got my question answered. Kees08 (Talk) 00:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics for February

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers for February 2019

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Image Source Content Total Nikkimaria 12 6 18 Squeamish Ossifrage 4 5 9 Jens Lallensack 1 8 9 Casliber 1 8 9 FunkMonk 1 7 8 Jo-Jo Eumerus 3 4 1 8 SchroCat 7 7 Mike Christie 2 5 7 Serial Number 54129 6 6 Sturmvogel 66 1 4 5 Tim riley 1 4 5 Jimfbleak 5 5 HJ Mitchell 4 4 Buidhe 2 2 4 Ian Rose 4 4 Kees08 2 1 1 4 Peacemaker67 1 3 4 Brianboulton 2 1 3 Ceoil 3 3 Aa77zz 3 3 Lingzhi 3 3 KJP1 3 3 J Milburn 2 2 Dweller 2 2 Wehwalt 2 2 Gog the Mild 2 2 CPA-5 2 2 Mr rnddude 1 1 2 Sabine's Sunbird 2 2 Aoba47 2 2 Cattivi 1 1 Chiswick Chap 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 Giants2008 1 1 Catslash 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Chetsford 1 1 Usernameunique 1 1 Praemonitus 1 1 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 Mark viking 1 1 Oerjan 1 1 Ebbillings 1 1 Tomruen 1 1 Harrias 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Moriori 1 1 Dudley Miles 1 1 Parsecboy 1 1 IJReid 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 SlimVirgin 1 1 A. Parrot 1 1 Grand Total 21 29 120 170

Supports and opposes for February 2019

# declarations Declaration Editor Oppose Support None Struck oppose Oppose converted to support Struck support Grand Total Nikkimaria 18 18 Squeamish Ossifrage 1 4 3 1 9 Jens Lallensack 1 6 2 9 Casliber 7 2 9 FunkMonk 5 3 8 Jo-Jo Eumerus 8 8 SchroCat 6 1 7 Mike Christie 4 3 7 Serial Number 54129 3 3 6 Sturmvogel 66 4 1 5 Tim riley 4 1 5 Jimfbleak 5 5 HJ Mitchell 3 1 4 Buidhe 4 4 Ian Rose 3 1 4 Kees08 4 4 Peacemaker67 3 1 4 Brianboulton 1 2 3 Ceoil 1 1 1 3 Aa77zz 2 1 3 Lingzhi 1 2 3 KJP1 3 3 J Milburn 1 1 2 Dweller 1 1 2 Wehwalt 2 2 Gog the Mild 2 2 CPA-5 1 1 2 Mr rnddude 2 2 Sabine's Sunbird 2 2 Aoba47 1 1 2 Cattivi 1 1 Chiswick Chap 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 Giants2008 1 1 Catslash 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Chetsford 1 1 Usernameunique 1 1 Praemonitus 1 1 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 Mark viking 1 1 Oerjan 1 1 Ebbillings 1 1 Tomruen 1 1 Harrias 1 1 JennyOz 1 1 Moriori 1 1 Dudley Miles 1 1 Parsecboy 1 1 IJReid 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 SlimVirgin 1 1 A. Parrot 1 1 Grand Total 3 86 78 1 1 1 170