Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Five Go Down to the Sea?

This has been in the date specific que almost since promoted in 22 June 2020,tfa nom for June 18, 2021 here as the band reform each year on the anniversary of singer Finbarr Donnelly's death on 18 June 1989, and it is a big occasion in the city. And now Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 18, 2021. Incredibly disappointing. There is either a competency or process issue here. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There were requests for three popular-music related articles in the same month. I couldn't run all three. The other two at least had the merit of being at opposite ends of the month.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
So the fact that I applied on 4 July 2020, didn't come into it? Or you couldn't have said anything, in each of the last 12 months, until pressed? After the fact? Frankly, this is bullshit. Damn it, as some of the sources shared material based on the main page date. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Scheduled. I guess June is music month, then!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems like very sloppy work from somebody who at one time sought to take full control of the FAC process. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The person responsible for scheduling the main page has to deal with grief like this all the time, because nothing is so important as one person's specific demand for an article on a specific date. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't really cut it and is rather glib. So why do we have a date specific request page, that claims to accommodate request 1-2 years in advance, if nobody making choices actually gives a damn. And worse, no communication is to be expected when not scheduled. It seems, or is patently obvious that the June 2020 request was not even taken into account, or in nice words, even noticed? Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
David Fuchs, do you really want a history lesson about the person responsible for scheduling the main page and their past attempts to take over FAC via stalking horses? Give me a break. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
ps, re your "petulant corner is thataway edit summary. Fuck.you. I made the request 1 year ago, under the understanding that it was part of a process, that people put in trust would honor. If that was too much to expect, and I should shut my mouth, then I have been under a mis-apprehension about wiki all along. Its all tidied aay now, but that indicates hubris and arrogance on those magically handwaving away bad choices. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ceoil: the one page is just a listing of possible future requests. It isn't the requests page itself, but rather a holding area to let others know you may be making a request in the future. Unfortunately, it looks like you never made an actual request on the requests page itself. Imzadi 1979 → 00:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
In that case the page should be marked as...useless. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Remember to stay WP:CIVIL! Wehwalt has the front page on their shoulders. Unrelated, Wehwalt, are there any discrepancies with July 17 being taken or elsewise? Paper Mario is nearing close and coincidentally it has an anniversary coming up. Panini!🥪 14:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, I don't schedule July, just one month in three. Jimfbleak might know. The best thing to do would be to nominate at TFA/R when promoted and mention to Jimfbleak that it is coming. July won't be scheduled until some point in June.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, as you say, I'll start scheduling in the first half of June. I prioritise TFAR, where there are currently 8 date-specific requests, if there's a clash I'll have to make a choice. Next up I'll look at TFARP, and run what's there subject to free dates and the need to get a reasonable balance of topics. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Jimfbleak, Oh, do specific users coordinate specific months? Panini!🥪 15:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Panini!, Yes, Jimfbleak takes the first month of the quarter and I take the third. Since we are short on active coordinators right now, Gog the Mild, who is a FAC coordinator, is helping us out by taking the second month. Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
My first month was May. As part of which I rejected two Potential TFAs from the same nominator, one of which had made it to TFA/R and was well supported. They took this pretty well and have remained civil with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Panini!, your article looks pretty close to closure, but since or twice I've scheduled an article that is still at FAC when I schedule, on the basis that it will pass by the time the next moth starts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
ok, it looks like ye guys are on it, despite my intemperance. Just to note, the date was close to my heart as the guitarist shared a lot of sources, and and old pic, and had kind of lead him to believe they would be on main page on the significant date. Eh, thanks all anyway. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to mention good topics on the front page as well?

When looking into the archives, the only discussion about topics on the main page at all was this, which even then has nothing to do with this query. Anyone down for a quick discussion?

I asked Wehwalt about this at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Paper Mario, and the response began with "As far as I know". It makes me wonder if it would be a good idea to feature good topics as well as featured topics on the front page? Example here. A reasoning for not would probably be "no, because they're only good articles and not of the highest quality possible", which would make sense in a way. However, there's hyperlinks all over the blurb with no gaurantee that they're any better. It would show readers additional articles of good quality that they might be interested in as well. Panini!🥪 13:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I say "As far as I know" because we have run over 5,000 TFAs and I don't pretend to be familiar with everything we've ever done, so I'm cautious in how I put things. The documentation for the TFAFULL template, where we put the mention of the featured topic, only mentions featured topics, and they are all that I've ever (in scheduling, perhaps, 490 articles during my four-year tenure) included. I take no position on the proposal, but if it is successful, the TFAFULL template and maybe others will require modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
"As far as I know" is the only real credible, honest response for a single (over-worked, I now realise) volunteer. IMO, an issue here might be that, given its a "topic", the re-varification process and potential issues on ERRORs could span up to several articles. For good topics, some of the constituent articles could have been promoted years ago and depreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Podokesaurus blurb

Wehwalt, Jimfbleak, Gog the Mild. So I don't know who is in charge of June's TFA, but that June 16 blurb does not look ready to go, as it's about three times the usual length. Apologies if you guys are aware, just leaving a reminder here. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RetiredDuke. I have had a go: 1,025 characters. Perhaps someone could run an eye over it? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down

@TFA coordinators Conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Protect Main Page images manually! KrinkleBot down. Shubinator (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What happens when today's FA is apparently not in a fit condition to be a FA?

See WP:MPE#Today's FA - There are complaints that today's FA, Characters of Carnivàle is not in a fit condition to be a FA, and also that it should not have been promoted in the first place. This is not the first time we've had a FA up which should not have been a FA at the time. The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is another example. At the time it was posted, it was not in a fit condition to be a FA. Something I flagged up at the time. It subsequently went through a FAR and was demoted.

Initially, what I'd like to see happen is this. A "reserve list" of two (2) FAs is created, ready to be used if the situation should ever require a FA to be pulled. Rather than condemning a FA to sit on the reserve list indefinitely, I would suggest that the reserve list is changed on a quarterly basis, say Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct.

Secondly, as part of the TFA selection process, the question that really needs to be asked "is this article still meeting the FA criteria", rather than relying on the fact that it is currently listed as a FA. It may be that the question is asked as part of the process already, but we need to fully probe for the answer, and avoid confirmation bias. The above should not be seen as criticism of those involved in the process, as it's not meant that way. Think of it as an opportunity to ask "how can we seek to improve the process and avoid sub-par articles getting in as today's FA?" Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  • This whole thing was talked to death back in February when Cheadle Hulme ran, despite multiple flaws and despite advanced warning. There was a certain level of indignation that people felt TFA should be a sparkling example of FAs, but as far as I know, the ensuing discussion which took place here came to no conclusion relating to the purpose of TFA. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: - I've had a look at that discussion. I'm not saying today's FA has to be perfect. A few minor errors that only a specialist would notice is fine. What we are taling about here is several major errors which mean the article should really be pulled. Whether or not anything comes of my second suggestion, I really think that my first one should be adopted. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think we need to get to the crux of the TFA matter, what is its purpose? Then if it's to ignore major issues (as happened with Cheadle Hulme) to hope readers step up and fix it, this discussion ends. If it's to promote our best, most FA-compliant material, then the discussion can continue. I struggle to understand why all those heavily involved in TFA/FAC/FAR etc can't define the purpose of TFA. I asked Dank and they said they'd "think about it" but never (as far as I know) came back with any answer. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    TRM, you asked me that after I became inactive as a coord, and scheduling questions were mostly above my pay grade even before I went inactive. But I don't have any idea myself what the criteria are for when to pull a TFA (hopefully well ahead of when it's scheduled), and I've been following the discussion for a while ... if I don't know, then I'm not the only one, and a little clarification would probably be appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    A starting point would be to hold the TFA entry to the same standards that DYK and ITN entries are held to, which we informally regard as the "main page standards" and to pull the TFA if it doesn't meet that. That means most or all statements referenced, decent coverage of the topic, basic MOS compliance, no copyvios, images properly licensed etc. Now I would argue an FA should in fact be well above that level, and we're explicitly advertising this slot as the best we have to offer, but I think it is fair enough to leave it in place as long as it's at least as good as the other areas of the main page. It doesn't seem like we should need an RFC to establish that TFA is subject to main page standards, but maybe we do. And maybe, as TRM says, the "purpose" of TFA is actually not what we think it is?!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    On top of the other two things I mentioned, I also haven't been sleeping well lately, so I'm definitely going to sit this one out. My only advice is: give it some time, and try to engage with Wehwalt, Jim and Gog. People sometimes act as if they're deaf, that's not it ... the problem is (and always has been) overconstrained, and they don't like to do anything until they've had a chance to hear from everyone. Which is smart, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    That's pretty much it as far as I'm concerned and admins at WP:ERRORS aren't really waiting for us before acting. I wish we would be at least pinged. One of us generally writes the blurb, we might have something to contribute to the discussion about wording, after all. Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    You can watchlist ERRORS, just like people can review TFA in advance. Everyone can do better, but the problem is that even then, issues still get through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think the issue with kicking the can down to ERRORS is that then it becomes a bit of a panic, and turns into a "oh no this is on the main page in 5 hours, whatever shall we do!" If there really are issues with a scheduled TFA, this should be discussed long before ERRORS comes into play. ERRORS is more of a "oops we missed that" page from my experience. If stuff gets to ERRORS instead of being caught before, the discussion typically generates much heat and little light because everyone feels rushed and off-guard. Any potential issues should be discussed well before it hits that point to avoid both the feeling rushed and the degree of surprise for everyone involved. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    If articles were looked at five hours in advance of main page running, that would be an improvement on the present system, where the discussion almost invariably takes place on the main page day. And WP:ERRORS (which, of course, I have on my watchlist, and I imagine my colleagues do, too) has become a catch-all venue for errors, but also for things that are not errors, and are not even, perhaps, improvements. It would be useful if there were some consistent effort to look at TFAs and their blurbs well in advance of main page day. I can't even remember the last time the "Day after tomorrow's FA" slot at WP:ERRORS was used.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    By definition, a FA is "one of Wikipedia's best articles". So TFA is there to showcase the best. We should have an "improve this article" section on the MP if we want to showcase articles in need of improvement. TFA is not that. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, that's your opinion on what TFA is there to do. According to a lot of others, that view is not universally shared, as evidenced in the February discussion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think sweeping through and tagging articles a la OTD is an effective way to reduce the risk of these things ending up on the front page in the first place is one thing that one can do, or sweep through and send them to FAR so they can't get erroneously TFAed in the first place. An analogy is that self-help is better than litigation from my experiential observation of how WP works Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that would be a good approach, but that's actually what happened in February to Cheadle Hulme, yet the powers that be decreed it was just fine to run as a TFA with heaps of [citations needed] and other such issues. I guess actually slamming low quality FAs in the TFA queue into FAR is one approach but I'm still waiting to understand what the community believes the purpose of TFA really is. I thought it was an easy-to-answer question but apparently not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, unfortunately even with a lot of tagging on the day before (and I did some tagging myself), Cheadle Hulme was still run, and I agree that when there are obvious "generic" problems such as lack of sourcing, clear unreliable/self-published sources or just chunks missing then it should not have been scheduled or replaced before the day as the hope of driveby improvements is not realistic. I do understand the instability-type arguments about chopping and changing on the day and where the threshold is, but in the meantime protest-by-tagging is the most effective, at least for non-admins/coords who can't make a substitution Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    The Rambling Man, it's not a hard question for me. FA represents a high-quality article, among its requirements is having high-quality reliable sources. If a TFA candidate currently fails to live up to that standard, then it shouldn't be TFA, as TFAs must be an example of an FA. Lower-quality articles are usually on DYK or OTD, though they must also use reliable sources. GeraldWL 16:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    Once again, I agree, but that, apparently, is not what those who control that element of the main page believe. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what's more embarrassing, that this got onto the Main Page in the first place or that - despite the decision to pull it - no one seems to have the stones to get it off the page and there's now a post basically saying "oh, well, it's too late to actually care, so let's just let this stay up the rest of the day and sweep this entire argument under the rug". --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. It's Cheadle Hulme all over again. All editors are equal, some are more equal than others... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If editors want to avoid something like this happening again, I recommend WP:URFA/2020. It's a working group that reviews older articles, fixes them up so they meet the FA criteria and noticing articles for FAR that are far from those standards. Editors can sort by TFA date, which will list the articles that haven't run yet and were promoted over a decade ago. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Cross-posting from WP:ERRORS: we used to have a set of 'emergency' TFAs ready to go for exactly this situation. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/emergency operated from 2011-17 but is now empty. Is it worth reviving? Modest Genius talk 17:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends on what for. "Today's FA isn't good enough" is not an emergency. —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: - that is exactly what I meant with my first suggestion. @Kusma: - Today's FA is only start class is an emergency, and is exactly why we need a standby replacement ready to go. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Has this ever happened? I'm worried that if we have a "spare wheel" TFA around, we'll have a terrible argument about using it every other week, and for articles that are clearly B or better. Any energy going into this would better be invested in prevention by reviewing or fixing old FAs. —Kusma (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
This isn't "Today's B-class or better Article". If the article is demonstrably not featured article quality, it should not go in that slot. I don't care if it is GA even. That's not what the slot is for. --Khajidha (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree it should not go in that slot. I disagree that we should pull it from that slot as an "emergency" on the day. They are scheduled quite a bit in advance, and all the people who want to prevent bad FAs on the main page can check the schedule. —Kusma (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If it shouldn't go in, then it shouldn't get to stay. --Khajidha (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that everyone who is here today should, instead of discussing today's article should go to WP:URFA/2020 and review an article from the past. Right after Cheadle Hulme, the coords posted the next month's articles and we did a review of them. I was hopeful that that was going to be the standard, but c'est la vie. We are all busy people. If we can't clear the URFA backlog, we should, at least, review things month by month that are older than 2010 or so --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

For info, I've proposed an emergency demotion tomorrow at Talk:Characters of Carnivàle#This is not FA quality. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps editors would care to run their eyes over August's TFA schedule, which has been posted for a while. It includes FACs from 2007, 2008 and 2009. Any issues to report? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I am making up a list for the next month or so of what is in the queue and the year it was promoted --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Guerillero, this may give you that information? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Guerillero, you may recall that in addition to posting March 2021 as you mention, I also posted June there well ahead of time. I plan to do so for September. I have a tentative list of September articles but I need to allow people more time to nominate things at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, Wehwalt. I spoke too quickly. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

All, the "in advance" thing is all very well, but as demonstrated, this often doesn't quite work. This is a volunteer projects and sometimes things get overlooked. Nevertheless, the question which needs to be answered is: should "sub-par" FAs be allowed to run at TFA? Regardless of how far in advance they are scheduled, it's evident that problematic articles still get to within inches of the main, or worse, run all day and confuse readers and editors alike who can't quite bottom out what TFA is doing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing of the Carnivale article is atrocious, but have any actual errors been identified so far? The main confusion I see at WP:ERRORS is that people complain about the sourcing of the article in a section clearly labeled "Errors in the summary of the featured article". Overall, I don't think WP:ERRORS is such a great place for major edits to patch up the failings of other processes. For your other question: My interpretation of what TFA is doing is to present one FA per day. As recent FAs are of much higher quality than old FAs, and on average less than one FA per day gets promoted now, it is impossible for all TFAs to represent Wikipedia's current best work, so I'm not expecting that. Are you? —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I am expecting that, yes. Most definitely. Promotions at FA are artificially slow these days, articles which clearly have consensus and meet the requirements are governed to a three-week minimum period before promotion and editors are prevented from nominating more than one single and one co-nom at any one time. That can easily be remedied and then FAs would easily be promoted at a rate in excess of 1 per day on average. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kusma: As stated a multitude of times, the main page has a minimum standard that must be adhered to for all its linked articles (with the exception of POTD, but that's a different story). That standard is, broadly speaking that it have no citation-needed tags or uncited paragraphs, no orange or yellow tags, and no major omissions in the coverage of the subject. If entries in DYK, OTD or ITN don't meet that standard, people post at ERRORS and the entries are removed from the main page. As noted by multiple editors during Cheadle-Hulme-gate, it beggars belief that the TFA slot, which is supposed to illustrate the not-just-satisfactory-but-brilliant articles on the project, might actually be held to a lower standard than those other areas of the main page. If such problems are raised with the article at ERRORS, and they don't seem fixable within a short timeframe, then the article should absolutely be pulled, as indeed was the case with Cheadle Hulme.
Re what we do about it, I don't have a magic answer. Lots of eyes on the upcoming queue is of course a good one, and we did it quite actively for a while in Feb/March, but it seems to have died down again. Maybe some sort of more active process, whereby the articles need to be somehow "signed off" just as an ITN or DYK entry would be, before being run? With reports at ERRORS to bring our attention if one is coming close that hasn't been looked at? But going forward, my opinion is that we need to be swapping out TFAs like this early in the day if they're discovered to have major flaws, because this sort of thing damages the project's image.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: this sort of thing damages the project's image I just don't think that's true. What is damaging to the project's image is usually when we follow our policies, not when we fail to uphold our standards (see Donna Strickland). —Kusma (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
A no-prize to anyone who can actually demonstrate some damage done to the project by running this article. I even went on Twitter and searched and barely saw anyone talking about the TFA, let alone saying anything negative. The histrionics happens at three venues over this are out of proportion to the actual impact, and most everyone seems to be ignoring the best way to address it is in progress and is in dire need of more reviewers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with David, and have provided an example below of how TFA works when the “histrionics” he mentions are bypassed. Also, several of those who advocate tagging for some reason decided Margate F.C. was fine just two days after Cheadle Hulme ran, even though Margate had the same issues, so I do not see tagging and pulling TFAs as a long-term or helpful option. It seems perfection varies according to the eyes of the beholders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
So, you are saying that a process that claims to be showing us an article that meets certain standards can't be expected to actually give us articles that meet that standard? --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Case study in functioning of TFA: Cheadle Hulme v. Margate

There are multiple statements above indicating that "major flaws" were overlooked at Cheadle Hulme; a case study comparing facts relative to "major flaws" in FAs may help inform how to handle future issues. Or, as I asked in the original discussions, please define "emergency".

What is the difference ?

  • In years past, it was considered unacceptable and poor form to tag bomb an FA just before or as it was on the main page. The normal procedure was to post a notice on talk, as I did in the case of the issues with Margate F.C. No such notice was posted at Cheadle Hulme by any of the editors who tag bombed the article.
  • Some editors who went through Cheadle Hulme pre-TFA removed uncited and unimportant text, others left the article in this state without ever making a post to the article's talk page.
  • In contrast, when I saw that none of the football-knowledgeable editors I pinged were concerned about Margate, I made a post to the article talk page, which resulted in speedy improvements, and others that went on throughout the day and in to the day after TFA.

Margate ran its entire day TFA with nary a complaint (including from the same editors who complained about Cheadle Hulme), even though it appeared TFA with the following issues:(diff of improvements and see article talk for discussion of issues)

  • Dated text
  • Inaccurate text
  • Unreliable sources

I raised the issues on talk, rather than tagbombing the article. The article was repaired as a result of running TFA. These deficiencies are as significant as were those at Cheadle Hulme, yet football editors did not even notice them even after I inquired. Apparently readers didn't notice the problems either, as there were no complaints on talk other than mine.

Something is amiss here when one standard is applied to Cheadle Hulme, and another is applied to Margate, in several instances by the very same editors. And ... what do our readers really notice? What is the best process to encourage article improvements? I continue to ask, "define emergency" before we start pulling TFAs. Tag bombing of TFAs should be discouraged, particularly when there isn't even a message on talk by the tagging editors, and particularly when (as now) we have ample advance time to highlight issues. If the Cheadle Hulme article had not been excessively tag bombed, I wonder if anyone would have noticed at TFA that it was in the same condition that Margate was, although it was not tag bombed.

We have TFA Coords for a reason, and they are doing a thankless job. ERRORS has become a "gotcha" page, I suspect, and the standards don't seem to be equally applied. The TFA Coords are now giving ample advance notice of every TFA; they should be supported rather than disparaged, as it is not an easy job. Those who are concerned about TFA have multiple options: participate at WP:FAC, participate at WP:FAR, participate at WP:URFA/2020, and participate at WP:TFAR. Tag bombing should be discouraged, and I have yet to see an "emergency" in these articles discussed since Feb 2021. The only changes I suggest is that we should return to viewing excessive tag bombing as a behavioral issue, and we should see broader participation at the FA process pages by those who frequent ERRORS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I thought both Margate and Cheadle were okay to keep up there, as well as the recent Carnivale one. Frankly, I don't think it bothers readers if the TFA isn't perfect. The average reader probably isn't digging into what's overuse of primary sources - so long as the article is factually accurate and NPOV, I don't think it's gonna harm the readers, although for sensitive topics it's also best to make sure it's reasonably up-to-date. I don't think we should be applying "almost-perfect" bar to TFA. Yes, it's theoretically our best content, but that doesn't mean we should be excluding every TFA that doesn't meet artificial standards of perfection. I think it is wise to keep a list of a few backups in case an article is found to be original research, have NPOV issues, or something extreme such as the subject becoming problematic to place on the main page (Jihad (song) is a FA, and I don't think it would be in good taste to run that after a major terrorist attack). If there's gonna be a potential issue with a TFA, it should be brought up before it's on the main page - there's lists ahead of time these days, and with URFA/2020 running those who complain about older FAs have a plenty good opportunity to review instead of just complain. And this form of tag bombing of a TFA to get attention frankly seems WP:POINTY. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
My definition of “emergency” would include significant COPYVIO that can’t be easily/quickly repaired/removed, and extreme poor taste (eg Hog Farm example of major terrorist attack, as in some current event that happened after the TFA was scheduled which renders a TFA no longer appropriate). Removing an article from TFA because it isn’t perfect ignores the fact that Wikipedia is NOT perfect, and no Wikipedia article is perfect (and we are all volunteers) … it is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and anyone can fix a TFA that isn’t perfect. We fool ourselves if we think ANY TFA is perfect (Margate F.C. was no better than Cheadle Hulme, but no one caught it), and by pulling “imperfect” TFAs, we risk at least four problems: missing the chance to recruit new editors who see the errors and may decide to edit; missing the chance for article improvement as at Margate F.C.; alienating FA writers who give up on FAC because of the environment surrounding ERRORS/TFA; and alienating TFA Coords via constant disparagement and expecting perfection. TFA presents a wonderful example of what Wikipedia is— an imperfect encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Let’s think about not chasing off those editors who attempt an FA (only to see them deteriorate over time as “anyone can edit”), and remember the potential of recruitment that can occur in a less hostile TFA environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not clear I understand the purpose of this section at all. I think all it reflects is that very poor FAs can make it, by fair means or foul, to the main page. Sometimes they're identified in advance, sometimes not. All the emotional verbiage surrounding supposed "alienation" or "disparagement" is unnecessary and unhelpful. We're looking to understand what TFA is supposed to be about here. It's very simple. If TFA is about just promoting something with the gold star to the main page, regardless, then fine, carry on. If the community (by which I mean not just the odd FA veteran) thinks TFA is something else, we should hear that without being accused of "chasing off" people or "alienating" them or whatever. TFA is missing a mission statement right now, and pretending otherwise is doing the project a disservice. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The question posed was:

What happens when today's FA is apparently not in a fit condition to be a FA?

One answer is, several days after the article is off the mainpage, if issues are not fixed, it goes to WP:FAR; others seem to be seeking other options. This section provides an example of one article that was pulled (Cheadle Hulme), and another that was equally bad (Margate F.C.), but ran without incident, only two days later, with issues corrected after they were highlighted on article talk and as part of normal editing. Since some of the editors who complained about Cheadle Hulme saw no problems two days later with Margate F.C., it appears that some subjectivity is being used in place of a standard at ERRORS, such that deciding which article to pull could become arbitrary (as it was in the example given). So, again, we should define “emergency” and explain what harm was done by running Margate F.C.? Or at least seek to understand why the same editors who objected to Cheadle Hulme did not object to the same level of problems at Margate F.C. No Wikipedia article is perfect, certainly not at ITN, OTD, DYK … or FA. I, and others, maintain that tagging and pulling TFAs is unproductive and advances nothing, but could lead to arbitrary decisions such as in this example. Others disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think your assumption about there being unequal treatment of Cheadle Hulme and Margate is correct. I think Margate was just an oversight, in that none of the people such as myself who might have advised pulling the TFA got around to looking at it. And I apologise for that, since you explicitly pinged me and I did promise to do so. It wasn't a deliberate decision to overlook defects though, and I don't think that example should be used to inform future decision-making. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Amakuru, you have nothing to apologize for! As I have spent all day trying to get organized on a new device, it is not surprising that my main message may have been missed, as it was probably not well explained. (Brevity is not the soul of my wit, nor apparently is clarity.)
Firstly, we are all volunteers, and you are under no obligation to fix a deficient article, or explain the problems. And secondly, you were not the only editor who saw no problems; I did not intend to aim this at you, although I understand you would think I did, as I pointed out that I had pinged you (among others).
How Margate F.C. was handled was not a problem; the problem was how Cheadle Hulme was handled, as can be seen in the comparison. Margate was not tag bombed, the article talk page was noticed of the deficiencies, the main author was not (at least I hope not) offended by the process, the main author updated and rectified all issues, several other issues were fixed as the TFA evolved ... in other words, everything worked beautifully. There were no complaints on talk or on ERRORS, and no one even noticed the (significant) issues. We might talk about what we can learn from this re optimal functioning of TFA. We ended up with an improved article, and hopefully without having offended its main author, and no one was left upset in any direction, best I can tell. This is a good thing. Does anyone really believe our readers noticed the level of issues that I, as an experienced editor, saw?
Or, alternately, look at other examples in upcoming TFAs. Lung cancer is not yet TFA ready, but because it has been scheduled, good editors are now combing through it. Do we really think any reader will notice the deficiencies that I pointed out?
An Awadewit article is on the upcoming schedule; there are issues in her articles, and it has two cn tags. A few days before TFA, if those have not been resolved, the minor uncited text can be commented out. That is not an emergency; it is just Wikipedia being Wikipedia ... the editor who knew the field and could have fixed the problems is deceased, and no one else knows how to fix them. Will our readers notice if we delete two sentences? How can we make the whole process more pleasant for those who want to write quality content?
Contrast Margate and these examples to the outcome of Cheadle Hulme. Had it not been gratuitously tagbombed, what would have been the "damage"? What was the "emergency"? Margate demonstrates that -- perhaps -- these "emergencies" are in the eye of the beholder, and we might end up with better articles and more happy writers and editors if we took the approach of using the article talk page before tagbombing, and returned to the days when tagbombing an upcoming TFA was considered poor behavior, and returned to the days when we waited for improvements and submitted an article to WP:FAR if they did not occur after several days.
So, you did nothing wrong, and there is no need to apologize ... again, my suggestions are in the following realm:
  • Those who frequent ERRORS should be reminded to use article talk more often. Think long and hard about what a true "emergency" is.
  • The notion of a "mainpage standard" is wishful thinking. I don't want to point fingers, but the blatant copyvio, POV, alarming inaccuracies, non-reliable sources, BLP vios, etc. that grace the mainpage every single day at ITN, OTD and DYK are ... standard .. as well as legendary. If an occasional error slips through at TFA, it is NOT some sort of emergency or condemnation overall of the FA process. It is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", and anyone who thinks the mainpage reflects policy and guideline misses much.
  • Tag bombing an upcoming TFA should be discouraged.
  • ERRORS people should get more involved at FAC, FAR, URFA/2020 and TFA/R, and FA regulars should get more involved at ERRORS. It is discouraging that one spends months to years fretting about every word in an FA, to find it disparaged and changed by latecomers at ERRORS, who may know little of the consensus that went in to what they may view as an error. More interplay between the processes, and less of the idea that "emergencies" must be fixed post-haste at ERRORS might be in order.
  • We should think long and hard about ... just what is an "emergency" that warrants pulling a TFA??? Because a lot of consensus and advance planning went in to most TFAs, and we shouldn't be pulling them without thinking through these consequences, one of which is that TFA (for many FA writers) is quite enough of an unpleasant experience as it is that writers are discouraged from participating at FAC. It behooves us all to factor that in.
  • Let's work towards encouraging more editors to get involved at WP:TFA/R and WP:URFA/2020. Let's discourage mainpage day panic, and tagbombing, and the pretense that anything on Wikipedia is "perfect", because as an FA writer, dealing with the idiotic vandalism of TFA alone is enough to make one never want to write another FA ... let's not make that day worse by having people who had no involvement at FAC, FAR or TFA/R suddenly start nitpicking an article outside of the long process of building consensus that went on before TFA!
Let's all try harder to make the whole thing easier ... remembering that the idea that mainpage articles at DYK, ITN or OTD meet a certain standard is just not a reflection of reality. It is not my intention to criticize DYK or ITN or OTD, but the idea that those articles meet P&G is just not accurate. When an FA is deficient, there is plenty of time to deal with that BEFORE mainpage day, which should not be an exercise in GOTCHA.
Now back to the misery of trying to set up my new device, and growing old ain't for sissies, and apologies for any lack of clarity in what was a miserable day for me, all the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

July/August 2021 Queue

Here is the queue for the rest of July and August with the year it went through FAC. The year is in bold if pre-2010. Can people give each a once over and sign off that the article is issue free? Things from 2019 or later are probably perfect still, but another look over would still be worthwhile after the older things get a thumbs up.

Up there now. Should be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
One of mine, have been watching it like a hawk since it was promoted. No new books specifically on Blackburn or covering him in any detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Entertainingly, both cited to the same source - Timm and Reid, 2019. Oryzomys dimidiatus. Which is not in the bibliography. I assume that it is a typo for Timm and Reid, 2008. Oryzomys dimidiatus - see WorldCat - for which the web link is dead. This 2012 source lists it as least concern on page 11. Should I do the business? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild and Ucucha: I changed it to match the 2019 red list, but I also courtesy pinged Ucucha who might have the sources on hand --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this! I'm guessing it was DD when I wrote the article and when the Red List changed its assessment later, our article got updated incompletely. I'll take a more detailed look later—if there is new data that the Red List based their reassessment on, there may be more updates to be done. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh oops, it's the other way around: it was LC when I wrote it, and later the Red List people realized that pretty much nothing is known about it and made it DD instead. The article should be updated now. Ucucha (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect there to be a problem. I keep up with the scholarship around Apollo 15.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
One of mine, still probably extinct, so the only change I've made is to update the last IUCN assessment to 2016 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Recent promotion, used all the best sources, nothing new on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Another one of mine, have also been watching it like a hawk since it was promoted. No new books specifically on Sullivan or covering him in any detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

--In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots, The Rambling Man, Dank, Bumbubookworm, Gerald Waldo Luis, Khajidha, Z1720, Modest Genius, Kusma, and Wehwalt: Here are the upcoming articles --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lung cancer, 4 August, has been actively looked after since promotion and has seen a flurry of updating since it was scheduled - diff. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, Mary Shelley has had a lot of good quality work put into it prior to in being a TFA request, see the revision history. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to let people know, the only pre-2010 articles that I presently contemplate running in September are United Airlines Flight 93, a rerun for Sept. 11th, where I consulted with WT:URFA/2020 and Ico, which is at WT:TFA/R template.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the only 2010 articles will be Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, which is one of SarahSV's, and Transandinomys, one of Ucucha's.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why you're pinging me here. I made no comment on the suitability of any TFA, I'll leave that to this project to assess. I just saw the discussion on ERRORS and pointed out the solution that was used in the past. Modest Genius talk 10:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: I pinged everyone in the discussion above. Apologies --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

September tentative list

The tentative list for September is here. It is not in any way final and it may be changed based on feedback, new nominations, or for other reasons. It is intended to give the community as much time as possible to review the articles before Main Page Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I see no problems, order-wise. Panini!🥪 11:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been implemented. Some slight changes, the only added article is William IV, a 2004 FA that survived FAR in 2008 and is well-maintained.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA) by:
    • Listing older FAs that are ready for the main page
    • Helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before they run on TFA

This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)

In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.

If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How can you help?
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix article concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
  • Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing FA standards and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
  • Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.
Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

G'day HF, nice work mate. Your efforts with this enormous project are greatly appreciated. Other than the raw figures, do you see any trends appearing? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: - I'd say I've really seen two main trends. The first is that the tightening of FA sourcing expectations around mid-2007ish or so looks to have greatly reduced the amount of original research, errors, etc. It seems to me that the ones with the worst accuracy/original research concerns were from before that sourcing tightening (with the notable exception of Battle of Tippecanoe, which had to be completely rewritten because of severe source-text integrity concerns). The other is that a few subject matters have had pretty high delisting rates: heraldry/flags (poor sourcing), ancient history (excessive use of ancient sources), educational institutions (datedness, overreliance of primary sources, and promotionalism), and political figures and concepts (NPOV, weak sourcing). Cities/towns have also been prone to decay (promotionalism, datedness). Would recommend looking over articles in those categories a little more thoroughly than usually before re-running old TFAs. Hog Farm Talk 03:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Just to chime in some additional thoughts: I think there are two types of problems that arise from articles. Articles with higher readership (Malcolm X, Duke University) are more likely to have short paragraphs with unsourced statements and disorganised/poorly formatted sections. This is because other editors have added content after the FAC which doesn't conform to FA standards. Articles with lower readership (Order of St Patrick, Cyclura nubila, History of Baltimore City College) will have fewer changes from their promotion but need to update their information with more recent sources or events, and will also have uncited statements at the end of paragraphs. The commonality between these types of articles is the FAC promoter and other editors have not actively edited or updated the article since its promotion, causing the article to decay. It is also unlikely that another editor uninvolved with the FAC will actively maintain the article to FA standards before the FAR is initiated. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, Peacemaker67, and Z1720: I'm chiming in a bit late here, but thanks for the update, HF. One question I think we should have in mind is "What can today's FA writers do to ensure that, even if they retire tomorrow, their articles in ten years won't be as dated as the old ones we're reviewing now?" I compiled my thoughts on that question at Wikipedia:Build content to endure, and I'd certainly appreciate if any of you have additional ones. If we decide that some measures are important enough, we might even consider adding them to the FA criteria. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of TFA

In February 2021, I proposed WP:PENDING protection of TFA. That discussion was closed in April 2021, with consensus for a trial. In June 2021, after that trial had ended, I opened a WP:RFC. That RFC was closed in August 2021, with consensus for a one-month trial of WP:SEMI. The relevant links are Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#RFC: Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article; which includes all the relevant history, except for Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 14#Pending changes TFA trial, which resulted in that first, PENDING, trial being initiated.

Sdkb (courtesy ping), who closed the PENDING proposal, has suggested, at User talk:Sdkb/Archive 5#Short-term protection of TFA - help requested, that I post here to take the matter forward. Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

When does the trial start?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: IDK, that's why I'm posting here. Ask Hunding, or someone... Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
He hasn't had much to say since my father got through with him, but that's another story. OK, will keep an eye on things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Your Pa is WP:INVOLVED. Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
There was nothing defined in the recently closed RfC about when the trial starts, so that's something we're free to decide right here. I'd say we should go for it as soon as we're ready on the technical end, since there's nothing holding us up. All that needs to happen is for an admin bot operator to file a BRFA similar to this one, and the trial can start as soon as that's approved. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The map caption says 8th century in the blurb and 18th century in the featured article. The battle was in the 14th century. Which date is right? Art LaPella (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: as main editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
18th. Amended. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

This is the third quarterly update on the project. Previous reports are listed below:

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, 145 FAs have been Delisted, and 114 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR, which the percentage of FAs needing review reduced from 73% to 71%. Work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 136 articles have been delisted during this time while 9 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 84 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 30 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 17 users edited WP:URFA/2020 at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR.

The project continued to reach out to active editors listed at WP:WBFAN to check the FAs they nominated. The project encourages experienced FA writers to check articles already marked as "Satisfactory" by a reviewer; the first reviewer is often the original nominator or interested in the topic, and they might answer questions or concerns if pinged on the talk page.

As of the end of this quarter, we have 135 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, a decrease of 17 listings from the Q2 report. This is a result of older notices being rechecked and listed at FAR. The project needs experienced FA editors to review older notices and determine if the article should be submitted to FAR or marked as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.

If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take over 29 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How to help
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
  • Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, Wikiprojects listed on the talk page, and editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
  • Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
  • Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.
Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 3Q2021. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What went wrong with the image? Realmaxxver (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There's not an image in there. It has the syntax but no image. Either an image will be added before it runs, or the syntax will be removed. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The other blurbs all have a bolded link to the Featured Article in the first few words. So omitting it is probably an oversight or a work in progress. Art LaPella (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at these. Not ignoring you, I just ... need a short wikibreak. Back soon. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Stepping down

I've got some health problems, I need to simplify my life, and I'm stepping down as a coordinator (maybe permanently, maybe not). For anyone who wants help at TFA, you can't go wrong asking Wehwalt and Jim. I'm indebted to Gog for stepping in this year, many times. And they have a lot of people they can turn to for help ... the whole FA community, folks at WP:ERRORS, and people who have been helping with TFA blurbs, including Art LaPella, Dying, Ravenpuff and Coffeeandcrumbs. It's been a joy and an honor. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wishing you the best. We will happily regard you as inactive until you are able to return, if that is acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure thing. Many happy memories here, and I'd be happy to return some day. You guys are the best. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Farewell, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the often unremarked-upon effort you made, Dank. Best wishes, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
And thanks for your help with blurbs over the years. Also, I'm touched by all the support I'm getting, much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete a recent TFA?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination) - I am unwatching, but perhaps you are more eloquent/convinving, or perhaps I'm blind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps; we have had two similarly merged in the last year, and they both seem reasonable (and fallout from the increasing trend towards niche FAs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia

@TFA coordinators – is there a way to add a narration icon to the TFA box? Maybe add the Spoken Wikipedia icon () to the top right corner, which initiates playback? I think there should be a way to include narration of the TFA box. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, I think we need to see what other editors think of your suggestion since it's effectively a new policy proposal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
that's fair- a new policy proposal would go here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I made a proposal at the Village pump idea lab—feel free to participate and suggest ideas! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
How would you guys feel about a trial run of the idea at TFA? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, although I'm not a frequent contributor to this project, I do believe it is the best project to take this idea out on a trial run. It doesn't have to be a daily thing, since spoken word might not be workable with every category of TFA. But try it on one or two and see how it goes. Some TFA might lend itself better to this concept than others. At least give it a try. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
here's a test page, to show that a trial run could work—feel free to leave suggestions on where and how to format the playback. The recording's a little rough around the edges, this is more a beta version. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
That's pretty cool! If we were doing this at DYK, we'd want to include a check of the sound file for quality as part of the normal review process. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: i hate to dump this on the admins, but i don't think it's reasonable to have eight different recordings—it should probably be one recording, added during the prep set or queue process, and an admin signs off on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, certainly the admin moving the prep to queue should be doing this check, too, but is there any reason why the reviewer and promoter shouldn't be checking also? I'm thinking more ears on a given recording means more chances that a mispronunciation error might get caught, for instance. —valereee (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: Do we really want each hook to have its own individual recording? Isn't that kind of clutter-y? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't thinking of every hook having its own sound recording! I was more thinking that checking such recordings should be part of the process all the way through, just like checking the image is. Not every hook gets an image, but for any hook that has one the image gets checked by reviewer, promoter, and the admin who moves that prep to queue. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding—are you saying that we have one recording for all eight hooks, but the recording should have its own review process? Or only some hooks get their own recordings, and those will be baked in as part of the review process? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
My other objection to recording it so early in the process is that hooks get their wording changed a lot, and some propose multiple ALTs—i'd wager that about half or more of recordings made at a nomination would be useless by the time the hook hits the main page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a very good point about all the changes. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee and Theleekycauldron: TFA, and what makes it another good ground for testing, is that there aren't a lot of editors making changes once a blurb is set. They run a tighter process, you might say. As an example, have a look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2021 At the bottom of any article there, click "Edit" and then look at the history. Not a lot of changes there. They don't seem to be subject to the numerous nitpicking as DYK. I think once you settle on a sound recording for an individual TFA, there's going to be less diddling around with things.— Maile (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
absolutely—if we ever want to make DYK work, that's a separate discussion. TFA is pretty stable, so I'm hoping this works out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This enhances Wikipedia for the sight impaired. Nice addition. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I think such a thing would be more reasonable if we had a way to automatically read out words. Creating and updating a spoken version of each article may make sense for the version that passes FA, but not for each version of an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Not for each version of the article, to be sure—and narrating the article itself is already fine, that's the purview of WP:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. My thought was to narrate the blurb on the main page, although I may be misunderstanding your comment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, seems like I misunderstood - I was thinking this was about the entire article. Granted, my thought applies also to the TFA blurb. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66, Jimfbleak, EEng, and Valereee: any objections to me taking this to an RfC? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It'd be at the village pump. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that's fine. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
OK with me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Fine by me. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess my question is how do you figure out who gets stuck doing the recording? Because I've done several TFAs, and nobody wants to hear my rural Ozarks dialect attempt to make words sound comprehensible ... Ordering food in the North is the worst. Nobody can seem to figure out that "laht" means "light" or "daht" means "diet" Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, now, @Hog Farm: don't you go selling that Ozark enunciation short. The US has a couple of living former presidents who probably think you're the only one who sounds normal. I think it would be cool if we had volunteers from around Wikipedia's global locations - not everybody British English or American English. And then there's the Down Under cadence. Different strokes for different folks. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: a complete aside here. About one-third of American presidents were from the south. Six of them from Virginia (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler, Taylor). Dialects must have changed drastically in the last two centuries. I have a hard time imagining any of them saying, "Y'all come back real soon, now. Y'hear? Next time, we'll have a peanut boiling." Although, I CAN image Jimmy Carter saying that. — Maile (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Only Californians need apply. EEng 01:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
No one has to get stuck doing it—if no one makes the recording, it doesn't get put on the main page. But there should be an option to do so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that the proposal has been clarified -- as I recall, it started out as being for other Main Page stuff as well, like DYK, which for many reasons was a bad idea -- I think this is great. However, before taking it public, spell out (here) your exact wording, so any kinks can be ironed out here first -- the wording of the proposal, and the wording of how you'll "sell" it when you raise it. After we here get done savaging it, I suggest you then take it to VP (not sure which sub-page) for more constructive criticism, and THEN, finally, an RfC (because I think an RfC is pretty much necessary for Main Page changes, though I'm not positive). By that point your sell should be as good as it can be, and you'll have the best chance of clear sailing. Premature RfCs are a waste of editor time and usually end in tears. EEng 23:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng, how about this:
Problem: The Main Page of the English Wikipedia is regularly seen by 5.5 million people, of which a significant number are hearing-impaired. While WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia exists to narrate existing articles, and has narrated hundreds of Featured Articles, the option is not available to narrate sections of the Main Page that are widely visited. Not every section of the Main Page is easily narrated—Did you know, On this day, and In the news, for example, are too dynamic and unpredictable to have an immutable recording attached. Today's Featured Article (TFA), however, consists of a single thousand-character blurb generally updated only once a day, ideal for a spoken recording.
Proposal: In every nomination template for TFA, there should be an optional "narration" parameter that allows the nominator, or any other interested editor, to add a spoken recording of the blurb that is to appear on the Main Page. A sample narration on a past iteration of the Main Page can be found here. No nomination will be required to contain a narration, but any recording that is attached to the nomination must be reviewed according to the guidelines laid out by WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for technical quality, clarity, and accuracy before the recording can accompany the nomination to the Main Page. This proposal will assist thousands in accessing the works Wikipedia is most proud of.
I'd love to listen to TFA blurbs read in rural Ozarks, myself. —valereee (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

TFA vandalism

So I see the semi-protection trial has not continued. Clue Bot is generally only set to 1RR (only revert user/page combination once). Would it be worthwhile to look into getting the TFA for each day onto User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin, which would allow the anti-vandal bot to revert the same user more than once? Hog Farm Talk 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think anything that would help against vandalism would be useful. It often goes unnoticed, or at least unreverted, for periods of time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In my experience there are very few useful edits made by unconfirmed accounts/IPs when a TFA is up. The downside of allowing them is significant if they aren't promptly reverted. Semi makes sense, or some other arrangement that will stop the test edits/vandalism while a TFA is up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, so did the semi-protection trial happen for a month and expire? The next step would be to evaluate it and see if the community wants to make it permanent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - I'm not sure exactly what happened - I know it was being done, but isn't being done now. A look at recent TFAs:

Maybe @TFA coordinators knows a bit more about the TFA semiprotection trial? I certainly supported it, and a look through what happens to most TFAs during the main page time suggests that it should be as well. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know more about it than has been set forth here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
All I know is that TFA is just about giving people a chance to vandalise an article. Nothing more. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Looking at how this discussion fizzled out and how the TFA 20 days later didn't have any protection (except for the normal move protection), it looks like we just haven't run the trial yet. Courtesy pinging @Anomie, would you be willing to file a BRFA similar to the one you filed here to do the month-long automatic semi-protection trial as approved here by the community? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
After the way things went the first time around, I'm not really interested. Anomie⚔ 20:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Anomie, oh, I wasn't aware that there were unpleasant challenges in the first round; sorry to hear of that. :/ If it's anything we should be aware of before starting this one, feel free to provide a link. I'll go ahead and make a post at WP:BOTREQ and I'm sure someone else will be able to help out (I'd offer my bot but I lack the permissions). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: It's that we had a consensus to try PC protection, and went through all the effort, only for people to ignore the results of the trial in favor of "PC protection is baaad" and demand semi-protection instead. Once the semi-protection trial happens, will people point to WP:NO-PREEMPT and reject that too? Anomie⚔ 21:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
There wasn't consensus for a semi-protection trial, there was consensus for semi-protection, as the closer acknowledged. Just the closer felt that policy conservatism suggests there should be a trial first. Not sure of the appropriateness of that, given that more consequential decisions are made using just one RfC, but still, doesn't seem like community sentiment will change second time around. Notably, opinion expressed in that RfC wasn't that protection is inappropriate. If anything, it was that stronger protection (than the one trialed) is appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Reading through it again, I think the closer may have overstated the theoretical support for straight-up semi protection rather than a trial. I also see enough opposition that I wouldn't be surprised if an RFC that actually asked about semi-protection (rather than that coming up in discussion but never being advertised) might bring out enough more to prevent consensus. Anomie⚔ 01:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's difficult to speak in hypotheticals about what might have happened if discussion happened a different way. But unless someone wants to challenge the closing admin (Jc37), there is consensus to proceed here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I wasn't saying there wasn't a consensus to proceed with the trial. I just don't want to do it. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Anomie, ah, I understand that perspective. If it helps to reframe it, the way I see the overall situation here is that the consensus process is inherently slow-moving, and the bigger the issue, the more gradual change has to be. If I had to bet on it, I'd predict that the ultimate resolution will be permanent semi-protection, but it takes a few steps for the community to get comfortable with it. The pending changes trial was the first step, which showed the community wasn't deterred by WP:NO-PREEMPT and that the sky didn't fall when it was applied, the semi-protection trial is the next step, and I'd predict an RfC confirming permanent semi (or maybe PC) protection will be the final step. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ultimately, you need a sysop willing to run the bot for this trial to proceed. The number of sysops running adminbots seems a relatively small number (c.f. Category:Wikipedia adminbots), so other than Anomie I guess one of @JJMC89, Legoktm, and MusikAnimal would seem most likely to be willing to develop this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Technically it doesn't seem that difficult to add into TFA protector bot. But before doing that, I think there needs to be some measure of success (or failure) defined and plan to analyze the results so we don't end up in the same place of the trial results being ignored. Legoktm (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm, it'll definitely be important to do some analysis to help frame any follow-up discussion after the trial ends, but unless there's anything we need to set up beforehand, I don't see any need to resolve that now. Let's just get the trial started before we forget about it again. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I'm not sure how we'd be able to determine what success/failure looks like in an unbiased manner if the trial is already in process. Feels like it would just lead to shifting of the goalposts. Legoktm (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm, the goals and potential drawbacks were discussed extensively at the RfC that greenlit the trial. Summarizing, the hope is to reduce the prevalence of vandalism but not deter newcomers from becoming contributors. If you have thoughts about how to measure those things, feel free to share. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's entirely possible I'm missing something that was discussed, so links/pointers would be appreciated. The main thing I'm asking is how exactly this trial will be evaluated on whether it was successful or not. Legoktm (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I mean, the point is that the metrics aren't quantitative or anything. It'll be regarded as successful if it changes TFA editing patterns in ways people like, and as unsuccessful if not. Unless you have any other ideas, that's the best we've got. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm, following up. Are you helping with this or not? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess I'll run the trial, but reserve the right to change my mind about it once we have some metrics/results. Legoktm (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Wbm1058 too. – SD0001 (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to say, while the choice to help out with this or not is a volunteer question, it's disconcerting to see technical editors wielding their access to technical tools to stall enactment of a high-level community consensus due to their own personal, non-technical concerns. That's not how our process should work. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    Agree. Can we just implement it and review (without a pause) in six months? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    Other than adminship, there is no "access to technical tools" involved here. Anomie⚔ 12:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    The criteria that the bot needs to be operated by an admin who is willing to run adminbots automatically drops the number of people who can implement this to a handful, most of whom aren't too active anymore. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    One of my great frustrations is that stuff like this that a lot of people want and there's consensus for, we can rarely find a implementation for, while stuff like the Monkbot Task 18 sh*tshow that nobody wants there's always implementation for. It sometimes feels like there's quite a divide between what technical editors find interesting and what content people find useful. There's value in both, but it feels like there's frequently cross-purposes with the two rarely aligning. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    Isn't that about the same thing people say when they complain about there being so many articles about sports figures, or military history, or whatever topic area isn't the one they're interested in but aren't willing to actually put in the work writing about? Anomie⚔ 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Anomie No. There's no intrinsic law that the importance of a task and the level of volunteer willingness to do it have to perfectly match, and indeed there are tons of important tasks (both in terms of content areas and in terms of back-end stuff like this) where there is a mismatch. I really hate it when editors point this out and the response is "well, if you care about this area so much, go edit in it yourself". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with Sdkb here. There's a big difference between writing about different topics, and doing intricate technical work. I've written about sports, military history, books, state parks, and music. It's not hard to switch between writing about most topics, as there's no special skill required to write at a B-class level about most topics besides access to sources and enough background knowledge to understand it. The ability to code effectively or run a bot is much different - it requires specialized skills most do not have. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    Heh, I'm in awe of editors who can churn out good and featured articles just like that when I struggle to put together something that barely meets DYK. OTOH, I taught myself to program (using Wikibooks no less) because no one would fix my bugs. I don't think there's any "specialized skills" in running a bot just as you don't consider writing B-class articles to need any special skill. To each their own :) Legoktm (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    I don't agree with your assertion that they're "rarely aligning", I think most people just overlook when they do align because that's what happens the vast majority of the time, so people only remember the few cases where they don't.
    Anyways, that isn't even what happened here. I said the technical part was straightforward, I was asking for clarity on how the results and trial would be measured...which I think is a pretty reasonable ask! Legoktm (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    There's always something new that needs fixing or doing, so in my copious free time I tend to pick fun things. This task does not seem fun at all. Legoktm (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Bot details

I have re-skimmed Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_183#RFC:_Pending-changes_protection_of_Today's_featured_article and don't believe there have been any concrete proposals for what the bot should do, so here's my proposal:

  • At 22:00 UTC (or as close to as possible) right before the article is scheduled for TFA, the bot will try to apply semi-protection, expiring once it's off the main page (so 26 hours of protection).
    • The rationale for doing it 2 hours early is to give people a few hours notice if the bot fails for whatever reason.
  • If the article is already at a higher protection level (ECP, template, full) and the expiry is past the TFA time, the bot does nothing.
  • If the article is already at semi-protection but it expires during the 26 hour window, it will be extended.
  • Semi-protection will be applied regardless of pending changes status.

Open questions:

  • What does the bot do if it's at a higher protection level but it expires sometime within our 26 hour window? Should it extend the protection or lower it to semi?
    • I don't want to rely on the bot being there to magically semi-protect the article immediately after the protection expires, whatever action should be done a little ahead of time.
  • What does the bot do if someone lifts the semi-protection? Should it wheel war and reinstate it or ignore pages once it sets the initial protection?
    • In case it matters, currently TFA Protector Bot will wheel war to reinstate protection but only for pages not on the main page. This might just be a theoretical thing we can decide to ignore, IIRC it hasn't happened in 8 years with move protection.

@Hog Farm, Sdkb, ProcrastinatingReader, SD0001, and Peacemaker67: (sorry if I missed anyone) Once the open questions are figured out I'll start on code and file the BRFA. Legoktm (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking this on. Most of these things seem like edge cases where it doesn't matter too much which way we go. 2hr window sounds fine, although we'd probably be alright if we shortened it to 1hr. Re if it's higher but expires, if lowering it to semi isn't feasible at the time of expiration, just extend it at the higher level. Re if someone lifts that, I'm not sure why they would (so long as the bot uses a good descriptive edit summary), but let's trust admins' judgement and not wheel war. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I got edit conflicted by Sdkb while trying to post a reply, but I agree pretty well with their thoughts here, so won't mess with trying to rewrite my several sentences. And many thanks to Legoktm for looking into this! Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Sdkb and HF. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, these are all edge cases, it's always the edge cases that get bots into trouble :) But thanks, I'll start working on the code now. Legoktm (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate scheduling

Stuff like this is bound to happen from time to time, but I just want to note that it's unfortunate that TFA today is 2008 Orange Bowl when the TFA only three days ago was 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. Both of these are niche sports articles with an extremely similar topic, and we ideally would have spaced them out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's the time of year when there are many bowl games. 'Tis the season.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (WP:URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. It was launched at the end of November 2020. This is the first annual report for this endeavour.

The goals of URFA/2020 are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • List older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and help the TFA Coords check older FAs before running on TFA

The URFA/2020 list is divided into two pages: WP:URFA/2020A for very old (VO) featured articles last reviewed in 2004–2009, and WP:URFA/2020B for old (O) articles last reviewed in 2010–2015.

Progress

Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:

  • 195 FAs were Delisted at FAR (179 VO and 16 O)
  • 151 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (107 VO and 44 O)
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% to 69%
  • 60 editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020, while others nominated, reviewed, and edited articles at WP:FAR

These numbers do not encompass the full activity of URFA/2020, however; once three experienced FA reviewers have deemed an FA 'Satisfactory' (not needing a FAR), it is moved to 'Kept or FAR not needed'. At year-end, an additional:

20% of the initial 4,526 older FAs have had ‘satisfactory’ feedback, or been noticed, kept or delisted at FAR. Hundreds more have been noted as having minor issues that should be addressed, work underway, or similar. Some FAs needing review per contributor copyright investigations have been flagged.

In December, URFA/2020 focused on reviewing FAs from 2004–2006. This resulted in many of the oldest articles getting reviews, particularly hurricane and typhoon articles; the number of these very oldest FAs needing review started in November 2020 at 225, and stands at 132 at year-end 2021. Reviewers are still needed for these older articles, especially editors with experience in European history, biographies, and animals. If you have any questions on how to review articles, please see the instructions tab or comment below.

URFA/2020 participants intend to write year-end reports for Wikiprojects, which will highlight articles that members of your Wikiproject might want to review. If your Wikiproject or newsletter is interested, please comment at WT:URFA/2020.

How to help

If we continued this year's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:

  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards any more, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 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.
  • Nominate an article that has been ‘noticed’ of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed.
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix.
  • Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
  • Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2021 Summary.

Older reports 2021's quarterly reports are listed below:

Thanks to everyone who helped with this report. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

More clarity and transparency for the TFA process?

I recently stumbled on a conversation about the TFA process regarding the TFA for 5 Dec 2021 at this user talk page. A discussant questioned two facts that appeared in the the TFA main page blurb that were not supported by citations in the article.

The main editor of the article "voiced a concern several months ago that this article needed a good once-over before it was ready for TFA....Nevertheless, the people who manage TFA decided to run this article anyway, so I would address those concerns to them and not me." Another commenter replied that s/he "noticed your dissent when the article was first nominated for tfa, but could not find a subsequent assent, so had been wondering how it ended up being selected. i had speculated that you had mentioned through a different channel that it was ready, but i can clearly see now that this was not the case. i am guessing that the scheduler either was unaware of your original dissent, had accidentally overlooked it, or had assumed that you felt that your edits to the article since then were sufficient."

In the TFA request discussion in question every discussant except the nominator opposed the article's promotion to TFA. I was surprised that the article appeared on the main page despite these concerns.

As can be seen from the comments above, there seems to be a lack of clarity about how the "march to TFA" takes place and where discussion is appropriate. I rarely participate in FA/TFA discussions and was unaware of the minutiae myself, so I looked into it.

Just finding out where relevant discussions might lie took quite a bit of time by my own Wikipedia standard of comparison. I then noticed there were gaps in the process—areas where there is no dicssion at all. I ended up creating a WP:Road to TFA guide just to help me wrap my head around it and to have easy access to all of the various links needed. Both how I understand the process and the gaps are detailed there.

Based on my concerns about factually questionable information appearning in a TFA blurb and my own difficulties undertstanding the process, I have some suggestions for discussion:

  1. Add a talk page notice of an impending TFA, i.e. when a page is added to pages of the type Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2022, put a note to that effect in the article's talk page like "This article is scheduled to be today's featured article (TFA) in the near future". This might invite more comment and input from new eyes.
  2. Create a page that explains the entire TFA process that would combine parts of "Choosing Today's Featured Article" and WP:TFAR or add such information to WP:TFAR. The list on the right panel of WP:TFAR is helpful, but includes a lot of links that are a bit extraneous and there is no prose to give context to others.
  3. Have a closing process for TFA requests like that at WP:RM that provides more standardization and clarity (Is the article scheduled? Why or why not?).

Finally, I have extraordinary admiration and appreciation for the work of the TFA coordinators, User:Jimfbleak and User:Wehwalt, and what I've said is in no way intended to reflect on them.

What say ye? —  AjaxSmack  10:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As the person who scheduled it, I was not aware of the failed nomination. One idea might be to add failed TFA attempts to the article history. I agree, there is no centralized place for discussions. It would be nice to have one, but how to ensure that it is actually used? I personally feel that leaving an article talk page notice (we do put on the top of the article talk page that the article will be TFA on such and such a date, but we don't start a discussion topic), with pings to the FAC nominator(s), would be superior to the present practice of leaving notes on the user talk of the FAC nominators, but when I experimentally tried doing this once, the reaction was very negative and I discontinued it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
As for a closing process, only a small portion, perhaps five a month or so, are scheduled through a request. The others are selected by the scheduler for the month. The list is then sent to the other schedulers for any comments they may have, and then implemented. The December list (including the Iowa article) was posted at WT:URFA/2020 for review by those who are trying to cull the list of FAs of substandard articles, as has the January list, though this is not a formal part of the process.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Our initial off-wiki discussion is basically to check that we haven't inadvertently listed a rerun, or an article that is likely to cause problems either in terms of quality, main editor reaction or unsuitability for other reasons. For older articles, WT:URFA/2020 is increasingly useful and will become more so as the process goes on (get reviewing!). Otherwise little to add to Wehwalt's comments. @Gog the Mild: for his info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
As an URFA reviewer who opposed in March and also forgot the March TFAR by November, I have ideas and feedback, but I am iPad editing now. The TLDR version is that we don’t need more process; this is a rare occurrence. At the time of the failed TFAR, whichever TFA scheduler closed the discussion could have added a note at WP:URFA/2020B with a link to the discussion, and then no one would have had to remember, as it would have been recorded in a place schedulers can check. One of the aims of URFA is to provide a place where TFA schedulers can see if concerns have been lodged.
On the other hand, I am unsympathetic to the idea that more notice has to be given to nominators or more process has to be added to enable nominators to not keep their articles updated. When a nominator knew an article had problems in March, but didn’t correct them for six months, that is not behavior we should be enabling by putting more work into more process. Dated or non-compliant FAs need to be flagged and sent to FAR. Any nominator should know their article can run at any time and should be in mainpage shape. Also, a problem is revealed here when articles are discussed on user talk pages rather than the article talk page; that is another reason we have insisted at URFA/2020 that notes go on article talk pages, with only diffs recorded at URFA. (AjaxSmack, please see the post just above this one for more info.) More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This is now done, as a sample of where and how TFA schedulers can record those requests that are rejected for deficiencies. I have found that even WP:FARGIVEN notices are often swept into article talk archives, so while notes can be added at talk, that is not an assurance that schedulers will see them, and I suggest schedulers can use WP:URFA/2020 for this purpose. Since I see nothing raised at the article talk page, I am guessing this matter did not cause issues for our readers, but provides another reminder of why articles with deficiencies should go to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
From a real computer now, I have done the next step at URFA, which is to place a note on article talk. That's how the process could be used. If you (schedulers) just note when a TFAR fails for deficiencies, that will prompt someone at URFA to add notes on article talk, and then follow up. I suggest this would be enough to prevent a similar (and rare) problem from happening, and we shouldn't be asking more of the TFA Coords. (One of the problems with User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page was that the comments there weren't placed on article talk pages, so they couldn't be used to encourage improvements, and it wasn't a page that was followed by enough editors to become useful). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
When a nominator knew an article had problems in March, but didn’t correct them for six months, that is not behavior we should be enabling by putting more work into more process Ouch. We are all volunteers and many of us don't have the time that we used to when we wrote these articles. Surely a more respectful tone could be struck. --Rschen7754 19:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
That might be useful, though perhaps it would be better to find a place for it outside userspace. A good place might be Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022 We could start with the table and have discussion below it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Like this - Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Very good idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. We could amend our standard notifications we leave on user talk pages to route discussion to that page, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Something like this?
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for ? February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2022 or to make more general comments at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe "feel free to amend the draft blurb". As for "or to make more general comments", maybe "or for other matters concerning the scheduling of this article"?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Amended to;
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Suits me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for all of the new (to me) information. Proposals to amend notifications sound good. After reading all of the comments, I feel that the whole TFA process is even more complex to follow than I had thought, and that issues of clarity to the uninitiated have largely not been mentioned. While I understand that keeping the unwashed masses at bay through complexity can help smooth this process, it also reduces potentially useful contributions from other editors. I count at least 12 pages required to engage in (and even just to follow) the TFA process spread across WP, WT and userspace. (And this doesn't even include TFL and TFP.) Stripped of the actual page names, they are:

Overall process

Request process

TFA schedule

As of 10 January 2022

Post-TFA

I have also posted this list for my own record at WP:Road to TFA; feel free to edit there if I am in error. As an occasional editor who is used to the streamlined WP:RM process with nearly everything on one page, I can say I will not get involved any with TFAs. Thanks again for all of your help both here in this discussion and with keeping the main page looking great. Keep up the good work. —  AjaxSmack  12:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Amazing. I was completely oblivious of the existence of four of these twelve. And two of the others I haven't referred to for over a year. And I'm a TFA scheduler. Which, come to think of it, suggests that one can gain a functional understanding of the process without grasping its full "complexity". I am inclined to continue to schedule in my state of blissful ignorance, but if AjaxSmack or any other editor would like to streamline or otherwise improve the system I think that the discussion above suggests that the schedulers are open to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I think so too. There is nothing we would like more than for the unwashed masses to make 31 TFA/R nominations a month, complete with blurbs, sparing us the trouble and second-guessing that come from having to do it ourselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Dweller’s page should be marked historical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
AjaxSmack, a good bit of what you are observing is because the (overworked) TFA Coords/Schedulers are trying hard to please many different masters and juggle many different demands for many different reasons. As/If you work to streamline what I agree has become an unnecessarily complicated and labor-intensive process, please keep that in mind—it is not easy work, and not something many editors would be willing to do. A lot of what they are trying to juggle might be solved if they stopped being held captive by nominators, but that is their choice to make, as they are the ones getting the big bucks. There was a time when FAs were expect to be kept in order as they could be popped on TFA with only a weeks’ notice; that is no longer the case, and nominators are given plenty of time to make sure articles are in order; that is the trend that has made for a more complex process.
The road article that originally brought all of this to your attention received no negative (or any other) feedback at its talk page when it ran TFA. There is no such thing as a perfect article, and FAs don’t have to be perfect to run TFA. TFA serves to bring attention to the “anyone can edit” pillar of Wikipedia, and errors give editors a chance to do that. Until/unless TFA runs something that is an alarming embarrassment, we shouldn’t worry about imperfections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
PS, I think you missed Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article, which I just discovered … duplicating the process I was suggesting for URFA/2020. (The road article was not listed there, so maybe that page should also be marked historical?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat related – I tried to figure out when exactly the TFAs get changed. I suspected that it was midnight UTC and it took me a long time to find a mention of it. Should this be more clearly stated in a page that describes the process? Background to my interest was this upcoming TFA, which is scheduled for Waitangi Day (6 February) and will be shown on the homepage "on 5 February" (which is ok, as it will show in New Zealand on Waitangi day from midnight to 1 pm). But before I could work this out, I needed to know the scheduling details, and that took a long time to find. Schwede66 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FASA: get your !votes in

As the end of January approaches, a monthly reminder to !vote for Featured Article Save Awards at the open discussions. Besides recognizing FAR “saves”, hopefully this activity will encourage more rescues of rusty bronze stars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Brainstorming Template:TFAR nom changes

I have nominated a couple of articles to WP:TFAR, and thought of some ideas to update Template:TFAR nom. These ideas are to recognize that some TFA requests are for articles that have already run at TFA. Others are to recognize that older FAs have gone through FAR. Here are some ideas:

  1. Change the instructions in the "promoted" parameter to, "Full date of when the article was promoted to FA status or last FAR (check the article's talk page)"
  2. Add a parameter that says, "Last TFA run"
  3. Change the instructions in the "editors" parameter to, "Article's primary editors, FAC nominators, and FAR participants"

My suggestions are numbered to help facilitate discussion below. I am interested in reading your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment I have penciled in the ones you nominated for March, though I won't finalize the schedule until early February to give everyone a fair chance to nominate. I probably have room for two more reruns, as I had already planned on two. People should feel free to nominate, especially for Nonspecific dates. I don't have a strong view on the proposed changes. They seem sensible but I worry about making things overcomplicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Wehwalt:: my non-specific TFA suggestions were created after Gog encouraged these types of nominations, and I figured it would be good to highlight articles that were "Kept" at FAR or "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. In response to making things overcomplicated: I'm concerned that information in the TFA nom template will be outdated for older FAs. Many editors that nominated older FAs are no longer active on the project, but new editors have adopted these articles and might want to be notified. I also want to provide the information that the TFA co-ords and other !voters need to decide whether the article should run. However, if this information is not needed, like who is actively maintaining the article, then it does not need to be included. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
As I said above, I some time ago tried scheduling with leaving an article talk notice, pinging the FAC nominators, rather than leaving user talk notices, but I got blowback on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2022 tentative TFA schedule

The tentative schedule for March may be found here. It is subject to change if further TFA/Rs are filed or if there's any issues with an article. I plan to schedule next week, a bit early due to travel. Comments are welcome, and should be on that page so discussions stay centralized.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Parliament

In Friday's TFA, "Parliament" is capitalized inconsistently, and maybe a Briton should decide. The article uncapitalizes the word except in phrases like "Wonderful Parliament", even when there is no adjective or article to specify which parliament. Wiktionary says "usually capitalised when used as a proper noun referring to a particular parliament". Art LaPella (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

​ That is consistent: it is capitalised as a phrasal noun, but uncapitalised when mentioning the general institution. As was discussed at its recently-closed FAC, in which you could have aired your thoughts, Lord Kitchener. SN54129 07:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
"Wonderful Parliament" is a phrasal noun. I don't think this includes a phrasal noun: "The lords threatened Richard with deposition until he agreed to do Parliament's bidding." Neither "do Parliament" nor "Parliament's bidding" is a well-known phrase. You're right I missed the FAC - I mistook it for the Good Article review. Anyway, the FAC appears to conclude that "Parliament" in sentences like the one I quoted should be uncapitalized. And I still think it's inconsistent. Art LaPella (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Art LaPella: I do apologise, I've just realised you're talking about the blurb, not the article itself. Ah. I wondered why I couldn't find a wrongly-capitalised parliament in the over 100 uses of the word. Blurb is nuffin to do wiv me guv. Carry on. I agree that consistency, at least, is important. SN54129 16:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I almost fixed it, but then I found this edit. So I'm leaving it alone – at least somebody thought about it. Art LaPella (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The "most recent similar articles" line is failing to diversify our TFAs

I've noticed that our current TFAR nomination template gives nominators a lot of latitude to define the category when providing the most recent similar article. It's easy to provide a very niche category to obscure a recent appearance, e.g. "we haven't run a 20th-century British naval historian in more than three years!" when there was a 19th-century British naval historian yesterday. This is detrimental to our efforts to diversify the Main Page. I'm not quite sure how to solve it, though. The linked most recent FAs list uses the FA categories, but these themselves are heavily warped by the topics that tend to have a lot of entries (it's no mystery why video games has a top-level FA category but fashion and dance do not). Does anyone have ideas about how we could make this system better? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Write a "diverse" FA, really. It's glib, but that's the only real answer. Everything else is rearranging the deck chairs. You can't schedule your way out of the corpus of FAs available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@David Fuchs, I mean, we could do a lot more if we started re-running enough TFAs for us to reject the 23rd nomination of a [redacted] article. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so timid about that aspect of my proposal above, but regardless it didn't achieve consensus. I definitely agree with you we need a more diverse pool of FAs, but I'm always wary of individual solutions to systemic problems. If getting more diverse FAs ends up being the only solution, the question then becomes, how do we encourage that on a system level? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use humans, who are good at dealing with those sorts of fuzzy categories and identifying that sort of gaming, to schedule the TFAs as best they can, given the FAs that are available? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild, haha point well taken. I'm very glad we have a human element, and I should be clear I think the coordinators are doing a good job with a limited pool. That said, speaking personally, I've come across several TFARs where I see a date far in the past and think "ooh, good for diversity" before I catch myself and realize it's a super narrow category. It's just human nature to have difficulty curating a truly diverse pool of topics across all of human knowledge, particularly given that we all arrive with our own biases from the topics we encounter most in our own lives. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I think our TFA coords are all bright enough to figure out how to not overrun things, although I've seen some issues at month breaks before (like running two NCAA bowl games in four days around the turn of the year). There will always be some slip-ups, but I think they generally do a good job with judgment. We have a limited pool of FAs, the only way to avid having "too many" ships/association football/popular music/etc TFAs will be to write more topics. We've selected coords based on their judgment, and I think they've done a good job. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel we should specify somewhere at TFA what counts as a "category", and make said list broad. There's multiple areas where content is organized into broad categories, such as vital articles, Wikiprojects, and the list of all GAs, and I think we could use something like that to enforce this template. However, I agree with David Fuchs; some of our biggest Wikiprojects are WP:MILHIST and WP:VG, and making these two categories would mean any slightest military thing or any slightest video game thing cannot be considered next to each other. Panini! • 🥪 19:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Panini!, I like the idea of using vital articles, as that's the only list that's built around topics' overall encyclopedic significance (at least in theory). It's a list of articles, not categories, though, so I'm not sure quite how we'd adapt it for here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Vital articles is useless ... in general, and specifically for this purpose. WP:FA was once useful, but for reasons I didn't follow, has been chopped up over the years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
For support on why the vital article listing is mainly useless, see this. For instance - John Breckinridge Castleman is listed as a level-5 VA. The vital article listing is unmaintained and the voting system is largely a popularity contest; it shouldn't be cited at all for discussions like this because it is riddled with inherent flaws. Hog Farm Talk 19:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not implying the use of vital articles directly, rather how they organize things. I know that vital articles aren't the only things vital and it's completely subjective, and their system is irrelevant. Instead, I was implying how on the level 3 vital article page, they have everything organized into simple and well-defined categories: all of their 1,000 articles can be broken down into about 80-ish different categories, right? For their "History" section there's 83, but this can be broken down into 8 subcategories that range from pre-historic to modern history. We can use this (not this exact format, something similar) in a way to format what we count as a "recent similar article" by specifying that these are the only categories that count somewhere. In your example, they can't use "20th-century British naval historian" as their recent similar article, but instead use "Politicians and leaders", in this case things would be more strict. This would have to be discussed and implemented, though, so take my idea with a grain of salt. Panini! • 🥪 19:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Panini, yes but ... to all of this ... referencing Gog the Mild's point. This discussion is perhaps less than useful in an environment where the TFA Coords have increasingly less to choose from, and are aware of the need to diversify. Perhaps it would be more useful to focus on ways to get the pool of FAs more diversified, so that they actually had some better choices here. They are already doing the best they can with what they have to work with; the problems are elsewhere, and taking their time on this page might not be the best use of our pooled talent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the vital articles are sensible at a high level and as with anything, the more potential slots and the further away from "vital" you get (into the -4 and -5s) it becomes much fuzzier and closer to irrelevant insofar as identifying high-level articles. That said, like with Wikiproject importance rating, I think it's generally more helpful than not in terms of snapshots of organization and important articles, as long as it's not taken as written gospel and more like the guideline and loose categorization it is. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Adjusting the TFA re-running period

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This proposal, which began with a single option, which participants argued in favor or against, has ended with two more suggestions added, with those in response to the initial discussion. Although the addition of such extra options usually signals that the original proposal saw a lack of support, it's still important to go over it all, pointing out what editors were against and why.

The opening statement asks for the addition of two new factors when allowing a FA to run again on the main page and the alteration of one. While the idea behind those factors was to give focus to important topics (i.e. those which get a lot of views and are "vital", according to Wikipedia editors), the discussion was divided over whether that would be the actual results or not. Those against the initial suggestions noted that allowing for articles with a higher view count to return to the front page more often could lead to an increase in systemic bias, which is already seen by some as a problem. While the OP added the requirement for those to be vital articles exactly to combat that, it was raised that in itself is an issue, as vital articles also suffer from bias. Another point to consider is that this would result in FAs that are on the waitlist taking longer to reach the main page and, as such, need more time to be taken care of so as not to deteriorate, which would add to the work of those who do that. As such, I see a consensus against the initial suggestion.

The OP suggested an alternative, which would remove any criteria for re-running, and would depend entirely on the !vote of participants to decide whether a certain topic should appear on the main page again or not. Those supporting commented that this would give coordinators the flexibility they might need to re-run any FA at any time, as long as the reason made sense. Although those opposing noted that there are more than enough FAs that still haven't run on the main page, those in favor made the compelling argument that this would reduce bureaucracy. I'd say there is no consensus in favor of this idea, but some more workshopping could lead to consensus. Some of the participants (both those who supported and opposed this alternative) noted that having some soft limits (age and topic, mainly) to what can be nominated for re-run would be beneficial.

Interested parties are encouraged to further work on this idea, and see what could be changed to find a consensus where coordinators are given more freedom when choosing re-runs. For example, see whether the current five years should serve as a soft limit for re-runs or if it should be decreased (participants suggested four or three years) and which would be valid reasons to ignore that limit (i.e. anniversaries, related to current events, special celebrations etc.).

The last added suggestion saw very little participation, and although it saw some support, an oppose !vote noted that this could lead to a flood of repeated topics on the main page, as many of the articles that haven't appeared on the main page yet are not equally divided by topics (i.e. some topics have many more articles than others), so this additional rule could be damaging to the system. I see no consensus for this alternative.

-- (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 15:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


Per WP:TFAR, our current approach to re-running TFAs is this:

The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.

I submit that five years is too long—what reader is ever going complain about us re-running an article we last did in 2017? I also submit that as part of our efforts to prioritize high-importance FAs, we ought to make it easier to re-run those articles. Particularly given that most Main Page visitors don't catch every (or even most) TFAs, I don't think we'd get complaints if we ran e.g. Olympic Games every time there's an Olympics.

Therefore, I'd like us to consider this alternative protocol:Edit: Please also see alternative option below. 22:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Articles that are vital level 4 or above, WP:MILLION qualifiers, or that got more than 200,000 hits in a previous Main Page appearance can be run once per year.
  • Articles that are vital level 5 or above, half-WP:MILLION qualifiers, or that got more than 100,000 hits in a previous Main Page appearance can be run once every two years.
  • All other articles can be run once every four years.

The three elements here allow us to balance different reasons a TFA might be desirable: WP:MILLION covers general popularity with readers, VA covers encyclopedically important topics, and previous appearance hits covers articles like Wife selling that might not be in the other two groups but that made a splash.

To allow for feedback, I'm structuring this discussion in two parts. In the first "Workshopping" part, please let me know if you think we should adjust any of those threshholds, think I'm totally barking up the wrong tree, or have other general feedback. However, as at WP:VPI, please do not make bolded !votes. If that goes well, I'll close that and open up the formal survey and issue invites to get wide participation. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving to survey stage. Sending invites to WT:FA, WT:FAC, and WP:VPP. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Notified: centralized discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are 365 articles (366 on leap years) that can run on TFA every year. The articles that get WP:MILLION status or lots of hits are typically from the English-speaking world and a small subset of topics (popular culture, military history, United States topics, etc.) This proposal will cause TFA to perpetuate the systemic biases that exist on Wikipedia, causing important but less popular topics from being written about. Yes, vital articles will also get priority in this proposal, but vital also perpetuates these biases, in my opinion. TFA is an opportunity for Wikipedia to highlight topics that readers might not necessarily discover, and I don't think this proposal is a net positive. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    Currently, I see TFA as one of the very worst areas for systemic bias on Wikipedia. This isn't any fault of the coordinators, but the pool of FAs is defined by the interests of editors passionate enough to bring an article to featured status—all you need to do is glance at the list of FAs for certain specific topics to see that clearly—and those interests heavily reflect Wikipedia's systemic biases. When an important article on a topic outside of those biases gets promoted, it currently can only run once before it goes into the 5-year hold. By relaxing the re-running period, this proposal would give coordinators the option to run it again sooner, which would reduce the systemic bias of TFA. Regarding WP:VITAL, I maintain that while it's not perfect, it's one of WP's better tools for fighting systemic bias for the reasons I articulated below. It's certainly far more balanced than the current pool of FAs, so it would help to give it priority, even if only a little. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    This is a really compelling argument on a proposal I had a knee-jerk opposition to. It's worth adding that TFA will be biased towards short (hence obscure), cookie-cutter topics with little variance, as these can be produced in higher numbers but each article gets a full day. (No shame in this—I'd say lots of my content writing is cookie-cutter and obscure.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It took a long time to gain consensus for rerunning in general. For many years we didn't re-run "Today's_featured_article"_slot_on_the_main_page until it was changed to the five year mark during the March 2017 RfC, which we should respect. We have articles that have never run, and whether or not an article is vital should have nothing at all to do with an article is chosen or not. Furthermore, for those of us who steward more than one FA, who are aging by the minute, falling into poor health, dying (ie. Wadewitz, Brian Boulton, Slim Virgin), keeping the articles in a constant state of main page readiness is a huge ask. In my view an article is TFA ready when it passes FAC; at that point it begins to deteriorate. Asking to rerun every year puts even more pressure on an overworked volunteer community. In fact in writing this I've convince myself that it's a Strong oppose, and I never stick an adjective in front of a !vote. Victoria (tk) 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Victoriaearle, consensus can change, so it's perfectly alright to revisit the 2017 RfC where we waded into re-running TFAs for the first time. There is no obligation to re-run them, however, so no FA author is obligated to re-nominate them at TFAR. There is an expectation that FAs be kept in, well, FA shape, since that's why they're FAs and if not they're liable to be sent to FAR; this wouldn't change that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Moral support I do think that the purpose of TFA is to serve our readers, and if we can do that better by giving coords more flexibility to re-run articles, I'm for that. I don't think readers will notice or care if we re-run articles more often than once every five years. I'd disagree with Victoriaearle and say that if the article isn't maintained, then it should be taken to FAR, and I think that systemic bias is more present in the topics that get taken to FAC than re-running. However, more re-running may also detract from the motivation for taking articles to FAC if nominators start thinking that their article may never see its day at TFA. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think TFA is a strong motivator to bring articles through FAC. I also think our readers would enjoy re-running some more "core" articles when they coinside with IRL events. Further, I think that the answer to a cadre of FA writers "graying" is bringing in more younger editors in their 20s, 30s, and 40s to FA. I am not thirty yet and I came to FA in my second wind of editing after being a squarely metapedian in my teens and early-twenties. It is very possible to expand the circle and bring in editors like myself. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while open to rerunning, and actually having suggested articles for a rerun (last Gianni Schicchi), I believe that we shouldn't prefer those that are seen by many anyway, but rather those in niche corners that would profit more from being shown more than once. The present rule serves that purpose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support idea, oppose criteria. It would be good if we had more TFA re-runs for the sake of just better balancing out what topics appear at TFA, or to have more TFAs related to the date. However, I don't think the proposed criteria promotes either of those ideas. Also, I would think one of the points of TFA is to give articles that don't get too many views a chance to get a lot of views, something all of the proposed criteria is completely against. I don't think we really need criteria for re-runs. If someone has a TFA re-run request, they can just state their reasoning. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topics that are vital or have high readership already do not need additional exposure. Also, the FA pool seems in need of new blood and more reruns would tend to discourage this. And, as the current pool seems to contain too many cookie-cutter articles which make the slot seem tired, I'd rather see the occasional random article per this recent request. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support idea, oppose criteria - I'm very in-line with Sportsfan. We should value high quality infrequently viewed articles as highly as the more frequently viewed. So I'd oppose any grounds that biased towards the vitals. However, I can see 5 years being too infrequent. I'd be willing to support a change to three years (retaining the "2 slots a week" limit) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unconditional support , suggest optional edit of all other articles being allowed to run for 3 years instead of 4. It would be nice to see more time-relevant TFAs (e.g. Olympics, which was mentioned in the proposal). I suggest the edit in order to space out the criteria nicely. Additionally, I support removing the "two slots per week" idea (as in status quo), as it's not based on any sort of reader-focused optimization. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty much per Gerda; if anything the criteria's emphasis should be the other way around. SN54129 17:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this precise proposal, and especially including popular articles, which already get sufficient exposure and, as has been noted by others, tend to perpetuate our biases. However not opposed in general to relaxing the five-year rule somewhat eg for highly date-relevant articles or to improve the balance of topics. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We already have ITN and OTD, FA doesn't need to mirror current events. Let's keep promoting great articles on things folks don't already know about. I don't suppose a change from 5 to 4 years overall would be a big deal but I agree with others that the other changes would lead to less diversity overall. Retswerb (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Pageviews is more complicated, but the idea that prioritizing vital articles would lead to less diversity is unequivocally wrong. They are far more diverse than the extremely non-diverse pool of FAs, so prioritizing them would improve representation of topics that suffer from systemic bias. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I see TFA as an excellent way to keep editors motivated to maintain articles. And our readers benefit most if the articles they actually read are maintained. Also agree that diversity would increase if vital articles appear more often, as our more prolific FA editors often have a more niche focus. Femke (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose giving already hugely popular articles that much extra exposure. —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Vital FAs like Virus or Bacteria should be showcased more often than 5 years. JBchrch talk 17:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose a commendable idea, but not one that should be implemented as proposed. I don't see an actual problem here, but changing to every 3 years for WP:VA4 or WP:MILLION articles would be reasonable if there was a problem. The WP:VA5 list is too rough to be named in a policy like this, and we shouldn't run articles like Christmas or George Washington every year in any situation. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    @力, Bilorv had a good articulation of the problem in their !vote below, so I'd point to that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've nothing against re-running articles, but we certainly shouldn't be running any article once per year.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should be rerunning articles only to make up for gaps in the production of new FA's, and it doesn't seem that we need to relax the rule to manage this. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternative option

In the survey above, I see that several editors are supportive of the idea of loosening re-running restrictions but skeptical about prioritizing articles with vital status/high pageviews. Here's an alternative to consider: Just remove all formal restrictions on re-running, and let human judgement guide our decisions. In this implementation, !voters at TFAR could choose to support or oppose a re-run at any time based on their view of whether enough time has passed since the previous run. TFA coordinators would also use their personal judgement in selecting the re-runs not scheduled through TFAR, with time since previous run being one among several factors. Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer, with no preference for/against this vs. the original proposal. This would be a more fluid, less bureaucratic approach that could allow our norms to evolve more fluidly. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, with preference for this versus the original proposal and per Sdkb. Bureacracy can be useful sometimes, but TFA I believe can be benefited with less of it. Copying relevant comment from my previous !vote: It would be nice to see more time-relevant TFAs (e.g. Olympics, which was mentioned in the proposal). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think loosening the restrictions on re-running FAs is necessary right now. With 325 articles promoted to FA in 2021, and 755 FAs that have not been TFAs yet, there are lots of articles that are still waiting to be run. I want to encourage TFA co-ords and voters to find articles that have not had their first run instead of !voting to re-run a popular article for a specific date every few years. I would be in favour of revisiting this if TFA co-ords express a difficulty in scheduling a diverse list of articles. If an editor has a specific article in mind to run, they can still nominate under a WP:IAR reason, like what happened with Groundhog Day (film) for April Fools 2021. In fact, maybe that can be added to the top as part of the instructions, where someone can nominate a IAR candidate for a specific date for a specific reason, as long as it's for a big event (100th anniversary, April Fools, funeral of a recently deceased person, etc.) Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
While the schedulers try to generate a diverse range of topics each month (eg - Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022) it is really up to the community to make that decision, and, ideally, to give ongoing feedback. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I think we've got enough remaining unran (although some probably need FAR instead of TFA, and there's a few topics that I think should be never run for TFA - looking at you Super Columbine Massacre RPG!) that we should be prioritizing first-time ones over second runs, although I'd be inclined to have FAR saves re-ran a second time. Personally, I feel like a general rule of thumb should be 5 years between running, except for exceptional circumstances, although I don't think giving the coords a lot of judgment here is a bad thing. Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Me neither. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Z1720's reasoning. As above, I'd be fine switching to a three year rule, but the presence of these rules (both time and 2/week) are beneficial. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not convinced that year-apart re-runs would work, but I think the TFA co-ordinators should have discretion to act optimally to diversify topics and ensure appropriateness for TFA, and can certainly be trusted to do so. I like this proposal because co-ordinators are otherwise quite bound with rules that will enforce strong topic biases—and not even necessarily in the same direction as where Wikipedia has its worst systemic biases, as one prolific writer can produce lots of articles in the same format on very similar, tightly related topics.
    I do like the values of some above who want TFA to promote something unusual and obscure, but it's hardly unusual to see a battleship article at TFA when it has happened dozens of times before. To actually promote diversity, we need enough re-runs to turn down someone's 12th FA on the same topic (their work is still much appreciated! And it could reach TFA one day, just not within a couple of months). You may be able to convince me that TFA is diverse enough next month, but we're discussing rules that will likely still be in place for another five years if we don't change them now. And while we're on the topic of time-relevant TFAs, I think they're good, but we should think obscure: why not run some FAs on obscure (historical) Olympic athletes during the Olympics, rather than the main article that'll already be getting the views? — Bilorv (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Like Nodar Kumaritashvili? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Z1720, Nosebagbear, and HogFarm. My opposition is weak because I don't really see a problem giving coords more discretion, but I also don't see how the current rules are a problem. I agree the focus should be on first time runs instead of reruns, and given Hog Farm's comment, it seems 5 years would be the rule of thumb anyway. We have a sustainable rate of FA promotion and a solid 2 years worth of unrun TFAs, so I don't see a need to change the criteria for reruns right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in spirit. There are a few too many double-barrel clauses on these proposals. I support giving the coordinators full discretion on what to schedule, but per the consensus above, I support the general guideline to space out most re-runs every five years and to generally prefer new runs in a variety of topics. If the coordinators see an exceptional reason to run an exceptional article for exceptional circumstances every some odd years, it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to get caught up on that stuff unless it becomes routine enough to be harmful. That said, the proposal I'm looking for is to give the coordinators autonomy to decide and to relax our rules into codified social norms/guidelines rather than jettisoning them altogether. The IAR proposal above accomplishes the same effect. czar 17:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. No compelling reason to be bound by such rules. JBchrch talk 17:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no evidence the coordinators need or want these guidelines to be removed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current guidelines appear to be working.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per my response to the initial proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternative option 2

I don't think we should be rerunning stuff in general when we have two years' worth of FAs that have not appeared on the main page. Therefore I suggest:

In general, FAs that have previously been on the main page should not be rerun, so long as there is at least one year's worth (365) of FAs which have not yet appeared. The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up specific dates with FAs that have previously been on the main page, if those dates hold special significance for those FAs and their prior appearance was at least three years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.

Discussion

Note: Comments before 17:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC) are from the workshopping phase.

  • At WP:FANMP there are 756 articles that have not appeared on the main page. As someone who brought a level 5-vital article to FA status (William Lyon Mackenzie) I would rather see someone else's article at TFA that has not appeared on the main page first before re-running the article I wrote. I also think having "popular" or "important" topics at TFA more often will perpetuate systematic biases against non-English speaking topics, articles on women and their achievements, and highly specialised topics running at TFA. Instead of allowing FAs to run on TFA every few years, I would rather empower the TFA coords to give priority of reruns to vital, popular, and under-represented topics, which I think the TFA coords already do. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Regarding articles that haven't run yet, those could still be prioritized; what this would do would just be to give coordinators the option to re-run more stuff.
    Regarding systemic bias, that's true with regard to pageviews, but the vital article lists are well-calibrated to ensure global representation. Still, I think you have a point about empowering the coordinators. One less formalized way to go about it might be to eliminate the minimum period entirely and just leave it to human judgement whether an article is important/appealing enough and whether enough time has passed since it last appeared to justify it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    vital article lists are well-calibrated to ensure global representation. How so? For example I see English literature on the list but no corresponding entries from other languages. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria, one of the main purposes of the VA list is to help editors identify content gaps, so special attention is paid when crafting it to ensuring that it takes a global (and non-recentist, and otherwise balanced) perspective. One page where that's most obvious is Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography, where you can see that Western and non-Western areas are given proportional weight.
    I'm not involved with VA that much, so I can't stand behind all of its lists—I took a look at literature level 4, and while there are efforts at balance (e.g. only 6 out of 16 antiquity fiction works are Western), they lapse in the modern era, and having English language literature be the only one that rises to level 3 is indeed questionable. But still, I think VA does a better job than anywhere else on Wikipedia at creating non-biased article lists. The approach it takes—setting a list size and only then filling it, rather than vice versa as elsewhere—makes it easier to fight systemic bias, since all you have to do is set equitable list sizes for a given topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Courtesy pinging @TFA coordinators : Any thoughts on this? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, we're here to administer things along the guidelines the community sets. If the community changes the guidelines that are in place right now, that's acceptable to me. We have to be able to run some reruns, and have some choices, and this preserves that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
There are plenty of FAs which have not been TFAs for more than five years. It seems to me that a better use of the time of editors who support this proposal, and more helpful to the coordinators, would be to select one or two each month which they believe would improve balance and nominate them at Requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild, speaking personally, I'd be hesitant to make a WP:TFAR nomination of an article where I wasn't a primary author: if it's old or hasn't run in the last five years, I'd question whether it's up to standard (this traces back to the importance of WP:URFA/2020, as does so much), and if it's new but hasn't been nominated, I'd assume that's due to the preference of the primary author. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on getting older FAs back onto the Main Page, but that's a discussion we should probably take up separately, and it can be in addition to this rather than instead of it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I am currently scheduling February. Three of the articles I am scheduling were the result of nominations not by their primary editor, and are at TFA for the first time. Second-time-arounds are definitely fair game. This is Wikipedia, there is no ownership. Re the discussion you suggest we take up separately, my view is that if it is an FA, it is fair game for TFA; if it really isn't up to scratch someone will soon let us know. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll take you up on the invitation to nominate, then. As I was writing the blurb, I noticed some elements that'll need to be updated/fixed, but we'll see if the nomination prompts the tune-ups. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I've gone through the lists of FAs declared "Satisfactory" and "Kept at FAR" at WP:URFA/2020. I placed some suggestions into WP:TFAP and will be nominating some non-specific date proposals at TFA/requests. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a slightly separate question of how often the featured article should be WP:VA4/WP:MILLION. I don't see a strong need to disrupt the status quo, and this discussion will not find consensus on that question, but it is worth discussing. There are certainly many editors who would prefer TFA run articles like Parrot or Ludwig van Beethoven more, and articles like 2008 Orange Bowl and Missouri Centennial half dollar less. But the most straightforward way to change that is to improve more VA4/MILLION articles to FA status, not to re-run the ones we already have more often. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Having more vital FAs would definitely be nice, but improving articles to FA status isn't straightforward, especially for big/broad vital topics, and I'm skeptical of approaches to systemic problems that call for individual action. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/Archive_15&oldid=1081869036"