Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now
Battle of Saipan	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:48, 10 March 2012

Shortcut

WT:FAC

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Rlevse request to return to editing

This was posted to DYK, so it should be posted here: [1] SandyGeorgien (Talk) 02:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image or source checks pending

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Temeraire (1798)/archive1~~ SandyGeorgien (Talk) 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's done, they need to clear up a couple of file description pages, nothing major. I'm not touching the video game as I'm not confident in my grasp of NFCC as applied to video games.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, but images had already been reviewed. Not done, per my comments there, it needed a source check. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy I had a look at this and not a single source is available to me on google books so perhaps someone else in a different geographic region can get access. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TK; I have pinged Rif Winfield, and will try to do some myself here. [2] SandyGeorgien (Talk) 23:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did what I could myself, nobody was gonna do it after mutliple pings, promoted. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 15:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5~~ (reliability of sources and spotcheck for accuracy and close paraphrasing). SandyGeorgien (Talk) 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, problems found. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1907 Tiflis bank robbery/archive1~~ (See my comment at the bottom of the page: I noted two images with iffy license claims, but nominator was not responsible for uploading them to Commons and so doesn't know how to substantiate PD-old. I'm not sure what to advise, so a second review may be helpful. Removal? Substitution?) María (yllo submarine) 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look in on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive4~~ SandyGeorgien (Talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clay (done, problems found). SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 319/archive2~~ SandyGeorgien (Talk) 22:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I flagged an image.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not done-- per my comments, it was a source check I requested. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 22:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they should look at those images anyway. Or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria! SandyGeorgien (Talk) 16:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giraffe/archive3 images and source check. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 23:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hector Waller/archive1~~ (images). SandyGeorgien (Talk) 00:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria! SandyGeorgien (Talk) 15:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4~~ (WP:RS check) SandyGeorgien (Talk) 17:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was promoted. --Laser brain (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hadji Ali/archive1~~ SandyGeorgien (Talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was promoted. --Laser brain (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II/archive2~~ -- source spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, article promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2~~ -- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, article promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birth control movement in the United States/archive1~~ -- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prosperity theology/archive1~~ -- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faryl/archive1~~ -- Source spotcheck needed. J Milburn (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:Featured article candidates/James Tod/archive1~~ – spotcheck needed. Ucucha (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Done and promoted. Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1 - image review needed please, with particular regard to Russian Freedom of panorama.~~ Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington quarter/archive1~~. Could someone do an image check? Thanks in advance,--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Poppy Meadow/archive2~~ -- spotcheck of sources needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tks LB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive4 -- ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

self-archived FAC

Just a note in case something wasn't done properly ... User:Khanassassin apparently archived his own FAC (the most recent one). - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it too and added the FAC to the log and reverted a few things that are better left to Gimmebot. Ucucha (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools

Main page discussion. SandyGeorgien (Talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

palgrave mcmillan1 month free access (?)

It seems like you have to be a library, but not sure
URL looks suspicious. verify:
http://www.418group.com/palmac/aaa/index.html
Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For institutions only. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got whiskey, all you want!

There is a little tiny box in the upper-right hand corner called "FACs needing feedback" that I endeavor to keep current. Won't you please take a few moments from your day and show these articles some love? They have been here for over a month and are in dire need of solid declarations so our hard-working delegates can deal with them. I'm offering a dram of my Redbreast 15-year-old. In case you were wondering: Oh yes, it's much better than the 12. --Laser brain (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, now that's tempting! ;) I had a look at one of them and declared, but unfortunately it was an oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the biology-related ones this weekend--don't archive anything yet! Sasata (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done two, so do I get a double? Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, cheers. Although I have to warn you that the last time I had a double of this one, I ended up playing darts with a stranger at the pub and later making a pact that we would climb Everest next season. --Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically a suicide pact ... I think I'll pass on the Redbreast if you don't mind. Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question, sorry

hello, I know this isn't the right forum for this question, but I like to ask where I know people. Please forgive if it is an intrusion... is there a way to have the best of both worlds: Named refs without eight billion separate little blue superscripted thingies in the references section? Look at List of endangered languages of the Pacific. Ref 5 currently has a gabillion links and will have a gabillion more (hundreds, literally) as time goes on. I remember something about grouping references, but I have never used that trick... thanks! Ling.Nut3 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your best bet might not be to group the references; instead, you could create separate "Notes" and "References" sections; this will solve your problem if all those references to the atlas are from different pages. See Bone Wars for a straightforward example. This approach not only makes verification easier, but will provide a good referencing structure should the article be expanded later. All the best, Steve ^T • C 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, I didn't even notice who I was replying to. You already know how to do all that stuff and you don't need my patronising you. :-) Steve ^T • C 12:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you weren't patronizing. :-). I actually doubt there is a way to do what I want to do: all of the in-text notes go to the same ref, but that ref doesn't have a million little superscripted links back to the text. Mmm, maybe an option? Will look... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, a trick i used years ago on Taiwanese aborigines and had forgotten about, using {{wikicite}}. You can now safely ignore this thread (or go on ignoring it, as the case may be). Ling.Nut3 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting question

A current FAC begins: "Gustav Julius Werner Hartenstein (27 February 1908 – 8 March 1943) was a Korvettenkapitän with the Kriegsmarine during World War II and U-boat commander of U-156. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (German: Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes)." How easy is that to read? - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to read than to try and say if you don't speak German. But I don't like it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't like it either, and I've argued against using too much German too soon before at A-class, with mixed and unpredictable results ... which is fine at A-class, but I like to have more solid guidance to follow at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to argue for the text as-is? - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either, but be prepared for an uphill battle. I remember Tony and I used to tangle with video game editors about fully 1/3 of the first two sentences being Japanese-language. We got nowhere. --Laser brain (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the parentheses thing. Is that better? It would read more smoothly (in English) with the German-language text simply removed, but I too anticipate a long and tiring argument over trivia... so... Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking

I've been mulling this over for a while, and I've decided that I don't know what I think, so I'll just throw it out there. A lot of Wikipedia's success has been due to the principle of deflection, across multiple scales ... there's no one in charge, so the more contentious fights generally wind up looking like someone has picked a fight with a cloud (or a tar baby). Some amount of deflection is essential when the essence of what you're doing is conflict, but FAC has evolved way beyond just settling squabbles; we have a lot of competent participants who are counted on to do good work and who feel some responsibility to each other, or at least to what we're producing. What would be the best way to attract people to share the workload at FAC? Could we trial some kind of clerking position? - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll be interested to see what the delegates think, but it seems to me that there are two kinds of work at FAC: reviewing and deciding on consensus to either promote or archive. So what would the clerks be doing exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ... if the job is completely tedious and unglamorous, no one will sign up, and if it requires a lot of delicate judgment calls, then it's not clear that we even want to define that job, and if we did, it would be hard to find many candidates who could fill it. I know bragging on Milhist gets tiresome, but I really like the way Milhist solves this problem with the position of "coordinator" ... we don't define what any one coordinator does, we just have a list of things to do. Some jobs are high-profile, and that helps us attract candidates to run for the position, but most jobs aren't, and that leaves lots of work for coords who aren't looking for something complicated to do, or might not know how. Perhaps we could do the same thing with clerkship, and let the clerks work out among themselves who's covering what. If we don't get it right, Raul can sack all of us :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're almost certainly wired differently Dank, as I couldn't imagine ever putting myself forward for a clerking position, or accepting one if it was offered. But that's not to say that your idea is without merit; thankfully I don't yet rule the world. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you have in mind Dank, but there are a few chores that would help the delegates. Some of these are under the heading "Monthly updates" on my User Page and also here User:GrahamColm/FAC notes, which is a pasted copy of one of Sandy's subpages. There's already lot to do when a FAC is promoted – well, it seems a lot to me at the moment as it is not second nature yet – and if someone is prepared to take on some of the peripheral tasks, this would help. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair bit to do when listing a GA as well, so it's a general problem that maybe could be more automated? Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm easy, I'd be willing to be a clerk whether the position is seen as a big deal, a tiny deal, or something in-between ... but only if clerkship actually works and means something, and that's going to depend on who signs up. I recently signed up as a coord over at WP:GOCE with hopes that I could educate people about FAC and enlist some help, but that hasn't worked. Enlisting help might work if we approached the problem the way most volunteer organizations do, which goes something like this: define a position that needs filling, talk up how desirable it is, get competent existing volunteers to mentor the new people, stroke people for doing a good job, let the positions evolve to some extent ... and fire the volunteers if they're not working out. The more peripheral you define the job to be, the harder it's going to be to sell it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is we lack reviewers already, promoting a few more for clerk work is just cutting into this problem. I'm still not happy we didn't get much accomplished in that book and had to focus only on Raul....Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a clerk could help out by creating the monthly archive/promoted logs, updating WP:GO, and things like that, but there is more important work to be done. The cajoling for image and source checks would take a lot more off delegates' plates than the maintenance tasks. Also, making sure nominators are following rules about time passed since last nomination, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, but why would anyone want to do it? The enticement of clerking at other places is that it leads to positions of greater authority. What's the bauble here? Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Why would anyone want to be an FAC delegate either? I suppose I always assumed people who are involved in GA and FA processes are doing it because they fancy being involved in producing high-quality content. --Laser brain (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done bits of informal clerking on the FAC page from time to time, which has not made me exactly popular...Personally, rather than seeing people making logs of which articles need source or media reviews, I'd like to see them actually doing the reviews. Source reviewing requires a sharp eye and a high boredom threshold, not much else; image reviewing requires expertise that few active reviewers have at the moment, but we are all capable of learning. There is useful stuff around, e.g. this. I have been fairly inactive on the page for the past couple of weeks or so, but hope to pick up soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reviewing thing is a nightmare. I've hardly written a word on anything I'm really interested in for months now. But where's my badge? Malleus Fatuorum 01:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges. [3] --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help others to write, which is why I do the reviews, but that's not why I'm here; I came to write. But maybe I'm too much a child of the '60s to understand what's really going on. Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, believe me. The pressure to review is always there. It's more acute when you walk into a nomination with six supports and find problems in the first paragraph. I'm now forcing myself to write, because I feel like I've put in my time reviewing. I don't know where my badge is, either. --Laser brain (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's seen as a position of authority. Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing is the danegeld you pay so that your own articles in return get reviewed by others. There are no badges, just the (occasional) pleasure you get from seeing an article you've helped get through. It used to work that way. Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old archives

Following a link, I landed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/June 2004 and ended up reading many of the debates. To my surprise, every one of them seems to have been declared not promoted. Is there a separate archiving system for old nominations that ended up being promoted? Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 ::::Because it's seen as a position of authority. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 01:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
+Reviewing is the danegeld you pay so that your own articles in return get reviewed by others. There are no badges, just the (occasional) pleasure  you get from seeing an article you've helped get through. It used to work that way. [[User:Brianboulton|Brianboulton]] ([[User talk:Brianboulton|talk]]) 09:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 == Old archives ==