Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests
Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Dank and Gog the Mild, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.
If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand. It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.
– Check TFAR nominations for dead links – Alt text |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||||||
How to post a new nomination:
Scheduling: In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise). |
Summary chart
Currently accepting requests from September 1 to October 1.
Date | Article | Points | Notes | Supports† | Opposes† |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nonspecific | |||||
Mar 29 | Battle of Towton | 4 | 550th anniversary | 8 | 0 |
Mar 31 | Richard Williams (RAAF officer) | 4 | 2+ years since FA; 90th anniversary of RAAF. | 7 | 0 |
Apr 11 | Luton Town F.C. | 1 | anniversary of founding (1885) | 2 | 0 |
Apr 21 | Royal Maundy | 1 | date of 2011 service (also the Queen's 85th birthday) Next to be replaced | 2 | 0 |
Apr 23 | Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall | 5 (?) | 2 years since FA, date relevance. | 1 | 0 |
† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers.
Nonspecific date (1 only)
Date requests (5 max)
March 29
4 points for the 550th anniversary of the battle. Chronologically, no penalty since the nearest "battle" article is 19 February's Battle of Musa Qala (7 December 2007, is this 21st-century battle considered "similar" to one in the 15th-century one...). An alternative date for this as a TFA is 17 April 2011 (the 550th Palm Sunday since 1461). Jappalang (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I support this, but we have had quite a few military-themed articles recently, so if this goes on the 29th March, it would be nice if there were few other battle/warfare-type articles in the interim period. I wouldn't want to give the impression that Wikipedians are obsessed by war! Bob talk 10:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Points look good. Sorry, we are not going to try to parse battles from each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support—an interesting topic and the article appears to be in a good state.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support—nice historical-type article for mainpage. I like it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Epic and interesting battle with an excellent date/anniversary connection. I enjoyed the read, especially the turning of the tide.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support As a Yorkshireman myself, I'm bound to support this one! It's a good article too; I'm impressed by the effort that has gone into it. Prioryman (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, per Casliber (talk · contribs), historical, encyclopedic, and educational value. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - good choice Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per Casliber (talk · contribs). – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
March 31
Four points I believe, two for age as FA, two for 90th anniversary of the Royal Australian Air Force, of which he’s the acknowledged ‘father’. I hear Bob’s concerns with a perceived preponderance of military articles but had this pending for a bit and there’s no other date that fits like this. Williams specifically chose 31 March for the formation of the RAAF, rather than 1 April as might’ve been expected given it was the founding date of the Royal Air Force, so that nobody could label them “April Fools” – and yes that’s in the article.... His key importance was not during wartime but in the ‘20s and ‘30s as he worked to keep this new air arm from being swallowed whole by the Army or Navy. Anyway, I’ve done my bit, it’s up to others now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Points look good This was obviously a significant date in Williams's life, not just that of the RAAF.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where's the link to the article? Please add it to the summary chart. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Patience, dear Sandy, I had to reboot my machine... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - nice image adorns article. I think the importance ofthe date overrides a localised preponderance of articles over a set time period. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, per Casliber (talk · contribs), nice image, great quality, good coverage of Australia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support (with the proviso that I suggested this nomination to Ian). Williams played an important role in the events which led to this significant anniversary for the RAAF. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support per others. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, looks good. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
April 11
One point – A point each for user's first TFA, anniversary of founding (given in blurb) and age (nearly two years, but not quite), but loses two because of Seattle Sounders FC's featuring today (19 March). I nominated this last year for the 125th anniversary but failed to get it featured; not really relevant I know but I still thought it was worth mentioning. A bit of explanation on the blurb, because it may look a bit recentist: I did my best but it can only be so long and I wanted to try to cram in all of the things which an English football/soccer fan would think of when thinking about Luton Town. These would be the Pleat dance, the away fan ban, the plastic pitch and the 30-point deduction. Cheers. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- indeed yes Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Minus twenty-nine points whoops, I mean one point. Sorry, force of habit.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
April 21
One point, the date the 2011 Royal Maundy will occur.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - very informative article and highly appropriate date. The blurb looks quite long to my eyes, but that might just be me. Bob talk 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've shortened it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. Bob talk 09:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've shortened it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment I just happened upon a more recent edition (in fact, a retitled edition) of the Robinson book on the Royal Maundy, a major source for the article, plus I bought three Maundy bags and an Order of Service for the Royal Maundy, so I would expect that this article will be further improved by the 21st. Though I think it's pretty good as it stands. I've also swapped the image to show one featuring the Queen, in view of the fact that (I just realised) April 21 will be her 85th birthday.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Big text
April 23
5 points? Following is my reasoning: two points for being promoted more than two years ago, four points for a semicentennial anniversary (Garland's concert, considered to be one of "the greatest night[s] in show business history" was recorded on April 23, 1961), and one point for being a significant contributor without a previous TFA credit. This total comes to 7 points, but I subtracted two with the assumption that another album article has been featured on the Main Page within the past month. Even if the semicentennial anniversary is a stretch, I'd still like to proceed with the nomination. Do keep in mind that this this article is somewhat different from other album articles in that Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall is a live, double album (and tribute album) that also focuses on a series of live performances. Much thanks to Wehwalt for writing up this blurb, per request. I am not familiar with the TFA process, so please be patient and accommodating if I am going about this the wrong way. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment on points - I don't know if it is acceptable to claim the four points for timing when the semicentennial is for the event this is a tribute to and not this event itself. However, if you can count this as a semicentennial, then you have made the request too early. Requests with 5 or more points aren't allowed as early as requests with less points. Currently, requests with 5 or more points are only accepted for dates through April 14 (see the line directly above the summary chart). Also, I don't think there has been another album since Is This It on February 20th, which is more than a month before the requested date. So if this is allowed to have the semicentennial points, I think this would have 7 points (and should be removed for now and requested again once it is closer to the date). However, if it isn't allowed to have the semicentennial points and you instead only claim 1 point for a related date, I think this would have 4 points (and could be requested now). Calathan (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I was expecting the semicentennial anniversary points to be questioned--I even mentioned above that requesting those points might be a stretch. Since it is up to reviewers to determine the validity of the points, I will go ahead and leave the nomination for now and revise the count to four if consensus produces the same conclusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since I helped AB write the blurb, I'm going to recuse myself on the question of points.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I was expecting the semicentennial anniversary points to be questioned--I even mentioned above that requesting those points might be a stretch. Since it is up to reviewers to determine the validity of the points, I will go ahead and leave the nomination for now and revise the count to four if consensus produces the same conclusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a Simpsons or Family Guy episode by this name:?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I think the relevant dates are the concert date and the album release date. The date of the original album would be relevant if this article were written in a manner that extensively compared and contrasted the album at issue with the original and thus had extensive content regarding the original. The substance of the reference to the original album is a track listing. I don't think that qualifies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)