Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

Should you have to read the lead to understand the article?

I've been looking at I'm God by @Skyshifter:. One thought I had is that the main body of the article doesn't actually start by explaining what the subject is, i.e. "I'm God is a ...". The lead does start that way, but that means you need to read the lead to have the right context. MOS:LEAD says The lead should stand on its own and I've always taken that to mean that the main body should also stand on it's own.

But maybe I've been reading more into that than I should, since the next sentence says the lead should establish context. I also see that my American Bank Note Company Printing Plant follows the same pattern; if you skip the lead and jump right into reading the main body at "Previous land use", it won't make any sense. I'm not looking to pick on I'm God, but I am interested in what other people think about this. Should you be able to skip the lead, start reading at the beginning of the main body, and understand what's going on? RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My view is that it should be possible to read the body without reading the lead first and still understand everything. Then again, I tend to write the lead (apart from the very first sentence or so) after I have written the entirety of the body, so maybe my perspective is just a consequence of that habit of mine. TompaDompa (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think of the lead and the body as more or less separate articles. Ideally, the body should make sense if you have only read the very first sentence of the lead (or the short description). Like TompaDompa, this reflects the way I write articles: write one defining sentence ("John Doe was a Scottish astronaut"), then write the body, then summarise the body and condense it into a lead section. A reader of my articles should be able to decide whether they want to read the lead (micropaedia) or skip to the body (macropaedia), but the body does not need to start by defining again what the article is about. —Kusma (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This is all a little outside the scope of FAC, where we should reflect the spirit and practice of the main guidelines. Ideally the body should be readable without the lead, although I suspect nearly no-one actually reads like that. Having said that, articles which have a Background section tend to start slightly further away from the main subject but provide necessary context which allows the subject to be understood more completely. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it's outside the scope of FAC. Reviewers need to decide whether or not to raise objections if this particular practice isn't being followed, and that's a matter that could be decided here.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Because this isn’t an FAC point: it concerns all articles but isn’t covered by the MOS. The same question could/should be asked more centrally rather than here. SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we're overthinking this. The lead should stand on its own because a reader could plausibly read just the lead; it's at the top of the article. From there a reader could click/scroll to any section. We should strive to make the article as accessible as possible to those who pick-and-choose their sections but neither the first section, nor any other section, needs to reintroduce the context that would allow it to stand on its own. That would make for a jarringly repetitive read for the top-to-bottom readers. Ajpolino (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I struggle to imagine a situation where there is information in the lead which is not in the main article and a nomination meets criterion 2a. Similarly the lead and the main article not each independently covering the topic. And 2a is explicitly within the scope of FAC. Perhaps it could be done, but I am sceptical. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In the two cases I mentioned above, it's more a matter of order. In my case, the main body starts with "Until the late 19th century, the land where the plant stands was part of the village of West Farms in Westchester County", but unless you've read the lead, I haven't yet told you what "the plant" is. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

That's why I tend to make sure the first sentence of the background section, if it mentions the article subject, includes the subject's original name. In this case you might be able to use the address of the plant. (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

In biographies at least, it's conventional for the first words of the body to be the subject's full name, which certainly gives the impression that the body, like the lead, forms a coherent sub-article in its own right. On a separate note, as a matter of style, I'd normally avoid using a phrase like "the plant", "it", etc which has an antecedent found higher up than the paragraph it is in. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

By definition, the lead is the summary of an article. IMO the lead should not contain any new information that isn't present in the main body to maintain consistency, ensuring all content is well-supported and verifiable. Introducing unique information in the lead without elaboration in the main body disrupts the logical flow and can confuse readers. The lead's primary function as a summary necessitates that it only encapsulates details that are fully explored within the main article so it makes sense for the main body to stand on its own without the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

New FGTC Coordinator Proposal

Hi all, please check out the new New FGTC Coordinator Proposal if you have a moment! Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for June 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2024; the analysis was done by Hog Farm (thank you) this month. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for June 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 18 9 Nikkimaria 1 18 Generalissima 5 2 3 SchroCat 9 UndercoverClassicist 8 1 750h+ 8 Draken Bowser 7 1 Matarisvan 8 Aoba47 6 ChrisTheDude 6 MSincccc 6 Pseud 14 5 1 Gerda Arendt 5 Premeditated Chaos 5 Tim riley 5 AirshipJungleman29 4 Dudley Miles 4 Epicgenius 3 1 Gog the Mild 4 Heartfox 2 2 Hog Farm 4 JennyOz 4 MyCatIsAChonk 3 1 Nick-D 4 RoySmith 4 Serial Number 54129 2 2 ZKang123 3 1 Kusma 3 NegativeMP1 3 Tim O'Doherty 3 Wehwalt 3 Ajpolino 2 Aza24 2 Borsoka 2 Buidhe 2 David Fuchs 1 1 Dylan620 1 1 Esculenta 2 FrB.TG 1 1 Graham Beards 2 Jenhawk777 1 1 Joeyquism 2 Ligaturama 1 1 Pbritti 2 Phlsph7 1 1 Sawyer777 2 Skyshifter 2 Ssilvers 2 Vanamonde93 2 Voorts 2 Z1720 2 Artem.G 1 Cplakidas 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered 1 Double sharp 1 Dugan Murphy 1 Ealdgyth 1 FunkMonk 1 Ham II 1 Hameltion 1 HistoryofIran 1 Hurricanehink 1 Iadmc 1 Ian Rose 1 Igordebraga 1 Imzadi1979 1 Ippantekina 1 Jaguar 1 JimKillock 1 Johnbod 1 Johnjbarton 1 Keivan.f 1 Lee Vilenski 1 LegalSmeagolian 1 Mike Christie 1 Mr.choppers 1 Patrick Welsh 1 PCN02WPS 1 PerfectSoundWhatever 1 PresN 1 Queen of Hearts 1 Rosbif73 1 SafariScribe 1 Sandbh 1 Shapeyness 1 Smokefoot 1 SnowFire 1 Sohom Datta 1 Stepho-wrs 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 Tercer 1 Therapyisgood 1 Therealscorp1an 1 TompaDompa 1 WereSpielChequers 1 XOR'easter 1 YBG 1 Totals 215 35 34

Supports and opposes for June 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 27 27 Nikkimaria 19 19 Generalissima 2 2 6 10 SchroCat 6 3 9 UndercoverClassicist 4 5 9 750h+ 7 1 8 Draken Bowser 6 2 8 Matarisvan 5 3 8 Pseud 14 4 2 6 MSincccc 6 6 Aoba47 3 1 2 6 ChrisTheDude 6 6 Premeditated Chaos 4 1 5 Tim riley 4 1 5 Gerda Arendt 5 5 Epicgenius 2 1 1 4 Heartfox 1 1 1 1 4 RoySmith 2 1 1 4 Nick-D 2 1 1 4 AirshipJungleman29 1 1 1 1 4 MyCatIsAChonk 3 1 4 ZKang123 3 1 4 Serial Number 54129 1 3 4 Gog the Mild 3 1 4 Dudley Miles 4 4 Hog Farm 2 2 4 JennyOz 3 1 4 Kusma 2 1 3 NegativeMP1 3 3 Tim O'Doherty 2 1 3 Wehwalt 2 1 3 Dylan620 1 1 2 Voorts 2 2 Phlsph7 2 2 Buidhe 2 2 Jenhawk777 1 1 2 FrB.TG 1 1 2 Esculenta 2 2 Ssilvers 2 2 Ligaturama 1 1 2 Pbritti 2 2 Joeyquism 2 2 David Fuchs 1 1 2 Aza24 2 2 Borsoka 1 1 2 Skyshifter 1 1 2 Sawyer777 2 2 Graham Beards 2 2 Vanamonde93 1 1 2 Z1720 2 2 Ajpolino 1 1 2 Cplakidas 1 1 Hameltion 1 1 Therapyisgood 1 1 SafariScribe 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 Iadmc 1 1 HistoryofIran 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Stepho-wrs 1 1 Smokefoot 1 1 Artem.G 1 1 Ham II 1 1 DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered 1 1 Keivan.f 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Jaguar 1 1 Sandbh 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Queen of Hearts 1 1 Igordebraga 1 1 Lee Vilenski 1 1 Mr.choppers 1 1 Johnjbarton 1 1 Therealscorp1an 1 1 Mike Christie 1 1 Tercer 1 1 Double sharp 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 Ealdgyth 1 1 Rosbif73 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 XOR'easter 1 1 PresN 1 1 Imzadi1979 1 1 JimKillock 1 1 LegalSmeagolian 1 1 WereSpielChequers 1 1 PCN02WPS 1 1 YBG 1 1 Patrick Welsh 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Sohom Datta 1 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 PerfectSoundWhatever 1 1 Dugan Murphy 1 1 Totals 135 1 2 19 127 284

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for April 2024 to June 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 3.0 19.0 6.3 AirshipJungleman29 7.0 38.0 5.4 Ajpolino 2.0 16.0 8.0 Aoba47 4.0 54.0 13.5 AryKun 3.0 11.0 3.7 BennyOnTheLoose 5.5 11.0 2.0 Borsoka 3.0 9.0 3.0 CactiStaccingCrane 2.0 1.0 0.5 ChrisTheDude 10.0 89.0 8.9 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 Dudley Miles 3.0 31.0 10.3 Dugan Murphy 2.0 5.0 2.5 Edge3 3.0 4.0 1.3 Epicgenius 8.5 20.0 2.4 FunkMonk 3.3 30.0 9.0 Generalissima 4.5 18.0 4.0 Hawkeye7 6.0 31.0 5.2 Heartfox 7.0 26.0 3.7 HJ Mitchell 2.0 7.0 3.5 Hog Farm 5.0 25.0 5.0 Iazyges 1.5 3.0 2.0 Ippantekina 5.0 7.0 1.4 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 198.0 33.0 Kyle Peake 2.0 None 0.0 Matarisvan 3.0 13.0 4.3 Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 7.0 70.0 10.0 MyCatIsAChonk 5.0 51.0 10.2 Olmagon 2.0 None 0.0 Paleface Jack 2.0 None 0.0 PCN02WPS 3.0 25.0 8.3 Peacemaker67 7.0 4.0 0.6 Phlsph7 6.0 10.0 1.7 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 29.0 3.1 PresN 2.0 1.0 0.5 PSA 1.5 2.0 1.3 Pseud 14 6.0 46.0 7.7 RecycledPixels 2.0 1.0 0.5 Sammi Brie 3.5 13.0 3.7 Sandbh 3.0 6.0 2.0 SchroCat 14.5 115.0 7.9 Serial Number 54129 3.0 47.0 15.7 Skyshifter 2.0 4.0 2.0 SounderBruce 3.0 4.0 1.3 TechnoSquirrel69 2.0 10.0 5.0 The Night Watch 3.0 6.0 2.0 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 12.0 3.0 TheLonelyPather 2.0 None 0.0 Tim riley 1.5 51.0 34.0 UndercoverClassicist 6.0 82.0 13.7 Volcanoguy 2.0 6.0 3.0 Voorts 6.5 24.0 3.7 Wehwalt 7.5 33.0 4.4 Wolverine XI 3.0 3.0 1.0 ZKang123 6.0 19.0 3.2

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple source reviews?

Quick question if that's OK - for the first time in my time at FAC, my current nom is/has been having two source reviews. One has resulted in a pass but the other is still ongoing. What happens if the second one doesn't pass? Does it then need a third to break the deadlock? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A failed source review means a failed nomination, regardless of how many other reviews have taken place (as long as the failing is made on reasonable grounds that are covered by the criteria/MOS etc). - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just a little perplexed by the multiple source reviews, as this has never happened in any of my previous noms. Normally it's a "one and done"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple source (or image) reviews are not standard, but any reviewer is free to carry one out if they wish to, and they are far from unknown. As SC notes, any issues raised will be viewed as seriously as any others. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Hi coords (if you see this), without pinging, Mike Christie asked if the source review on my current nomination would be a pass or a fail. Could one of you comment on it? Thanks. 750h+ 13:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Anyone mind doing a third spot check for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)/archive1? Thanks and best 750h+ 23:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tool for facilitating source spot-checks

Doing spot-checks in a pain in the posterior for so many reasons. Being a software guy, I'm working on a tool to at least simplify some of it. I've got a POC intermittently running at https://wikirefs.toolforge.org. My initial goal is to be able to tell it something like "pick a random N (or N percent) of the statements in the article and show them to me along with the references that support each one". I'm reasonably close to that now. A stretch goal would be to make this more like a code review tool where you can enter comments and the system will keep track of progress, but that's way, way, more complicated and will probably never happen.

For those not familar with with software POCs, that's code for "This is fresh out of the oven, so expect things to break all over the place. It's just intended to give you an idea of where things are going". Feedback is appreciated. You can drop it here, or on my talk page, or if you have a github account, feel free to file a bug report. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for developing this! My opinion is that it's better to spot-check based on the text, rather than randomly. For instance, a common mistake people make is overgeneralisation / extrapolating from primary sourcing. Spot checking sentences that seem at risk from this gives a higher chance of finding errors. Similarly, highly technical sentences are another source of potential error, as it's easy to misunderstand a difficult source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree about starting from the text, which is one of the reasons I dove into this. I think what most people do is to sample some references and then work backwards to find the text they support. Starting from the text and then working forward seems to make more sense to me. The long term plan is to offer both options and let the reviewer pick which they want. RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Roy. I agree doing source-integrity/verification reviews are a time-consuming process, so it's nice to have some tool assistance. It seems like it'll be easiest to help out with web citations. I ran it on iMac G4 and it can't handle {{sfn}} well because the links can't be followed anywhere (maybe if it prints a list of references at the bottom?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added sfn support to my to-do list. RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a really cool idea. As David notes, it doesn't yet play well with SFNs, but I can see it being really useful for articles that use "normal" citation methods. In an ideal world, it would be able to "read" the SFN and extract the reference (like the Wikipedia software does?), but I'm sure that's far more complicated than it sounds. Can I suggest some sort of feedback once you click the "Do it!" button to confirm that the wheels are turning: it takes a little while on some pages to do anything for me. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Poverty in ancient Rome

The article poverty in ancient Rome has been nominated for GA, by a user with a couple of years experience and a few thousand edits (i.e. not a newbie). I've been doing some GA reviews recently, focusing on editors with no GAs who have been altruistic enough to go ahead and do a GA review already, and this editor is one of those. I'm hesitant to review it, though, because it looks pretty good and I'm not a subject matter expert. I know we have some editors at FAC who are knowledgeable about that time period, so I thought I'd post here in case someone is interested in picking up the review. I hate to see a potentially very good editor get discouraged by having to wait six months for their first GA review, after having done a review themselves already. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fairly sure that editor has already had had a GA review from one such time-period & FAC regular, unless I'm missing something. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Then I've got a problem in the GA stats, damn it, which I'll look into. That does weaken my suggestion but I'll leave it up in case anyone is interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have taken on the review; thanks for pointing it out! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Stalled source review

Could I get a second opinion on the source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iron Man/archive2? It seems the reviewer and I have a disagreement about whether primary sources are required when writing about fiction, and they've now gone quiet. Courtesy ping to Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have responded there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sudden archival of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1

I'd like to request opinions regarding the archival of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive1. After a passed source review and an oppose (which has been addressed), the FAC was suddenly archived without prior warning. As I've explained here and the next comment, I don't think this was fair, as I'm at a loss just because the opposer didn't see my response in time (and they're not forced to). Had I been warned, as I was in another FAC, I'd have pinged the opposer again and tried to gather more opinions. I was also completely committed to the FAC and responded to all inquiries within the same day they were posted, so this wasn't an issue. As such, I'd like to know if is possible to reconsider the archival or, at very least, ask permission to renominate right away, as the oppose's issues have already been resolved and the two-week wait period is not needed. Skyshiftertalk 23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Although it was a bit abrupt, yes, I don’t see anything to be concerned about. Something I learned last year at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daytona USA/archive1 is that the coordinators expect to see supports in the first three weeks, at least one. Just because concerns were addressed doesn’t mean it should stay open if it’s not progressing toward being promoted, and I agree that three weeks seems like a short period to evaluate this, but I understand the premise that it has to be making measurable progress towards promotion in a reasonable amount of time so they don’t all sit for months on end awaiting more feedback. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

See, I completely agree with everything you said, but at least you got a warning in your FAC before it was archived. I just wish this had also happened to my FAC. Skyshiftertalk 03:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Side note addendum: usually a “support” on images or sources isn’t generally a “support” in that those reviews are required in all FACs and if it’s specifically on one of the two it’s usually taken as checking off that that review is complete and issues addressed, not a support of the whole article unless specified or if that reviewer discussed the article and not just images or sources. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Coordinators leaving a warning note is not required but I do it in cases where there has been little to no activity - that wasn't the case here. It had been open for three weeks with no support and one valid oppose and given your knowledge of the FAC process, I don't think you should wait for a coordinator to leave a warning note for you to get active in terms of pinging reviewers and getting more participants. In any case, I don't think the prose issues have been fully resolved which is actually why I archived the nomination. The reception section, for example, is rather repetitive with opinions being lined up like a list without any coherent theme. FrB.TG (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Think I have to agree with the closure here. No supports after three weeks isn't a good sign of progress. My suggestion is to take the next couple of weeks going back over the comments and make sure they're all sorted, then bring it back again. In the mean time, I suggest you review other people's article. Not only will it help you understand the general concerns and levels of FAC, it will also act as an encouragement for others to review yours when you return; there is no quid pro quo at FAC, but people do tend to review those who the see being active on reviews. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not only that but if you review articles on similar subjects to the ones you nominate, you might pick up ideas for improving your own articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also agree with the close and reading through find it unsurprising: anybody who even half follows FAC knows the co-ords open/transparent approach wrt archiving. Skyshifter, in addition to Harry's advice on reviewing and goodwill, its not a sin to reach out and ask for help from potential reviewers. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

FFAC Talk Page Template

I have just noticed that the boilerplate template for a not-promoted FA candidate reads as follows:

[Competitive turnip eating] is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. [emphasis mine]

As I remember, we generally avoid the term "failed" around here, for reasons that the co-ords will be better able to articulate: I've heard it said that an FAC judges whether promotion, or non-promotion, is the best thing for the article, so if the judgement is "not promote", that shouldn't be seen as a failure.

Should this text be amended -- perhaps to something like "Please view the links under Article milestones below to view the nomination"? This might also be a more honest reflection of what the nomination page would show, given that they rarely set out in any authoritative terms (other than "consensus has not been achieved/is not likely to be achieved) what it was about the article that led to its non-promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps replace '... failed' with '... was archived' as nominations that don't proceed are closed as archived that'd be consistent with the term used on the FAC. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree -- "was archived" seems the right way to say it. I'd go ahead and make the change myself but the code for {{Article history}} lives in Module:Article history and I wouldn't know what to change there. Do we have a Lua coder in the house? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that "former featured article candidate" or "former good article candidate" are good statuses for an article. Instead it could be noted that the article has never been recognized as good or featured. (t · c) buidhe 23:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Those notes have a practical purpose, similar to how a second FAC nom states that it is a 2nd nom. And anyway 99.999% of articles have "never been recognized as good or featured". As usual, I'm not sure what your point is. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think these are fairly well entrenched terms, although of course that doesn't make them ideal. As a coord I find it useful to know this without checking article history. In any case I fully agree the 'failed' term should go -- either UC's or Mr rnd's alternate wording works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

'failed' should certainly go; it would take a lot of the bite out of noms that have lasped due to having timed out or need to run through a PR. i notice a lot of first time nominators who have articles on the verge but not quite there, see archiving as 'failed', and are thus hurt and often abandon the process. This change wont fix but might soften the blow. From a selfish pov, I see these people as badly needed future reviewers.Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, I've just requested the same changes for the module that affects {{Icon}} and {{Icon link}} — see § Template-protected edit request, August 1, 2024. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And just made this request as no one seems to have implemented the consensus for changes to {{Article history}}. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

Discussion regarding the FA status of the article moved from here to WT:FAR#J. K. Rowling. See diff.

Source suitability

Hi all,

At my most recent attempt at FAC closed a month and a half ago, I dug up a potentially valuable resource for Eternal Blue (album) (by Spiritbox). The source by itself would normally be reliable, but it has a unique accessibility problem which nobody at the FAC knew for sure was permissible. The source in question is an interview with frontwoman Courtney LaPlante conducted by Apple Music.

Here's the issue. Quoting myself on May 7, 2024: For whatever reason, the album ID on Apple Music for [this album] was changed at some point and didn't keep the interview. I found a cached version of the old ID interview on Google, but clicking the link gives me a [dead link]. I took said link to Wayback Machine, but the place I should find it is under a dropdown menu where the collapse button doesn't function. If I hit F12 to examine the page elements, however...it's there. I know this is a really far reach asking if this is admissible at FAC, but I think it would be invaluable coverage if it were permitted with the caveat that I include instructions on how to verify the information.

If this isn't granted, I'll pretty much be left to the commentary of critics for anything that isn't a single. What instructions should I put in the ref tag so someone can read this? mftp dan ^oops 17:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I've seen unpaginated ebooks referenced with e.g. search "John Smith". That link doesn't display anything for me, but I can see in principle something like search "Courtney LaPlante" in source code as a reasonable thing to do: Wikipedia doesn't mandate any reference style, only that the references should give enough information for readers to verify the information. However, there would be broader concerns -- if the information is on the page but the publishers haven't made it visible, how do we know that they stand by it -- and it's not, for example, remnants of a previous version that was deleted because it was found to be incorrect, or fraudulent, or otherwise somehow unsuitable for us to use? WP:RS, which is critical for FA sourcing, sets a great deal in store by the fact that reliable publishers with content-checking processes vouch for the information they publish, and that principle might be in question if the information has somehow been placed out of public view. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There's at least two songs noted in this interview ("Hurt You" and "Constance") which are discussed with the same themes I have already done on the Wikipedia article, but with different reliable accounts. Because of this, I have little reason to doubt this is authentic, if that's what you're questioning. I hadn't thought of that angle, and it's a good first guess, but after reading it, I do not find it likely that's the reason. mftp dan ^oops 22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, you'll have to convince the FAC reviewers of the source's reliability. If the information is conveyed in other reliable sources, I'd suggest citing those: if you have something that only exists deep in the source code of an Apple Music page, that's probably going to need a bit more explanation and justification as to why we should consider it reliable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm up to it. I've made FAC buy sketchier-looking (but obviously acceptable) sources. Thank you for the suggestion on formatting though, that's what I was looking for. mftp dan ^oops 22:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

To me, if it's normally reliable, and you can verify what it says, I feel like it should be fair game. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• When you say “it's there”, what information from that page is “there” that you are you trying to use? - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2024‎ (UTC)

SchroCat, if you inspect the page elements of the link in question (default for me is F12), search in the source code for "Courtney LaPlante". You should be directed to the beginning of the interview which should be displayed under the drop-down button which doesn't work. mftp dan ^oops 11:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this is the full text of the notes at the top -- you'd normally be able to click "show more" or similar, but can't on an archived version of the page for some reason? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, the archiving process doesn't always work on every aspect of a page, particularly on those that use things like Java. Annotating the location of the information is not a problem - it can be flagged up for anyone who wants to see it (this falls within WP:VERIFIABILITY. My concern is why the information is no longer available on the site and why they no longer show it on the current page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we behave any differently when any other link rots for whatever reason? I was asking if this was acceptable for accessibility reasons and how to note that, not any other reason. I think this is nothing to really worry about in terms of reliability; it's not like I'm going to source an entire section with it. mftp dan ^oops 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the current version of the page doesn't have any "notes" at all -- if there was some suggestion that it had been retracted or consciously disavowed, that would be concerning, but I can't see any reason to believe that's the case here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that would change my whole stance on its inclusion, but I'm not seeing anything that indicates that. mftp dan ^oops 17:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

New nomination

Hi @FAC coordinators: coords, Is there any chance I could post a second nom? My current nom has six supports and has passed image and source reviews. I want to bring in a nom for the Brighton bomb that needs to be finished by October so it can go onto the main page for its 40th anniversary. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Go right ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You're a star - thanks very much FrB.TG! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi @FAC coordinators: i'm just wondering if Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)/archive1 would require a source quality check? It's already underwent a spot check (passed) so i'm just wondering if it will need a source quality check 750h+ 01:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

A spot-check is checking for source-text integrity and plagiarism issues, it's not necessarily evaluating the quality of the sourcing used per WP:FAC?#1c, so yes it should have a source quality check. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sub-referencing

Just a heads up that sub-referencing is apparently making some progress towards implementation. It sounds like it's intended to be a replacement for {{rp}}. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've read and reread that page several times now, and I'm still unsure what the problem is/was or how/why it's been solved.

I trust the WMF sufficiently to know they would not 100% fuck something right up while chasing anything even mildly chimaeric. SerialNumber54129 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I dunno if that second sentence is serious, and I can't decipher what they're up to either, but if they're up to what I hope they are, I can see a use for it. And I'm on board for anything that gets rid of those horrid {{rp}}s. If I'm citing a very long source in Spanish, and need to provide quotes and translations per WP:NONENG, then if I have to stick, say, three or four quoted sentences and translations into one quote= parameter on a cite news template, I end up with a gynormous unreadable citation. If I can append the one sentence that applies to the one instance being cited (as in 1.1 and 1.2 and so on in their sample for each little bit that needs to be translated), it would be very useful. As an example, to see how I worked around a mess like that, scroll down here to Non-english news articles, which is what I did to get that mess of translations of individual sentences out of the way. If the WMF is fixing that, good -- I'm not sure what they are saying they are doing though. Maybe WhatamIdoing can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That's one of WMDE's projects, not the WMF. I think Johanna Strodt (WMDE) follows it.

The general idea is to replace the current <ref name="Miller" />{{rp=2}} with a built-in wikitext code for the page number: <ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/>.

Obviously – or it should be obvious, but I remember an editor struggling with this concept when it was first discussed some years ago – if you don't want to use it in a given article, then you just don't use it. (Simple, right? But that doesn't stop people from going on about "the WMF [who isn't doing this] cramming things down our throats that nobody ever asked for" [except in multiple rounds of the Community Wishlist]) That said, I believe that @SMcCandlish mentioned once years ago that, if it were ever implemented, and after a suitable delay to get used to the new system, he would eventually like to send {{rp}} off for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I attended a session on it at Wikimania 2024. It is just a proposal. I personally prefer our {{sfn}} form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but {{rp}} currently supports what you seem to be asking for—you can cite the same source different times and add different |quote= text in different instances of {{rp}}. TompaDompa (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think rp sticks the page numbers next to the superscripted ref number in the body of the article, rather than in the footnote, creating clutter within the article, so I don't use it. Hate it, hope it is submitted for deletion if the proposal goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa, the use of |quote= in {{rp}} violates MOS:NOHOVER, so it should certainly not be used anywhere near FA. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Genuine question: is MOS:NOHOVER meant to apply to references (rather than only article content)? TompaDompa (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean... I think the quote "do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information" in a broader policy on accessibility makes clear that it would apply to references. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it makes it entirely clear, which is why I asked. For one thing, a straightforward reading of that quote in isolation would seem to preclude using e.g. tables that are collapsed by default, which I'm guessing is not the intention (or is it)? For another thing, it's in the "Text" section (I'm guessing that's text in the sense of "the text on the page" as opposed to e.g. images, not "the text of the article" as opposed to e.g. headers and references, then?). Furthermore, as I understand it the reason for this is screen readers, and I don't really have a firm grasp on how screen readers treat references (or other things, for that matter), so I'm not sure how different the use of the {{rp}} template is in this instance compared to, say, a quote in a reference template that is in turn referred to by a {{sfn}} template. And finally, it's not obvious to me that quotes in references are "information" in the sense that is meant here (they are in my experience typically there for verification purposes, not really for the benefit of readers of the article text). TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have occasionally made use of the |quote= in {{rp}} before (though have stripped it out for FAC), primarily out of inexperience with other templates. I agree with you in that my understanding has always been that |quote= isn't intended to provide information for a general reader—that information is, of course, in the sentence that the citation is appended to. The quote is to make corroboration easier (via ctrl-f, etc.) than just providing a bare page number. — Penitentes (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

SN, here's another sample of what I think they're up to. I wrote Tourette syndrome before sfn templates, and I hate rp templates. So over a decade ago, that forced me to manually writing short footnotes to indicate page numbers from book sources. Later, when I learned the sfnp template, I switched over the books only, while the rest of the sources use cite templates. Search the page for "Sukhodolsky" as an example; I think under the new system, I could just use my normal cite book for Sukhodolsky, and then each of the pages cited would be grouped together under the main Sukhodolsky citation, making it easier to see how often and where I use that book source. And I wouldn't even need the separate listing of book sources in the references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, it will essentially be a new footnoting style, see the mockups in "How it works". I'm not convinced it is superior to {{sfn}} and similar templates popular on the English Wikipedia, but it should be great for places like German Wikipedia that typically do not use citation templates. If Visual Editor offers it, we will see it used quite a bit. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the ping and the discussion. I'm replying below the thread, hope that's okay.

• Yes, sub-referencing is a project by Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team. And as WhatamIdoing already pointed out, it has also been wished for internationally quite a lot over the years.
• Some reasons why sub-referencing was requested have already been described in this thread. More can be found at "The problem we are solving".
• Yes, the feature will be optional. You won't have to use it, but you will most likely encounter it in articles.
• How the feature works specifically is laid out in the section "How it works" on our project page. It's still a work in progress for the Visual Editor part. I would really appreciate any pointers on what’s unclear or missing.
• Please note that the wikitext syntax is different from the example brought up in this conversation; the page numbers will go in between the ref tags. Here's why.
• We're planning to announce our plans for this feature broadly on all wikis this week.
• To make sure we build the right things, everyone, regardless of experience level, is invited to test the feature in its current state.

Have a good start into the new week, -- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly what I have been waiting for, and will be much easier to use than the sfn templates. However, I wonder why this cannot be even simpler; e.g., why not just <ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/> as suggested above? And why cannot duplicate page numbers be detected and grouped automatically? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jens Lallensack. Other syntax options have been discussed, and we have laid out why we are moving forward with this option in our FAQ: m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Sub-referencing#Why did you choose this wikitext syntax?.

Detecting duplicate page numbers and grouping them automatically is an interesting idea, not only for sub-references but for references in general. It is, however, currently out of scope for us, as we are focusing on the essentials first. But for now, you will be able to group manually, by re-using a sub-reference. Hope that helps, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just worried that the new approach is still way too complicated – I need several steps in order to add a simple page number. Our {{rp}} templates are much easier to use, and, in my opinion, still superior for this reason. A much simpler syntax could be <ref name="Miller" page="page 2"/>, i.e., just include the extension within the ref, which would work if duplicates would be grouped automatically. This would be as simple as adding a {{rp}} template. But if I am not mistaken, such basic design decisions would have to be made now, not later? Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

{{rp}} is simpler, but that doesn't mean this doesn't have its place; I can think of a few articles where this will be useful in articles I've worked on extensively; Myst heavily relies on a recording of a conference talk that is hours long, and so the various quotes/timecodes could be made subrefs (putting them in rp would have been an unacceptable breakup of text). Likewise Art Deco architecture of New York City uses {{rp}} for the books as it's primarily mixed references, and using subrefs would be a cleaner presentation that's easier for readers.) rp and {{sfn}} will still have their places, but I think especially for articles primarily cited to websites and magazines rather than longform materials, it'll be a nicer way of integrating the latter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, {{rp}} is just for page numbers, and the new feature will certainly have its uses. But I thought the idea was to have a solid upstream solution that can, in the long run, replace our various existing workaround solutions like rp and sfn templates, which are really not great. I just fear that this will not happen, because the new feature is too complicated in terms of syntax and usability, especially compared to rp templates. I do believe that it is not impossible to arrive at such a unified approach that is as simple as an rp-template. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Your question and suggested syntax was specifically answered at the link Johanna gave: "The main issue with this approach is, however, that it causes problems with templates and is very likely to cause errors. Another problem with this syntax is that it does not allow to re-use a sub-reference, because the name attribute has already been used to refer to the main reference and cannot be used a second time." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I know; the second issue would be solved with the automatic grouping of duplicate sub-references as suggested. As for the issue with the broken templates: I do personally think that it would be worth the effort to fix the templates to make that work, because the long-term benefits of a much simpler syntax would be immense. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm excited about it. In it's current iteration, it seems like the syntax will be slightly more complex than sfn, but the benefit to the reader is, I think, worth it. As an editor and reviewer, it's helpful to have a sense of which source are being cited the most, which this simplifies. I join with the rp haters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Another one

Hi @FAC coordinators: this nomination has four supports, and completed source review (i think) and spot check, and a completed image review, so i believe this is closer to promotion than archiving. But there is a reviewer (AirshipJungleman) who left a weak oppose BUT struck it out, so i'm guessing it wouldn't be considered a vote anymore. 750h+ 12:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@750h+ Trust we're following the progress of nominations unless there's something exceptional going on. We don't need to be pinged about every little thing on your nominations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 2024. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for July 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Generalissima 1 3 12 Nikkimaria 1 13 SchroCat 12 2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 11 2 Tim riley 9 750h+ 7 1 UndercoverClassicist 7 1 Aoba47 6 1 Gog the Mild 7 Joeyquism 6 1 ChrisTheDude 6 Heartfox 5 1 Matarisvan 5 1 RoySmith 6 Draken Bowser 5 Z1720 4 1 AirshipJungleman29 3 1 Hog Farm 4 Hurricanehink 3 1 Kusma 2 2 LunaEclipse 4 Pseud 14 3 1 Wolverine XI 4 Ajpolino 3 BennyOnTheLoose 2 1 Buidhe 3 Dugan Murphy 2 1 Dylan620 3 Jens Lallensack 3 MaranoFan 3 MyCatIsAChonk 2 1 Premeditated Chaos 3 Sawyer777 2 1 Vacant0 3 AryKun 2 Aza24 1 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 Borsoka 2 David Fuchs 2 Dudley Miles 2 Esculenta 2 FunkMonk 2 Graham Beards 2 Hameltion 2 Harper J. Cole 2 PerfectSoundWhatever 2 Phlsph7 2 PSA 2 Sammi Brie 2 Serial Number 54129 1 1 SusunW 2 Therapyisgood 1 1 TompaDompa 2 Vaughan J. 2 Voorts 1 1 100cellsman 1 12george1 1 Artem.G 1 BOZ 1 Ceoil 1 Choliamb 1 CosXZ 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 Elmidae 1 Felix QW 1 FrB.TG 1 Gerda Arendt 1 GRuban 1 HAL333 1 Hawkeye7 1 Iadmc 1 IanTEB 1 Iazyges 1 Igordebraga 1 J Milburn 1 Jmabel 1 KN2731 1 Lee Vilenski 1 LEvalyn 1 LittleJerry 1 Mike Christie 1 MSincccc 1 NegativeMP1 1 PanagiotisZois 1 Panini! 1 PCN02WPS 1 Penitentes 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 SafariScribe 1 Shooterwalker 1 Skyshifter 1 SnowFire 1 Sohom Datta 1 Ssilvers 1 The Morrison Man 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 Vanamonde93 1 Worldbruce 1 ZKang123 1 Totals 208 43 36 '

Supports and opposes for July 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Generalissima 2 14 16 Nikkimaria 1 13 14 SchroCat 10 1 1 2 14 Jo-Jo Eumerus 13 13 Tim riley 7 2 9 750h+ 3 1 4 8 UndercoverClassicist 3 3 2 8 Gog the Mild 6 1 7 Joeyquism 5 2 7 Aoba47 5 1 1 7 RoySmith 2 4 6 Heartfox 2 2 2 6 Matarisvan 5 1 6 ChrisTheDude 6 6 Draken Bowser 5 5 Z1720 4 1 5 Kusma 2 2 4 LunaEclipse 4 4 Hog Farm 2 1 1 4 Wolverine XI 4 4 Pseud 14 3 1 4 AirshipJungleman29 2 1 1 4 Hurricanehink 2 2 4 Dylan620 3 3 Jens Lallensack 2 1 3 Vacant0 2 1 3 Premeditated Chaos 3 3 Dugan Murphy 1 2 3 MyCatIsAChonk 2 1 3 Buidhe 3 3 BennyOnTheLoose 2 1 3 Sawyer777 2 1 3 Ajpolino 2 1 3 MaranoFan 2 1 3 AryKun 2 2 Sammi Brie 2 2 Dudley Miles 1 1 2 Vaughan J. 2 2 Voorts 1 1 2 PSA 2 2 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 2 Serial Number 54129 1 1 2 Aza24 2 2 Graham Beards 1 1 2 David Fuchs 2 2 FunkMonk 2 2 PerfectSoundWhatever 1 1 2 Phlsph7 2 2 TompaDompa 1 1 2 SusunW 2 2 Hameltion 2 2 Therapyisgood 2 2 Harper J. Cole 2 2 Esculenta 1 1 2 Borsoka 1 1 2 Choliamb 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Ssilvers 1 1 SafariScribe 1 1 PanagiotisZois 1 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1 12george1 1 1 Jmabel 1 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 1 Worldbruce 1 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 1 J Milburn 1 1 100cellsman 1 1 Panini! 1 1 The Morrison Man 1 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 1 LEvalyn 1 1 Felix QW 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 Vanamonde93 1 1 Cukie Gherkin 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 LittleJerry 1 1 HAL333 1 1 CosXZ 1 1 IanTEB 1 1 Iazyges 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 GRuban 1 1 Skyshifter 1 1 Penitentes 1 1 Artem.G 1 1 BOZ 1 1 Iadmc 1 1 PCN02WPS 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Mike Christie 1 1 KN2731 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 Sohom Datta 1 1 Elmidae 1 1 Lee Vilenski 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 MSincccc 1 1 Igordebraga 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Totals 140 2 1 ' 20 124 287

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for May 2024 to July 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 3.0 27.0 9.0 AirshipJungleman29 7.0 36.0 5.1 Ajpolino 2.0 18.0 9.0 Aoba47 4.0 49.0 12.2 AryKun 3.0 13.0 4.3 Borsoka 3.0 11.0 3.7 CactiStaccingCrane 2.0 1.0 0.5 ChrisTheDude 11.0 76.0 6.9 Darkwarriorblake 4.0 3.0 0.8 David Fuchs 2.0 12.0 6.0 Dudley Miles 3.0 32.0 10.7 Dugan Murphy 2.0 8.0 4.0 Epicgenius 8.5 18.0 2.1 FunkMonk 4.3 31.0 7.2 Ganesha811 2.0 None 0.0 Generalissima 5.5 34.0 6.2 HAL333 2.5 20.0 8.0 Hawkeye7 5.0 27.0 5.4 Heartfox 7.0 29.0 4.1 Hog Farm 6.0 28.0 4.7 HurricaneHiggins 1.5 4.0 2.7 Iazyges 1.5 4.0 2.7 Ippantekina 5.0 6.0 1.2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 205.0 34.2 Kyle Peake 3.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 4.5 6.0 1.3 LittleJerry 2.5 2.0 0.8 Matarisvan 4.0 19.0 4.8 Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0 MyCatIsAChonk 5.0 53.0 10.6 NegativeMP1 2.0 9.0 4.5 Noorullah21 3.0 None 0.0 Paleface Jack 2.0 None 0.0 PCN02WPS 4.0 25.0 6.2 Peacemaker67 7.0 3.0 0.4 Phlsph7 6.0 10.0 1.7 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 28.0 3.0 PresN 2.0 1.0 0.5 PSA 1.5 4.0 2.7 Pseud 14 5.0 46.0 9.2 RecycledPixels 2.0 1.0 0.5 RoySmith 4.0 37.0 9.2 SafariScribe 2.0 3.0 1.5 Sammi Brie 3.5 13.0 3.7 Sandbh 3.0 6.0 2.0 SchroCat 14.5 118.0 8.1 Serial Number 54129 2.0 44.0 22.0 Skyshifter 3.0 5.0 1.7 SounderBruce 3.0 4.0 1.3 TechnoSquirrel69 2.0 10.0 5.0 The Night Watch 3.0 6.0 2.0 Thebiguglyalien 5.0 11.0 2.2 Therapyisgood 2.3 7.0 3.0 Tim riley 2.5 54.0 21.6 UndercoverClassicist 6.0 87.0 14.5 V.B.Speranza 2.0 None 0.0 Voorts 6.5 24.0 3.7 Wehwalt 8.0 30.0 3.8 Wolverine XI 4.0 7.0 1.8 ZKang123 5.0 16.0 3.2

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Cite Q

Is anyone writing Featured or Good articles with {{Cite Q}}? I've only recently become aware of it, and the issues, and missed the Deletion discussion when Mike Christie brought it forward here in 2017. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen it before so it's safe to say it's not commonly used. (t · c) buidhe 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That has been my impression as well (since I had never seen it either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't recall ever seeing it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's Qompletely Qretinous and should be deleted. It relies by the skin of its teeth on an absolutely Houdini-esque piece of self-justification: While Wikipedia does not regard Wikidata as a reliable source, citations using Cite Q are not citing Wikidata. Yeah, of course. The fact that it's the same individuals who wouldn't know an RS if it kicked them up the arse filing the bloody information in the first place is completely irrelevant, of course. Until Jehosophat Jumps once again and the day dawns when we are warming our toes on Cite Q, we must obey the TfD closure and ensure that usage of this template should be extremely vetted. I think, translated to FACness, that means... never. SerialNumber54129 17:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

According to this tool it is currently used 52,403 times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe someone who knows how to tweak such info out of a Petscan can figure out if it has ever been used on an FA (in which case there will probably be inconsistent citations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

29, although that includes secondary uses like {{Academic peer reviewed}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikki. I spotchecked only, and found a boatload of them were the Academic peer reviewed template. (That's a whole 'nother can of worms.) But ...

• Solar System passed FAR in 2022, and a Cite Q was added post-FAR ... inconsistent citation formatting.
• Planet, same -- passed FAR in 2022, Cite Q added post-FAR ... inconsistent citation formatting.
• Samuel Johnson (which Ottava and Malleus stuck my name on only because I wrote the TS portions) has a Cite Q in Further reading, inconsistent formatting (and all of that Further reading should be cleaned up by someone who knows Johnson-- I only know his health).

I guess I'm not watching that FA closely enough. And it looks like astronomy articles could develop citation issues down the road if the trend continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Shackleton–Rowett Expedition, Brianboulton, can't find the Cite Q or Academic peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Japanese battleship Yamato, two Cite Q templates added that look messed up; The ed17, are you still watching this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, that's an easy fix. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And, I checked a bunch more, and all have inconsistent citation formatting ... and noticed that the use of Cite Q could be a tipoff to poorly watched FAs. And most of those coming from Academic peer review also introduce inconsistent citation formatting. For example, Hippocampus is no longer maintained, but it uses vancouver authors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm. I can't find the use in Shackleton either - anyone else? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Blitzed - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

<grrrr ... silly me > I think I was searching on uppercase C only. I would be eternally grateful if some literary type would review the Further reading at Samuel Johnson. Well, eternally as long as my aging memory endures that is ... with Mally and Ottava gone, I can't pretend to know what is needed there in Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No one has questioned the number of times it is used? And you don't need toolforge; the number of uses is estimated at the top of its page. Anyway, that could just be a testament to certain parties being obsessive. I really don't know. SerialNumber54129 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's quite horrible to work around when trying to build content, but I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment and can't worry about it now and don't want to create a side distraction. Sorry I missed the deletion discussion. In case it comes up again, a workaround is to put the Wikidata code thingie in the cite template id= parameter, rather than use the Cite Q. That should help satisfy those pushing for this fixed citation style, although I'd be quite surprised to see it show up at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've always used the sfn template. How did you come across this one? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Working on a current event article, where there are no editors who have ever engaged content at the FA-level (best I can tell), or even GA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I modified Nikki's petscan to run on GAs, and found only 72 (one of those being the article with a faulty "academic peer review" that brought that can of worms to my attention, but I digress). So with 40,000 GAs, this citation template (fortunately) doesn't seem to have caught on even after seven years. And now having to edit an article with it, I'd say that's not surprising, for all the reasons given in the deletion discussion and the problems listed at the template talk page. Editing around it is difficult, and I can't often figure out how to correct the errors it introduces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• GA Rapaza is a short article (less than 2,000 words) written by one editor (other content editing only by the GA reviewer) in less than a week that uses only Cite Q, so has consistent citations. So perhaps on obscure topics written by one editor, the idea works; that situation doesn't describe most of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• GA Chrompodellid, same author as Rapaza, almost no one else has touched the article, similar situation, uses cite Q but mixed with other cite templates, and has inconsistent citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem here appears to be more about formatting issues and less about the use of Wikidata, as it's just a middle man here providing citation details like a publication date. (I also don't know why the citations link to the Wikidata item.) Theoretically/as I understand it, there are benefits to having a central database of citations to draw from. Wikimedia proposals about that go back years—see d:WikiCite/Shared Citations, although those efforts may be stalled. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There were also concerns (e.g. see the deletion discussion Sandy linked to) about vandalism in Wikidata, which would would not show up on the watchlists of editors on enwiki; and about ease of use. I don't think article space should be dependent on Wikidata anywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In the rendered citations, I agree the problems appear on the surface to be only minor formatting issues, but trying to edit around invisible citation data on a fast-moving topic involving many editors is an impediment to content building. I've wasted too much time trying to sort invisible citations from an edit window. And if I can't decipher how to address some of the issues, I'm not sure how a random or new editor will be able to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• The template feels like a solution in search of a problem --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Formatting citations is a nuisance and roughly 1/4 of why I haven't written any articles recently. The other 1/4 is exhaustion of topics to write about. 1/2 is the fact that this list of articles to maintain has become overly burdensome. Difficulties in fixing formatting issues are something I run in frequently even if the citation is hosted on Wikipedia, and I've heard of concerns about subtle spamming during e.g archiving too. While using cite q and other cite templates together is an inconsistency and this XKCD should always be kept in mind when making new citation styles, most of the problems referenced above with cite q are non-unique to cite q. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, Jo-Jo; a unique problem with Cite Q is that the citation data is not hosted within the article, so that when you are in edit mode, adding or modifying content, you can't see information about citations (is the citation already in use so you don't readd an already used, who is the publisher vis-a-vis reliability, how old is the citation re datedness) You have to have two windows open to be cross-checking. On a fast-moving topic with many editors, it's a supreme pain, and none of those real concerns relate to minor formatting. Those problems are less of an issue if the article has only one editor and they know what sources they are using and have already added, but that's not the usual case on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, I've encountered this problem with on-wiki citations too where one has to read separate sections of an article to evaluate a reference. Sometimes it's easy to get lost during scrolling. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 06:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something, a change made to the data that Cite Q is pulling wouldn't be visible to the average en.wiki editor, who presumably doesn't have the associated wikidata item watchlisted? Surely this creates a bit of a maintenance issue? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, correct; that is one of the issues brought forward during (I think) the deletion discussion. There are other complaints on the template talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So, this may be premature, but if some GAs are using them, they could show up at FAC. This discussion raises the question of whether WP:WIAFA should be modified from:

• consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.

... to:

• consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required, but citation template data must be hosted on en.Wikipedia.

Or some such ... to ensure the citations can't be easily vandalized and remain consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the vandalism issue would apply to any imported content (not just this template), but with regards to consistency, would an article using cite q exclusively also be problematic? The issue in most of the examples from the search above is that usage is mixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Using Cite Q exclusively can result in inconsistent citations; in the article I'm working on now (which will never approach GA much less FA), some Cite Qs are used that have news and journal source titles italicized rather than in quotes, and since those errors reside somehow in WikiData, I can't figure out how to fix them. And some are missing publishers. And some have alternate date formats. The citation formatting is externally controlled, and there are consistency breaches over there that can't be fixed in here. I can override some of the parameters to fix, for example, author name formatting, but not all of them. Just go to the current event I'm working on now and ctrl-f on Wikidata; you'll see faulty italics, missing publishers, and mixed author name formatting; I can override only the author name by adding that parameter to the Cite Q template, but can't fix the rest. So the editor of an article that uses only Cite Q doesn't have control over citation consistency on en.Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Found another problem: besides the messed up formatting here, this source is also a Wordpress, and Cite Q using WikiData meant that the reliability flagging scripts weren't red-flagging it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

And in this one, the main title is stored in WikiData in English rather than Spanish (and is translated wrong in English). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

A request for additional reviewers for 2022 Tour de France Femmes?

Where (if not here) would I place a request for additional reviewers of 2022 Tour de France Femmes? I've made changes as requested by nominators, and I believe the article to be in an excellent position, especially now the major sticking issue has been resolved – the length of the lead. Even if there is not a consensus to promote, comments would be welcomed for the future! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking for reviewers is not a problem. "Scouting out declarations of support" is the very definition of WP:CANVASsing and you would be sanctioned for it. SerialNumber54129 09:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that - that's obviously not my intention, for which I blame 7:45am! I'll rephrase my title, if that's okay. Turini2 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, Turini2; it was also a bit early to be mentioning sanctions. Sorry about that, but I hadn't been awke for too long... not at my best! SerialNumber54129 12:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No offence taken - I hope you have a great day! :D Turini2 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

High-quality reliability question at WP:RSN

See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think your reply resolved my question. Thanks. Anybody else is welcome to weigh in, though.--NØ 01:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I was concerned you'd only get a lot of "yes, reliable" at that noticeboard, when your question was targeted specifically to WIAFA.

As an example that will be better understood on this page, FA J. K. Rowling rarely cites the sources you mention -- even though newsy-focused editors want to add certain terms or current topics every time JKR hits her keyboard and clickbait or niche news sources report on it -- because of the abundance of much higher quality and scholarly sources such that a survey of best sources can help assign weight. For JKR, those high-quality and scholarly sources are available to provide an idea of how to weight content: YMMV. So, it depends on what you're citing, and what a thorough survey of the relevant high-quality sources shows; there well may be content for which those sources are the highest-quality sources-- in the case of JKR, they aren't, and the same content is covered by scholarly and other top sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

And JKR doesn't cite People (magazine) either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

FAC-level copy editor needed

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Thomas C. Hindman/archive1 for some background. There were prose concerns raised in 2022 after the initial rewrite. I've been referred to GOCE, but I don't trust the average GOCE copyeditor to do FA-level work. Hog Farm _Talk 16:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)