Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 59 60 (2013) 61 62 63 (proposals) (2014) 64 (2015) 65 66 (2016) 67 68 69 (2017) 70 71 72 73 74 (2018) 75 76 77 (2019) 78 79 80 81 82 83 (2020) 84 85 86 87 (2021) 88 89 (2022) 90 91 92 (2023) 93 94 (2023–24) Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

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)[reply]

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

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 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) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering Maria Stromberger for FAC, and I believe I've found all of the significant sources on this person. The problem is that one of them is much longer than the others. A few article-length sources have been written about her, but there's also one comprehensive book, a biography written by a historian who was given personal access to all of her records and documents. As a result, this one source dominates the article. I've highlighted the parts sourced to it at Special:PermaLink/1250335874, which is the majority of the article. Is this an issue in terms of the FA criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that it necessarily would be: criterion 1c is the most obviously relevant here, and that requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. If this really is a representative survey of the relevant literature (and "it's the only book-length work on her and was published within the last five years" seems like a good reason to believe that this is true) then I can't see what else in WP:WIAFA that would violate. That said, I can't immediately think of an example of an FA which is quite so reliant on a single source – Aspasia comes to mind as a subject with a single monograph which dominates the scholarship, but it was published in 1995 and there have been several relevant articles and book chapters since, so Henry accounts for only about half of the references. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herman the Archdeacon is up there as well. Hog Farm _Talk 20:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better example – looks like the only comment about sourcing which came up at FAC was Heavy reliance on Licence, but it looks like that's the main source that exists. So looks like it's not a dealbreaker (though that review had pretty light participation, so I guess mileage may vary depending on how thoroughly individual reviewers grill you about justifying it?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should be fine as long as the major facts are supported by other sources and any opinions are attributed. It's only a problem if one source is being used at the expense of all others. It's not uncommon, especially with biographies, to have one full-length book on a subject and lots of not-so-detailed sources. Those articles should still be able to become FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other possibility I'd suggest checking is whether there are relevant non-English sources not currently used. Those can be difficult to track in languages you don't know. (Not specific to this article, which I recognize does include non-English sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! I went over all of the other sources one more time and nominated the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any folks willing to process Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests it would be very much appreciated. Especially folks familiar with videogames and popular culture topics (e.g Feather (song)) - I review these too but I am always a bit uncertain on the quality of the sources vis-a-vis the FA criterium "high-quality reliable source", as I am more familiar with academic subjects than these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could sign off your SR at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tesla and unions/archive1, which has been hanging for ten days now. SerialNumber54129 18:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a bit more politeness for someone who has done 123 source reviews at FAC this year alone hurt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What impoliteness have you identified. SerialNumber54129 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reading of the "well, you could sign off..." as Airship: a "just checking whether you'd see this" on the talk page might have been more diplomatic. UndercoverClassicist 10:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's been done. My question wasn't so much about sharing the workload and more about recruiting people who are familiar with these kinds of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water/archive1 is one item where I have mostly completed the review but need a 2nd opinion (the dot 3) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've written my fair share of FAs on popular culture, I suppose I could do some but I'd rather not recuse that often so I might do it if nobody else turns up. FrB.TG (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently on a wiki break, but I could do some source reviews for some of the more pop culture/entertainment FACs. I will likely not be able to do too much, but I want to help out where and when I can as I know that are a lot of nominations and work involved with the FAC process in general. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: may I nominate another article? (also to minimize needing to bug yall in the future, should I just presume its okay to nom a second article when it gets up to the required amount of source and prose reviews?) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: But you don't know what the required amount of source and prose reviews are. No one can; it's dependent on every discrete nomination, every particular review, every individual coordinator. SerialNumber54129 22:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, there's certainly articles that need special attention, but doesn't 3 prose reviews/1 image review/1 source review generally hold as a minimum bar below which a nomination will get archived? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. What has whether a nomination will fail to reach a consensus to be promoted got to do with whether the nominator can nominate a second article? 2. See my response on the nomination's discussion page. 3. As a very general "rule" a nom needs source and image passes and three explicit general "supports" (not reviews as this nomination has) before a coordinator will even move on to 4. the stuff SN correctly alludes to – the intangible and ineffable aspects of a review page that we get the big bucks and the kudos for weighing and accrediting – and consider our binary output. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what Gog said. Personally, I prefer to assess each nomination individually before allowing a second one. Although the minimum requirement of three supports, along with completed image and source reviews, is essential, I still examine the depth and quality of the reviews and the overall state of the article. FrB.TG (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do in situation like this where it's claimed a consensus of editors favors a version that in my opinion does not meet the FA criteria, specifically 1c, 1d, and 4? (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in the consensus of other editors (myself included), that version meets these criteria more than the previous one... I will also note that nowhere, including in the linked discussion, you have expressed any concern about the sources used - until now. If you have concerns about some sources used, please discuss them on the article's talk page. They seem quite reliable to me, and they don't concern any REDFLAG content. Seriously, you are making a fuss over clarification of imprecise claim from your version (which stated "magnitude lower" that I have made more precise by adding "two to three percent", and addition of a single sentence linking to a directly relevant article about the group mentioned, i.e. Polish POWs (yes, it was longer before, I shortened it per consensus on talk, which you did not seem to have noticed)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not sure how you even got all these editors to express interest in a discussion. Where was the notification?

The editor who considers a source HQRS is obviously the one who should be expected to defend it. In my opinion, the Piotrowski source is not HQRS and I have no idea about the other one.

For context, the editors on talk are trying to add content that is not about Soviet prisoners of war, and which no reliable source connects to the problem of Soviet prisoners of war, for "context". Naturally they add only one national group—the Poles—when as I mentioned, if this content is relevant several others are also—thus causing a POV issue where none existed before. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I see no problems with Piotrowski, I think we can remove this source as it is not necessary (particularly some details were removed). Other sources will suffice - feel free to remove him, I have no objection to this.

As for context, prior ("your") version already mentioned Italians and Poles; I've just added a precise estimate (which was already present for Italians, but not for Poles), and a blue link to a related article.

Since you mention 1c (well-researched), 1d (neutral) and 4 (length), IMHO (and I think in the opinions on others who commented there) it is your version who was not well-researched (missing the precise estimate and not mentioning clearly the existence of other similar groups). And adding one or two sentences is not an issue with length - let's be serious. Oh, and regarding your claim that sources do not discuss Polish and Soviet prisoners together - hogwash, as you should know from "your" version (ex. Gerlach 2016:165)

Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [2] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [3] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• By the looks of it your argument has merit, but I don't believe it would be a good idea for anyone seeing this to comment as the above message is not neutrally worded, and could be considered WP:CANVASSing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I commented at the article talk page before I saw this last comment about canvassing. I agree there's no doubt about what Buidhe's opinion is, so by that definition it constitutes canvassing. It's not as bad as "please come and support my position", though. When I started reading the discussion one thought I had was that the stability criterion might be at issue, in which case the right advice could be to withdraw until agreement had been reached. That's in line with the original question: "What should the nominator do when the consensus of others makes an article worse in a nominator's eyes?" The other issue with canvassing is that you're not supposed to request comments at a forum where you think everyone will agree with you -- e.g. calling Wikiproject members to vote stack at a discussion. I don't think it was possible to predict how the miscellaneous group of FAC regulars would react, so Buidhe could not know whether the additional readers of that discussion would come down on her side or not. Still, I agree that making it even more neutrally phrased would have been better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's not in a bad location and it's not completely terribly phrased, but as you say it's obvious what buidhe's opinion is and let's be honest, most FAC regulars (certainly including myself) have probably taken her side of the argument before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]