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 November 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) 15:04, 15 December 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) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) >>>[reply]

I would appreciate input at Talk:Landis's Missouri Battery#Revamping. This is one of my earliest FACs, and I would appreciate some additional thoughts to make sure I'm not being too harsh on myself; this one isn't really up to my current standard. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurra-yi Khuttali/archive2 came down to three sources that were offline and in Farsi. I know that there are ways to get at offline sources, but I wonder if anyone's sitting on a way to handle spotchecks or sourcechecks when the source to be checked is in a foreign language. Folks vouched for DeepL on Hungarian sources and I think Polish sources too, but is Google Translate reliable for translating Farsi? I don't feel comfortable with skipping certain sources just because it's too hard to verify them, so these need to be checked as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2021 paper found that GT was 67.5% reliable for translating medical phrases into Farsi. If the sources are linguistically complicated, I would expect the reliability to be around the same; if they are linguistically simple, the reliability will go up. GT has also improved since 2021. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume good faith if other sources' spot-check did not indicate unverified statements or close paraphrasing. In this case, the nominator could also be requested to provide a translation. Borsoka (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a problem with the bot archiving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corleck Head/archive1. The bot has not added Template:Fa top or Template:Fa bottom to the page or updated Talk:Corleck Head. Steelkamp (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, I think I've located the issue so the bot will complete the archiving process next time it runs -- FYI Hawkeye7. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It has run now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall there were some tools an editor could run on an article that would scan it and identify some errors, particularly with citations. The tools that I'm thinking of were more-or-less part of the FA process, I seem to recall. I'm looking for these tools (in Help:Citation tools) but cannot find them. Am I dreaming, or are there such tools? Noleander (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Noleander: This tool by Phlsph7 highlights unreferenced statements in articles. It's not perfect, but it helps a lot. Usually, FAC candidates do not have this concern. This script by Headbomb highlights sources of concern, including unreliable, potentially unreliable, or blacklisted sources. This script from Trappist the monk will highlight sources listed as a reference, but not used as an inline citation. Entries have to be double-checked because citations that are formatted differently might produce false positives. Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice info, thanks! Noleander (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]