Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

message: 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)
thread_title: FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

message: I have combined the two statistics tools that I maintain into one location.  The GAN tool will continue to be at the same URL, but that site now hosts the FAC statistics tool as well.  The FAC statistics will no longer update at the old location, here; they will only be updated at the new location.  I will add a banner to that page making it clear that the data is no longer being updated.
The only FAC statistics tool I've moved is the editor query, since I think it was the one most often used.  If anyone is in the habit of using any of the other queries available from the current FAC statistics tool, let me know, and I'll add it to the new location.  Please let me know of any problems with the new tool. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A small thing, but on the new FAC tool if I enter the name of an editor with no FAC history I get "500 Internal Server Error" rather than a page showing no FAC noms/reviews. On the old tool, I get what I assume is the intended behavior. Ajpolino (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: A gentle ping to make sure you saw this. Not that it's an emergency or even needs to be fixed; just thought you'd like to know. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping; I'd missed this.  I won't be able to work on this till next week but I'll take a look then -- as you say, it's a minor issue, but I'd like to tidy it up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , this has been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: That's the "Current FACs" query?  Yes -- might take me a week or two.  Will post here when it's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, on the old one the link is labelled "Current FACs". However, it returned so much information that it took a long time to load. If possible (and if less work for you) this query can return less information for me, as I only used the reviews-to-FAC ratio stat. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into abbreviating it, but if I recall correctly the slowness was caused by having to access each of the active FAC pages to find the nominators.  If so it will be hard to speed up, but I'll take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to FAC and GAN statistics tools 

message: Hello, I am looking for a mentor as I am approaching the FA nomination for Hogwarts Legacy. In case someone is willing to do it, let me know, thanks! Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for a mentor for first FAC 

message: Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 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.  The queries used to generate this summary have been updated to point to the new tool location, and I've checked the output for consistency, but please let me know if anything looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for May 2024 

message: I feel like I'm asking an awful lot from the community all of a sudden, given I've received an enormous amount of help—especially in Kusma's GAN review—plus the pending peer review, but I hope another line cast here couldn't hurt. It seems that articles like this one are comparatively distant from the areas of interest and comfort of FAC regulars, in aggregate.
I think I am well on my way to potentially diversifying the crew as such but even if one doesn't have area expertise here, I think that would be perfect: a highly perceptive and thoughtful person without particular area expertise is most certainly someone I'd most like to hear a review of this article from the most. Of course, that is also true for a highly perceptive and thoughtful person with area expertise, but that would be for distinct reasons! Ultimately, I want this to be better than any other collection of 8–10k words in existence to educate people on the subject.  Remsense诉 12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentor request for [[Chinese characters]] FAC 

message: They have been told already not to post a source review check (here) without, per rule, . Yet earlier today they did so again, this time with the summary . This is not the case. Their article has picked up one tentative-leaning-support, and at least one other review refuses to give a verdict for their own reasons, while others have likewise not stated either way. So either MSincccc deliberately misunderstands the instructions for their own ends, or they do not understand basic instructions in English. If the former, then it is disruptive behaviour and if the latter then they should be reminded that competence is required to edit.  ——Serial Number 54129 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Users Sohom Datta and Ssilvers have confirmed that further comments will be posted tomorrow. User Tim riley has not opposed the nomination, and I have received support from user 750h+. Additionally, the request for a source review has been addressed. My intentions were never disruptive. Co-nominator  can confirm these facts. Furthermore, user @Serial Number 54129 has been leaving comments like  on other users' talk pages, where I did not expect a response from him. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your interpretation and fully accept that you were acting in good faith, but the nomination has not "attracted several ... declarations of support". You will save other editors and the coordinators, of whom I am one, time and effort if you do not list it for a source review until it has. Once it has, someone else - possibly me - is likely to list it reasonably promptly anyway. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response @Gog the Mild. Would you mind leaving your suggestions at Catherine's FAC then? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: MSincccc, there are currently 52 nominations going through the process, of which yours is only one, and yet yours is a name I see popping up on my watchlist on a great number of talk pages begging for reviews. Please stop doing this. It's annoying for people to be badgered constantly for review requests, particularly when everyone here has limited time available. We certainly don't need 52 people going round harassing for reviews if people want theirs to be driven through faster. Have patience, stop the badgering, review other people's articles (without asking for any reciprocation) and just wait for the reviews to come to you. You need to take on board that your review may take up to two months to go through the process. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @SchroCat Apologies if my frequent requests have inconvenienced you at FAC. As a young user, I acknowledge that I may sometimes feel vulnerable. I will make an effort to be more patient in the future. I won't trouble any of you with further review requests for my FAC. Thank you for your valuable advice. I will remember it as I continue to grow both in age and in my understanding of English Wikipedia. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: MSincccc, In my experience, I find that it is only really appropriate to ask for reviews if the person has specific knowledge in the field and thus would be able to give a more in-depth and accurate review. This... does not seem to be the case when you request this sort of thing. A few months ago you asked on my talk page to review your Mark Zuckerberg GAN because I had written a number of GAs in the Economics and business category. This would be understandable if I focused on, I don't know, tech executives? But these GAs were on coins. A few days ago you asked again for a source review on your Catherine article, emphasizing our "past collaboration on a DYK review". This behavior really comes off as desperate, and I would suggest not asking people for reviews in the future. I know you're young, you mention this a lot, but I know some pretty young editors, and they don't need to beg for reviews. They just write good content and know that with enough time, reviews will come.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Generalissima Thanks for your suggestion. I will refrain from endlessly requesting other users for reviews in future. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can Iemphasise SchroCat's advice "review other people's articles (without asking for any reciprocation) and just wait for the reviews to come to you"? Nothing is more likely to attract reviewers than their seeing you selflessly engaging in detailed, courteous and well-reasoned reviews of other FACs. It is also likely to improve the quality of your own articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSincccc 

message: FA Co-ords, Would I be OK in putting up a second nom? My current one is a couple of weeks old, has a few supports and the image and source reviews are complete. No probs if you'd rather I waited a while though. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks FrB.TG - that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Second nom?

message: One for fellow geeks, nerds and anoraks. The proportion of Wikipedia main space articles that are featured has just hit a 20-year high. As of the end of May there were approximately 6,830,000 articles on Wikipedia, of which 6,504 were featured. That's 0.0952% or about 1 in 1,050. This is the highest proportion since the end of January 2004 when, apparently, there were about 201,000 articles on Wikipedia, of which 194 were featured; that's 0.0965%. The end of last month was the best in this respect since then. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportion of articles that are featured