Wikipedia talk:One featured article per quarter

message: Small question: does this title need capitals? Is it too clunky? Marskell 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go for Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter; spelling out the number might be neater, but I don't think that capitals are needed (as "featured article" is usually lowercase). Kirill Lokshin 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill's suggestion sounds good.  Other shortcuts (e.g. WP:ANI, WP:FAC) lead to pages that don't use all CAPS.  So, I say no CAPS here. --Aude (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. I had thought of Wikipedia:Featured article drive as a title, but it didn't seem right of me to decide on that name without consultation. Fingers crossed this gets a critical mass of people and some add-on ideas—perhaps we can consider that more obvious title then, and place it in the FA content box. Marskell 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: <getting off chest>I don't write featured articles because of the effective prohibition on any serious quantity of equals signs. (Yes, I know there are some with equals signs. No, they are not serious equals signs.) Not to blow my own trumpet, but I know from my knowledge of the field that at least several of the technical articles I have written are of reference quality. There is however no possibility that they would ever be featured: to be able to appreciate more than the mere outline of the topic requires degree-level study or higher. This isn't academic arrogance, it's just the fact that the topics are technical and, whilst they admit the hand-waving explanations that I dutifully put in the lead section, to do the topic any kind of justice on its own terms requires getting down and dirty with it. Effectively, FAs have to be intelligible to bright teenagers (no insult, but they have much to learn, as do we all) and writing the article at that level would render it basically useless to those who will otherwise derive some genuine benefit from reading it. </chestyness>-Splash - tk 22:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great to have a comment from you Splash. "Bright teenagers", yes—and sometimes bright retirees, bright working age people with an arts rather than a science degree (I have myself in mind there), bright professionals outside their discipline, bright grad students, etc. It's supposed to be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists (WP:NC). The technical v lay writing problem is not particular to FAs (though it often crops in regards to them) and leaning toward the technical does not rule out one's creating an FA in lay language. I think it's often sub-articles that demand the equals sign; large topical pages are actually over-burdened by them. I have two Sci & Space FAs (one's a little better than the other...) and there isn't a single equals sign in either... I think they both do justice to their topic. Re "Basically useless"—no professional should turn to Wikipedia to be, let's say, fundamentally enlighted. They shouldn't turn to Brittanica, Encarta, or the Web in general. They should turn to discipline specific primary and secondary sources—I think most professionals already do that. Wikipedia is meant for others: those who want a way into a topic that may be difficult for them. Marskell 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I remembered this finally. You kind of make my point: the articles with equals signs would never be able to get featured. This is eminently disappointing: make your article really thorough, and no, we don't like it. But I'm off topic for this page, so I'll stop and go back to writing notfeatured articles. -Splash - tk 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely there is a wiki somewhere that accepts highly-technical writing? Carcharoth 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: simple:? -Splash - tk 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I don't write featured articles 

message: Since I'm not sure how many people check this page regularly:
*  Barnard's Star was promoted to FA!
*  Battle of Ceresole was promoted to FA!
*  Platypus is a current candidate, and looks likely to pass. was promoted to FA!
*  Kroger Babb is a current candidate, but has yet to receive and comments.
*  Ryan Leaf is a current candidate, and could use some more input as well as some copyediting help.
*  Józef Piłsudski continues to be at good article status, and is very close to a FAC, judging by its first nomination.
*  Music of Italy failed FA a month ago, is still a GA, and doesn't need too too much work for promotion at this point.
*  Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has reached good article status.
*  Medieval cuisine has reached good article status.
*  Music of the Lesser Antilles is a good article.
*  DuMont Television Network is a good article candidate as of 28 October, and, from what I'm seeing, should likely pass.
*  Mount Tambora is a good article candidate and should pass (needs some copyediting). was promoted to FA!
Fairly impressive rollcall as it stands.  Please comment on FA nominees if you're able to (yes, I'm actively begging for any commentary at this point, conflict of interest yadda yadda), but most importantly, keep up the good work.  Of the roughly 20 articles listed for this quarter, 12 of them (60%) are GA nominees or better, and we still have two months to go.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status update 

message: Aside from the articles I listed here, I am also working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks.  Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one.  Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States.  Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic.  To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals).  Personally, I really don't have a POV on this.  The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article).  Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article.   I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point.  Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag?  Do you have any suggestions on improving the article?  are there aspects of the topic that are missing?  Any help would be appreciated. --Aude 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review needed

message: I'm starting the push towards a successful FAC and I'm hoping I can make it before the informal deadline about a month from now. Any and all input is much appreciated.
Peter Isotalo 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Medieval cuisine]] up for peer review 

message: Possible userbox, for those so inclined:
	This user is a member of WikiProject for writing a featured article per quarter.
Addhoc 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addhoc, you substed the userbox when you put it here.  Where is its main location? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, ... Addhoc 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Looking at the statistics from the last quarter of 2006; 24 articles were listed.  9 of them made featured status, leaving this project with about a 37.5% success rate if you only count those that achieved featured.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An update - of 24 listed, 13 are featured, plus 7 are good. If a dood article is half-way to being featured, then our success rate is 68.75%. Addhoc 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty rockin'.  Hell, to be above 50% for featured alone is a great thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I allowed to change what articles I have listed here?  I chose two for Fall 2006 - getting one to good article  and the other is at WP:GAC now.   In addition, there is a related subarticle  that I think is definitely GA quality and approaching FA quality.  Because there is such a backlog at GAC, I don't see a reason to put it up there and it can go directly to FAC when it's ready.  For Q4 2006, I also worked extensively on a totally different article than the ones listed , getting it to GA status and close to FA status. Q1 2007, I have worked on totally different articles than the ones listed, getting two articles (both entirely new)   to GA status.  So, effectively I have 6 GAs (but 0 FA) since I listed articles here last September.  In my opinion, having 6 GA is almost/if not equal as a success. Furthermore, one of the articles I listed for Q1 2007  reached GA status last summer so counting it as a new GA is not correct and figuring into the "success" is not appropriate.  Would people object if I took off the two I had listed previously, and list ones that I actually spent time on? --Aude (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and updated the list of articles I have/am working on. If it's a problem to do that, let me know and it can be reverted.  --Aude (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated what I've been working on too, msotly in the event that someone can help out.  That's why I have 3 listed for Q2 - I don't know if all 3 will make it, but I'll be damned if I don't give it a shot since they're close, and since they're not popular topics, any extra eyes will help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success rate 

message: It could be a good idea to have some sort of automatised voting machine to do quick evaluations of articles. The goal would be to let editors know when the article is ready for FAC, so as not to clutter it, per Tony above. The way it could work; contributors could give a simple evaluation for each of the FA criterions. Either yes/no, or preferably A, B, C, D. That way we could know what to concentrate on. The idea is not to overlap with peer review or FAC, but to get a simple, quick way to assess the trengths and weaknesses of an article. --SidiLemine 11:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might be "evaluation creep": checking if an article will likely be supported before the actual support/oppose period... It would certainly be nice to eliminate the FAC noms that don't belong, but I think that's broadly a newbie thing and not something we can eliminate with a new evaluation (i.e., the people with a totally unready nom aren't familiar with evaluation procedures anyway). Marskell 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short evaluation 

message: ...to the editors who added the Userbox and did up the table summarizing the last quarter. The page remains modest but alive. Marskell 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos...

message: *Hiya, I haven't gotten any feedback on The Orb's PEER REVIEW in the 3 weeks its been posted.  This article isn't excessively far away from FA and is my entry for 1st quarter this year, so I was hoping a couple of editors could provide some suggestions.  Much thanks!  Wickethewok 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that a lot of articles at peer review get little or no response.  I stuck a backlogged tag on it the other day and commented at the villiage pump about it, but still... nothing. I'll take a look at The Orb when I get a chance. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Orb peer review

message: The article I've been working on, Joseph Francis Shea, has been stalled in the Good Article candidates backlog since February 6. It is also up for a WikiProject Biography peer review, but has received no comments yet. Any help or feedback on the article would be very much appreciated. MLilburne 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All set. It's very good, and it's GA now. –Outriggr § 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! It's appreciated. MLilburne 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA and peer review help needed 

message: first quarter of 2007 done... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.107.4 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been partially updated. I'll try to fix up the list if no one else does soon. Marskell 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: I covered WP:1FAPQ on my blog.  This gets picked up by the wikimedia blog aggregators, so perhaps a few more wikipedians will become aware of 1FAPQ.  1FAPQ is a great initiative.  I have faith that Wikipedia culture will begin to focus more on quality than quantity.  Jonathan Stokes 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Very Minor Publicity 

message: I listed Indonesia to get FA by first quarter 2007. We were late, we got it this (2nd) quarter. Can I change its listing in 1st quarter to FA? regards --Merbabu 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bumped to the top of the second quarter list, and noted FA. Sound good? Marskell 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia now FA... 

message: Is anyone updating the main page anymore? We're into the second quarter and it's not a table. DevAlt 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Round about the end of the quarter we turn it into a table, I think. Marskell 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating. 

message: If anyone is here, I have an article at FAC now.  My last FA passed within days, but this one has been listed for 2-3 weeks now.  Reviewers have been slow in coming, so more feedback would be very appreciated.  I'm happy to get any feedback, including objections (things for me to address). The slowness of the process is discouraging. --Aude (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add... when I do nominate at FAC, I always look through other articles and review some.  And, keep my eye on the FAC page for articles to review. --Aude (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current FAC

message: has retired.  If you're able to help maintain the FAs that he wrote and restored at FAR, please add them to your watchlist:
#  Laika  –  SandyGeorgia
#  Beagle  – SandyGeorgia
#  Red Barn Murder  –  SandyGeorgia
#  Sophie Blanchard – Outriggr §
#  Harry McNish –Outriggr §
#  Thylacine –Outriggr §
#  Four Times of the Day  –  Awadewit 
#  An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump – Awadewit 
#  The Four Stages of Cruelty  –  Awadewit 
#  The Log from the Sea of Cortez – qp10qp
#  John Dee – qp10qp
#  Anne of Great Britain – DrKiernan
#  Mary II of England – DrKiernan
#  Order of the Garter – Dr pda
#  Order of St. Patrick – Dr pda
#  Order of the Thistle – Dr pda
#  Humpback whale - JayHenry (and Casliber)
#  Blue whale - JayHenry (and Casliber)
#  Elizabeth Needham - Ceoil
#  Common scold - Ceoil
#  England expects that every man will do his duty - WesleyDodds
#  The Adventures of Tintin - Ceoil / WesleyDodds
#  Transit of Venus - Ceoil
#  Platypus - Casliber
#  Oceanic whitetip shark - Casliber
#  List of Cuban birds -Casliber
#  List of birds of Belize - Casliber
#  List of birds of Nicaragua -Casliber
#  Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre - Septentrionalis 
#  Parliament Acts -Septentrionalis
I've got Beagle and Laika.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will take Four Times of the Day, An Experiment on a Bird in an Air Pump, and The Four Stages of Cruelty. Awadewit | talk 18:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Gawd, this is depressing.  I'll take the whales.  I think casliber watches them both too. --JayHenry 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I helped fix up the "Order" articles, so they're already on my watchlist. Dr pda 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cortez.qp10qp 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take two. Ceoil 13:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I could watch and maintain Tintin & Venus, but both are outside my area. Ceoil 10:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows, I might learn something. Taken both, and volunteered WesleyDodds. Ceoil 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am already watching the Flavian Games; it will take considerable work to fix its major flaw; but I should be able to keep it from getting worse; I will keep an eye on Parliament Act, which could also stand a copy edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, Awadewit is keeping up her end of the deal; what about the rest of you slackers? :) Incidentally, this is the best showing of teamwork I've seen around wp (though maybe I don't get around much) – which must tell us something about Yomangani. –Outriggr § 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, probably most who signed up to watch his articles did so out of  awesome respect for the fine writer that he is and admiration for the legacy Yomangani gave Wikipedia. Perhaps we can all watch Inaugural games and Parliament Acts.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist 

message: How does one join this project.  I'd like to do some copy-editing, can I just add my name to the page?  Mbisanz (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep - just sign on. Welcome! Awadewit | talk 01:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflicted, more info so I'll post it) You sure can! If you like copy-editing, there is also WP:LOCE, and the early-stage Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. –Outriggr § 01:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining

message: Does anyone know how to make the fancy table for the third quarter? Awadewit | talk 12:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the fancy table and also listed the lists in reverse chronological order so that the most recent is at the top. A person coming to the page won't immediately see historical stuff. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the fancy table for the fourth quarter, but I wasn't slick enough to put it in reverse-chronological order. (Actually, I didn't think about that 'til I came here to post this announcement.) Please feel free to change or tweak or whatever. I felt weird about deleting all the commentary, so I put it in my sandbox. If I don't hear otherwise in a week or so, I'll probably delete it. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: R.E.M will likely be promoted in the next few days. Is it ok if I switch if from a GA to an FA in Scartol's fancy, shiny, fourth quarter table as most of Dodds work was done in Nov/Dec. Ceoil (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say OK! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When the star is added, of course please change the demarcation in the table. – Scartol • Tok 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancy table 

message: How about..........this...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't want to be a downer, but isn't writing down the whole lyrics of a song a copy vio? I like the idea, but we're not meant to put song lyrics on wikipedia... Spawn Man (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK lets have some fun... 

message: A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers!  Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article icon 

message: Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up 

message: Has this list been updated relatively recently to verify the listed editors still are willing to do the items listed? It might be helpful to have some confirmation there, as only one or two editors leave any clear notes on their user page or user talk page as to whether they are accepting requests for copy editing or peer review, etc. Also, for the dingy amongst us, it might be helpful to note what months are in each quarter :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project resources 

message: I get the sense that this project is withering, if not finished completely. Obviously people are still writing Featured Articles, but it may be that no one's really keeping up with this whole push-yourself-to-do-an-FA-each-quarter thing. If I'm wrong, I'll finalize the tables. But insofar as we're in the second quarter of 2009 and no one's committed to anything, I'm thinking we should just let this puppy go. Scartol • Tok 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering too—it does seem to be dying a slow death.  MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

text: We seem to be helping each other in a more ad hoc fashion. I suppose we should let it go. You know, two years from now, someone will say "I've got this really great idea..." Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we done?