Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

message: The Patience Barnstar
		To the FAR coordinators.  For showing skill and patience during the sudden uptick in FAR processing - looking at the archives, FAR hasn't been this busy in years.  I have to imagine it's a thankless job, but it keeps the process going, and y'all have been doing a good job at balancing allowing time for article improvements and not letting the page get unmanageable due to length.  And looking at WP:FARGIVEN, the higher throughput may be coming for awhile yet.  Thanks for being patient with a process that's probably a lot busier than anticipated. Hog Farm  Talk 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the coords 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Pre-2003 Brilliant Prose donated to the coordinators. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RBP history 

message: I don't know where to start with this; it looks like most of the article is plot.  Is that how character articles are written wrt modern standards?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it's how they were written to 2007 standards  :)  Is there a way to tell who fired up the bot that closed the discussion?  Serial 17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you know full well who it was, SN :) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The things we do in the name of consensus <sigh>; that one's not so bad (I know where the bodies are buried). SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, It never occurred to me to check the logs. Bots automatically confuse me, I admit. Remember what The Turk says: "You think too much of me, kid. I'm not that clever." (Apologies for: "kid"!). Sorry ! *facepalm*  Serial 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No need; there's often a backstory.  And the standards were what they were back then.  Anyway, as far as how to tell, Gimmetrow/Gimmebot added the feature of identifying who promoted/archived somewhere around the middle of 2008. Prior to 2008, almost all promotions were Raul (I did a very very few at the end of 2007, right after I was named delegate, and then took a month off for an unpleasant encounter with Arbcom and a now-banned user, with consequences that still reverberate in my life today).  After that, and until the bot started identifying the closers, most of 2008 were mine (wait 'til URFA moves beyond 2006 and 2007 and more of my favorite bad ones surface :).  But the definitive way to tell who promoted is to check who actually added the article to WP:FA, and compare to the archives, as sometimes I was cleaning up promotions where Raul forgot to add them. SN, I like the facepalm; it means I can get more sources out of you! SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pauline Fowler]] 

message: There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Save Award for [[Attalus I]] 

message: There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Save Award for [[Jefferson Davis]] 

message: I've just launched my first FAR (at Wikipedia:Featured article review/FC Barcelona/archive1) since  kindly added the new line to the pre-load, to help eliminate confusion over why an active discussion is occurring at a page with archive in the page title; it works, thank you FrB.TG. It was installed here initially, and then adjusted here based on subsequent feedback at WT:FAC.  The best wording may be different for FAC vs. FAR, and I think what we ended up with isn't optimal for FAR.  I suggest going back to:
* As of (date) this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.
"An FAR coordinator" is awkward, FAR is a two-phase process, and I think the wording "be responsible for closing the nomination" chosen at FAC sub-optimal.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to the proposed wording for FAR. I think "consensus is reached" works in this case since reviewers assess if an article's FA status should be kept or removed unlike FAC (where it generally means promotion). FrB.TG (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep ... we also have the whole thing about when to move forward to the next stage, so it's a bit different ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Done,  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pre-load 

message: There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Save Award for [[Harriet Tubman]] 

message: There is a script, , which is a one-click way to nominate an article for FAR. Super convenient. FrB.TG (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC-nominating tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR-nominating tool 

message: With both
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 (30 October), and
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 (20 May)
... stalled, I've been unable to make new nominations, and would appreciate an extension of the five limit for as long as these two continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with you nominating a sixth. DrKay (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I've just closed one of yours anyway. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission for six or seven again 

message: There is a discussion here which may be of interest to some members of this project. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates]] 

message: - Apologies in advance for the ping. Just wanted to say that I've not forgotten Matthew Brettingham's FAR. I know User:Nikkimaria parked it somewhere but I can't remember where. The books are going to take a few more weeks to arrive at my new home. When they do, I'll get on with taking a look at the sourcing. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently on hold and can stay that way for a couple more weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

text: , have not had a chance to look, but you can find FARs on hold listed on the relevant URFA page, see the entry for Brettingham at Wikipedia:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/2004%E2%80%932009#2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Matthew Brettingham]] 

message: I'm getting a bit concerned by the degree to which we've been having FARs stall out lately. Part of it is SandyGeorgia not editing since January (which is worrying) and most of the other regulars getting "busy" but we still need to figure out how to clear some of the backlog. I just moved and won't be able to do much consistent editing until I can get reliable internet at home, and I don't know when that'll be.
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Emmy Noether/archive1 discussion on how much background material should be included and in what form; this appears to have died out. Will likely require subject matter familiar editors
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Borobudur/archive1 - construction in progress (CIP)
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shapinsay/archive1 - seems fairly close, needs further reviews
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Red Cliffs/archive2 - more CIP
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1 - needs systematic source-text integrity checks
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 - more CIP
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1 - seems fairly close to me
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1 - more reviews needed; primary article worker won't be available until March
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Wilberforce/archive1 - I can't tell where this one stands
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 - CIP
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1 - needs detailed reviews
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/archive3 - seems close, needs more reviews
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geography of Ireland/archive2 - CIP
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 - seems fairly close, perhaps some concerns about article stability
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward III of England/archive1 - I can't tell where this stands
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2 - needs more opinions. Primary issues seems to be is it okay for the article to copy public-domain DANFS as extensively as it does
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doolittle (album)/archive1 - waiting on  and then should be good to close as kept
* Wikipedia:Featured article review/Redwood National and State Parks/archive1 - seems very close
Again, I know we're down several regulars but if we could make a concerted effort to get some of these moving again that would be good. Hog Farm  Talk 14:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the status update, HF. I have a couple things to clear off my plate, but I can get into a couple reviews in the next couple weeks. I've got my eye on some subset of Doolittle, Jackson, Concerto, Minneapolis, and Zelda, in case that helps others target their efforts. If anyone has suggestions about which to take on first, I'm open. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hog, I have only a para or two to added on individual songs for the Doolittle article, after than will vote keep...the prose and sourcing work is complete. Apologies for delay...will try and prioritise over next few days and then ping on the FAR page. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefangled, I might ping you re Doolitte if thats ok :) Ceoil (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm still planning to work on Concerto delle donne – yes I'm totally I aware that I've dragged it along for quite a while, but will certainly finish it. I'm also happy to help with Battle of Red Cliffs, although I'm not exactly sure what is needed. As for Byzantine Empire, I'm planning to rewrite the arts section when I have more time (mid-March). Aza24 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalled FARs 

message: There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Hog Farm  Talk 02:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Save Award for [[Sex Pistols]] 

message: ===Introduction===
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
===Statistics===
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023: 
* 83 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
* 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
* The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%
Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
 Some 2023 "FASA articles"
File:Portrait of a Hellenistic ruler (Attalus I?). Berlin, Pergamon Museum. (5256233048).jpg|Attalus I 2004 FA  TFA March 18, 2024
File:Missouri post refit.JPG|USS Missouri (BB-63)2005 FA
File:Lung small cell carcinoma (1) by core needle biopsy.jpg|Lung cancer2007 FATFA July 5, 2023
File:Hanford N Reactor adjusted.jpg|Hanford Site2008 FA  Part of the History of Manhattan FT
File:His Majesty’s Theatre London August 2023.jpg|His Majesty's Theatre, London2008 FA  TFA September 2, 2023
===Topics and Wikiprojects===
There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs.  As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
* Physics and astronomy	
* Biology	
* Mathematics
* Warfare	
* Engineering and technology	
*Video gaming
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
* Religion, mysticism and mythology
* Literature and theatre	
* Royalty and nobility
* Geology and geophysics
Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!
 FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2023 (VO,  O)
Topic area                       	Delisted  	Kept      	TotalReviewed	Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.56)	Remaining to review for  2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology	14        	8         	22           	0.36                                 	15
Biology                          	16        	45        	61           	2.81                                 	62
Business, economics and finance  	11        	1         	12           	0.09                                 	2
Chemistry and mineralogy         	6         	1         	7            	0.17                                 	6
Computing                        	4         	1         	5            	0.25                                 	0
Culture and society              	15        	1         	16           	0.07                                 	7
Education                        	25        	1         	26           	0.04                                 	2
Engineering and technology       	5         	6         	11           	1.20                                 	3
Food and drink                   	2         	0         	2            	0.00                                 	3
Geography and places             	47        	6         	53           	0.13                                 	17
Geology and geophysics           	3         	2         	5            	0.67                                 	1
Health and medicine              	9         	4         	13           	0.44                                 	4
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology	11        	1         	12           	0.09                                 	6
History                          	30        	16        	46           	0.53                                 	36
Language and linguistics         	4         	0         	4            	0.00                                 	3
Law                              	15        	1         	16           	0.07                                 	1
Literature and theatre           	17        	16        	33           	0.94                                 	20
Mathematics                      	1         	2         	3            	2.00                                 	3
Media                            	22        	11        	33           	0.50                                 	36
Meteorology                      	20        	6         	26           	0.30                                 	27
Music                            	30        	9         	39           	0.30                                 	52
Philosophy and psychology        	3         	1         	4            	0.33                                 	0
Physics and astronomy            	3         	10        	13           	3.33                                 	22
Politics and government          	24        	4         	28           	0.17                                 	7
Religion, mysticism and mythology	14        	14        	28           	1.00                                 	8
Royalty and nobility             	10        	9         	19           	0.90                                 	44
Sport and recreation             	40        	12        	52           	0.30                                 	38
Transport                        	9         	3         	12           	0.33                                 	9
Video gaming                     	5         	6         	11           	1.20                                 	21
Warfare                          	31        	51        	82           	1.65                                 	27
Total                            	446 Note A	248 Note B	694          	0.56                                 	482
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
* A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
* B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020.  Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.
===We need your help!===
Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity at WP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following the featured article criteria.
Here's how any editor can help:
*Review a 2004 to 2007 FA.  With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
*Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
* Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the talk page.
*Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
* Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed, but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article who would otherwise not look at it.
===Feedback and commentary===
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring older featured articles to standard: year-end 2023 summary 

message: More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback and commentary

message: Hi, could someone review and close Wikipedia:Featured article review/Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1? The article in question has consensus to be merged into Keith Miller article, and so given that the article won't exist, it cannot be an FA anymore. MY understanding is that a featured article review coordinator is needed to close the FAR discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the article no longer exists, the nomination will be procedurally closed, but looks like it still does exist for the moment? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Featured article review coordinator needed