Since URFA/2020's launch, 145 FAs have been Delisted, and 114 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR, which the percentage of FAs needing review reduced from 73% to 71%. Work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 136 articles have been delisted during this time while 9 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 84 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 30 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 17 users edited WP:URFA/2020 at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR.
The project continued to reach out to active editors listed at WP:WBFAN to check the FAs they nominated. The project encourages experienced FA writers to check articles already marked as "Satisfactory" by a reviewer; the first reviewer is often the original nominator or interested in the topic, and they might answer questions or concerns if pinged on the talk page.
As of the end of this quarter, we have 135 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, a decrease of 17 listings from the Q2 report. This is a result of older notices being rechecked and listed at FAR. The project needs experienced FA editors to review older notices and determine if the article should be submitted to FAR or marked as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take over 29 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!
How to help
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, Wikiprojects listed on the talk page, and editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.
There was some discussion at WT:FAC about how editors are more motivated to nominate FACs then they are in fixing up FAs at FAR. I think a difference between the two processes is that editors can more recognition for completing an FAC (a shiny FA star, listed at WP:WBFAN, etc.) but do not get much formal recognition for FAR.
Brainstorming an idea, can a line be added to the FAR nomination code that, when the article is closed as kept, it would send a barnstar to major contributors to fixing the FARs? The way I imagine this would work is when an FAR is closed as kept, the closing co-ord would record the editors who made major contributions to the review in a line of code automatically generated from original nomination. A bot would then deliver the barnstar to those editors and list the editor on a list like WP:Wikipedians by featured article reviews. Hopefully, this will encourage editors to join the FAR process and give them formal recognition for their work.
I have been thinking along similar lines. Given a participant in a way 'rescues' an FA status, I thought a barnstar similar to those developed by the Article Rescue Squadron might be helpful, eg File:Rescuebarnstar.png. One could also suppose such a recognition would allow a userbox similar to those for GANs and FACs, "This user has helped save X Featured Articles". The downside risk here is perhaps that it does slightly incentivise allowing articles to reach FAR rather than dealing with issues beforehand, but article often don't seem to be picked up anyway so I'm not sure that's a huge risk. Further, like all barnstars, it can always be awarded ad-hoc without a formal FAR process. CMD (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant idea, worthy of discussion, not sure of the technicalities since it can sometimes be hard to tell who gets credit. The stat tools don't allow us to generate stats before and after, I don't think (?), so one portion of this might be listing on the article FAR talk page what the stats looked like (contributors) when the FAR was initiated. As an example, if you look at James Joyce stats now, you can't necessarily see that (because of my past cleanup of MOS), I was previously the highest editor by count but not by authorship, and it is hard to determine that the article is being saved by Wtfiv. You can tease that out by looking at the dates (Wtfiv's work began on 09/22/2021), but we can't just look at the stats to know who saved the star unless we have a record of the stats at the time the FAR was initiated. Then, for example, if other editors have helped Wtfiv (or do before we finish), what is the cutoff used in terms of who gets credit? It won't always be as clear as it is in this case--that it's all Wtfiv. Unless someone here better knows how to get such data out of the tools? (PS, most grateful about how we are able to discuss process improvements at FAR without acrimony or pointiness ... that is part of why FAR has been so successful :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to mention that I just found myself in FA by accident. Just one of those nice serendipities, where I saw an article at the edge of FAR and wanted to see if I could jump in and explore the FAR process. For me, the pleasure was the challenge of getting an article back in shape that many people feel passionately about, while learning more about a topic that interests me. The article rescue barnstar seems a good one to use, though editors may enjoy something more specific. Perhaps creating an FAR-userpage template along the lines of the GA-userpage , and FA-userpage that people could post on their personal pages might be a good idea. There's a set of intertwined issues that needs to be addressed though that I see.
How does one get the word out that articles need FAR? I could see- after I took on the page- that a banner pops up on the talk page. But my encounter was just chance based on going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after completing an FA review. But would something on the article main page be useful? Perhaps something replacing the FA star? Or is that just too messy?
FAR may need a process similar to GAN or FAC. The editor who adopts the FAR would then go through a FAR process. My preference is that it would be similar to GAN. The problem, of course is that the time between an editor adopting an article and feeling it is ready for FAR evaluation can be large. The James Joyce article I was working on was significantly more work than I thought it would be when I started. Maybe working with one editor, plus others who are interested, to ensure the article is back in shape. That would help it be self-documenting.
But these are just thoughts from someone who likes to work with articles in clean up. I can see that the administrative details could get terribly complex. Wtfiv (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re your first query (how to get the word out), when the processes are being followed, we do a very good job. That's why the notifications are important; if we delist FAs without people being aware, there will be grumbling. Not all of the issues I raised above have been addressed. The Coords do not have to do-- or should not have to do-- all of the grunt work here. Other FAR regulars need to take on checking that notifications are done correctly. Other than that, I don't see how much more we can do, as we have it pretty well covered.
Re "process similar to GAR or FAC", that is what this is :) That may not have been very transparent in your case, since you were seemingly working alone for a long time, because of the lack of notifications. Now there are other editors watching, and they/we will get to it as time allows ... we're all busy ... but by the time the JJ FAR closes, it should have been evaluated against all of WP:WIAFA, just as it would be at FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy I didn't mean to sound critical of the process. Keeping on top of the FARC is hard work and its clear the work done is great (and you have the benefit of a very cohesive, positive group). I'm just mixing up trying to understand the process with a bit of brainstorming, if it is helpful at all. My concern with notifications is to help enlist more for people like me, if that is one of the goals. People who may be interested on working with an apparently neglected FA, but wasn't necessarily an active editor. For instance, in the JJ article I never contributed, wasn't a primary editor, and wasn't considered one of the qualified ones. If it wasn't FAR, I'd probably have just left it alone. (I tend to avoid editing FAs that are appear to have a single editor overseeing them. Why get in someone's way with an article that is working? That's why FAR seems interesting. One can help out by picking up a once-good article that's neglected, learn a bit in the process, and not be perceived as disrupting someone else's hard work). It may appear my comments are travelling a little far from the current award discussion. But I think it is related to encouraging more participation in FAR recovery, if that is what is needed. For people like me, part of the "carrot" is really just knowing the need exists: learning about an article that needs work that I may not have considered in the first place. Of course, having set of rewards for FAR recovery like GA and FA would be great! I know many editors post them on their personal page with great pride!Wtfiv (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You did not sound critical at all. If it sounds like I was saying you were, it's only because I am typing fast and furious trying to catch up. By the way, where did you happen to see that James Joyce was at FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy I was on the FA nomination page wrapping up a FAC and clicked in featured article review (FAR) having no idea what it was. After learning what it was, I then scrolled down to see who was on the outs, and saw that James Joyce was FARCed and near the dregs of the bottom. To me, it looked like the last call before closing time when I got there. From there, I placed my request for an extension on the FAR talk page, as per guidelines. Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you found us! People sometimes ask that we remove the FAR listings from the FAC page; editors like you make it worthwhile to have the full list in one place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with some sort of carrot/award/recognition and glad this discussion is taking place. Not sure about automated barnstars though but do think something needs doing. Just pleased something is happening here after decades of tumbleweeds. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this generated some discussion. Responses to the above:
I like CMD's idea to use File:Rescuebarnstar.png, but replace the barnstar with an FA star. Anyone else like/dislike this idea? Is anyone good at creating graphics?
Responding to using barnstars: Barnstars for FAR work is currently awarded on an ad-hoc basis, at a user's discretion, and with no criteria. I am hoping that FAR can create an easy, automated process that requires minimal work for editors to recognize those who worked on an FAR. Perhaps this would be to create a list like WP:WBFAN for editors to see their stats. I am not sure how that list is created at FAC, so that might be something for us to explore.
In terms of who gets the credit for FAR rescues: I think the nature of FARs will mean that this is a subjective process. While FAC, GAN or DYK have nominators who can automatically get credit, usually editors who do the majority of work fixing up articles at FAR are not the nominators. This is why I suggested that FAR co-ords determine who gets the credit; they are reading through the FARs to determine if its ready to be kept, so perhaps they can record who is doing the work as they are reading. I would also support the co-ords being liberal about giving out credit, as getting a star might encourage an editor to come back.
I think having official credit from another user is better than something that is self-reported. Editors will trust a user that says they rescued an article if someone else "verifies" this by giving the award. This is why WP:4AWARD and WP:TRIPLECROWN have a user check to ensure the nominator deserves the award. A self-reported award or claim does not have as much legitimacy.
Responding to advertising FAR: I know I have seen userboxes stating how many articles that someone has rescued at FAR, I just can't remember who had it. There are lists like WP:FARGIVEN and Wikipedia:Featured article review/FAR urgents that editors look at, but users have to stumble upon them. My goal is that users will start displaying topicons or userboxs which state the articles they rescued at FAR, similar to what users have for FAC, GAN, or DYK. This provides free advertising for FAR on user pages.
Those are my thoughts. Sorry they are not under the specific users, but there's lots of conversation happening and I have lots of thoughts. If I missed anything, please let me know. I'm excited to get something like this going! Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a bit worn out after an entire week of one thing after another, but what we should decide this week is whether the Coords should give a barnstar for the JJ save, or whether any of us can do it, or whether we want a nomination process (something like happens at Editor of the week), or whatevs … too tired to think, but we have one editor who should be entitled to display the JJ star on their userpage, so should decide on something. When to award a save is one of those “you know it when you see it” things, when the editor goes from 0 to number 1 in the stats, and we’ve got one of those coming up for a close soon. I’d like to see us have a process where we all agree that a star is awarded, and decide by whom. And I’m too tired for anything beyond that, but appreciate you keeping this moving, Z1720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Sorry that I dropped the ball on getting this rolling: I have been busy the past few weeks. For JJ and Great Lakes, I think this can be given manually. In the Great Lakes FAR, I would give a star/award to North8000 because they were answering the reviewer's queries in the FAR and did the bulk of the work. Although I made some copyedits and prose fixes, I did not add research or prose, therefore I would be considered a "reviewer".
For future closes, I think FAR co-ords should give out the award, as this process will be subjective and they already have to read the FAR so they are best placed to make that determination. To try to simplify the process, I was hoping that FACBot could deliver this award on the FAR co-ord's behalf. When Types Riot was promoted as an FA, I received a talk page banner from FACBot (diff here). Can FAR implement something similar, but instead of the nominator getting the award, the FAR co-ord would add an editor's username to a line of the template upon its close, and the FACBot would deliver the award on their behalf? Here's a draft of what the award message might look like. Does FACBot also manage WP:WBFAN, and is it possible for FACBot to manage a similar list for FA saves? Pinging @Hawkeye7: as they manage FACBot. I don't want to create extra work for @FAR coordinators: if they don't want it, so are the co-ords OK with adding this extra step to the FAR closing procedure? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the wording on the Barnstar. But I suggest adding something to the effect of "you can proudly display the star for this FA in your userspace" (better wording needed, but that's the message we want to send-- you are responsible for this star). I don't think FACbot can or should do it, because (I believe) FACbot just automatically sends something to every FAC nominator when it processes the close, and the bot would not know the parameters to use for this, and it would not always be the nominator, and there would not always be enough changes to an article at FAR for us to say that one editor is responsible for the save, nor would it be the nominator, so who would FACbot choose via algorithm? Most of that also applies to how WBFAN is built, and we would need to do something like that manually. (I am personally not that interested in a WBFAN-type page, as that has promoted a very unhealthy "reward culture" at FAC, which hallelujah, is not a problem at FAR, where we work together, selflessly, for articles that represent someone else's old work, and most of us don't care about winning some internet prize for our effort.) My goal is that we come up with some sort of threshold for when we would award the star. I suggest we just set some criteria, and then have a Nomination subpage here, and then Coords judge consensus and issue the star. It is obvious in the case of case of James Joyce (from 0 to 88% of the content), less obvious but still so for the Lakes (North engaged in 2018, and is now the top contributor), while the Arsenal presents the possibility to discuss where we draw the line between an article that would have been defeatured but was mostly patched up at FAR by a diligent and helpful editor, but the majority of the content there is still someone else's work. My personal opinion is that, while we absolutely value the effort ChrisTheDude made at Arsenal, and the article would have been defeatured without him, my concern is that we build consensus, using these examples, about where we draw the line of recognition of one author responsible for the save. All who participated in the save? (Noting that would be a problem; I rack up hundreds of edits on FARs for doing trivial MOS work, so I should always be not counted, IMO.) Which editors who contributed to those saves? Or only saves where one editor had to pretty much rewrite? Or only when the editor who saves becomes responsible for most of the content? We need to set parameters, and those three give examples we can use for discussion. For all of these reasons, I don't think it can be automated, the times they will be bestowed are rare, and I suspect it will be more meaningful coming from the Coords, based on consensus at a Nomination subpage we set up. Then I suggest we review 2021 archives for the saves. As one example, by my preferred criteria (not just kept it from being defeaturd, but they became the lead editor in what was essentially a rewrite), I would award one to Graham Beards for Menstrual cycle. Perhaps others here will have other samples or opinions-- just throwing mine out. Thanks for all you do in here ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I don't think FACBot should decide who gets the star, either; it's going to have to be decided by a human editor. DYK has a parameter in their template (click here for an example where the names of the nominators are added under "Credits" and the bot delivers the message. The bot doesn't decide who gets the award, only delivers the message. Would something like this work in FAR, where the FAR co-ords add an editor's name when they close the FAR under a "credits" parameter upon its closure?
I added prose to the draft message about displaying the star on their user page. For criteria: my opinion is that awarding these stars should be very liberal, especially if it's an editor's first time at FAR. After all, we want to encourage editors to come back to FAR and fix another article. If a person becomes a "regular" the co-ords can decide to make the criteria more strict for that editor (and I would expect a stricter criteria would be used for me). Anyone who "leads" the clean-up on an article, responds to queries (as opposed to reviewing the article, fixing prose, and pointing out problems), or adds prose from sources to an article should be awarded a star; a star can be awarded to more than one editor.
Looking at the Menstrual cycle example, I see that most of the clean-up happened off of the FAR page, which means co-ords will also have to look at the article history to determine who gets a star. I looked at the history from the FAR's listing in Feb 2021 to its close in April, and I would agree that Graham Beards would get the award because they did a large amount of edits (both in number and in adding prose) during its FAR. Clayoquot and Sandy would also get awarded as they made edits that used sources to expand the article (Clayoquot example, Sandy example though the co-ords may choose to not award Sandy for this save as they are an FAR regular and would thus be subject to a stricter criteria. Making this determination took me about 10 minutes, and hopefully practice will reduce this time, but I agree that I'd want to hear from the co-ords first before this was implemented. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that gives me lots to go on. Would something like this work in FAR, where the FAR co-ords add an editor's name when they close the FAR under a "credits" parameter upon its closure? I think that would be giving the Coords an unnecessary burden, and force them into the nitty gritty of looking at article and talk contribs, and making their own decision, which is a weighty decision (especially if someone feels left out). I'd rather see a system where we have a Nominations page, and reviewers come to consensus, and the Coords just close the discussion and deliver. That would require them to view up to five more discussions per month, at the rate we're going. Asking them to also view talk pages is just too much work; the regular participants here know who gets the credit, and I'd opt for a process where we just Nominate, Vote, and leave it to the Coords to close and deliver. I agree that we want to encourage participation, but hate the reward culture that has taken over FAC (fueled by WBFAN and contests), and do not want us to head that direction. For example, I would turn down any credit for Menstrual cycle, as that is Graham's baby, totally, my participation was just bookkeeping. (Opt-out might be part of the proposal.) If we look at every FAR where I contributed trivial stuff, I'd end up with hundreds of these barnstars, and I don't want that to be the purpose; I don't have the extended engagement on any of them that led to the save (offering me as an example for discussion). On the other hand, if we go to a simply Nominate, Vote, Consensus, Deliver mode on a sub-page, each person can apply their own criteria, but we don't want to dilute the value of this star and encourage a reward culture. At FAC, only the nominator gets to display the star, so I'd not want us to be so lax that we award it to everyone who had a say in the review (we don't do that at WBFAN, and I've had way more active participation in getting hundreds of FA promoted than I do getting FARs saved). Let's hear what other regulars here think, and then after enough discussion, we can put forward a formal proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nomination system method is the one I prefer - less digging the coords need to do. I really think we ought to have some form of an opt-out, though, where someone does not want to receive the credit or does not feel that they did enough for the credit. Not sure what the standards for who would qualify would be, though. Looking at some recent examples:
I’m seeing that too, Nikki. We set up a subpage for nominations … when a FAR closes as a Keep, anyone can nominate participants for a barnstar, but !voting is closed if the nominee opts out (for example, I always would). After (a designated period … ??? … one week or two ? …) Coords close discussion and deliver barnstar designed by Z1720. The only outstanding question I have is … if the original FAC nominator is the one doing the save … do we reward them for … essentially restoring their own work? If we use a consensus model, different folks will say different things; I would not agree with rewarding the original FAC nominator for a save, as theoretically, they should have been maintaining the article all along. Others may disagree, and Coords judge consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per Z's opening post, I would say the original nom already has the recognition - they keep the shiny star, they're still listed at WBFAN. But open to being persuaded otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nikki above: original FAC nom already has a star for the article, they shouldn't get an additional one for saving it. I also wouldn't award a star to the FAR nominator: they should fix up the article and ask for comments at PR or URFA/2020. Nominating an article at FAR and then fixing it up feels a little like gaming the system for a reward. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to muddy the water, but if someone does fix up the article in response to URFA, should they also be eligible for getting this "save" recognized? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting … my gut says … only if they run it through FAR just to get the endorsement? I’m thinking, though, of all the Geography articles that you fix, and we know they’re good!! Maybe they should come through FAR again, because then they get a new time and datestamp in articlehistory, and we get to barnstar you :) :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we're saying we want articles improved via URFA to run through FAR anyways, we're going to need to reconsider how that process is working - there have been several articles that I'm aware of significantly cleaned up in response to those notices that were as a result marked satisfactory and never taken through FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've now wrapped my head around this dilemma, and have tried to apply some consistent logic :) There is probably lots of content on Wikipedia that might reach FA level but is unrecognized, and the editors responsible for that content don't have an "award" to display because they haven't submitted to FAC. We have similar wrt restoring FA content that has deteriorated; lots of editors as part of normal collaborations restore or maintain featured content, but are not "rewarded" via a new FAR. I have such an example wrt the complete rewrite of 13-year-old Tourette syndrome prior to its TFA appearance last year, where a cadre of FA writers combed through it with me to update and upgrade prose--none of those editors ended up with any "credit" for the newer version of TS, as we didn't resubmit to FAR (and I would argue that resubmitting to FAR would be a timesink, as so many FA writers who know the standards were involved). Do we really intend to encourage such efforts to resubmit to FAR, or would that unnecessarily overwhelm FAR? Thinking about this example led me to contemplate what exactly we are trying to reward and encourage here, and to my mind, we are trying to encourage and incentivize FA/FAC/FAR participation from editors who previously had nothing to do with the article, and take it on out of the blue, as opposed to what so many of us do as routine collaborations. I realize that if we take this approach, it leaves out people like us who work to restore articles via URFA, and that may not be ideal, but I fear we will stall if we don't limit our focus to the Wtfivs and North8000s, who came out of the blue and restored FAs that would have been otherwise lost. Maybe as a complement to this, we could vote on annual or semi-annual URFA awards, similar to the awards routinely issued by MILHIST? I am not convinced on my reasoning here--just throwing this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two options are: URFA/2020 creates their own reward system (maybe a barnstar?) for articles that are fixed up before FAR, or the FAR awards system can also be awarded to editors who significantly fix up FAs that they did not originally nominate. I like the second option because any incentive to fix up FAs is eventually less work for FAR, as it stops an article from being placed here. For example, I would not object to awarding Iazyges for their work on Basiliscus in October. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below on naming; extending this beyond FAR is increasingly of concern to me, considering some current FARs. Some of the problems revealed go well beyond the initial FAR nomination concerns, while some concerns in nomination statements may not actually be problematic. I am leaning more and more towards only recognizing editors of articles that go through FAR. (I can still be convinced to change my mind.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those to choose depends on whether we decide to include efforts of editors on URFA FAs that don't go through FAR. Honestly, after what I am seeing on the A&M article (that has been at FAR for months), I am increasingly concerned about opening up rewards to articles that haven't been more globally re-assessed via FAR, where they are likely to get many more eyes (including non-FAR regulars). There are also several current FARs that cast some doubt on the original notification statements, and show why our broad notifications are so valuable in making sure we get more eyes. On that basis, I would nix calling it the FARA, and focus only on the actual FAR saves. I would lean towards FASA, FASS, or (using the terminology in archives, Keep) FAKA, limiting to only actual saves or keeps via FAR. If we initiate a separate URFA award, I won't feel so bad about those we leave out. So, the naming depends on getting more feedback in here from everyone else as to the scope of the award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be nice. I agree with SG that we should only count articles that go through FAR. I would like a million award specific to FAR, which could be self-awarded after getting a FARA/FAKA. Something like "This editor won the Million Award for bringingrestoring Climate change to Featured Article statusquality." I feel like I'm slightly misleading people on my userpage now, by saying "bringing"
Wonderful to see this moving forward, Z; I too started moving on this just this morning (before I saw your post), so our ships crossed in the night.
I like most of your wording in your proposal, but suggest that we may not need a whole new process, rather can just use the talk pages of the existing FARs, while having only one page to record the outcome. Others may disagree. My main reason now for suggesting we don't need a whole new process is that there are so few of these. On the other hand, if we start a process, we may get more ... so whatever others think. We also have to take care not to overburden the Coords.
My idea was to nominate and hold the discussion on the talk pages of the already-existing FARS, ping the Coords only once consensus has formed, and then have a page where the Coords link to the consensus discussion on the FAR talk page, list the FASA awards, and bestow the Barnstar-- giving us a central record without a lot of process.
What I like about this is that it also provides us a way to find that information in Article milestones, as the FAR is recorded in Template:Article history. And, those opining probably already have those FAR pages watchlisted, so less places to visit for us.
I like Sandy's idea of having FASA discussions on the FAR talk page. I changed my draft in Proposal 1 to reflect this. I think having a dedicated FASA page would be helpful to give an expanded explanation of what FASA is and its process. It's not ready to be a full proposal, but I invite everyone to take a look, edit, and give their thoughts on the language. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice … we are pretty much on the same page now. One change I would want to make to yours, though, is that I believe the award would be more meaningful if coming from a Coord as opposed to anyone. We have to contemplate the possibility of a contentious discussion, and the need to have Coords be the authoritative close of the dicussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. Bling was never what motivated me, but I know other editors like it so I'll support whatever people think is workable. (t · c) buidhe00:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: speak now or forever hold your peace :) ???? It looks ready to move to Wikipedia space, unless one of you have any concerns or additions; we’re putting it on you to do the awards. And I have a dozen or so queued up to go on the Discussion page there. Very nice work, Z !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm also notifying the main WikiProjects as I nominate, as a way to spread the good news that they won't only be seeing FAR noms from us, but good news as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's 50 items on there first noticed in 2020 or before, would anyone else be interested in making an informal push to try to prioritize these in triage? Some of them may no longer need FAR and so will need to be removed from the listing. Hog FarmTalk14:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through and re-noticing the ones farther from the FAR criteria that no one's working on, starting with the oldest ones. I would appreciate another person going through the notices to ping the original noticer to encourage them to check again. I am up to Nathu La. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I can find the time and motivation to re-engage, I will prioritize this. After the last (four or five ?) recent medical FAC/FAR/TFA experiences, writing new content no longer holds much interest for me, so maybe I can find the time to re-engage URFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Wikipedia:Featured article review/Epaminondas/archive1 and listed who should be notified, but I'm away from my computer and cannot figure out how to copy and paste on my phone. Would anyone be willing to add the diff of T8612's talk page notice, perform the notifications (there should be about 10 between the editors and projects), and then transclude the FAR? If not, I can deal with that in a few days when I get back. Hog FarmTalk22:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the FASA discussions have been open for 2+ weeks, with a clear consensus on who should get the award. @SandyGeorgia: and others, how long should these stay open and how should we go about distributing awards? Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what we've seen so far ... which is less of a response than I had hoped for ... I think that two weeks may need to be minimum, and we need to decide if there is a threshold. Some of those with only two supports are quite worthy, IMNSHO, so ... what to do ... and even some weighty saves have gotten only three supports. I am wondering if some of the Coords might recuse so they can !vote, or if we are to take some hint from the relative lack of involvement here. And I continue to believe the FASA will have more gravitas if bestowed by the Coords. Christmas gifts are always nice :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a bit more optimistic: trying to get editors to comment on positive things on Wikipedia is very difficult (but if something's at ANI, everyone's got an opinion to share). James Joyce has seven supporters and no opposition, so it might be ready to close. Perhaps we can outline closing procedures with this one. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the raw template code from the Templates page and just filled in the article title, but I'm guessing from the coding that it's designed to take the name as a parameter in a template - what's the correct format for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I originally copied the templates from the the FA templates and quickly changed the wording. I have reworded the two templates on the template page: please take a look and tell me what you think. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: - It's been about 2 weeks since my last FAR nomination, and I am back at 5, with 4 (Knights Templar, Darjeeling, Oil shale, and Cliff Clinkscales) in stages of improvements. Would it be permissable for me to open a sixth? Hog FarmTalk16:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies. ... The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly. The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. ... Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.
We have always been lenient on timing at FAR; this leniency is framed in terms of "ongoing changes", "the article receiving attention" and "overcoming deficiencies". We have not addressed what the Coords should do when there are "ongoing changes", or an article "receiving attention", yet a persistent or enduring absence of "overcoming deficiencies" and it may not "seem useful to continue the process".
I'm keeping in mind that the ultimate goal of FAR is to bring articles to FAR status, not to demote the articles. Some editors (like me) need a deadline to encourage us to keep working on an article. However, if the deadline is too short, it will cause editors to get angry. I would support adding in the instructions that "If you are working on an article at FAR, please give an update on its progress every two weeks and post in the FAR when it is ready for further reviews" or something similar. If no progress is made on the article after two weeks, reviews or FA co-ords can continue the FAR process, which is what I think happens now. It is up to reviewers and FA co-ords to determine if the edits to an article are large enough to keep the article on hold. It's hard because it's hard to quantify needed improvements, so I think FAR needs to take it on a case-by-case basis. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is more the ones that drag on interminably. The recent British Empire FAR lasted for almost a year, and was mainly just arguing, and there's been several like that. Without naming any names, there's definitely a few currently up that have drug out and become deadlocked, they need put out of their misery at some point. I don't think this is intended to cut short the amount of time people need to address stuff when work is actively occurring, like the recent Achebe FAR, or the Euler one, but for the ones that become deadlocked and are simply going nowhere (I think we've all seen a few), there probably needs to be closure before it drags on for six or seven months. Hog FarmTalk14:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A FAC can't drag on indefinitely because if it isn't progressing towards promotion, we put it out of its misery. Should do the same here: if after a certain number of weeks there is no progress, it's time to put an end to it (and if necessary ask participants to declare keep/delist). (t · c) buidhe02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a much longer timescale than FAC makes sense for FAR. But if there's minimal improvements and it's taking a year, that seems like an example of definitely where cutting losses is best done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk03:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...if the deadline is too short, it will cause editors to get angry
I think @Z1720: hit the nail on the head with this one. I for one am very angry that 5 months of work and over a decade of maintenance has been thrown out the window and this article was rather unceremoniously demoted allegedly based partially on the logic of this discussion. Since this deals just with FARC, I'll confine my remarks about process to this point alone (but there were tons of other procedural issues with the established process from the beginning...see my initial remarks to @HAL333:).
I apologize for the length of these remarks, but I want to be thorough. Then the FARC progressed. I literally addressed every single point brought up by 3 Dec and explained I'd get the references last (a point no one objected to in the previous 4+ months). SG promised a review and I waited 3 weeks. Finally she clarified that she wouldn't even look at it until the references were fixed, so, despite my better judgement, I fixed them. SG said she had holiday guests and would get to it after then. She made some changes to the article (including some that had to be reverted). Then, apparently she decided she wouldn't do a full review and nominated for delisting instead. In the same 24-hour spread, 3 additional people offered the same opinions (1 graciously at least gave concrete feedback). 3 days later and during the Christmas holidays, it was delisted without a chance for a reply nor even a ping any other editors to respond while I had patiently waited months for SG to do a review...
This is a complete abuse of process. I don't want such a process to drag on and on, but with this FAR, there seems to be an extreme bias and rush toward delisting without any consideration for discussion and/or corrections (or any consideration that the conclusions were incorrect). I contend that at least some of the conclusions drawn do not match reality/were misleading and, in addition to the aforementioned skipped steps in the process, they were not sufficient rationale for delisting:
"having made it through only the lead and the history, academics, and campus section, this needs a massive amount of work" (HF)
"Looking at the source for basic reliability, we still have issues with: Largest.org, which was challenged all the way back in July, and there doesn't seem to have been given a justification for why this is reliable and Tomahawk Nation falls in the unreliable range of sports blogs."
The reliability of largest.org wasn't challenged in any way until November and only then it only vaguely said there were "issues with reliability"...I can't possibly address that sort of vague "issue"; the information seems to be accurate as well. No one has contested that any fact is incorrect in this article. Furthermore, Tomahawk Nation is not a blog, but a publication of Vox Media (which has editorial standards); it is used solely to point out when the coach left his former school.
This "consensus" was "developed" over the span of 24 hours without rebuttal or any attempt to get a reply and during a time when lots of people are clearly busy. While 3 days was given for a reply, I'd expect a little more leeway when I'd already waited multiple months for a review that just plain never happened or at least a courtesy ping to respond. I contend that the closing admin was reading what he wanted to read (probably unintentionally), ignored consensus on this discussion/misread the discussion, and ignored both the letter and spirit of the third stage of FARC as quoted above (which were the "rules" at the time). Even if it was going to be just days, that notice should have been made clear before the process was so radically altered. I respectfully appeal this closure and request that the article's status be reinstated pending completion of its FARC. Buffs (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment referring to The reliability of largest.org wasn't challenged in any way until November... broken out by Buffs (talk) per WP:TPO
This is a blatantly false statement. See Hal-333's post from 18:50 24 July, which begins Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources: and then lists largest.org as the first one. And Tomahawk Nation is part of the SB Nation local community network, which is literally a blog-hosting platform. Please refrain from making false claims. Hog FarmTalk03:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the aforementioned statement, indeed he brought it up. From what I could see, I thought his comment that it "may not be [a] high quality reliable [source]" was in reference to the fact that it was listed as "largest,org", a typo. I responded with WP:SOFIXIT because I felt he expended way more effort pointing out a typographical error rather than simply fixing it. He offered no pushback to that assessment and, in fact, he stated I'm happy to see the great work put into this article by Buffs. At this point, I drop any objections and advocate keeping this article as an FA. Cheers. Accordingly, I do not feel that it was clear that HAL333 felt it was a poor source. Now, I admit, in hindsight, I could have been wrong, but HAL333 never corrected that assessment, so I think I was at least mostly justified in thinking that was his objection.
I addressed these points and offered solutions at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Texas_A&M_University/archive1#HF which were basically to use a different source of your choosing (going so far as to offer a list of alternatives) or removing the associated statements and references.
It is hardly a reasonable assumption that when asking about the reliability of a source, to assume that using a comma instead of a period in the title is the reason why it is unreliable. As to Tomahawk Nation specifically, while the overall SB Nation site does have good editorial guidelines, the spinoff sites such as Tomahawk Nation or the one I often read (Royals Review) receive significantly less oversight directly from Vox or SB Nation, and instead apply some of their own oversight; the editorial process on a subsite such as TH can't really be compared to that of SB Nation's main site, which is a reasonable source. Hog FarmTalk05:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issues found (eg. failed verification) seemed very serious and beyond what could reasonably be fixed during the FAR process. So, I completely agree with the closure. (t · c) buidhe02:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet all the issues brought up such as "failed verifications" were all handled in a matter of a few short hours. I don't see how this jives with the rapid response I provided. Buffs (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I was talking about a deadline being too short, I was thinking of a month or two. There needs to be a balance between letting improvements happen in an article and keeping FARs open for several months. Perhaps the instructions need to specify that FARs cannot be open for several months and that they are to only be kept open if improvements can quickly be made. If an article is delisted, I encourage editors to continue improvements and bring it back to FAC. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's an issue when the FAR has been dragging been for five months, and there's still issues with very outdated numbers, detection of close paraphrasing (which is against policy), contradictory statistics, etc. Buffs, there's an expectation for you as the FA maintainer to be going through and fixing these things, and not waiting for other editors to dump hours into this and point out needed updates/etc. Hog FarmTalk03:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were hardly "very outdated" numbers, though some were updated. The contradictory numbers were the result of the update and a single sentence getting missed when the most recent data was added (as requested). I've spent over a decade reviewing this article. There is no title of "FA maintainer"; as with most FAs, there are usually a group of loyalists who help maintain it. with 140,000+ characters, it's unreasonable to expect absolute perfection from a single person without some help & feedback. We should be working together. Instead it feels very much like a band of gatekeepers tearing down the work of others without clear guidance what to specifically fix. To your ABSOLUTE credit, you gave me a list which I readily addressed. For that, thank you. If I found such a similar example later in the article, I made similar adjustments. With your list, I really felt we were getting somewhere. Buffs (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally be willing to go through more and leave some more comments, but I'm about to go on wikibreak in a day or two, so I won't be able to get much time to review this right now. Hog FarmTalk06:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to adjust the instructions for this one example; I've never encountered a FAR quite like it, and we shouldn't make instructions around one exception, which the Coords handled just fine. We should, though be more aware to balance reviewer time with nominator demands when issues are simply not being addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked numerous questions for clarification and explained my process. You stated you would do a review top to bottom...and then never did. Of course my actions didn't meet your expectations for a non-existent review. Buffs (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Buffs, for raising your concerns on the proper page. I don't feel you need to apologize for the length when you're unhappy, and am glad you brought your concerns here.
The "apparently she decided she wouldn't do a full review" about me isn't entirely correct; given that Hog Farm had already expended great effort going line by line, there was no longer a reason for me to do that.
Back on DrKay's talk, I told you I would explain in detail on this page why I disagreed with your analysis. The FAR instructions state:
The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.
For well over a decade, the FAC and FAR processes have selected as Coordinators/Delegates of the process trusted editors who have demonstrated knowledge both in writing FAs and in reviewing them. DrKay has served in that role since 2015.
The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process.
The FAR process is intentionally slow and deliberative, to assure ample time is provided to identify and resolve concerns, in the interest of delisting as few FAs as possible. That said, it is expected that steady progress towards addressing issues is demonstrated.
To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the @FAR coordinators: notification template elsewhere.
You (Buffs) state that "2 people !voted keep and then 4 people !voted delist"; the two who entered a "keep" declaration are Aggies (involved editors), while the 4 who entered "delist" declarations were independent. One of the four, Sdkb, is highly active at WP:COLLEGE and wrote FA Pomona College. The other three (Hog Farm, Buidhe and me) are all either current or former FAC Coords/Delegates, and in good position to understand the Featured article criteria and processes. Naturally, independent assessments of articles can be weighed more than involved declarations.
You seem to believe that the decision to close the FAR was rushed and without "time to make adjustments". In fact, at the time the FAR closed, there were multiple issues that multiple reviewers had raised over more than a five-month period that had not been addressed. And DrKay waited four days after the four Delists were entered before closing the FAR. Some examples from the many that went unresolved during those five months:
The source largest.org was first questioned (Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources: … "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org") at 18:50, 24 July 2021 by Hal333. Buffs responded with WP:SOFIXIT.
It was again raised at 15:38, 4 November 2021 by me.
It was again raised at 15:05, 28 December 2021 by Hog Farm.
This is not the only example of this type. For the entire five months the FAR was open, issues like this were never addressed.
Datedness of the text and sourcing was similarly repeatedly raised over the five-month FAR, but not addressed.
At 13:26, 23 July 2021, datedness was raised.
At 21:39, 28 July 2021, it was again raised by Sdkb who questioned 2011 enrollment numbers in use ten years later.
At 04:24, 17 November 2021 I again provide multiple examples of text that has not been updated.
15:30, 3 December 2021, me again, providing examples of outdated text.
And again, on 25 December, when I re-check, multiple issues of dated text and source-to-text integrity problems are still present.
The same thing happened with requests from multiple editors to trim the Alumni section.
Finally, on 25 December, Hog Farm intended to do a top-to-bottom new review, but stopped after finding similar problems in just the first few sections of the article. Following HF's review, I skipped over the top which had already been reviewed, and looked instead at the next few sections, and the first sentence of the first two sections I examined failed verification. [2]
Throughout the five-month-long FAR, precious time was spent arguing with reviewers rather than addressing issues. Multiple times, sections were started to declare that the issues had been addressed and the FAR should be closed, while not addressing concerns of reviewers. (Sample, where you entered a declaration over someone else's sig and I'm concerned that you have now entered a bolded 'Keep again at the Sherman FAR, speaking for another editor.) FAR is a process that is tolerant and patient when progress is being made. Reading through the collaborative and steady progress in other lengthy FARs provides a contrast with the situation at Texas A&M. For example:
DrKay's close was a good one, as multiple reviewers had expended hours (indeed days) of effort reviewing this article, only to find each time they returned that they had to start at the top again, as issues were not addressed no matter how many reviewers raised them. It appeared from the nature of the responses that the issues would not be addressed, no matter how much time was allowed, and reviewer time was not being well respected or utilized. I don’t recall having encountered a situation quite like this one in 15 years of FAR reviewing, and it was a good close. It just isn't true that concerns were being addressed, and we can't hold FARs open indefinitely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for a solution? Buffs - take it to WP:FAC to try to get it re-promoted. That'll be a good litmus test for the state of the article. If this is at FAC, I will recuse from it entirely, given that I am quite obviously involved here. Hog FarmTalk05:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It just isn't true that concerns were being addressed. Are you ****ing kidding me?!? I've made over 450 edits to the Texas A&M page alone and this doesn't count my responses in the FAR and its talk page, altogether 2001+ edits. Some were because I disagreed with a single editor's opinion which seemed unreasonable. But the vast majority were addressed in very short order. Given the opinions of others bolstering this criticism (3 days before closure), obviously I would have reconsidered my opinion and, also obviously, it's of note that it no longer is a disagreement of two people, but the opinions of multiple people. That changes the calculus. I would have redoubled my efforts and addressed each & every point, perhaps even taking time off of work.
Surely you can see how this feels so unseemly when it went from a FARC with 2 keeps and one person voicing objections and in 3 days 4 people at the same time and on Christmas Day...and at a time when I was dealing with very significant IRL issues...and getting what feels like ambushed with what seems an extremely rapid close without so much as a ping or a chance to address 3 new objections...it's extremely demoralizing...
Let me just say that a solution that requires no effort on your part when I've been begging for a full review for months feels like a very hollow "solution" and this closure feels very much like an ambush based on exaggerations/simple misunderstandings rather than well-reasoned rationales. Getting a review after closure seems to only bolster my claim that it could have been handled given a little more time...
However, I will consider it.
But, to be blunt, this has been a very hard blow. I question whether the effort is worth it any more to satisfy the whims of strangers who seem hell bent on tearing down the work of others (this statement applies mostly to other issues I see with WP as well...the efforts of you 4-6 are the most altruistic). I'm going to take a few days and consider it. @Hog Farm:, ping me when you get back and let's look through it together...unless you're planning to be gone for 2+ weeks... in which case, I'll just decide whether I'm up to roll the dice again.
Don't know for sure yet. Gonna be at least a week, depends on how things sort out. And I'll have other RL stuff to get caught up once I'm back from out of state, so I can't really estimate accurately. Hog FarmTalk
No, I am not “f-ing kidding you”, but I do understand your disappointment. Considering the time HF has put in to the article already, it might be beneficial for you to develop a collaboration with another editor who can help with MOS, citation, and source-to-text cleanup, as former FAC Delegate Karanacs once did on the Aggie suite of articles. Separately, I will join Hog Farm and Buidhe in recusing should this article return to FAC (that is, no further review from me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, that means we have a collapse there, and colored fonts at Woolpit, and several very long reviews going; are we going to hit template limits? Can we remove the colors from Woolpit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: - with one of my five (Darjeeling) being part of a quite-lengthy restoration process, would I have permission for a sixth nomination to help with the goal of getting all of the 2004-2006 entries at WP:URFA/2020A processed through by the end of 2022? Hog FarmTalk22:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All five of my nominations are open as they are still being worked on; may I have permission for six? (Sherman, Arsenal F.C., Josquin des Prez, Titanium, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that this may be confusion related to the WikiCup abbreviating FAC/FLC reviews as "FAR". I certainly don't think there should be any points for nominating FARs, as that would encourage improper or slipshod FAR nominations, but based on my understanding of the WikiCup rules, the points are only for FAC/FLC reviews. Pinging the WikiCup coordinators so they are aware @Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth:. Hog FarmTalk00:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like End time is from a merge of the old content there into Eschatology by Beland earlier this year and then turning the title into a dab page. I think what needs to be done is just mark that one as #17 redirected/deleted, but will hold off on that in case I'm wrong (illegal prime has been marked). Hog FarmTalk15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be driving cross-country for my son's wedding. I can iPad edit from the car hotspot, but will be quite busy for the next few weeks, hence less active at FAR until after the happy event. My apologies in advance for all the iPad typos and any delays on following up on any of my FAR noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FAR coordinators: I just made a sixth nom, as I miscounted my FARs today. Here are my open noms:
Joan of Arc (I'll take a look at it later today and leave comments)
Tiridates I of Armenia (no progress being made)
Christopher C. Kraft Jr. (I declared keep)
Bernard Fanning (no progress)
Accurate News and Information Act (nom'ed last week)
Cleomenean War (nom'ed today)
Should I revert Cleomenean War until I'm under 5, or can I have a sixth nom exception? I promise to avoid morning nominations in the future... Z1720 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it's normal for changes on the individual FAR subpages to not be reflected in the transcluded view, in the past it's usually resolved after a few hours. But there's been some instances lately of me not seeing changes at the individual FARs reflected on the main FAR page for a couple days. Is this just a browser caching issue for me, or is this affecting others as well? Hog FarmTalk15:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just skimmed through Wikipedia:Purge, although I'm not entirely sure if the issue is related to the server cache section at the bottom, or if it's something that would be solved with the purge cache button. I see we already have a purge the page link at the very bottom of the "Reviewing featured articles" blue box at the top. A dummy edit like I did could work (not 100% for sure), but we don't really need to be getting the page to update by messing around with whitespace. Hog FarmTalk14:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "purge cache" button worked for me - some new comments I left at the Oengus I FAR weren't showing up, but after using that button in the blue box at the top, they appeared. Hog FarmTalk15:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing also worked for me with comments I just made at the Clinkscales FAR, so I think that may be our way forward with this? Hog FarmTalk17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of energy going into bringing things to FAR, but less, perhaps, in getting rid of them later. Is this deliberate process or institutional lethargy...? :D SN5412917:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at these, and left comments. I'm going to be less active for another couple of days but I hope to have more time in June. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! All of these should be ok for delisting now, except Fin whale which needs another evaluation. (t · c) buidhe16:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for having (still) been very swamped in since returning from the wedding; I am intending to catch up over this weekend, unless something else kicks me in the rear-end in real life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
List older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and help the TFA Coords check older FAs before running on TFA
The URFA/2020 list is divided into two pages: WP:URFA/2020A for very old (VO) featured articles last reviewed in 2004–2009, and WP:URFA/2020B for old (O) articles last reviewed in 2010–2015.
Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:
195 FAs were Delisted at FAR (179 VO and 16 O)
151 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (107 VO and 44 O)
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% to 69%
60 editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020, while others nominated, reviewed, and edited articles at WP:FAR
These numbers do not encompass the full activity of URFA/2020, however; once three experienced FA reviewers have deemed an FA 'Satisfactory' (not needing a FAR), it is moved to 'Kept or FAR not needed'. At year-end, an additional:
206 FAs had received one 'satisfactory' review (53 VO and 153 O)
64 FAs had received two 'satisfactory' reviews at URFA/2020 (16 VO and 48 O)
36 FAs were at FAR (33 VO and 3 O)
20% of the initial 4,526 older FAs have had ‘satisfactory’ feedback, or been noticed, kept or delisted at FAR. Hundreds more have been noted as having minor issues that should be addressed, work underway, or similar. Some FAs needing review per contributor copyright investigations have been flagged.
In December, URFA/2020 focused on reviewing FAs from 2004–2006. This resulted in many of the oldest articles getting reviews, particularly hurricane and typhoon articles; the number of these very oldest FAs needing review started in November 2020 at 225, and stands at 132 at year-end 2021. Reviewers are still needed for these older articles, especially editors with experience in European history, biographies, and animals. If you have any questions on how to review articles, please see the instructions tab or comment below.
URFA/2020 participants intend to write year-end reports for Wikiprojects, which will highlight articles that members of your Wikiproject might want to review. If your Wikiproject or newsletter is interested, please comment at WT:URFA/2020.
How to help
If we continued this year's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards any more, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 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 that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix.
Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.
Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q 2022 summary
WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing very old (VO) and old (O) featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. The goals are to:
Review and encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a Featured article review (FAR)
Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to FAR
List older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and help the TFA Coords check older FAs before running on TFA.
Progress
Monthly progress is recorded at this page. Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:
184 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (123 VO and 61 O).
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 67%, with 91% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.
79 editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020, while others nominated, reviewed, and edited articles at WP:FAR.
These numbers do not encompass the full activity of URFA/2020. Once three experienced FA reviewers have deemed an FA 'Satisfactory' (not needing a FAR), it is moved to 'Kept or FAR not needed'. At quarter-end, hundreds of articles have received one or two 'satisfactory marks' or have been noted as having minor issues that should be addressed, work underway, or similar. An additional 155 articles were given notice of the need for a featured article review, and 34 were at FAR.
In January, the Signpost ran an article about the URFA/2020 project called "Forgotten Featured". In February, the project targeted articles that had two "Satisfactory" notations to find an editor to note the third satisfactory. Editors who nominated these articles for FAC were contacted on their talk page and invited to note if they were still updating and maintaining the article.
Project initiatives
The project's initiatives for 2022 are:
Clear and complete the 2004–2006 list. Editing, reviewing or nominating at FAR to finish up these very oldest reviews would be most helpful.
If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 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 that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020.
Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. If no one is working to restore an article listed in the FARC phase, enter a "Keep" or "Delist" declaration.
Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as 'Satisfactory' or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your WikiProject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.
Ran into this discussion a couple minutes ago - does anyone remember exactly how the check was done last year? Running the check for untranscluded FARs might be something to think of doing once or twice a year from a housekeeping perspective. Hog FarmTalk04:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone do that? That looks to be a relic from the days before Gimmetrow and DrPda created article history, and we used to have a gazillion different FA process templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one and the failed one above are marked as historical, based on my (minimal) experience at TFD, these could well be kept due to the historical tag. (tag is used for once-significant things kept around for posterity). Hog FarmTalk18:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:FAC2 (someone invented this before we had an ArchiveX for successive FACs)
Template:FARpasswith I have never seen this before, it is used on some talk pages, and needs to be examined. I think (???) it does nothing more than link to the version that passed FAR, which is now stored in Template:Article history
It actually doesn't even do that. It has a single parameter, which is used to put in a brief summary of concerns. So it basically just pastes some boilerplate text and an editor-added concern. Hog FarmTalk18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed this many times, but something's gotta give.
Even with an extension from the Coords that has allowed me six nominations on the page rather than the limit of five, I have been stalled for most of the year at making FAR nominations. Of my nominations, William Tecumseh Sherman seems permanently stalled at the bottom of the page; History of Minnesota has been on the page almost two months, as it looked like a potential save early on; and Josquin des Prez has been at FAR for over two months as Aza24 is working on it. Arsenal F.C. was also at FAR for more than two months, as early on someone intended to salvage it, and it did improve considerably (like History of Minnesota) while at FAR.
All of these improvements happening at FAR are a Very Good Thing, even if the articles are ultimately delisted. But more and more improvements are meaning less and less nomination openings for most of us because of the limit of five. In the 12th week of the year, I have been able to make only 7 nominations; we will never make a dent in WP:URFA/2020 at this rate. I just checked the page history, and I could be off by one or two, but it looks to me like Buidhe has also been able to make only 7 nominations (plus Uncle Tom's Cabin which came off "hold"), and likewise, Hog Farm has only 8 this year. (I did not tally Z1720 as they are stalled per real life issues. Similarly, I did not tally Femkemilene, per real life issues.) So between Buidhe, Hog Farm and me, that's 14 articles that we haven't been able to nominate in the first quarter of the year. Most of the stalls are because someone expresses an interest in improving the article to status, but that doesn't always happen, sadly.
We need some kind of established leeway at FAR ... we have become victims of our own success! And yet, we've discussed in the past that we should not just up the five limit across the board, as not all nominators keep up with FAR or participate in their own nominations or help out at other nominations (which by the way leaves additional work for the other FAR regulars). I keep up with and help on just about every FAR (I have conflicts on some of them, and can't participate), and yet, I am stalled on nominating. Similar for other FAR regulars. So maybe it is time to think about graduating the five limit for those who do their share here.
What if ... as a trial through the end of second quarter, to be revisited then ...
Coords may permanently allow an extension of the five-nomination limit to those frequent nominators who keep up with their existing FARs, participate regularly, and provide feedback. Based on consensus determined at FAR talk, the Coords may extend the limit for an individual nominator semi-permanently
to six nominations for an active nominator and FAR participant who has one existing nomination undergoing productive work, and
to seven nominations for those having at least two FARs undergoing productive work.
We would stay at one per week, but wouldn't have to keep missing weeks because of those stalled with ongoing improvements. If this is accepted, I propose we not make an official change to the FAR instructions until we determine (at the end of the 2nd quarter) if it is effective and productive.
I suggest that Buidhe, Hog Farm and I could benefit and would use this privilege wisely. When Z1720, Femke return to active editing, I would say same for them. I think it OK to single out nominators who keep up with their own nominations, as well as helping save others ... Among noms that weren't mine, I've worked extensively on Cirrus cloud, Uncle Tom's Cabin, J. K. Rowling, D. B. Cooper, Geology of the Lassen volcanic area, copyright checking on all cyclone articles, and more. I believe I can handle seven on the page at a time, and request that be granted while I have at least two that are "stalled" due to ongoing improvements. @FAR coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't feel like I need to nominate an article every week. But if this were activated, it would help us get through the URFA queue faster, and it would help avoid the incentive to focus on inconsequential articles that are less likely to attract savers... (t · c) buidhe00:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the solution here is, but I feel like part of the problem is some of these drawing on for very long periods of time with little going on. The Shadow of the Colossus FAR has been open since June 2021, with basically nothing occurring since October or November. Sherman's pushing a year open, and has been largely stalled since early to mid January, aside from a brief spurt in early February. William Henry Harrison was up from October 2021 to March 2022, with fatal sourcing issues identified and basically nothing happening the last several months. Globular cluster was kept (yay!) but was up for 10 months with a few instances of months-long nothingness. I don't think any of us need or want a reminder of TAMU. Kagame was up for a very long time and was openly back-burnered because it wasn't worth WikiCup points. I think we all remember the British Empire one. The first FAR I was involved in, Battle of Shiloh, was another one of those, although part of that was my fault for forgetting about that (it was such a mess I almost didn't engage at FAR again) It's a hard line to draw, as we don't want to discourage FAR keeps, but I suspect that it's eventually going to require continuing to shut down FARs when they become clearly not headed anywhere productive (like Nikkimaria did at D. B. Cooper, or Cas at British Empire) and by trying to keep the "stuck" ones moving, which may require a more drastic measure of if it's not clearly heading for keep after x number of months, it needs to be closed. It's just a hard spot to judge between allowing featured articles to be rescued and keeping FAR from getting constipate, and I'm not quite sure where the line is. Hog FarmTalk03:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sherman FAR should just be closed. It's stalled and there's a consensus to delist, including one of the FAR coords. (t · c) buidhe03:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me and my small mind would be happy if I could have a seven-nom limit while Sherman and des Prez and now possibly Cyclol stay open for months. I'd like to keep moving forward on WP:URFA/2020, and wish we could get through all of 2006 by year-end 2022 ... that's 16-year-old FAs !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's official; with Cyclol now also undergoing improvements, I have have three FARs in delayed processing (Sherman, Cyclol and des Prez). Just preparing the Coords for the eventuality that I may ask for a seven limit next week, if I am unable to nom one per week. If anyone objects, now's the time to speak up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, I've been asking about McDoughal at the Sherman FAR for months; Eb.hoop2 hasn't addressed that. If I could get my hands on McDoughal to fix the depression issue myself, and also fix the family and religion issue myself (I have that source), are the slavery and emancipation issues overcomeable? I'm not going to go to the effort of getting hold of McDoughal if the larger issues are insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sandy, I'm not sure without digging into the sources again, although I don't think Sherman's memoirs should be used at all in that section. I am a bit concerned that we're still cherry-picking there - our article contains things such as Sherman rejected this, arguing that focusing on such policies would have delayed the "successful end" of the war and the "[liberation of] all slaves" and In 1888, near the end of his life, he published an essay in the North American Review defending the full civil rights of black citizens in the former Confederacy sourced to Sherman himself, when there's Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/William_Tecumseh_Sherman/archive1#Additional_sources_on_this_topic. That former quotes implies Sherman's fighting to free the slaves, but see the quote from Donald L. MillerSherman served to save the Union, not to end slavery. Or as to the other, Burke Davis writes The South respected and admired Sherman because of his resistance to Negro voting rights and a harsh Reconstruction. Now maybe Sherman changed his views between the early Reconstruction time Burke is referring to and his 1888 essay, but it's not right to cherry-pick the essay over his more questionable early views. I'm not going to say that Miller and Burke Davis are end-all-be-all, but they're respected enough historians that if we're presenting a contrary view, it needs to be balanced by actual secondary historians, not selected spots from Sherman's writings. Also, while the Savannah meeting was important and should warrant discussion in the section, I don't think it taking about a third of that whole section is great weighting. Hog FarmTalk18:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF; I'm going to pass on doing the additional work here then. I need to get the rolling again to finish up the final section at Rowling, which has been a most productive use of my time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm mentioned the Globular cluster FAR. I didn't follow it closely enough to know if there should have been a WP:FASA nomination, and no one ever submitted one? Buidhe should there have been one? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Globular cluster/archive1. There were some very competent editors who engaged towards the end, and I hope we did not fail to recognize that effort. (I was just prompted to have a look after noticing a brilliant copyedit by one of them on a current FAC. And I hope to badger that editor more often now at FAR :)) It seems I'm doing all the FASA noms myself, which has me a bit concerned ... I'm sure Z1720 would be doing some of them if not dealing with real life stuff, but I could use another set of eyes there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and weighed in on 10 FARs about moving to FARC or keep/delist. We need more people going through and weighing in, as FARs are getting delayed by lack of participation. (t · c) buidhe00:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I think the practice has been to wait to archive after three delists, and it's been a bit harder to get that with one of the four "regulars" (Z) inactive. The same could affect Norte Chico, as well. Hog FarmTalk02:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep; I'm asking why others aren't weighing in at Arsenal; am I missing something there? I can't write that article myself; don't speak soccer ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Real life is not happy with me at the moment, so I am going to be MIA for a while longer. Should FAR try recruiting from the FAC and TFA crowd for more reviewers? I also find that personalised messages on talk pages helps to recruit users to the process. Z1720 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not what wants to be heard right now, but it's looking like I'm going to be busy and somewhat AWOL next week too, and will likely be having to use my limited online time for a couple non-FAR related wikipedia projects, although I will sincerely try to get through the Clinkscales one next week. Hog FarmTalk05:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list of FARs (above) is incomplete; there were more, but this is sufficient for illustration purposes.
When it was found that DCGeist was socking at FAC, we did a procedural nomination of all of his FAs at once at FAR. These were excluded from the five-nom limit, and usual prior notifications.
I will let Hog Farm fill in the further detail on this proposal to similarly handle the FA nominations of ColonelHenry(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log); multiple have already been delisted, and their issues are big enough and imply hoax editing that I support the idea that we go ahead and submit the rest to FAR. I believe Hog Farm has the list and other history, which he can supply here.
I was made aware of this issue at User_talk:Hog_Farm/Archive_10#Neglected_but_important_cleanup. I don't have first hand memory of this as the fallout occurred in 2014, but essentially ColonelHenry managed to get 7 FAs promoted before being community banned for socking and creating hoaxes. Most received weak sources reviews at FAC. While I haven't detected any blatant hoaxes, I have found that at least some of these FAs aren't probably supported by their sources. So far one has been expedite-delisted because of source-text integrity issues - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/archive1. The others still retaining the star are:
Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey - minimal checking revealed a concerning number of instances of failed verification and two spots where the article directly contradicts the cited source. This should go ASAP, even if fixed would need a new FAC.
It wouldn't hurt to check another for source-text quality, but given the history of socking/hoaxing these should be looked at with a very close eye, especially since the only two I've done reasonable checks on (Geology Hall and Lieutenant Governor of NJ) had frequent source-text problems. I have very little faith in the sourcing in these - I would check the others but am traveling and will have an iffy internet connection for the next several days. Hog FarmTalk05:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that Hog Farm should not have to check them all, considering what we've seen already. My proposal is that all six are listed for procedural FARs, without being subject to prior notifications and five-nom limit, so that others can help in the checking. Basically, they should all get re-reviewed at FAR. 'Tis a mystery why this editor was never source checked at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with immediate listing of each of these, not subject to pre-notification requirements or nomination limits, with the understanding that if someone does want to take on the work of fixing these time will be given to do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to all of them just yet, but will put a canned notice on the talk page of each one for now ... I can help with the listings maybe later today, and can help with the notifications as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I currently have 5 FARs open that have either ongoing work or a reasonable commitment for ongoing work (Clinkscales, Darjeeling, Oengus, Durian, and USS Missouri). Since all of these except for hopefully Clinkscales look like these will continue to be longer-term projects, could I get standing permission to have 6 or 7 open at a time until a couple of these 5 get finished off? I will have enough time for the next several months to keep more than eye on the ones already up. Hog FarmTalk20:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that an extended limit for Hog Farm would be helpful, considering the circumstances, at least until some of those being worked on are closed up. HF has handled the workload on those he nominated, and pitched in on all others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is getting a sea of red Lua errors on refs, the issue in the module has been fixed, but you may need to WP:PURGE pages. Whew; that was nasty, and I thought there for a while that Darjeeling was hopeless ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on doing what I did to schizophrenia this week (which seems to have kickstarted something in the right direction). I really really need to do my taxes today. Gimme till Friday. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Six on the page, can't nominate because so many of my noms are being worked on. Just sayin' ... it's a recurring problem. (And I won't be able to nominate next week either, since two of my noms only moved to FARC today, so need at least two weeks.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone willing to rework the prose for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1? The nomination has been on the page since December 2021, the FAR nominator has not participated, Hog Farm has busted his buns trying to get the source-to-text integrity issues addressed, yet at this stage, everywhere one's eye falls there are prose infelicities. It needs a top-notch copyeditor, willing to consult all the sources and rewrite. It's such a short article that there's no reason for the prose not to shine. Nine months is long enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If others verify the prose, I can copyedit and post more questions/comments. Just ping me when ready, and I'll review this when I have time and no one else is adding issues to the FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z, it needs more than a copyedit; the paragraph structure is off in places and a good deal of rewriting may be needed. The prose is not tight. Consultation of sources will be needed to bring this over the line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did significant source checking over the course of the FAR, and most of the sources are available through either the JSTOR part of the wikipedia library or through the internet archive, so most of them should be freely accessible. Hog FarmTalk01:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, what can one do with a sentence like this: Some scholars view the assassination as one of the first major incidents of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East. Leaves the idea that some don't, which begs the question, then what was? Fixing this requires reading the source and coming up with a sentence that makes sense of what the source says, which this sentence does not. Yes, source-to-text integrity is there (the source is not misrepresented)-- it's just not stated in a useful way. See my other examples on the FAR, which are only from a few quick glances. It's not just a copyedit; if this star is to be saved, someone has to take over and take on a rewrite. The writing that has been done is not FA-level prose, so just posing questions won't bring this over the line; someone with FA-level prose has to take it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time... I just repaired a fragment of info, a remnant of my contribution to this article a whopping six years ago. Over the next few days I can peruse, but I'm not sure I'll be of major assistance. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyanish.Singh, you've asked on the FAR that I continue reviewing. 1) The nominator should be the one following progress. 2) Copyediting is not my best skill. 3) It does not appear to be sporadic commentary that is needed; the entire article needs to be examined. The best example of that is the one I give above; although source-to-text integrity is not breached, the content does not adequately capture the points being made by the source. 4) I have no interest in the topic or in being the editor to shepherd this through FAR—not only because it's a drop-and-run nomination. FAR cannot expect Hog Farm to do all the work, and I don't have time to go line-by-line on a deficient FA when we have numerous high-quality and high-pageview nominations that warrant our attention but are lacking review (eg the space articles, and Josquin des Prez). 5) I already have my hands full shepherding Josquin des Prez (worthy) and now both 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines and Hoysala Empire, neither of which appeared at FAR in a state suggestive that improvements would restore them to status. I remain at Move to FARC unless someone appears who can and will finish this one up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.
Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement
I'm not sure the second point is conveying what it might better convey. Even if they don't engage towards improvements, they should at least be following their nominations.
I am constantly at my five-nom limit because (thankfully) more and more articles are being worked on and staying longer on the page. That trend may increase as a result of WP:FASA and The Signpost this week. And we are letting noms run longer and longer, pushing more of us to the five limit. That leads me to wonder if we should move the limit from five to six.
But then, the second problem: increasingly, as I read through FAR daily, I find that nominators are not returning to their nominations to update progress or lack of progress, or to provide more guidance to other editors who engage. Somehow, we don't seem to have conveyed the message that just parking a nomination here, and not following it, creates more work for everyone else, and that the process needs feedback from the nominators as much as it needs them "to assist in the process of improvement".
My questions are:
Do we benefit from a higher limit for those nominators who do keep up with their nominations, which the Coords would not grant to those who don't keep up?
Do we need to adjust the wording to somehow explain to nominators that some sort of followup on their nominations is desired?
Several editors could well utilize a six-nom limit, but I don't think it is helpful to FAR for nominators who don't follow even one nomination to have any more than that. FAR is not intended to be a page for automatic delisting. How to resolve this? One solution is to just let the nominations from unresponsive nominators ride until they hit their limit and have to start weighing in, but that doesn't seem like an efficient or optimal way to run the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that the Sherman article should just be delisted at this point: issues raised months ago still haven't been addressed. (t · c) buidhe01:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it’s not affecting my nom limit … unlike another recent nomination that drug on forever, in this case, at least the article has been improved, and there remains a chance it will continue to improve. But Pollyanna is my middle name … And that one is partly my fault, as I forgot it was my nom while I was on a long break! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could give an example of what not "follow[ing] even one nomination" looks like? Besides newcomers, I don't think any of our regulars do this to such an extreme. Although the process would certainly benefit from keeping a closer eye on FARs that are already open, I'm not always sure how to engage. For example, I'm following the Mars article, but haven't posted so much at the FAR because it's being improved slowly but steadily. Other times the original issues cited in the nomination might be addressed, but there are technical content issues that I might not feel competent to weigh in on. (t · c) buidhe00:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will be four pages once one FAR closes soon. I don't know what "guideline" one of you wants to give me. I have so much in my mind going on. BTW, telling from the FAR, looks like "The Green (Dartmouth College)" will lose its FA star soon. Also, I really wish I hadn't treated FAR as a precursor to FARC, but it's been treated by others this way. I wonder whether now is the time for me to start treating FAR as a positive way to enhance/strengthen the article's FA status. George Ho (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Dartmouth nom is a great example of a nom that didn’t engage WP:WIAFA, and was stalled until Hog Farm did the work. The nominator never responded. In other words, an editor like Hog Farm can handle a higher limit, while others maybe should not have a higher limit. Therein lies the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether Bumbubookworm (not pinged yet) should be scolded for one's own (in)activity in FAR. I appreciate your concerns about the stress of overload given to you and possible neglect from others, but there must be an explanation from the user about this, or... was that inexcusable? I gave you a reason, didn't I? George Ho (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, George Ho, iPad typing and I failed to answer your question, because I think you answered it yourself :) That FAR is not just a precursor to FARC, and nominators should engage or at least keep up with progress on their nominations, answer questions, address whether concerns are resolved, etc. I didn’t see the usefulness in re-pinging Bumbu when they haven’t responded to pings on the FAR pages. I also would not have preferred to personalize this discussion, but I was asked to produce examples. Those I gave are not exhaustive. I’m happy to see your post above regarding your growth as a FAR nominator! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the first question: because we can't write in the instructions "you can have X noms open if you're an engaged nominator and only Y if you're not", I'd be inclined to not increase the limit in the instructions and consider requests for additional noms case-by-case, as we do now. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m more interested in whether we need to fix the wording on the my point 2– that we do expect nominators to engage, not just plop a nom here and expect delisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding editors reviewing work after a nomination: Maybe the instructions can be clearer about nominators expectations, with language like, "FAR nominators should watchlist their nominations and re-review the article if improvements are made during the FAR process." When I started FAR, I did not realize that I was expected to provide feedback if someone worked on the article.
Regarding the five article limit: what if we allowed certain editors to nominate a sixth article without needing to ask the FAR co-ords? These editors could ask for a perpetual six-article allowance on the FAR talk page, and FAR co-ords could decide if they want to grant it or not. The perpetual extension could be granted to editors who are active in FAR reviews and frequently asking for a six-article extension, so that FAR co-ords don't have to keep responding to that editor's request. The allowance could remain as long as the editor is active at FAR, with the expectation that the FAR co-ords can withdraw the perpetual extension at anytime. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping for something like your first suggestion. I am not suggesting or supporting something like the second, as it sets up a class system (and I had to be reminded by a Coord when I returned from break that Sherman was my nom, so they are paying attention). I just intended to call attention to a problem that I’m unsure how to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like Nikkimaria's suggestion of having an informal allowance of extra noms in cases where the coords deem it appropriate, so that we make the most of people who are dedicated to the process, while not opening the floodgates to large numbers of dump-and-run nominations. Extra noms would be the exception rather than the rule, and when requested the coords would check the existing noms to make sure ongoing engagement was at an appropriate level before granting. — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thinking about this overnight, my concern (which could have been better expressed) is simply that the "regulars" here may need to take a more active mentoring/educating role out of concern that FAR not fall into ill repute or become perceived as a place for automatic delisting based on weasly descriptions of deficiencies. Particularly if The Signpost leads to an uptick in activity.
Not everything listed at WP:FARGIVENmust speedily or urgently go to FAR; we can ask ourselves if we would have to hang your head in shame if the article ran on the mainpage, or if we can wait for editors who might engage to have more time. Priorities: as an example, an outdated or inaccurate BLP, or a highly viewed topic with multiple cleanup tags, is of more concern than an outdated pop culture article no one reads anyway (check the pageviews).
I wish we could upgrade our instructions to somehow reflect that engagement is desired and the norm, ala "dump-and-run" is discouraged. But I'm not the wordsmith, and don't know how to state that.
Notifications need to be done, checked and recorded. Followup on nominations is needed. If work is progressing, guidance is needed. Entering a talk page notification that explicitly lists deficiencies, with examples, is preferred (some of the newer notifications aren't up to snuff, and we can educate editors who aren't providing enough information on talk page notifications or enough detail to guide an editor who might engage towards improvements). Awareness of the high number of noms some of Wikipedia's oldest FA writers have, so they won't all be nommed at once and overwhelmed, needs to be emphasized. Over a decade ago, editors poured heart and soul into articles which are now deteriorating, and some consideration of how that feels to them is always good. If a nominator is still active, pinging them or going to their talk page to inquire about their timing is helpful.
Re the five-nom limit, I think what we have is working, but it means I am about to be unable to nominate for a very long while, as most of my noms are being worked on. I guess that's Not Such A Bad Thing, as I can re-allocate my efforts towards "Satisfactory" entries at WP:URFA/2020A. Thanks to all for making FAR such a pleasant place to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think pinging the FAC nominator during the notice phase (step 1) should be encouraged. Some editors may not see the talk page notice on their watchlist. As for the uptick in activity and prioritizing high-traffic articles: I think the best way forward is to have a mix of articles at FAR both in terms of topics, FAC noms, and popularity. If we prioritize high-traffic or popular articles for FAR some editors might feel that we are targetting certain articles. I think instead we should try to prioritize the most-deteriorated articles for FAR. I am happy to answer any questions that someone has. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Top 10 articles over past seven day. 10 seems to be the standard article count, and FAR sorta runs on a 7 day "cycle". I can tweak the limits if it turns out to be suboptimal. Color scales are set at 15/30 edits for the higher color levels for now. Hog FarmTalk05:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, based on my reading of the documentation, it looks like we can't really get more than 10 at a time - but it does at least show which are the most active. Hog FarmTalk17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
202 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (133 VO and 69 O).
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 66%, with 89% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.
URFA/2020 reached a milestone when there were less than 100 articles promoted from 2004-–2006 that needed reviews. Thank you to all the editors who helped with this task. The group is focusing our efforts into finishing this list by the end of the year, and would appreciate it if reviewers could evaluate these articles.
How to help
If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's 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 that 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.
Okay guys, clearly there is a problem with how we display information on the nomination process. It is all too common that someone either a) Nominates for FAR without talk page or project notifications (or either!) or b) Doesn't follow the two week rule. Is there a way we can make these instructions clearer? I mean how are people getting to the notification process and still ignoring these steps? Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply, but we need to drastically reduce the length of instructions if we want people to read them.
There is some wriggle room already to do this without losing vital information. If we ask our technical editors to part of the nominations process (the notifications of editors and WPs after a FAR starts, the listing here, the removal from WP:URFA/2020 and the removal from noticesgiven), we can further shorten the instructions.
Further advantages of getting more people to engage is that we can mentor on content rather than process. A better content/process balance may also attract more people to engage here. Femke (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been stale for 2 months, and I think that the article is now up to FA standard. I've pinged the coords using @FAR a month ago, but it seems that no one listened. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coords can't really do anything without a consensus of keep/move to farc/delist declarations, which nobody has provided there. And I'd say it's a major enough subject that at least I and probably others who are somewhat "regulars" at FAR don't feel comfortable entering a declaration in a denser area like astronomy without more subject matter experts signing off on it. From a skim it does look better, but I have no way to assess the content. Hog FarmTalk13:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running on fumes and can do basically nothing if there are five different articles all needing attention. Other editors who have some topic-matter knowledge are probably less ragged than I am but may also be facing the same challenge of prioritization. Solar System and Mars are the oldest of the astronomy reviews now open, so getting them resolved would help the logistics. It looks like substantial progress has been made on Planet and Supernova. I haven't had time to evaluate the recent edits to 90377 Sedna. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your presence, with fumes, is most appreciated. I am barely running at all due to real life issues; it should be stated that having five solar system FARs on the page at one time is extremely demotivating. I am pointing this out in the hopes that BloatedBun, Renerpho and Artem.G will hopefully take care in the future not to nominate so many articles from one topic area at the same time, as that practically assures no one will be able to get to them, and discourages even regulars from working on them. Thanks for whatever you are able to contribute, XOR'easter; your work is valued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not really aware of the FAR process when I've nominated Planet, I was just working on the Asteroid and so read a lot of astronomical articles. I wouldn't nominate more now. Without XOR, Planet (and probably Mars and Solar system too) wouldn't be to the FA standards, now all these articles look solid and decent. I'm overwhelmed with some reallife issues now, and would be either completely off wiki for a month or more, or would just visit sporadically to fix some typos, but will try to read through all mentioned articles. Artem.G (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings, Artem.G; I hope your off-wiki issues resolve well. If we could get the weight of Mars and Solar System off the list, that would be a good start; someone who is not me should read Planet for issues like excessive/confusing images and tables. Supernova was in better shape than Planet to start with, and is probably of slightly narrower interest (~640K annual views versus ~700K), so it makes sense to triage them so that we tackle Planet first. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will try (specific instructions for how to prioritize are very helpful !!!), but real life is not cooperating for me either, and it may be at least a week before I can bring full focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Mars has been kept, and Solar System is still waiting for evaluation. I have now gone over 90377 Sedna and (I think) fixed the issues raised in the review, as well as some points I noticed that called out for immediate repair. I believe the best use of our time is to get Solar System out of the way so we can better focus attention, and then read over Planet as mentioned above. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we now? Solar System has passed. My guess is that Planet has the widest readership of the astronomy articles remaining up for review. If we are prioritizing by pageviews (crude, but why not?), then Planet has ~691K over the July 2021–June 2022 year, Supernova a little less at ~624K, and 90377 Sedna much lower at ~205K [5]. I think each can be saved. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that ... most helpful as I try to catch up sans attention span due to IRL stuff (have been dabbling in mindless start-class editing, hoping the muse returns :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and ... well ... the Astronomy FA situation is as depressing as the Medicine FA situation. Not fun. Too much deterioration, and we can't just push 'em back through here ... they need to be brought to standard before we send 'em off. Supernova is not in as bad shape as 90377 Sedna, but lots of work is needed, and there are many more astronomy Noticed right behind them. Similar to Medicine, and depressing. Is it realistic to try to save all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to need a bigger boat of people who know astronomy. I've never had much luck recruiting either students or fellow faculty to become regular Wikipedia editors, but maybe with a focused goal, and the promise of a fairly collegial editing environment, we can bring in contributors who stay around long enough to make a difference. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAR overload
There should be a means to meter the topics brought to FAR based on the topic. Right now, the following astronomy topics are up for FAR: Supernova, 90377 Sedna, Planet, and Solar System. For a small WikiProject (WP:AST), this can be a significant overload and I don't think each review can necessarily get the dedicated TLC that is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third thread on the same topic; perhaps you'll move your comments to one of the threads about solar system already on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Old FARs, possibly an area of focus
We've got a distressingly large number of FARs that are stalling; I would recommend trying to focus on making sure that these are progressing towards being in actually proper shape to close. The ones over two months old (nominated before 6.12.2022), from oldest to newest, are:
Joan of Arc (4 September 2021) kept 4 September
Joel Selwood (18 November 2021) delisted 20 August
Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (20 December 2021) delisted 1 October
Josquin des Prez (4 January) kept 15 October
Yellowstone fires of 1988 (26 January) delisted 19 November
Green children of Woolpit (28 January)
H.D. (28 March) kept 15 October
Californication (album) (28 March) delisted 27 August
USS Missouri (BB-63) (9 April)
Larrys Creek (22 April) delisted 20 August
Planet (1 May) kept 19 November
90377 Sedna (3 May)
Supernova (5 May)
Dmitri Shostakovich (16 May) delisted 3 September
Several of these are in places where the wait is for continuing work to finish, but several are in places where they honestly need more reviewers as the priority at the moment. I for one don't plan on nominating more until we can get the backlog down a bit. Organizing our efforts could be useful - I think Joan is nearing the endgame, and so are a few others. Anyone have any thoughts on how best to handle this? Hog FarmTalk19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am finishing up at Joan, so please (others) hold off for one more week; we are close to done. I have zero intention of continuing to engage either RFK Assassination or Green children (sorry Coords, hopeless in my view, and don't know what to do next, so have unwatched). Once I finish Joan, I can take a look at whether I can finish off the straggling bits at Yellowstone or Larry's Creek.I have been waiting for the better part of the year for Aza24 to finish up des Prez, and that FAR has prevented me at times for a new nomination. I Would Be Very Happy if Aza Would Finish :) :) :) I've lodged my opinion about Selwood. I will revisit astronomy when the experts there say they are satisfied. So although these FARs appear to be "ignored", that's where I stand on them :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yellowstone is up next for me I'll look at Joan once Sandy thinks it's ready I've declared at Selwood and the creek I've noticed pagination issues at RFK and don't intend to continue throwing time into that one until I get a good assurance that those issues have been addressed I've left sourcing comments at planet and those are getting worked through I am in the same spot as Sandy with the green children willing to pitch in on any of the others as needed. Hog FarmTalk02:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
210 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (140 VO and 70 O).
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs to 65%, with 88% of articles listed at URFA/2020 needing reviews.
URFA/2020 reached a milestone with less than 4,000 articles needing review. Thanks to all of the editors who have helped with this task.
Year-end goals
Focus on finishing up reviews of 2004–2006 FA: The number of the very oldest FAs needing review has been reduced from 225 to 77; finishing these up by year-end is a goal.
Focus on reviewing 2007 FAs: The number of the 2007 FAs needing review has been reduced from 659 to 487; please review an article from that group towards a goal of reducing it to 450 by year-end.
How to help
If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's 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 that 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 that would otherwise not look at it.
