Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Pages, tools and templates for
Featured articles
Peer review pre-FAC Articles seeking peer review before featured article candidacy October 4 Cisnormativity October 28 Nayib Bukele March 2 Benin Moat March 9 Deer Lady March 10 El Alma al Aire March 16 Pokémon Scarlet and Violet March 29 Abraham Weintraub–Wikipedia controversy March 31 1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak April 2 Macrobdella decora April 6 Luna (Feid and ATL Jacob song) April 6 Rain World April 13 Carl Friedrich Gauss April 15 Nebraska (album) April 15 Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna April 21 Dan Caine April 25 Hedonism April 26 Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics April 27 High and Low (1963 film) April 28 Murder of Sherri Rasmussen April 28 Josef Hoop April 30 Lope Martín April 30 Rosa Parks May 1 Push 2 Start May 2 Mongush Buyan-Badyrgy May 2 The Queen Is Dead May 3 Typhoon Yutu May 5 COINTELPRO Unanswered peer reviews view edit
Featured article candidates (FAC) Image/source check requests Mentoring for FAC Source reviewing at FAC FAC statistics tool FAC coordination FACs needing feedback view • edit Vince Gill Review it now Mother Solomon Review it now Yoshi's New Island Review it now
Featured article review (FAR) FAs on cleanup list Hot articles at FAR Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Featured article removal candidates view edit Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia Review now Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware Review now Kingdom Hearts Review now Redshift Review now Edgar Allan Poe Review now Angkor Wat Review now Treaty of Devol Review now Hydrogen Review now Northrop YF-23 Review now Featured article review Talk notices given view edit Diocletianic Persecution 2020-05-03 Glacier National Park (U.S.) 2020-12-30 Space Invaders 2021-04-07 2025-05-17 The Joy of Sect 2021-04-08 Dwarf planet 2021-08-14 Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia 2021-11-27 Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04 Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05 Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05 Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05 Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05 Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05 Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. 2021-12-06 Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06 Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06 Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07 Hubble Space Telescope 2022-01-08 Dürer's Rhinoceros 2022-02-04 Io (moon) 2022-02-13 Solar eclipse 2022-04-30 Manchester 2022-05-12 Schizophrenia 2022-08-18 Amanita muscaria 2022-08-26 White Deer Hole Creek 2022-10-22 Work ongoing December 2022 Mayan languages 2022-11-19 Indigenous people of the Everglades region 2022-11-21 First-move advantage in chess 2022-11-21 Władysław II Jagiełło 2022-12-03 Coeliac disease 2022-12-03 Metabolism 2022-12-03 Cane toad 2022-12-09 Bengali language movement 2023-01-15 USS New Jersey (BB-62) 2023-01-23 Jack Sheppard 2023-02-02 Moe Berg 2023-03-10 Buildings and architecture of Bristol 2023-05-20 Oregon State Capitol 2023-06-02 Caspar David Friedrich 2023-08-13 Jocelin of Glasgow 2023-11-01 Acetic acid 2023-12-8 Eric Brewer (ice hockey) 2024-01-02 Borscht 2024-06-15 Khan Noonien Singh 2024-07-03 Your Power 2024-08-16 George Washington (inventor) 2024-08-30 Major depressive disorder 2024-11-19 Oxygen 2025-1-14 BioShock 2025-01-30 History of Poland (1945–1989) 2025-2-19 Douglas MacArthur 2025-03-05 Platypus 2025-03-05 History of infant schools in Great Britain 2025-03-20 Ashton-under-Lyne 2025-03-22 Animaniacs 2025-04-12 Rashtrakuta Empire 2025-04-17 Baltimore Steam Packet Company 2025-04-18 Edward Teller 2025-05-03 Find more: Unreviewed featured articles
Today's featured article (TFA) Pending requests
Scripts and tools Dashes Dup link checker Dates Other Resolving HarvRef errors Reliability of sources Article alerts Featured article candidates All featured articles
Guidance Mentoring for FAC Advice pages Featured article advice Dweller Giano Jengod Nick-D Nikkimaria SandyGeorgia Yannismarou Writing How to improve your writing Redundancy exercises Essay on writing Reception sections Image and source reviewing Source reviewing essay Source reviewing dispatch Ealdgyth source reviewing Free images Non-free images
v t e

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 59 60 (2013) 61 62 63 (proposals) (2014) 64 (2015) 65 66 (2016) 67 68 69 (2017) 70 71 72 73 74 (2018) 75 76 77 (2019) 78 79 80 81 82 83 (2020) 84 85 86 87 (2021) 88 89 (2022) 90 91 92 (2023) 93 94 (2023–2024) 95 (2024–2025) Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March 2025. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm putting together a short peer review of Religious responses to the problem of evil (recently promoted to GA), which User:Brent Silby is tentatively considering as a future FAC.

But I'm in a quandary: Some additions I would like to see are already treated (although not necessarily that well) at the parent article Problem of evil. Both articles should be self-standing, but I don't know how to determine the extent to which the child article should repeat material in condensed form.

Are there any essays or archived discussions that address FA criteria with specific respect to spinoff articles? Or does anyone here have advice to share?

Many thanks! Patrick (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every article should be comprehensive (including all major viewpoints of RS per WP:DUE) in of itself. The same information may be present in two different articles if they are prominent enough in both. I'd say it is generally inadvisable to decide on one article's content by looking at what is covered elsewhere, except for reasons of length which do not apply here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, Thanks for weighing in! That's my editorial position too. I've received push-back on this in the past, however, and I wanted to be sure not give bad advice. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of asking this as a general discussion to all regular FAC reviewers: What are some hurdles for you personally when trying to do a source review? I noted that source reviews often tend to be the "last barrier" before an article would be promoted or otherwise. Yet, I just note not many dare to embark on source reviews, among our rather limited pool of FAC reviewers. Is it because of the need to try retrieve inaccessible/offline sources? Or the article is too long and you got overwhelmed with the large amount of sources you need to trawl through? And for those who are daring to embark on source reviews, what are your general tips? --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The principal issue with source reviews is that with many of them, you can't readily tell whether the source is actually high-quality or not. For me it's articles on European football and popular culture like music where I see a load of books and magazines where I dunno how to tell what is high-quality and what is not. I have toyed for some time with not reviewing such articles at all for this reason. A long source list is also a problem, when you are trying to spot inconsistent format. Spotchecking is actually easier, if you step on to a source that is offline/inaccessible, you ask the nominator to provide a copy or screenshot to you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Another issue is that finding a reviewer who's knowledgable enough about the topic to conduct a thorough source analysis can be a crapshoot. I've been in the European history game for years and I still struggle to identify RS. I know a few friends on here who can do so at the drop of a hat, and I still go to them regularly for guidance on which sources to use and which to avoid. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion, concerning the sourcing of a featured article, may be of interest to participants here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this has now rolled off into WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The folks who are working on sub-referencing are looking for feedback on the design and testers. See WP:VPT#Sub-referencing: User testing. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I leave a message for the people who reviewed my article at the peer review, and inform them it is now at FAC? jolielover♥talk 07:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it is a neutrally-worded message to inform them (rather than a request for a support, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources § Valnet section of project page. Z. Patterson (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April 2025; thanks to Gog the Mild for doing the analysis on these. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spyridon Marinatos, unlike its namesake, seems to be proceeding inoffensively -- it has three supports (plus a "light" one), a passed source review and the image reviewer (Jo-Jo Eumerus) has indicated that they have no further issues on that front. Could I put forward another one? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC which may be of interest to editors here: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#RFC_on_preferring_templates_in_citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here that revolves around whether or not two sources meet the higher bar for high-quality RS regarding the featured article criteria that may be of interest to editors involved in the featured article process. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC which may be of interest to members of this project is taking place. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: would it be possible to open a second nom please? My current nom is three weeks in, has seven eight supports and has cleared both image and source reviews. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the individual FAC pages to get permission to start new nominations. These do not require the type of community discussions this talk page is for.--NØ 03:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fairly common to use this page, as the posting a few threads up shows. The community can ignore this if they’d prefer. - SchroCat (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. FrB.TG (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FrB.TG, that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this quicker but my internet coverage is a bit hit-and-miss right now -- I had a query re. the source review at the FAC that I think should be satisfied first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]