Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Script request[edit]

Putting this here should we need it again: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus[edit]

... of the page should stay on, either submit to FAR, or move to FAR not needed. If we start filling up the page with commentary about the quality of the article (which belongs on talk), we will end up with an unwieldy mess. Diffs only please, either identify deficiencies, or enter an opinion that the article is satisfactory. If we get this page off on the right foot, it hopefully won't become an unwieldy mess full of random commentary about the quality of the article, which is better reserved for article talk or the actual FAR. The page is huge, we have a lot of work to do, so we have to keep commentary here brief and focused on yea or nay, any expanded commentary on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Hurricane notice[edit]

I added a global appeal at the Tropical cyclone WikiProject talk page. Perhaps we can see how that goes before deciding on other global appeals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once in 800 years: all hands on deck[edit]

An exciting opportunity to get four off the list at once, and run an exciting and topical TFA: see TFA discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a dud. No response from either WikiProject. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Table row counter[edit]

SandyGeorgia, I was about to add this: 

'''FAs needing review: {{table row counter|id=count1}}'''
{| class="wikitable sortable" id="count1" style="overflow-wrap: anywhere;"

to the table as to make the row counting automatic, but I see it's "undergoing a major edit" now or whatever and I don't want to cause an edit conflict. Although, when I tested the counter, it was counting one less than the current number, do we know if the code or the current count is wrong? If need be we can do 

{{#expr:{{table row counter|id=count1}}+1}}

... Aza24 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished updating now. Don't speak code, so don't know how that will work ... will it slow down the page? The way I did the count intially was I put all the entries in to a spreadsheet and let Excel count them, and I've been scrupulous about making sure each change was tallied. But I could have made a mistake at the outset. If we need to make a correction, now's the time! As long as it doesn't slow the page down terribly, do what you have to do ... if that shows my initial count was wrong, it can be adjusted and would not surprise me because working with such a huge copy-paste to Excel ... thanks !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It won’t slow the page down, I promise! What I’m saying is the table counter is counting one lower than the number you had; if you’re confident with the number you had, I can adjust the discrepancy... otherwise, we can trust the counter? or someone could count all of the rows... heh Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are better to trust the counter, and adjust my initial numbers. There were WAY tons of changes going on right after the page was launched, because the script had an error, so as things were being juggled, there is a possibility my initial tally was wrong. We will go with the counter. I'll retroactively adjust the initial numbers and the tables to whatever the counter coughs out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and actually I think we now have extra confirmation that he counter is correct; when I added it to the 2,333 number it matched it perfectly, so it looks like we caught a manual error in the 2157/8 one! Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, now people do not have to adjust the tally. Fixing dinner, will check everything and make any adjustments a bit later ... thank you SO much! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and Hog Farm: making sure you see the change; the tally is now automated by row count, so we don't have to adjust tally, and we no longer have the extra column that was only a tally. Hooray, thanks Aza24. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I could never quite remember to update that thing. One less area for me took make a fool of myself. Hog Farm Bacon 00:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FACBot February reminder to check that TFA dates are updated[edit]

In case I forget, so others will watch: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting FA nominators to participate[edit]

URFA 2020 is a very large list and there are lots of editors who have multiple FAs. Should we invite FA nominators to review "their" articles? I was thinking of a personalised invitation on their talk page, starting with editors who have lots of FAs and are still active on Wikipedia. Suggested wording is below:

Hi, you are receiving this message because you successfully nominated one or more featured articles. A task force is reviewing all featured articles promoted before 2015, with the goal of improving them to featured article criteria. The list of these featured articles is at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. Can you review your articles and let us know if they still meet the criteria? Thanks.

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting a bit before inviting others in (massively) to be sure the page got off on the right foot and the processes were clear. I still think we don't want a massive, lots of editors in all at once, as we need to slowly build steam here.
This week's kerfuffle at WP:TFA may bring in more editors, so I was thinking we'd let that shake out a bit. We really need to have regulars here focusing on any FAs that have not yet run TFA (you can locate those by sorting on the TFA column), per Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Swap needed tomorrow. I am going to next put up a list of old FAs that are running in Feb that may need scrutiny.
My idea for beginning to move more of the "Satisfactory" FAs off the list, so we can better focus on those that are unwatched, is to systematically go through WP:WBFAN and have still active nominators flag "their" FAs that are still watched and satisfactory, but if we had all of them in at once, it could get overwhelming. So my thoughts for that are, per WP:WBFAN:
  1. Wehwalt could you go through and flag as "Satisfactory" any of your FAs that you still watch and have kept up to snuff?
  2. Casliber's will probably take more work than Wehwalt's, as many of his are animals or plants for which "threatened" or "distribution" data may have changed. I don't think he can get as many marked "Satisfactory" all at once as Wehwalt can.
  3. On Brianboulton (RIP), I think Ian Rose already flagged those he has watchlisted as "Satisfactory" and I'm not sure what else we can do there.
And so we gradually continue on down the list. Ian Rose, Peacemaker67, and Jimfbleak have already flagged theirs, along with FunkMonk. So, generally, I'd rather ping in a few editors at a time so we aren't overwhelmed ... and wait until we get more reviewers on board. And, for now, I think it important to focus on those that haven't run TFA yet ... list pending. Wehwalt, would you be able to go through and flag yours as our next step, so we can get that chunk moved off the list? What we really need is to begin to winnow the list down to those that are unwatched or neglected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
all mine are still watched and maintained..although most have already suffered through TFA. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Ealdgyth, we still need for you to go through and mark them; then, with two more of us verifying, we can move them off the list. The idea is to get confirmation that they are watched and maintained (by you), along with independent verification they are good (from others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
will have to wait til I’m home, that huge table is too much for my pokey laptop to edit. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many bio articles are very low traffic and criteria often change little over time. Two that are flagged for TFA are priorities. Also still sorting out my university library access. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also watchlist and maintain all or virtually all of my FAs. Most, as with Cas, are very low traffic. I really don't have time to go through them right now, real life is pressing and I am behind in reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA pending for FEB 2021: please prioritize review of these older FAs[edit]

See talk TFA discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA pending for MAR 2021[edit]

Per Wehwalt's list at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#March 2021 tentative lineup, the following older FAs are being considered in the March 2021 lineup. It would be good to prioritize these for review.

  1. Interstate 70 in Colorado (Moabdave) 2009.
  2. Carmen (Brianboulton) 2012.
  3. Warren G. Harding (Wehwalt) 2015.
  4. Northern voalavo (Ucucha) 2011.
  5. Typhoon Maemi (Hahc21 and Hurricanehink) 2014.
  6. Lewis and Clark Exposition gold dollar (Wehwalt) 2014.
  7. Zino's petrel (Jimfbleak) 2010.
  8. Sirius (Casliber) 2008.
  9. HMS Princess Royal (1911) ( Sturmvogel 66 ). 2011.
  10. Dresden Triptych (Ceoil, Victoriaearle) 2013.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick skim of Sirius and I have concerns about missing citations (sometimes whole paragraphs without a citation) sandwiching of images, a needed copyedit of the article and the list of "other modern references" that might be better as prose. Do I post concerns on the talk page and hope it is fixed? Do I formally notice it and, in three weeks, bring it to FAR? Should I tell the TFA co-ordinators that it doesn't meet the FA criteria right now? As much as I would like to fix this up, I have other priorities and I'm not an expert in this subject matter. Furthermore, I don't want the burden of fixing up FAs for TFA to fall on a small group of editors, especially if fixing up an article will take a long time. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 - In this case, I'd leave notes on the article talk page and ping the original nominator, who is still active. No need to immediately issue a notice when the original nominator is still active and may be able to work on it over time. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post my concerns and ping the original nominator. If this happens again and the nominator is no longer editing, what should I do? This might be thinking too far ahead but I think this is good to figure out if URFA is going to check articles in the TFA lineup. Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That'll probably be a Sandy question, although if it's noticed, that might be taken into account with TFA. I'm not sure though. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Sirius has issues, I would be open to running another astronomy article that is better and which ran before March 22, 2016. I would not expect to find much wrong with either Harding (which I closely watch) or Lewis and Clark (which gets little edit traffic)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my thoughts on Talk:Sirius. On URFA I marked Sirius as "Concerns" instead of "Noticed" since it is not a formal notice, but I want others to know that it has already been checked. I won't list it on WP:FARGIVEN. Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, when it's a TFA concern, you bring it to the Coords' attention (in this case, Wehwalt is now aware); when it's NOT a TFA issue, you just follow the usual FAR process. In this case, since it is a Casliber article, and Cas is still active, it will probably be fixed. In almost all other cases, astronomy editors are no longer paying attention, so it's the usual FAR process (Wehwalt, it could be hard to find any astronomy article up to snuff, as the Project seems to have gone moribund). Wehwalt, if you could at least mark Harding and Lewis/Clark as Satisfactory, that will trigger others to get them off the list. Z1720, this is part of why I recommend starting slow here; the more you get to know each area, the more you'll know when to go straight to FAR, and when to ping an editor, and when to take care not to overwhelm some of our older prolific FA writers with too many at once :) Cas has now got a couple to look at urgently ... despair not, we'll get there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brownhills[edit]

Brownhills has been reworked (thanks, Femkemilene and ChrisTheDude). Because it has not yet run TFA, could others give it close scrutiny with an eye towards mainpage criticisms? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If others could comb through this, we can flag it up the TFA Coords are mainpage ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My nominations..[edit]

I think I got them all but I may have missed a couple. If I did, I have ALL my nominations watchlisted and keep them up to snuff. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ealdgyth— most appreciated. Normally, I would jump right on these, but I am behind in all my reviewing as my computer (sent to Texas eight days ago for repair, which supposedly would take five days) has still not left the local FedEx warehouse because of weather delays ... this is beyond ridiculous now. I am able to work somewhat from my iPad with a bluetooth keyboard, but not enough to keep up with all the reviews needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, Ealdgyth: I'll try to look through these over the next couple days as time allows. We're making real progress with this - almost below 2100 for the oldest ones! I've looked through Lightning Bar and have only a single small note. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are making great progress! I was going to do a status update the other day, but decided a) it is too hard to do from an iPad, and b) I’d rather wait til the end of March, so I can start doing quarterly reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look at some of the other checked-off ones next month when I've cleared out the oldest ones in my list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still owe reviews to you, Ian Rose, and a few others ... have not forgotten, just one thing after another between health and computer probs ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A needed lift[edit]

Because this work can be so depressing, I wanted to give a shout out to User:Aboutmovies for the 2009 Hillsboro, Oregon, which looks to be the rare city/state/country geography article that has been properly maintained! It's nice to come across a geography article that isn't a wreck :) So, now that I have hopefully enticed them to this page, perhaps Aboutmovies will do some reviews of some of our oldest FAs here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April TFAs to check over[edit]

  • The Boat Races 2015
  • Persuasion (1995 film) (original nominator is scarcely editing, so needs closer check)
    • Got a couple comments on the article's talk page, but nothing disqualifying from TFA. Never seen the film, so I can't judge the plot summary. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rite of Spring Brian boulton re-run, to be checked.
    • I've left some comments on the talk—solid overall, as expected. I'm addressing some sourcing issues myself. Aza24 (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks so much, Aza24; I am still working to catch up after my three-week computer repair, and am determined to get through the old pre-FAC peer reviews, after which I hope to get back into action here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of Human Feelings (one more, reminder to self to check TFA dates as several had to be juggled this month).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report - pre-2007s[edit]

Month/Year FAR Unchecked Total
2004 0 0 2
2005 1 0 3
Jan. 2006 0 0 1
Feb. 2006 0 0 1
Mar. 2006 0 0 5
Apr. 2006 0 2 4
May 2006 0 3 5
June 2006 0 6 10
July 2006 2 7 11
Aug. 2006 1 15 28
Sep. 2006 4 8 19
Oct. 2006 1 19 30
Nov. 2006 5 19 34
Dec. 2006 0 22 28

Here's a progress report of where we stand on the ones before 2007. Unchecked refers to ones with no comment of any form into the URFA table. Looks like we've made pretty good progress for before August 2006, and it's coming along for the later months. We shouldn't try to rush along articles - like FAR something somebody's working on, or send like 4 hurricanes to FAR or something like that, but IMO it would be nice to make a concerted push to give attention to the 2006 ones. My hope is to see us well into the 2007s by the end of the year, and we're already a good way into 2006. Hog Farm Talk 00:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a new "Notes" category[edit]

Beside the articles listed here, editors are invited to post "Notes", "Noticed", "FAR" and "Satisfactory". I suggest adding another suggestion, called "Working". Editors would post this when work is ongoing to improve the article. This tag should not be used for articles at FAR. Suggested wording to add to the intro is below:

  • Working: you or another editor are making improvements to the article. This should not be used for articles that are at FAR. No diff is needed, but please sign with four tildes (~~~~) so editors know who to ask for updates.

Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. but would say ... please sign with timestamp (add the four tilde thingie)... on some items where, we don't need a timestamp, so leave them off to conserve space, but when someone says they are working, we may need to re-check that a year from now, so need a timestamp ... it's probably confusing to some why sometimes need a date and other times don't, but it's so we know when to check back, but at the same time we don't take more space on the page than necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is implemented, I think the simplest thing is to have four tildes for all "Working" designations. It will take up extra space, but I'm hoping this will save reviewer time and encourage others to join in improving articles. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigs[edit]

Jimfbleak could you please sign this entry? When editors are entering a diff, we don’t need to chunk up the page with sigs, but when entering a Satisfactory opinion, we do need to know who entered that. Thanks for looking! I will tweak the instructions a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity[edit]

TomStar81 if you don't mind, could you please put these comments on article talk, with only a diff back to here? [3] The idea of this page is to sort which articles are Satisfactory, being worked on, noticed for FAR, need to go to FAR, or are at FAR. If everyone puts every list of every minor thing needed for every article on this page, it will become unmanageable. If you scroll down the page, you'll get the idea of what sorts of things are put on here; the idea is to be able to submit the truly deficient to FAR, know what has been checked, and keep track of what is OK or improving. (And from your comments, I am left with no idea if the article is still at status or not.) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes moved to Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63), [4] [5] where I have added some queries. What we need here is for you/others to indicate "Satisfactory", work underway, etc. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace[edit]

There is a WP:TFARP to run this on April 21. It was a TFA on the same date in 2006, so it's eligible for rerun. It's obviously had some updating, is it enough for it to still be good enough for TFA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak by when do you need to know (that is, when do you plan to finalize schedule)? I’ve just gotten my computer back from repair and have a boatload of catching up to do. @Hog Farm, Buidhe, RetiredDuke, Femkemilene, Z1720, and DrKay: perhaps others will get to it before I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia thanks for prompt reply. I've just started to do the list, so it will be at least a couple of days before I actually start scheduling. It's quite late in the month as well, so no great urgency, and I could always list it provisionally if need be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I left notes on the article talk page. Please ping me there if you want more comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 1Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity[edit]

A systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) was launched at the end of November 2020 at WP:URFA/2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA)
    • List for the TFA Coords older FAs that are mainpage ready
    • Help TFA Coords check older FAs before they run TFA

With about two dozen editors regularly contributing to these efforts, it's time for the first quarterly progress report.

History

The last sweep of Featured articles started in June 2006; by the end of 2008, most of those FAs had been processed at FAR, with one-third of them retaining their featured status. No systematic review of older FAs had been undertaken since then, and the number of FAs reviewed declined considerably after 2010. Tracking FAs that received an official FAR notice began at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given and provided the momentum to get FAR moving again. The number of FAs being promoted is declining, so more re-runs of older FAs are needed to maintain diversity at TFA; with a ten-year hiatus in FAR activity, there is a considerable backlog of deficient FAs.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

The URFA/2020 page is divided into very old (last FAC or FAR before 2010) and old (last FAC or FAR between 2010 and 2015) FAs.

With almost two dozen editors working through the list, good progress has been made on submitting the most deficient to FAR. More participation is needed to evaluate older FAs that may only need minor tune-ups. This would winnow the list so the most deficient can be more easily processed at FAR.

Since URFA/2020 was launched, 65 FAs have been Delisted, and 77 have been deemed Satisfactory or have been Kept at FAR. Underscoring the need to review the very old FAs, those reviewed from the 2010–2015 group have a ratio of 6 delisted to 22 satisfactory (79% satisfactory), while in the 2004–2009 group that ratio is 59 delisted to 55 satisfactory (only 48% satisfactory). Time is allowed at FAR when work is ongoing, so those delisted are generally for article reviews in which no editors engage, and those are typically the very old FAs.

The percentage of older FAs needing review has been reduced from 77% to 74%, with about 35 FAs per month processed off the list. This number is misleading because around 200 more have been reviewed by at least one editor as "Satisfactory", but not yet looked at by more than one editor so they can be moved off the list as "Kept" or FAR not needed. Another almost 150 notices that a FAR is needed have been given, although those articles have not yet been submitted to FAR (anyone can submit one on the list).

While the progress has been steady, at the current rate of 35 reviewed FAs per month, it would take over ten years to review all FAs that were promoted pre-2016. Many more FAs could be moved off the list if experienced FA editors reviewed a few old FAs per week, and enter feedback at URFA/2020, or submit noticed articles to FAR.

How can you help?

You can help assure that Wikipedia's Featured articles still meet FA standards. Many just need checking for compliance, and sometimes need only a minor tune-up; listing improvements needed on article talk often results in someone engaging to address the issues so a FAR can be avoided. Those that are still satisfactorily within the FA standards can be noted at WP:URFA/2020 as "Satisfactory", while those that need a FAR can be added to the FAR notices given template.

Reducing the backlog of unreviewed older FAs
  • WikiProjects can set up a process to systematically review their older Featured articles.
  • Editors who have nominated Featured articles can do a tuneup of the articles they watch. If every experienced FA writer or reviewer looks at a few articles a week, and marks those that are still at standard as "Satisfactory", the list will be processed in shorter order.
  • Any editor can review the articles on the list. Improvements needed can be noted in an article talk section with the subject heading == URFA/2020 notes == or == Featured article review needed==, and a diff to those notes can be provided at the URFA/2020 page for tracking. If article talk has been notified of deficiencies, after waiting a few weeks to see if anyone engages, articles can be submitted to FAR.

Everyone is welcome and encouraged to review articles at URFA/2020 and FAR; the more editors who engage, the sooner the backlog will be processed.

Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 1Q2021. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 1Q2021[edit]

@A. Parrot, AustralianRupert, Choess, Heartfox, and Nick-D: thanks for joining in the URFA effort! It's exciting to be able to mark more articles "Satisfactory" and move them off the list, and your reviews are most appreciated.

I did want to call to your attention some of the limitations caused by the (enormous) size of the page, and the conventions we have taken on to try to address that. We need to accomplish all of the following (and more :)

  1. End up with sortable lists so that subsequent reviewers can see which have Notes, Notified, or Satisfactory, etc.
  2. Keep commentary about article quality on article talk pages, where more editors are likely to see them (if not now, some time in the future).
  3. Control the size of this page, by putting on this page only that which is strictly necessary.
  4. Consider other reviewers working on this page two or four years now; do they have what they need?

In that vein,

  • Heartfox, you've got it :) [7] [8] [9] Notes, no sig, just a date for tracking, and everything future reviewers and editors seeking to improve the article need to know is mentioned on talk and in the diff. Reviewers can come along a month or a year from now and scroll through diffs from that point to see if work has been done, or if the article needs to be upgraded to WP:FARGIVEN or can be marked Satisfactory.
  • AustralianRupert, if you could go through and trim some of yours, it would help us control the size of the page, and keep the Notes column sortable so that subsequent reviewers can pull up a list of those that have one or two "Satisfactory" marks and are ready for more review. For example, here, we don't need to take up space with work that you did, and if you just mark it "Satisfactory" it will sort with the others that are ready for review. Even the sig with "Regards" will add to the extreme bulk on this page, so no need to be friendly :) On the other hand, if there are issues, they can be noted as Heartfox did here, just linking to the diff (minimize the extreme bulk on this page, but put comments where article editors are more likely to see them).
  • Nick-D Looking at this example, mentioning on this page that it needs some work does not help article improvement because a) we don't know what work it needs (I see no URFA/2020 list on talk), b) future editors of that article will not see this listing here and won't know what work is needed, and c) the rest of us who might want to mark it Satisfactory don't know what the issues are, and d) it doesn't sort to "Satisfactory" (if that is what you intended), which will cue other reviewers to have a look.
    Sorry to overwhelm with all of this, but because the page is so huge, we have to work to keep it from spinning out of control :) Would you both (Nick-D and AustralianRupert) mind going back through and adjusting all of your commentary to just "Satisfactory" with full sig, or "Notes" with a diff only, or "Satisfactory with notes", and a link to notes on talk page? Anytime you indicate "Satisfactory" we need to know who says so, so need a full sig, but if you are entering only a diff to the talk page notes, we can save space with no sig, since that is in the diff. Best regards, and thanks again for pitching in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. It will be good to see the list split, as it's close to being totally unworkable at present for me, and my latest edit introduced some weird changes for no apparent reason. An arbitrary split on any criterion would be fine ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Nick-D and AustralianRupert; I have put the page in use to correct the remaining issue introduced by the corrections. Probably, I will revert to Hog Farm, and then reinstate the good edits from both of you. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • All done, Nick-D, I think you just somehow got hold of an older page revision; I just started over with a revert and then re-instated your corrections and AustralianRupert's corrections. Thanks for the changes! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oops, forgot to say, Nick-D; if we get to the point of being forced to split the page, it would be split where it is now, by date (very old vs. old), which would mean more work for regulars to maintain two pages. You could have avoided the size problem when editing the full page by using section editing, to open only the section you were editing, which is much more manageable! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many thanks as always Sandy - I appreciate this fix and advice. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May TFA pre-review[edit]

Gog the Mild has a planned schedule at User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs for May 2021. Could reviewers here glance through the very old FAs:

  • Boeing 747 2007 (give this one a close eye as it was written by a prolific sockmaster ... I double checked with aviation editors when Archtransit was blocked and they vouched for its integrity then)
    • Unable to comment on the socking side, but a skim reveals a few instances of weak sourcing, especially in the popular culture section, and a few stray CN areas. Nothing major from a quick glance. Hog Farm Talk 13:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angkor Wat 2005
    • Some uncited text and the recent stuff might need a bit of an update, but nothing overtly disqualifying. Hog Farm Talk 23:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gog the Mild I have spent some time cleaning up, but this very old FA still has enough issues that I would expect it to appear at FAR. I have fixed a ton of MOS:SANDWICH, but there is still quite a bit of uncited text, and the article has been subjected to student editing. Some of the sources are iffy, and citation formatting is inconsistent. In your shoes, I would run it anyway, but there are some extreme and severe critics who frequent WP:ERRORS who seem to think that articles have to be perfect to run TFA, so that ball is in your court :) In the "olden days", defacing a TFA with citation needed tags was considered poor form (the idea was to wait for the article to be off the main page, then submit to FAR), but of late, it's a sport. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Sandy. I'm personally on the side of running not-perfect TFAs like this one being okay, but do agree that this one could see FAR before the year is up. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaving it on the schedule. Thanks both for your once and future clean up work. Let's see what the I don't like it hecklers make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, old FA:

Also, Menstrual cycle from 2004 which is about to wrap up at FAR, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some updates above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at Final Fantasy this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at Western Chalukya literature in Kannada—seems fine; fully referenced and decently written. I cleaned up a few things but would think its good to go. Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving space[edit]

Would it be worthwhile to save bytes to remove the exact times for the satis/kept at FAR list? And just keep the date, like is done with the delisted ones? Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hurt to try, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Between that and getting rid of a couple more of my signatures, about 2300 bytes have been saved. Sometime if I get really bored, I'll go through and remove all of the (UTC) instances, too. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older ones to check from the June preliminary list w/ last formal review date[edit]

9/11 articles?[edit]

I'm considering re-running one of the 9/11 articles that are FA (the individual flights, I believe) on the 20th anniversary in September. Do any of them remain in decent shape?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Flight 93 isn't in perfect shape, but it looks good enough to run. Hog Farm Talk 13:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem editing the page[edit]

I can't edit the page. I think it's because of the plethora of links. It just locks up in edit mode. Graham Beards (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: The page size has been a problem for other users, too. Try editing a section of the page, instead of clicking the "edit" tab at the top of the page. If it is still too slow/difficult to edit, please post your update here and another editor will add it for you. Thanks for contributing to this project! Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have reviewed and updated Phagocyte. If someone could edit the list accordingly, I would be grateful. Graham Beards (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as Satisfactory, credited to you, and put the time stamp of the above message. [10] Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative TFA schedule for September 2021[edit]

This is the tentative TFA schedule for September 2021. It is subject to further TFA nominations or other needful changes:

1. Level Mountain (Volcanoguy) 2021 Geography

2. Indian roller (BhagyaMani , LittleJerry, Aa77zz, Shyamal & Cas Liber) 2021 Biology

3. Battle of Dunbar (1650) (Girth Summit; Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare TFA/R.

4. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Al Ameer) 2019. Royalty.

5. Abberton Reservoir (Jimfbleak) 2021. Geography.

6. Katie Joplin (Aoba47) 2021 TV TFA/R

7. Battle of Babylon Hill (Harrias) 2020. Warfare.

8. Can't Get You Out of My Head (Tomica) 2021. Music. TFA/R

9. Huey Long (HAL333) History. 2021. TFA/R/P

10. Giovanni Antonio Grassi (Ergo Sum) Education 2021 TFA/R

11. United Airlines Flight 93 (Veggies, retired) 2008. History. Rerun of September 11, 2008.

12. Mr. Dooley (Wehwalt) 2015. Literature. Rerun of August 31, 2016.

13. Chandler's Ford shooting (HJ Mitchell) 2021. History.

14. Keechaka Vadham (Ssven2) 2018. Film.

15. Raymond Pace Alexander (Coemgenus) 2020. Law.

16. Roman withdrawal from Africa (255 BC) 2020. Gog the Mild. History/Warfare

17. Hurricane Humberto (2019) 2020 (Juliancolton).Weather.

18. Acamptonectes (2021) FunkMonk Lythronaxargestes , Slate Weasell, Jens Lallensack Biology

19. M-1 (Michigan highway) (2017) Imzadi 1979. Roads.

20. Lettuce (2012) Dana boomer. Food & Drink. Rerun of September 26, 2012

21. Banksia sceptrum (Casliber) 2017. Biology.

22. The Triumph of Cleopatra (Iridescent) 2015 Art.

23. Turf Moor ( WA8MTWAYC ) 2021. Sports.

24. Sonic X-treme (Red Phoenix, Popcornfud) 2018 TFA/R Video Games

25. Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidae, or Parrots (Jimfbleak) 2021 Birds

26. British nuclear tests at Maralinga (Hawkeye7) 2020. History/Warfare

27. Transandinomys (Ucucha) 2010. Biology.

28. Cleveland Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt) 2016. Numismatics

29. U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary) (White Shadows) 2018. Warfare.

30. Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah (SarahSV, deceased) 2010. Anniversary. History

Comments welcome. I plan to implement the scheduling around August 11 or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we doing three re-runs? Haven't we had enough new FAs to not have to do re-runs? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the average promotions from the past 12 months, we should be doing around 7 re-runs per month to avoid falling behind. That's without accounting for FAR delistings. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I thought there was a page with items that hadn't run yet. But sure. FAC throughput is glacial, lack of reviewers, lack of carpe diem, overwhelmingly silly attempts to adhere to MOS guidelines. I guess Wikipedia and its process wonkery only has itself to blame for this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to schedule more reruns for the reasons mentioned above. We're allowed up to two each week, which seems a little ambitious, but at least it gives us some flexibility and the ability to run a relevant article for the 9/11 anniversary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actual page with items that hadn't run yet is Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. I'd personally like to see Robert Oppenheimer re-run; it was run in 2005, but was stricken in 2007 and completely rewritten before passing FAC again in 2011. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually be refreshing to "NOT" have to do a 9/11 article. The rest of the world is out there. But hey, re-run because this is US Wikipedia I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have the four articles on the flights as 9/11 FAs. Since they've only run once each, it has been some years since we have had a 9/11 related article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of splitting up the section[edit]

Hey all, It may be useful to split up the list into smaller sections, as any time I try to make an edit it takes my computer about a minute to process what I'm typing and put it through. Perhaps sorting it into sections by year, or even years and months may be helpful in reducing this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: I've made a test split of the 2004-2009 into smaller sections (by year). Does this work better? Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Yes! I have no input lag now. Thank you very much. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't any objections/further input over the next couple days, I'll go ahead and do the same for the 2010-2015 section. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is great – thanks for doing it, Hog Farm. The lag is much more manageable now for me as well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This works so much better. Thanks HF for being bold and doing this. I suggest splitting the 2010-2015 list, too. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have finally completed this process. As for why there's an extra tiny column on the end of most of them, I have no idea. Hog Farm Talk 06:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA for November[edit]

The November schedule for TFA has been posted. Of note to URFA/2020:

Can editors please review these articles to ensure they are still up to FA standards? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing in WP:WBFAN top nominators[edit]

I am going to ever so slowly starting pinging in some top nominators, eg Mike Christie and David Fuchs. I don't want to ping in Wehwalt, Cas, Sturm, Hawkeye, Parsecboy yet lest we overwhelm bio and milhist editors all at once. Ian Rose and Peacemaker67 are already in. On Hurricanehink, I pinged the entire Tropical cyclone project, and he responded there and is aware.

Ian Rose, do you have all of Brianboulton's watchlisted, or do we need to do something additional on his?

YellowMonkey is long gone, so his will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite a few FAs on my watchlist because I almost always tweak them a bit before promoting, and I often don't remove them. In Brian's case I deliberately put several on my watchlist when he was away for a while through illness -- obviously not all though as the Rhinemaidens article was new to me -- I'd be happy to revisit, his will not need much work. I also put several of Tim's, SchroCat's and Cass' on my list when they took extended breaks -- over and above those I'd reviewed or promoted anyway. I still have some of YM's Vietnamese and sporting military articles watched but there'd be a whole bunch I've never seen -- if I had time (unlikely) I could probably tackle some of his cricketing ones but there are others who could do as good a job or better there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My early impression is that some of YM's are holding up well ... they don't seem to have been much edited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I 'm busy on a non-WP project at the moment, but look in here betweenwhiles to keep an eye on BB's FAs, as do several other editors, including Ian and Nikkimaria, whom I thank most sincerely. (I keep an eye on the articles that I took to FA too, of course.) Tim riley talk 00:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:David Fuchs; I (and others) will chip away at looking at those (no big hurry on FAs that are watched by nominators, as they are typically in good shape). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of my post-2010 articles are fine, and I've done a fair amount of overhauls on a lot of the old ones over the years already, but I haven't done a proper systematic check. I've got a few on my to do list that just take more time trawling for additional sources and the like. I was hoping to get through them this coming year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is helpful to know which ones you are working on ... I may add a note to that effect as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I review FunkMonks right away, since most of his are extinct and I have to check less that is current ... while yours will take more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saving some more space[edit]

I've got an idea on how to potentially save a little space on the page. It won't gain us back a whole lot, but when the page is over 331k bytes, everything that's saved helps. On the tables for kept or FAR not needed, do we really need to keep the columns for the last FAC/FAR and the TFA date? Since we aren't linking to anything, I don't think the new FAR date would really be that helpful, and we're living without those columns just fine on the list of delisted ones. We need to keep the satisfactory signatures around so we know who signed off on each one, but I don't think keeping those two columns for processed entries is worth the space it takes up in bytes. Hog Farm Bacon 02:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm thanks for this idea, and thanks for all your help in the effort! I hope I can get this answer in before your week-long break. It will be long :)
We don't need to retain any of the columns on those Delisted, because they are no longer eligible to run TFA. My intent/hope with saving the data on this page for the Kept/No Review needed was so that the page could eventually become useful to @WP:TFA coordinators as well as knowing what needs to go to FAR, as they are increasingly needing to re-run articles. In setting up the format here, I was hoping to avoid multiple issues seen on other pages:
  1. The cleanup listing gives equal prominence to an article with one minor cn tag, and fifteen of same. It doesn't help us know if an article needs to go to FAR, or would be an embarrassment at TFA. It only gives us a starting place.
  2. Dweller's page fails to engage editors who might improve articles, because the commentary about issues is buried away on a page most editors will never see (in fact, probably don't know exists). This is why I set up this page with strict enforcement that commentary about the articles goes on article talk. There, we have a better chance of engaging more editors down the road. The link here allows us to click, and then scroll forward to see if anyone has engaged. While hopefully still giving the TFA Coords what they need to know.
  3. Likewise, Dweller's list does not put in one easy, sortable place the ability for TFA Coords to get an overview if they are about to schedule an article. Several of us had recently dug in to a MILHIST suite of articles that had issues, and were surprised to find one of them scheduled just as those issues were being uncovered (when there are so many more prepared articles that could be run). In that case, we reached out to the TFA Coord, and the ship was rescheduled. But the idea here is, picture that we will be at this venture for a very long time, and a year or two down the road, this page will present to TFA Coords an overview of where older FAs stand, in one sortable place. To that end, I asked Hawkeye7 if FACBot could keep the TFAs updated on this page, and expect to start seeing FACBot edits come 1 January (I had already added December TFAs).

So, if we delete the TFA date and the last review date, my concern is that we hamstring ourselves a few years down the road. Picture a year from now that a TFA Coord can come to this list and find when the article was last (formally) reviewed, when it last ran TFA, and what editors looked at it and declared it "Satisfactory" recently. Even if an FA passed in 2006, if they can see it hasn't run TFA, but was reviewed in 2020 by three independent editors, and is still watched by its nominator, that should give them some assurance that the article is TFA worthy. I'd hate to lose that data because of space issues.

I recognize that, because of the size of the page, we may eventually need to lose something, but suggest we wait to see how the page is used before we decide to delete data. Also, there are other options/ways to split the page, if it truly becomes unmanageable. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total aside, but while I'm thinking about it... someone can mark all "my" FAs with the fact taht I consider them mostly up to date. I've kept up with all of them... there might be a few tiny MOS issues crept in but they shouldn't be deficient on sourcing nor have gone through that much bloat. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the Kept/No review FAs to a subpage to reduce clutter. (t · c) buidhe 06:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe that's one of the kinds of things I was hoping we could leave 'til a bit further down the road (in fact, we could move both the delisted and the "kept" to a subpage). For now, I was leaving it all on this page so that newcomers to the page (the repeat nominators we want to engage) will see how it is functioning, and what we need to move things to the "kept" section. If you/others don't object, I'd prefer to leave this sort of splitting of the data until the size makes it absolutely necessary. When we do that, there is a maintenance tradeoff, as moving things and updating monthly stats will then require editing and checking separate pages. Could we revisit these ideas further down the road?
Also, thanks to all the repeat nominators who have added theirs watched to the page; I plan to carve out time for a new dive in to marking Satisfactory in the New Year (have been swamped), focusing on the oldest first ... so if I/we take time to get to those in the bottom half of the list, it's not for lack of appreciation or interest-- they just aren't the most urgent priority, which is getting the older deficient FAs dealt with first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested at Atheism[edit]

There's a fantastic editor working on atheism, but this highly-viewed article has lots of important parts that need updating and the editor requested help to improve the article. Does anyone know of religion/philosophy experts who would be willing to lend a hand? I hope we can keep this star. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make a post to WT:FAC, which is more widely read? Also, please do ping me when there are further along, and I will look at MOS-y stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to WT:FAC, and will do. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a previous effort by WPVG[edit]

Thanks guys for this work, it's invaluable to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's top content. :) I thought it might be helpful to drop you a link to a previous similar effort by WPVG which never made as much headway as you did but into which at least some time and effort was invested at various times. Here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: are you or someone else in the Wikiproject interested in running another review drive? I am happy to help set this up, although the link above is a great format for this effort. Are there coordinators at WP:VP? Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah WPVG doesn't have specific coordinators or anything. We're not the most tightly organized. Which is also why the abovementioned effort never got very far. You're welcome to drop a note on WT:VG or WP:Discord if you want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs) 18:05, June 26, 2021 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: Let's see if Shadow of Colossus brings forward some interested reviewers. I hope you'll join us in reviewing articles at URFA/2020. We need all the help we can get. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated that list to reflect that Frank Klepacki has been delisted and Wii kept at FAR, as well as adding a link to the Shadow of the Colossus FAR. Hopefully nobody minds that. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 2Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity[edit]

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

  • Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
  • Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA) by:
    • Listing older FAs that are ready for the main page
    • Helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before they run on TFA

This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)

In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.

If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How can you 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".
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix article 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 FA standards 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.
Feedback

If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2Q2021. Hog Farm Talk 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing in more WP:WBFAN[edit]

In December, Sandy slowly invited some of Wikipedia's top FA nominators. The goal was to avoid overwhelming the project with reviews in similar topic areas and inviting too many reviewers at the same time. I went through the archives and URFA/2020's page history and noted who had been pinged about this project already or had edited URFA/2020 or the talk page.

I propose inviting Hawkeye7 (milthist), Hurricanehink (cyclones), and Ceoil (music and visual arts) in the coming days. They have different topic areas and are semi-active or active at the moment. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects by next week, I will send out the invites. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Ceoil has been active at FAR lately, and I believe Hawkeye's have held up well. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Invites posted on their talk pages. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA and FACbot[edit]

I took most of the summer off from editing; did FACbot stop updating the TFAs ? [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table sorting query at VPT[edit]

Izno fixed it with this, see response here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane reminder[edit]

Trying again: [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National parks, state parks, geology of same[edit]

Hog Farm you asked above about the expertise of different editors, and I have been meaning to get back to you on this notification about a park article. (This may be of interest to @Buidhe, RetiredDuke, and Femkemilene: and anyone else regularly engaging now at FAR.)

Pretty much all of the National Park FAs on Wikipedia are User:MONGO. MONGO is still active and helping out at FAC, and has (in the past) worked through everything asked of him as standards have changed. Notifying/pinging him is more useful than pinging a WikiProject, as MONGO is the one who will do the upgrades. But ... he is only one person, and he has so many FAs, that it may be helpful to approach him like a Project-Unto-Himself, and not overwhelm him with too many at once. On those articles, it can be helpful to check the FAC to see if the article is one of his.

Similarly, many of the Geology of ... parks ... were written by Mav, who hasn't been active since 2015. At some point, I will email him and see if he can be enticed back, and we can decide whether to proceed to FAR with any of his. At the top of the list, Mav has Geology of the Death Valley area.

MONGO's are like Kirill Lokshin's in MILHIST: he has so many, and is willing to keep them at standard, and we should be considerate of their time constraints.

MONGO, can you tell us if you have a plan for approaching any of the articles on this list (particularly the oldest last reviewed), so we don't send an article to FAR unnecessarily ? I see some needs in each of these, near the top of the list, which I know you can address:

  1. Shoshone National Forest
  2. Glacier National Park (U.S.)
  3. Redwood National and State Parks
  4. Retreat of glaciers since 1850

If you do improve them, please feel free to add your own "Satisfactory" to the page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone NF was originally at FA in 2007 and I tripled the refs and did a huge overhaul in 2014. I know that is now 6 years ago and I can check and see if the cites are working and if any new news is available to add. I do not think much needs to be done here.
Glacier NP was also brought to FA I think in 2007 and was expanded and updated in 2010...thats now 10 years ago so it will need some updates of course. I will put that in my cue.
Redwood NSP is a bit out of date since it was brought to FA...Would have to run the gambit on that to bring it back up to cue.
Retreat of glaciers is currently and very slowing getting an update. Its at the top of my list, followed by the others. I expect Retreat to have a full update by end of the year.--MONGO (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, Sandy. Honestly I wasn't that concerned about the parks FAs; the ones I checked were obviously being taken care of so I just let them be, to focus on the badly neglected FAs. But yes, alerting big contributors about URFA/2020 is a must. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting changes to facilitate edits[edit]

As mentioned above, there are still editors who struggle to edit this page because of the page size. If it takes too long to edit, it might discourage new people from joining this project. Below are some ideas on how to reduce the page size:

  • Split the tables by year, while still keeping stats for 2004-2009 and 2010-2015. Smaller tables are quicker to edit.
  • Moving delisted articles to a new page in batches of 100, similar to what WP:DESTUB50K does (but they do it in batches of 1000). This reduces the size of this page.

Thoughts? Are there other suggestions on how to make this page more user friendly? Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't be surprised if we have to split it into WP:URFA/2020/2004-2009 and WP:URFA/2020/2010-2015, although I'd rather push that off until as late as possible. One thing to think about would be to remove the links to the user talk pages of the ones marked, since we really just need to know who checked each one, rather than the links to the user talk pages. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't struggle with editing the tables themselves, but I'm an emerging-adult "digital native" and there's a fair bit that comes naturally to me (e.g. ctrl+F to find the title of what I'm marking) that I can't assume all editors will get. I do, however, shrink a bit from the idea of giving the last satisfactory to an in-shape article with two ticks and by extension needing to move it into the right spot of an entirely new table. Vaticidalprophet 07:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had no problems finding sections. The screen just locks in edit mode and I have to control-alt-delete and close it in Task Manager. I have never had this problem here before. Graham Beards (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you using Visual Editor? It's pretty spotty for anything of non-trivial length, I've found. Vaticidalprophet 08:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I always use wikEd. Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll try to cull as many bytes from this as I can, although that would only be a short-term fix. I know a couple months ago the WP:FAC page did that to me a lot (locking up, having to kill the web browser). Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've taken all of the links to user talk pages in signatures out from the 2004-2009 section and saved over 6,000 bytes. The (UTC)s and the exact time (like the 14:58 and whatnot) are also candidates to go if we get desparate. Hog Farm Talk 17:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I checked and UTCs were 3,600 bytes by themselves, and it seemed very low-hanging fruit, so I've removed them. CMD (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will changing the diffs from urls to Template:dif make the page easier to edit and load? If so, I can make the change this week. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not familiar with how that template works. As far as I can tell, there's two components to load time - number of bytes and some template transclusion stuff. If the diff templates are simple, that won't be an issue. However, if we put too much text into templates or nest templates within each other, it hurts load time (which is what kills the FAC page sometime). So long as we don't go hog wild on how many/how much text goes into the templates and make sure to not nest templates within templates, I think that might be helpful. I think Extraordinary Writ did something similar awhile back. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first few rows of 2004-2009 use that template, which is the format I would transition to. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did go through and change a number of them to use Template:Dif a while back, but I gave up largely because 1) it was taking an interminable amount of time and 2) I wasn't sure if it was really making a difference. I just created two lists of links, one of which uses Template:Dif and one of which doesn't. Anecdotally, I'm not really seeing too much of a difference in loading time; perhaps someone else could take a look. User:Extraordinary Writ/test1 uses the compressed Template:Dif form, while User:Extraordinary Writ/test2 doesn't. Unless someone sees a huge difference in load time between the two, Template:Dif may not be worth our time. Breaking up the tables by year and putting each one under a separate section heading could conceivably be useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like the idea of breaking up the tables by year. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • If splitting the tables by year doesn't work out, then we may just have to bite the bullet and divide the page into 2009 and earlier and 2010 and later pages. Either way, I think we ought to still keep some sort of noticeable division between the 2009 and earlier and 2010 and later. The one issue with splitting up the tables by year is that it might make updating harder when items have to be moved from the year tables into the delisted or kept tables. To get the most benefit from splitting the tables by year, it might make sense to make each year its own section if we're gonna go that route. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I am going through and trimming sigs to help with the page size. At the same time, I am removing some commas so that the sort order will work. I am not switching to the templated diff as ... I am worried with the size of the page that we could hit template limits somewhere down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping user talk links reduced the page size by 20KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

(Per discussion above) Even with all the signature trimming I've done, and less than six months after the last discussion of problems with the page size, I had a bear of a time last night moving the six delisted articles. I fear the page size may be discouraging participation (eg User:Graham Beards) and it may be time to bite the bullet and split the page in two.

I propose we leave this as the main (summary) page, since a) we have talk pages all over creation pointing to this page, and b) it will be our main point of talk discussion about the two (split) pages. We would leave the info at the top of the page (on each page), and the stats at the bottom of this page, but in between, place two links:

On the new pages, we would repeat the instructions at the top, and add a link to them main article where stats are kept, and add a link to the other (split) article. I would also add to the instructions a note about trimming sigs, because even with the split, the two pages will grow large. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. My computer just about had a heart attack the other day trying to undo a revision, which shouldn't be a difficult task. Although dividing the page into sections by year helped, there are still situations where you need to edit the entire page, and that can truly be a pain. Splitting it into two is probably the best solution we have. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this work after we hear from Hog Farm, Buidhe, and more of the regulars. Holy moly, what a busy morning; FAR and URFA activity busting out all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this, as well - I think we knew all along it was gonna come to this at some point. Splitting the sections helped with section editing, but I added {{in use}} briefly the other day while I updated things, and trying to edit the whole page at once did not go well. At least we don't have to worry about the post-include size like at FAC, because we don't use templates. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, Buidhe, RetiredDuke, David Fuchs, Femkemilene, and FunkMonk: proposal to split the page above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support this split. I believe I proposed it earlier because it would really help with the page size issues. (t · c) buidhe 09:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the split, the page size has become unmanageable and it would always grow bigger as work progressed. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for me. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up to all; I will start on this today in a few hours, after breakfast, and it may result in a long {{in use}} as I get things moved around. Please don’t edit the pages until I remove the in use. @Hurricane Noah: who is quite actively reviewing articles now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I'm done; please check over the wording at the top of the three pages to make sure I didn't miss anything, and note new instructions page at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Instructions, as well as the new shortcuts listed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 tentative TFA schedule[edit]

1. Cleveland Centennial half dollar. (Wehwalt) Numismatics. 2015 Free choice (rescheduling of September 28)
2. Manon Melis (Edwininlondon) Sport. 2021. TFA/R
3. El Tatio (Jo-Jo Emereus) Geography. 2021 Free choice.
4. Battle of Pontvallain (Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild) 2019. Warfare. TFA/R
5. U.S. Route 30 in Iowa (Fredddie) 2011. Roads. Free choice.

I have not looked closely, but on a quick glance, nothing stands out that should make us hide in shame at TFA. I see some 2021 text added, so not entirely dated. But I do suggest another editor here take a glance as well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. 1860 Boden Professor of Sanskrit election (rerun of August 7, 2013) (Bencherlite) 2012. Law. Free choice.

Diff of changes since Bencherlite last edited it in 2017. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7. Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao (Peacemaker67) 2021. Warfare TFA/R
8. 2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election ( N Oneemuss) 2021. Politics. Free choice (anniversary)
9. Southampton Cenotaph (HJ Mitchell) 2019. Warfare. Free choice.
10. Prison education (Damien Linnane) 2021. Education. TFA/R (World Human Rights Day)
11. James Longstreet (Display name 99) 2021. Warfare. Free choice.
12. Sega CD (Red Phoenix) 2015. Video games. TFA/R/P
13. Dhoby Ghaut MRT station (Zhang 123). 2021. Transport. TFA/R (requested for December 12)
14. Gianni Schicchi (Brianboulton, deceased) 2010 Music. Rerun of May 31, 2011. TFA/R
15. 1988 World Snooker Championship (BennyOnTheLoose) 2021. Sport. Free choice.
16. Frederick the Great (Wtfiv) 2021. History. Free choice.
17. Hunky Dory (Zmbro) 2020. Music. TFA/R
18. Dracophyllum fiordense (Dracophyllum) 2021. Biology. Free choice.
19. Surrogate's Courthouse (Epicgenius) 2021. Architecture. Free choice.
20. Grey's Anatomy (season 17) (TheDoctorWho) 2021. TV. Free choice.
21. Australian boobook (Cas Liber) 2017. Biology. Free choice.
22. This Dust Was Once the Man (Eddie 891) 2021. Literature. Free choice.
23. 1916 Texas Hurricane (TheAustinMan) 2020. Weather. Free choice.
24. Soiscél Molaisse (Ceoil) 2021. Art. Free choice
25. Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) (General Poxter, RobertG) 2021. Music. TFA/R/P
26. Battle of Panormus (Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare. Per request.
27. Sesame Street research (Figureskatingfan) 2013. TV. Free choice.

Not TFA disqualifying, but I see the sources here are primarily from 2011 and before. Given that AFAIK the show is still active, there may be more recent research here. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, concerning. Google scholar search restricted to *only* since 2017 reveals a lot; I suspect this article is well out-of-date. On the other hand, I think it is OK for articles like that to run at TFA, although it could end up at FAR as a result. That's how it works :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a case where it would be best to give through a bit after the TFA date and see if TFA spurs updating (and leave a brief note on talk page), and if that doesn't lead to anything, consider placing on FARGIVEN? Hog Farm Talk 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will give it a few weeks before adding to FARGIVEN. [14] On the other hand … I may forget :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28. Pepi I Meryre (Iry-Hor) 2021. Royalty. Free choice.
29. Ezra Meeker (Wehwalt) 2013. History. Free choice. Rerun of June 21, 2013
30. Jamiroquai (100cellsman) 2021. Music. TFA/R
31. 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl (Grondemar) 2011. Sport. Free choice.

Comments welcome. I have scheduled December 1, and plan to continue as time permits. Obviously nothing is ever set in stone, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I formatted links and highlighted the older ones; hope you don't mind! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I was working on doing it but you were too fast for me!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tabs[edit]

Since splitting the page in two, the presentation is quite busy, and navigating is complex. Now that I have seen how tabs work at WP:FASA, I suggest that is a good option. Unless anyone objects, I’d like to convert the URFA pages to tabs, similar to those at FASA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created a markup at User:Z1720/URFA2020/Tabs; anyone can edit this if they wish. I chose ivory as the colour because that's what is used at the top of URFA/2020 right now, though I have no opinion on this. I think the tabs would be an improvement. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. My only concern is that, while URFA and FAR work together, URFA is a precursor to FAR, while FARGIVEN is part of FAR. Should the talk page for FARGIVEN redirect to the URFA talk page or the FAR talk page? Do the @FAC coordinators: have an opinion? I feel like it's OK to have all the discussion at URFA, as long as we are careful to ping in the Coords if their feedback is needed. But I am unsure here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "link to" above to "redirect to". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: did you mean to ping the FAR coords? Also, if we implement this and have an instructions tab, can the instructions be removed from the main URFA/2020 page? Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes :) The idea is to simplify the amount of gobbledy-gook on each page now. Sorry FAC Coords, re-pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is anticipated to go under "Main"? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed scheme[edit]

See User:Z1720/URFA2020/Tabs
  • Taken from Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020, the Main tab would take the first paragraph (minus the gobbledy-gook about where to find the other pages, as they will now be easily seen in tabs), and the Monthly stats. Only.
  • All talk pages would redirect to one discussion page (although I am unsure if WP:FARGIVEN should redirect to URFA talk or to FAR talk). I am OK with redirecting it to URFA, although it is part of FAR, only if the Coords agree, and if we are all careful to make sure URFA talk doesn't pre-empt FAR talk.
  • To simplify things, the instructions (now at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Instructions) would not be repeated on each page, as they would be easily found via the tab. They would only be on the Instructions page, which would reduce the gobbledy-gook on all the other pages.
  • Then the Old and Very old tabs would only include the data tables at each (eg Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009) without having to repeat all the gobbledy-gook instructions, etc.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would be more inclined to keep the instructions on the main tab and hive off the stats to their own tab, and IMO FARGIVEN should redirect to FAR talk. Open to other thoughts though. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with either, depending on what other main participants say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of putting stats on their own page, and keeping the instructions on main. I don't think FARGIVEN should go to WT:FAR; either remove it (my preference) or name the tag FAR Talk (but this might confuse visitors to URFA/2020). Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then we should just remove FARGIVEN from the URFA tabs, as it is really part of FAR, and having it here at all is what creates the confusion. We can mention it in the instructions instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, FARGIVEN is more of a cousin to URFA and a sibling to FAR, rather than an integral part of URFA. I do think URFA should keep its own talk page; I don't feel strongly about what to do with FARGIVEN's. Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

Please check my work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good! Hog Farm Talk 00:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 3Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity[edit]

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

This is the third quarterly update on the project. Previous reports are listed below:

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

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.

Discussion 3Q2021[edit]

If you have any questions or feedback, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great job to everyone doing the reviews. This winter should hopefully be a great time to buckle down and get through marking a lot more of mine satisfactory and hopefully helping out more with others' as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a fairly inactive quarter. Things should start slowing down at work soon, so I hope to be more active with this over the coming quarter. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesomeness to Z1720 and Hog Farm for keeping this going :) SO sorry I have been so busy; I wish I could help more, and hope the muse returns, but things don't look encouraging at the pages I have visited so far :( Thanks again to all of you for the awesome work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next round of WP:WBFAN invites?[edit]

Our last round of invites to those at the top of WP:WBFAN was in July. I have been noting who has already been invited to participate in URFA/2020 and who has edited the page. By my observations, the next three editors to invite are Parsecboy (ships), Iridescent (British geography and history bios), and Ucucha (biology). Are there any concerns about sending them invites? Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z, could we preview the text of the proposed invite? Iri's talkpage is Grand Central Station, so it's akin to putting it in the Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found, here; I feel like it could explain more, but I tend towards verbosity :) How did the July notifications go? Would it make sense to explain exactly what they should do? That is, if they have continuously maintained the FAs they nominated, they can mark them "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020, which will trigger others to have a look with an eye towards moving them off of the review list. Or some such better phrasing ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the goal of the invite was to bring the users to URFA/2020, and they could read the instructions at the top. I was concerned that if the talk page message was too long, the user wouldn't read it. I'm always down for a rewording though; I think I might be the opposite where I try to shorten prose as much as I can :P. If I had to redo the July invite, I would probably add information about checking "their" articles and marking them as Satisfactory, or encourage edits to bring them back to standards and pinging our team when the work is complete.
After the last invites, Hawkeye7 and Ceoil both marked articles as Satisfactory. HurricaneHink did not respond to the message (but they have only been somewhat active the past few months). I don't recall them having problems with the process, although Hog Farm reviewed some of the articles that they marked as Satisfactory.
My best-case-scenario goal with these invites is that it brings experienced FA writers to this process who start marking articles as Satisfactory, starting with their own noms but then reviewing other ones. While this process has done well in identifying articles that need work (and bringing them to FAR), I think it lacks experienced reviewers who can mark articles as Satisfactory. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect (could be misremembering?) I had already reach Hink via a WikiProject notification earlier on. The word their can be problematic (owernship), and sticking with “nominated by” is better. My main point is that the post will generate discussion on Iri’s talk, that is likely to stay on that page rather than come here, so it should anticipate to be effective. And I agree that the bottom line is the need to get more experienced reviewers marking the Satisfactory articles, so my suggestion is we not miss the chance to make the best plug possible on Iri’s talk. Others may have better wording suggestions, as I am always too verbose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A small celebration[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to say that I'm really surprised and happy seeing everyone pitching in to my newbie idea in VP, and while we wait for the template editors to respond I'm optimistic about the whole thing and looking forward to how the discussion moves along :D I'm bit bogged down by work and an RfC I'm participating on but once that's done I'll give URFA a shot Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you need someone to review an article you are working on, please ping me and I will add it to my list. I prefer reviewing articles that people are working on so that I can ask questions to someone. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some experienced eyes[edit]

Hi! I just made some notes on an article in the list here. I'd appreciate if one of you could tell me if that's a good edit and what steps to do next. I'd like to notify relevant wikiprojects about the notes and am wondering if there's a specific template y'all recommend I use for that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. C., thanks for jumping in !
I have to head out for the day and evening, but others here will lend a hand. In general, you got the steps right, but I am guessing (?) you would upgrade that to Noticed, and add it WP:FARGIVEN, in the event no one responds after a week or two? Notifying WProjects at this stage is less likely to result in improvements, but browse the tools for any editors you might ping.
One other thing you should do is always provide samples, for instance:
  • prose is very hard to read in various parts of the article (give a few examples)
  • article itself is short ... that is not a WP:WIAFA disqualifier, unless ...
  • and not very broad in coverage (needs examples of what is missing, or what sources are not used), and
  • seems to need a MOS review as well. (needs some examples)
But that's a fine start you've made, and you got it added correctly at WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about SNOWs?[edit]

Hi! I was wondering what to do about articles who seem like a snow demotion from FA status (and possibly GA as well). I recently came across Israel the Grammarian's BLP while trying to find good examples of FAs on literary bios for a discussion at J.K. Rowling's FAR. The article is immensely short and not very comprehensive, barely giving much information on the individual. I've left some comments on the talk page, but I was wondering what the procedure is. Do I go straight to FAR and notify relevant users/WPs? Spending my Friday the best way I know how, Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz: Don't bring it to FAR yet. If no one responds in two-three weeks, then bring it to FAR. In your description (where you describe why you are nominating it for FAR) outline why the article might be a candidate for a quick delist. FAR reviewers and co-ords will determine if it's a quick delist. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, Z1720. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that one should come to FAR at all; I'll respond to the concerns you raised on article talk, but basically two things: a) standards have not increased since that article was promoted, and b) length is not part of WP:WIAFA. Short articles are fine; to show they are not comprehensive, you would need to demonstrate what sources are left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I haven't investigated too carefully, I don't think that's a SNOW case at all. The reason it's short is probably because there just isn't too much to say about a tenth-century scholar. Additionally, the nominator, Dudley Miles, is still active, so he should be able to deal with any concerns. An article is only too short if there's something specific that it isn't covering. (On a sidenote – and I may be in the minority here – I don't really see the purpose of trying to rush through with speedy delists. Most URFA articles have been FAs for a decade or more, so there surely isn't any urgency. While I have no trouble with allowing coördinators to close FAR(C)s sooner rather than later to save the time of reviewers, it isn't really something we should be too worried about.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with EW entirely and will respond on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, EW, there is one reason to speed along the hopeless cases; each nominator can only have five noms on the page at a time, more with permission, so we are often stalled in bringing forward new nominations. Right now, I cannot nominate a FAR. We have 160 listed at WP:FARGIVEN, and less than a dozen of us doing all the noms-- you can see we can't get there from here, so I do agree with speedying the most hopeless. In fact, I am beginning to be concerned in the opposite direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair: I didn't think of the five-nom limit (probably because I've never started nearly enough FARs to encounter it – sorry). Perhaps it would be worth discussing that rule again, particularly since the once-a-week limit would prevent the number of FARs from getting too out of control. (I know the coördinators have been reluctant to support changing the rules, but it still might be a discussion worth having.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Coords are quite amenable to extending the number on the page if one asks, but I am at six now, which is too much for most people. The problem that is developing is editors who say they are working on an article, but then don't, so that the nom stays on the page for months. I am starting to lose patience with those cases. Even more difficult is when editors who don't know the standards engage to save a star, only to make it worse. And then, the nominators who don't do notifications so we have to expend extra time on bookkeeping. We do have a problem with the five limit, and I am stalled from making another nom for about ten more days, but I'm not yet sure what the solution is. We really should have this discussion at WT:FAR, but maybe after the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: I opened a discussion about this topic in April. Click here to read that discussion. I agree with SG that this discussion is for WT:FAR. I encourage you to nominate at FAR if you are prepared to review the article if someone wants to save it. Feel free to bring any article that I have noticed. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responded there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the general question of "what to do about snows", see Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1. When an article looks truly unsalvageable, and there is consensus among reviewers, the Coords are amenable to an accelerated process. ANAK was only five days in FAR, and six days in FARC, so delisted in under two weeks. Also, questions of this nature can be raised at WT:FAR, where the @WP:FAR coordinators: will weigh in. Best regards, and thanks again for digging in to help out at URFA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't expect it to be such a short process once accelerated. Thankfully most FAs are very, very salvageable if in need of work, especially when editors involved are still active, so I don't expect to need aviation goggles anytime soon :). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Santacruz: - ANAK isn't even the shortest one I've seen - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 (3.5 days). That was an unfortunate case. Hog Farm Talk 03:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz:, please, absolutely do not judge a Featured Article on its length alone, or compare its contents with the kind of info that you'd expect to have on a modern-day subject. We have several series of FAs (the sci-fi magazines FAs, the Middle Ages English people FAs, the mushrooms FAs, the East Indies old films FAs, those obscure TV series FAs, the race horses FAs, from the top of my head), where the articles are very short but meet the FA criteria. There's simply not much to be said about those subjects. You have to check for comprehensiveness instead. Also, Israel the Grammarian is not a WP:BLP, the man has been dead for a while. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reviewing[edit]

SG said on the FAC talk page: As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily – for ones like these should we just mark in the notes column that they still meet FA criteria? Or go another route? Aza24 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just add Satisfactory to notes so we can begin to move out those that are in good shape and focus on the problematic ... apologies for brief ipad typing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you review an article here you already reviewed at FAC? Because that would quickly get some articles ticked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I am understanding the question, but if you mean you supported a gazillion years ago, and the article is still at standard, a Satisfactory will do the job! Yes, there should be a number of quick ticks ... and getting those moved off the page will help us focus on the truly deficient. If you find minor things that need addressing you can do what I did at the entry on the page for Rhinemaidens ( Satisfactory, with note ) ... look through some of the samples, which is easiest done if you pull up a sort on the last (Notes) column. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I just looked at Apatosaurus, which I reviewed in 2015, so not that long ago (I remember it well), and the edits since then seem to mainly be updates, wikilinks, and other small improvements. So I ticked it off as satisfactory. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect ... precisely what we need! I'll/We'll move articles off the list when they have three "satisfactory" entries (from people who know the standards), unless there is controversy, which we'll punt to the FAR Coords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your own nominations[edit]

I would prefer not judging my own old nominations, so they are instead marked by uninvolved, more objective editors, but I see others have marked their own noms, so how do we feel about that? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating this question, and glad someone finally asked it :) IMNSHO, please evaluate your own articles, and then two other uninvolved editors will know to have a look. Why I think this is acceptable? Because if an FA writer evaluates one of their own deficient dated articles as Satisfactory, they will be quickly called on it, and ... the most serious issues are found in articles that are no longer watched. THOSE are the really bad ones we are looking for. That you are still watching your FAs bodes well for them, and we should get those moved off the list so we can focus on the truly bad. That doesn't mean your old FAs are perfect, nor do we expect them to be, but knowing that nominators have checked up on their FAs is a good start for other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, that said, will someone please look at my very old (2006) Tourette syndrome, which was completely overhauled in 2020, involving about a dozen medical editors as well as non-medical Ceoil, Outriggr and Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that, I have also made major overhauls post-FAC to many articles, so it would certainly not hurt to get them looked at. I'll start marking my "own" articles soon, then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way Peacemaker67 handled this, in that he identified that they were his own ... good practice for others to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked one now[15], and noted it has had major overhauls since FAC, is it too much text or ok? It has changed a lot because it was also reviewed for Wikijournal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will look momentarily. PS: In a similar vein, we should be looking for independent review, so as an example, we should not move Peacemaker's to the Kept section without review by at least one non-MilHist editor. And the biology/bird/etc articles should be looked at by non-biology types. All of this is why I am hitting as many as I can, once topic experts have seen them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to sign off on bio stuff, if it looks okay to me and two species-familiar editors think it's okay. However, I've new enough to FAC/FAR that I'm not entirely familiar with knowing who all of the science-related editors are, and what their areas of expertise are. Should we have a section where editors frequently involved here get classified by areas of expertise? Just spitballing here, it may be a horrible idea, but it's at least worth me typing this, I guess. Hog Farm Bacon 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true :0 WP:WBFAN is your friend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a ways down there, but I hope to be working my way up that list over time *:) Hog Farm Bacon 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but look at all those hollow stars to remember why we are doing this ... when I first started working at FAR in 2006, Emsworth was the main FA writer ... as was Cla68, whose articles have stood the test of time.
Anyway, to your question ... you know the MILHIST editors, FunkMonk is biology/animals, Jimfbleak is a bird man, I am medical/Venezuela ... who else do you want to know about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the non-Milhist editor check is necessary for Milhist articles, any more than non-medical editors are needed for medical articles. Mostly it is the Milhist editors who will see if there are content issues. Of course anyone can check the MOS and prose stuff. I watchlist and closely monitor all my FAs, and they have only been improved since promotion IMHO. The only issue with historical (as distinct from currently evolving) Milhist articles would be if the academic consensus on a subject had changed since promotion (I try to keep up on this for mine). I imagine that can also happen for other topics if the scientific consensus changes. This doesn't happen often for WWI and earlier, but can happen for WWII and more recent conflicts, the more recent, generally the more changes in academic views occur. BTW I agree anyone who is the primary editor should indicate that when they state they reckon it is ok, as I have. Everyone needs to remember this is a process of checking if they are satisfactory, not a new FAC or a FAR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we should declare a medical article satisfactory if it is not digestible to a non-medical editor, because part of the problem with some of the older medical articles is that they are incomprehensible. And, if we extend the logic that only MILHIST editors need review MILHIST articles, do we extend that same logic to every project? So, if three video game editors or three hurricane editors or three Catholic editors or three art editors pronounce an article satisfactory, we don't want external input in any of those content areas? That starts us down a slippery slope. I sure agree that we want one, and hopefully two, topic experts, but expecting independent review could save us some unforeseen agida down the road. While it may work in the organized area that is MILHIST, I am not so sure it would be good practice across the board, because we can't foresee all circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we are making the process too bureaucratic to the extent that it will be unmanageable. There are a LOT of articles to check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PM on this one. A short and snappy review of lots of articles by just one or two independent pairs of eyes should identify FAs that have decayed over the years, which is surely the aim of the game. Expecting three detailed reviews by uninvolved editors including one from outside the topic area is going to make this a years-long project that will waste a lot of duplicated effort on articles that are still up to scratch, potentially meaning it takes much longer to find deficient FAs. Btw, Milhist is an enormous topic area; for example, my war memorial articles have almost nothing in common with PM's Yugoslav articles or Gog's ancient battles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried about where the “detailed review” idea crept in? is it something in the instructions that needs to be addressed? Generally, once a MILHIST editor, bio, bird, etc, indicates an article is Satisfactory, I just scan it. (I am a few days behind, but hope to catch up today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the requirement should just be two editors, regardless of whether one is the principal editor. The reality is that the principal editor knows the article status best, and we just need one other to confirm the article is satisfactory, and only need a third if they disagree. With such a huge list, we are wasting people's time requiring a third editor in all cases. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to be able to re-orient your thinking about how to use the list ... once I catch up and have time to compose my thoughts ;) (The blooming business of cleaning up errors from 2005 and 2006 in FAC archives is a time killer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose thanks for the new batch! I did only a few and will get back on them soon, but want to prioritize the work Mike Christie left on my talk, as I don't want to slow down his data analysis of the FA archives.

And I still mean to get back to Peacemaker67 and HJ Mitchell here, but haven't had time to type up my thoughts. The TLDR version is that these new(ish) FAs (relative to the hundreds from 2006 through 2009) are not likely where the real problems will be found, so it does not concern me if any of them sit on the page for even a couple of years (the last time we did this, it took six years to finish). It may even be advantageous to spread those reviews out over years, in case some nominators go missing and someone destroys their work in the interim. But ... they aren't the articles most likely in need of FAR, which is what we're looking for. We are more likely to find those by processing through the oldest first.

I'd like to put a list over at MILHIST of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs that we really need to prioritize, to avoid situations like Battle of Blenheim-- those that are at risk of being submitted to FAR if we don't address them first. And the serious problems are not to be found among MILHIST articles so I want to make sure our process is oriented towards the more problematic areas. More later, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to taking the old first, I have been hesitant to for example mark a lot of old dinosaur FAs as problematic yet, because we don't have the manpower at the dinosaur project to process so many that quickly, so we are trying to organise efforts to work on the older FAs gradually one by one or something like that, so they can be looked at for FAR afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For cases like that (where I have made a general note to Projects or contributors), I have been adding that note to the page on the older FAs, so we won't get premature noms (that is, we want to allow projects to approach their work methodically, and only FAR those that truly have no one willing to take them on). A note on the page helps us know who has done what! That way, when we come to something as we process them six months from now, and see nothing has happened, we will feel OK about sending them to FAR. For example most of the older FAs that need review are Hurricanes and MilHist. Hurricanes are on it; once they get through all of 2006, I'll review, and follow with a 2007 list. We need a MilHist list of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs for them to decide on a methodical approach. We just need to methodically get through the oldest first, as we have fallen so far behind. I am hoping that a goal of being through 2009 by the end of 2021 is doable ... so that we can gradually begin to catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the oldid[edit]

Grapple X did a really good thing here, as the third reviewer to mark an article “Satisfactory”. Saving the oldid in the third “Satisfactory” note means we don’t have to go looking for the “satisfactory” version, and if we convert to articlehistory, we don’t have to look up the oldid. We should probably all be doing that if we are the third reviewer marking satisfactory and moving. Thx, Grapple X (and congrats on today’s FA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 year-end goal ?[edit]

@Buidhe, David Fuchs, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, FunkMonk, Grapple X, Hog Farm, Hurricanehink, RetiredDuke, and Z1720: it would be grand if we could get all of the 2004 to 2006 group at least looked at by year-end. Most of the remainder are hurricanes.

I will get PTSD if I have to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam ever again (note the use of restart on that most dreadful of all FACs), so hope someone else will have a look. I also hesitate to tackle Ketuanan Melayu as it has long been one of my least favored FAs, and don't think I can be objective there wrt length. I have avoided Angelina Jolie because of previous experiences with socks and an arbcase. I am willing to take on review of all the Hurricanes, because unless something gives after the third project-wide notice, I will start to wonder if we need to think in terms of a mass FAR for the lot. I will be interested in seeing if any of WikiProject Cyclone articles are resolved by January of next year.

Can we all make a concerted effort to get these oldest of the old moving by year-end? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add @Graham Beards and Jo-Jo Eumerus: for various biology/medical (Graham) and Mauna Loa (Jo-Jo) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that given my annual update of User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/article work and non-FA and non-Wikipedia committments I can't take on another article. If it goes to FAR I can help with Mauna Loa but I can't promise anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The three you've recused from, I'll try get looking at this week. I might be able to make a start this evening but the next few hours are already accounted for. I haven't looked at the specific hurricane articles in question but my memory is that they tend to be the shortest FAs quite routinely; on one hand that should make for lighter reviewing but on the other it does raise the question of potential mergers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and tackle some of this once I get Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1 mostly sorted through. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not science-minded so I'll avoid hurricanes until someone else gives the article its first "satisfactory". There are still lots of non-science/math articles to review, so I'll shift my focus away from re-noticing older articles into reviewing the 2004-06 list. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely sold on some of the hurricane ones. Not sure that 95% government reports is a good sourcing mix for FAs. Hog Farm Talk 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a nice place to work; you are all wonderful. @Grapple X: those are three of the most difficult. Should you find any issues at Jolie, I strongly suggest extreme care in your wording.
Thanks, Z1720; as I have processed through, I am more conscious now of also updating the notes. I have already encountered quite a few URFA sections on talk that have been auto-archived, so I unarchive and add a new note.
Hog Farm some info for those who weren't around for the extended debates, discussions and controversies a decade ago at FAC talk over "short" articles, "cookie cutter" articles, and what used to be our main "niche" articles, then referred to as "pop culture". Sometimes all of these terms were used with derision, but the delegates' (now called Coords) have to respect consensus, and consensus always favored them. While choosing my wording carefully to avoid WP:BEANS and (further) attacks on my character re "niche" articles, the problem with applying one standard to hurricanes is that there are HUGE numbers of other FAs in other large categories of FAs and by many editors with high ranking at WP:WBFAN that would then have to be looked at vis-a-vis the same standard. Delisting articles such as hurricanes by this standard is a matter that has not been sufficiently discussed at FAC, would impact huge numbers of other FAs if it did, and for which broad consensus does not exist. And, it is very difficult to discuss those topics at FAC without being attacked as discussions become personalized.
Meaning ... I will continue to apply the standard to hurricanes, "short" articles, and "niche" articles that has consensus, until/unless a discussion changes that consensus (a discussion which I hope we won't have at FAC talk during the holiday season, because I have put away my asbestos suit for the year. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a conversation for FAC anyway, I don't believe—if the issues are about size and/or independent sourcing then AFD is the best venue, featured or not. It may be best if this is delved into (if I have a look at them during this I'll decide what my own judgement says) from the smallest one up; thankfully it seems some of the worst disruptors at AFD are out of the picture so an earnest discussion on merit should be possible. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not in terms of demonstrating the enduring notability of the tropical storm, but that's also not part of FA (or GA, for that matter) criteria. Of course heavy reliance on government reports for a clearly-big-deal storm might also suggest sourcing weakness beyond notability concerns. I do think that given the number of delisted/merged tropical storm articles I've seen in recent years that it's something WPTC is aware of and the community is dealing with. I will try and step up the checks during my holiday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk

Hurricane update[edit]

I will have gotten through all the 2006 storms other than the hurricane season FAs from that year by the end of today. I have four more left to review as of right now. NoahTalk 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! If I don't get a response from the CCI people soon, I will just continue doing what I was doing on the "Season" articles. Perhaps, if you get to them before me, you can give them an overall look, knowing that I will come back and do the Copying within checks (which are excruciatingly time-consuming). Thanks for all the help, Hurricane Noah! I will be traveling Thursday thru Monday end of this week, so appreciate that you got done much of what I was supposed to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Im still wondering if a mass FAR won't be required since most of our editors are occupied most of the year between work and school. Many people are either unwilling to work on these articles or do not have the expertise to do so. I may enquire and leave a discussion open for a month to see if anyone would be willing to work on saving some of these if we were to go through with such a measure. I don't like the idea of dragging this out for years and years. I'm thinking if we resort to a mass FAR, we do it one year at a time (ie. all of the 2006 ones first). NoahTalk 21:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit premature to decide on a mass FAR; how about if we give things a few months and see how they develop, particularly wrt the CCI? We have plenty to work on in here :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked around and many people simply said "I don't have time" or "I couldn't care less". Many of the original authors are gone or have slowed down significantly. Given our staple article had minimal effort to save it shows what's bound to happen to the rest of these even if we stretch it out a long time. I would think of waiting until maybe January 15 to start FARing after asking the project if anyone is interested in saving a specific article. NoahTalk 01:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to review any more articles for time being since we have a decent pool of reviewed ones. I want to give people time to fix the couple dozen articles listed before adding any more. I don't want to overwhelm the project with FAR notices. Once we get through a decent portion of the articles reviewed, either by fixing them or FAR/FARCing them, I will do more. NoahTalk 23:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hurricane Noah, you pulled up one I was quite concerned about, so thanks for all you have done so far. I am also worried about wind. (Don’t forget to vote at WP:FASA :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting some moved to "FAR not needed" by year-end[edit]

FunkMonk has done quite a job of marking articles in WP:URFA/2020B, and I am the second reviewer on most of them. An editor interested in making an impact on our year-end numbers might do the third reviews. Similarly, Ian Rose has quite a few where I am already the second reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022 tentative TFA schedule[edit]

The start of the tentative WP:TFA schedule for January 2022 has been posted. Listed here are the articles, FAC nominator, and year of promotion. Articles within the URFA/2020 scope are highlighted in bold. Please review the older noms, and post in WT:TFA if there are any concerns.

1. Black-and-red broadbill (AryKun, 2021)
2. Seventy-Six (novel) (Dugan Murphy, 2021)
3. 2008 Orange Bowl (JKBrooks85, 2008)

@JKBrooks85, Sportsfan77777, and Giants2008: would be able to look in to see if this is mainpage ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JK's work was typically sound from what I can recall, but there are a couple things I'd like to do with it. There's one source that looks unreliable to me; I was about to replace it but ran into Microsoft forcing me to use Edge and causing me to lose my edit, so that will have to wait for another day now. Also, I'd like to check more thoroughly for dead links as I already repaired one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a scrub, too. I'm not very active anymore, but I've got some time this weekend. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. 1st Missouri Field Battery (Hog Farm, 2021)
5. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (Eewilson, 2021)
6. Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. (2002) (Kosack, 2021)
7. Hammond's rice rat (Ucucha, 2010)

NOTE: This article is listed on URFA/2020 as "Mindomys" Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk and Ucucha: would you be able to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the rice rat seems to hold up, and Ucucha's articles are also the most comprehensive and well-sourced animal articles form that era. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this for a while. Looks like it already went through TFA. Sometimes there's news to report but I haven't checked for this one. (And I'm sad that it got renamed to the obscure English name, but I suppose that's the rule that was agreed upon.) Ucucha (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8. Missouri Centennial half dollar (Wehwalt, 2018)
9. Power Mac G4 Cube (David Fuchs, 2021)
10. Ursa Minor (Cas Liber, 2015)

@Casliber: for a tuneup if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok - has changed little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11. Croatian Spring (Tomobe03, 2021)
12. Mu'awiya I (Al Ameer & AhmadLX, 2021)
13. Ham House (Isaksenk, 2021)
14. Low (David Bowie album) (zmbro, 2021)
15. The Trundle (Mike Christie, 2021)
16. Ghostbusters (Darkwarriorblake, 2021)
17. Chinatown MRT station (ZKang123, 2021)
18. Battle of Hayes Pond (Indy beetle, 2021)
19. Hoodoo Mountain (Volcanoguy, 2021)
20. Old Exe Bridge (HJ Mitchell, 2021)
21. Schichau-class torpedo boat (Peacemaker67, 2021)
22. Legend Entertainment (Shooterwalker, 2021)
23. Archaeoindris (Maky, 2012)
24. New York Stock Exchange Building (Epicgenius, 2021)
25. Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) (GeneralPoxter, 2021)
26. Australian Air Corps (Ian Rose, 2018)
27. Ba Congress (Peacemaker67, 2021)
28. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (Balon Greyjoy, 2021)
29. A Beautiful Crime (DanCherek, 2021)
30. Benedetto Pistrucci (Wehwalt, 2017)
31. Delichon (Jimfbleak, 2010)

@Jimfbleak: I saw you make edits to this today. Is this main page ready? Can it be marked as Satisfactory? Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I was just looking through since it was listed at TFA. This sort of genus article usually doesn't change much over the years, but in this case one of the species was split to give four, instead of three, members of the group, and I was checking for consistency. I'll probably have another look to see if I can update any of the refs, but it's definitely satisfactory Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've updated the conservation status refs to 2021 sources, taxonomy already had refs to this year, other sections don't need ref updates, so all looks good. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More will be posted when they are selected at TFA.

Pinging @WP:TFA coordinators to notify them of this posting. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 is this schedule from 2021, and did you intend to get 2022? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Darn, you are correct, forgot to change the year. Let me try again in a couple minutes... Z1720 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The correct list is now here. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Jan 2022 list has now been posted in its entirety. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/Archive_1&oldid=1066967527"