Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

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

FAC source reviews

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

Automatic lapsing of FA status?

See this proposal and surrounding discussions. Serial (speculates here) 14:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"only one nomination at a time"

The current WP:FAC header says "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time". This is not correct - two are allowed if the first is well on its way to promotion. I think it would be a good idea to change that to something similar to what WP:FLC says, for example "An editor should only add a second nomination with the approval of the coordinators after the first has gained significant support." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC) pinging @FAC coordinators: as they should probably make any change. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Bizarre to ping the co-ords on what is the main FA discussion page. Serial (speculates here) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, good spot. Go for it. Serial (speculates here) 14:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing abstracts

Is there any clear policy on citing a scientific paper when only the abstract is available? And of course by available I mean "on line for free". Given the deplorable state of the scientific publishing industry, a lot of scientific papers are behind paywalls. We get access to some materials via WP:TWL (in my opinion, the most valuable thing WMF has ever done to help editors), but there's still a lot that's locked away and not surprisingly, people cite what's freely available. It seems to be widely accepted that citing abstracts in sub-optimal.[2][3][4][5][6] but I can't find anything our own policies (WP:CITE, etc) which addresses this. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting Signpost article on that, although old. You're right that it should probably be codified as poor practice though, to save arguments on individual project/pages. Serial (speculates here) 17:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: by the way, tangential to this, but I can send you the "Echolocation signals of dusky dolphins" article if you'd like? Serial (speculates here) 18:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. Much appreciated. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Emailed you. Serial (speculates here) 20:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

We have WP:PAYWALL, which says that the fact an article is not available online for free is not a reason to reject it as a source. There's WP:HEADLINE, which says that headlines are not reliable sources. Obviously an abstract is not a headline and the issues which make a headline unreliable don't apply to quite the same extent, but I would say that it still applies at least partially in spirit: like a headline, an abstract may lack the detail/nuance of the main article and there's never any reason to cite it ahead of the article apart from accessibility. For most of our articles for uncontentious claims that's probably okay, but at FA level I would be asking why not cite the actual article. (While I cannot find any policy specifically discussing abstracts, it has been discussed before e.g. at WP:RSN: [7], [8]) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and further, I'd argue that WP:FA? #1C (the requirement that sources must be 'high quality') almost automatically precludes using what is by definition an abridgement of a source.

And we do have WP:RX (and me!) for those particularly hard-to-find morsels  :) Serial (speculates here) 20:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for January 2025

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for January 2025. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers for January 2025

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 24 13 Nikkimaria 1 15 SchroCat 9 6 Crisco 1492 9 1 4 Aoba47 11 2 Generalissima 9 2 Mike Christie 10 UndercoverClassicist 9 1 Z1720 9 Tim riley 8 ChrisTheDude 7 Hog Farm 6 1 Medxvo 5 2 History6042 6 MSincccc 6 Matarisvan 5 750h+ 4 Boneless Pizza! 4 Borsoka 4 Gog the Mild 3 1 MaranoFan 3 1 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 Serial Number 54129 3 1 Dudley Miles 3 Graham Beards 3 Heartfox 3 Hurricanehink 3 Ippantekina 3 LunaEclipse 1 2 NegativeMP1 3 AirshipJungleman29 2 Arcticocean 2 Brachy0008 2 CatchMe 2 Cplakidas 2 DoctorWhoFan91 1 1 Epicgenius 2 Iazyges 2 ImaginesTigers 2 Jens Lallensack 2 Paleface Jack 2 Phlsph7 2 TheAstorPastor 2 TompaDompa 2 Vacant0 2 1989 1 Alexeyevitch 1 AryKun 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 Casliber 1 Choliamb 1 David Fuchs 1 Departure– 1 Draken Bowser 1 Dylan620 1 Edwininlondon 1 EF5 1 Fathoms Below 1 FrB.TG 1 FunkMonk 1 Ganesha811 1 Gerda Arendt 1 Hawkeye7 1 Johnbod 1 Jon698 1 Kusma 1 Lazman321 1 Lee Vilenski 1 LEvalyn 1 LittleJerry 1 Marchjuly 1 Mujinga 1 Panini! 1 Patrick Welsh 1 Pokelego999 1 Popcornfud 1 Red Phoenix 1 RFNirmala 1 Rjjiii 1 RoySmith 1 Seefooddiet 1 Shapeyness 1 Sir MemeGod mobile 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Steelkamp 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 TheDoctorWho 1 Tintor2 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 Traumnovelle 1 XR228 1 ZKang123 1 Totals 223 43 41

Supports and opposes for January 2025

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 37 37 Nikkimaria 16 16 SchroCat 6 2 7 15 Crisco 1492 9 5 14 Aoba47 8 5 13 Generalissima 9 2 11 Mike Christie 7 1 1 1 10 UndercoverClassicist 5 5 10 Z1720 9 9 Tim riley 8 8 Hog Farm 4 1 2 7 ChrisTheDude 6 1 7 Medxvo 5 2 7 History6042 4 1 1 6 MSincccc 5 1 6 Matarisvan 5 5 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4 750h+ 4 4 MaranoFan 3 1 4 Boneless Pizza! 4 4 Serial Number 54129 2 1 1 4 Borsoka 3 1 4 Gog the Mild 3 1 4 Dudley Miles 3 3 Heartfox 2 1 3 NegativeMP1 2 1 3 Ippantekina 3 3 Hurricanehink 2 1 3 LunaEclipse 2 1 3 Graham Beards 1 2 3 Paleface Jack 2 2 ImaginesTigers 2 2 Phlsph7 2 2 Iazyges 2 2 DoctorWhoFan91 1 1 2 AirshipJungleman29 2 2 Epicgenius 1 1 2 Arcticocean 2 2 Vacant0 2 2 Cplakidas 2 2 CatchMe 2 2 TheAstorPastor 2 2 TompaDompa 1 1 2 Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 Brachy0008 1 1 2 Edwininlondon 1 1 TrademarkedTWOrantula 1 1 LEvalyn 1 1 Panini! 1 1 Johnbod 1 1 FunkMonk 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 Red Phoenix 1 1 Traumnovelle 1 1 Seefooddiet 1 1 Sir MemeGod mobile 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 1 Casliber 1 1 Jon698 1 1 Draken Bowser 1 1 Choliamb 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Lazman321 1 1 1989 1 1 Fathoms Below 1 1 Popcornfud 1 1 Alexeyevitch 1 1 Marchjuly 1 1 EF5 1 1 Pokelego999 1 1 AryKun 1 1 Lee Vilenski 1 1 Kusma 1 1 Patrick Welsh 1 1 TheDoctorWho 1 1 LittleJerry 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Gerda Arendt 1 1 Rjjiii 1 1 Ganesha811 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 David Fuchs 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 Dylan620 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 RFNirmala 1 1 RoySmith 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Departure– 1 1 Mujinga 1 1 XR228 1 1 Totals 173 1 2 14 117 307

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Nominators for November 2024 to January 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 8.0 60.0 7.5 AirshipJungleman29 8.0 41.0 5.1 Amir Ghandi 3.0 None 0.0 Aoba47 3.0 51.0 17.0 AssociateAffiliate 3.0 None 0.0 BernaBotto 2.0 None 0.0 Boneless Pizza! 3.0 13.0 4.3 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 10.0 69.0 6.9 Crisco 1492 3.0 39.0 13.0 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 Dugan Murphy 3.0 13.0 4.3 Dxneo 2.0 1.0 0.5 EF5 2.0 1.0 0.5 Eiga-Kevin2 2.0 None 0.0 Epicgenius 8.5 21.0 2.5 Eric Idle's Cat 2.0 1.0 0.5 Ganesha811 3.0 3.0 1.0 Generalissima 9.0 78.0 8.7 Gog the Mild 4.0 78.0 19.5 Hawkeye7 6.0 6.0 1.0 Heartfox 6.0 29.0 4.8 Hog Farm 8.0 56.0 7.0 Hurricanehink 2.5 21.0 8.4 Ippantekina 7.0 8.0 1.1 Jenhawk777 2.0 3.0 1.5 Jo-Jo Eumerus 5.0 241.0 48.2 Lee Vilenski 3.0 5.0 1.7 Lisha2037 2.0 None 0.0 Llewee 3.0 8.0 2.7 M4V3R1CK32 3.0 None 0.0 MaranoFan 6.0 15.0 2.5 Mike Christie 7.0 63.0 9.0 NegativeMP1 3.0 12.0 4.0 Noorullah21 4.0 None 0.0 PanagiotisZois 2.0 3.0 1.5 Peacemaker67 5.0 1.0 0.2 Phlsph7 5.0 19.0 3.8 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 42.0 4.5 PSA 3.0 4.0 1.3 Relayed 2.0 1.0 0.5 Royiswariii 3.0 None 0.0 SchroCat 16.5 170.0 10.3 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 The Green Star Collector 3.0 None 0.0 Thuiop 2.0 1.0 0.5 UndercoverClassicist 7.0 95.0 13.6 Vacant0 2.0 17.0 8.5 Volcanoguy 5.0 7.0 1.4 XR228 2.0 1.0 0.5 Z1720 2.0 19.0 9.5 ZKang123 4.0 12.0 3.0

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Time for another nom?

Dear coords: Is it okay to put another FAC up now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, I have responded on the FAC nomination page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Space aliens ate my support

The summary line for Margaret Sibella Brown says "4 supports", but I count 5. Is it counting wrong or am I? RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It should now show five, after I did this, but I'm not sure what the technical reason was behind either the problem or the fix... - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's because the summary highlighter searches for all bolded uses, which includes not just Support, but automatically bolded font such as in ====Support====. So if, conversely, you'd done the opposite—left the unbolded support in the comment and kept the L4-header support—the result would be the same. Cheers, Serial (speculates here) 17:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Except it didn't - that was the problem. It had an support in the header and an unbolded support in the body, but it wasn't being counted by the bot for some reason. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused—your diff shows you adding "Support" to the header. How could there be a support in the header before? Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it seems to align with exactly what Serial said. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

There were a bunch of trial edits in a row and I think Schro just cited the last one. this is the net change. RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I click on the link above it shows me removing the support from the header

Before: ==== Support from Noleander <s>{{space}} Comments from Noleander{{space}} </s>====

After: ====Noleander==== . It was this change that fixed whatever the problem was. - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

I accidentally created the "initiate the nomination" page before adding {{subst:FAC}} to the talk page. I cannot add {{subst:FAC}} to the talk page because it redirects to a new page that hasn't been created yet. I would like to know what should we do to proceed with this. Apologies for this fumble, I will definitely be more careful next time. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)