Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 94 as Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive93 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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.

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.

Section headers allowed or not

Template:Featured article candidates/editintro says that the FACses should not be split by headers. However, plenty of FACses have headers, some of them added by coordinators, and Template:FAC-instructions doesn't mention such a rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE clarifies the point: "a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition". There's more details around when to use and not in that section, but it should not be an automatic starting point. Practice seems to have drifted from this text for some editors, while others stick to the old ways. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I insert a level-4-header to avoid edit conflicts, and see no disadvantage for that practise. I have been tempted in lengthy reviews to also add level-5headers to ease dialogues but have not done so yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JJE is quite correct, as is SC. Although I wouldn't say so much that 'practice seems to have drifted' rather than some editors have deliberately chosen to do it differently in spite of the instructions. ——Serial Number 54129 11:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone object if we removed that statement from the editintro and from FACSUPPORTOPPOSE? I don't know why it was added and can't think of a reason why anyone would object. SchroCat, you seem to think the rule is a good idea; what do you see as the benefit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the rationale for removing the FACSUPPORTOPPOSE version? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No more than that it's harmless to create sections for short statements of support or opposition. It's not that it would be required, just that there would no longer be an instruction regarding it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It also says Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.. ——Serial Number 54129 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - even if we think subsections for a sentence are harmless, there's more to this wording than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Mos discussion of note

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes that would affect numerous FAs. Input from all sides is welcomed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Core Contest Returns!

Hi all—The core contest returns! Leaving this here:

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Restoring older featured articles to standard: year-end 2023 summary

Introduction

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Statistics

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023:

• 83 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
• 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
• The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%

Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Topics and Wikiprojects

There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Physics and astronomy
• Biology
• Mathematics
• Warfare
• Engineering and technology
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Literature and theatre
• Royalty and nobility
• Geology and geophysics

Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2023 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2023 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.56) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 14 8 22 0.36 15 Biology 16 45 61 2.81 62 Business, economics and finance 11 1 12 0.09 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 6 1 7 0.17 6 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 15 1 16 0.07 7 Education 25 1 26 0.04 2 Engineering and technology 5 6 11 1.20 3 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 47 6 53 0.13 17 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 9 4 13 0.44 4 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 30 16 46 0.53 36 Language and linguistics 4 0 4 0.00 3 Law 15 1 16 0.07 1 Literature and theatre 17 16 33 0.94 20 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 22 11 33 0.50 36 Meteorology 20 6 26 0.30 27 Music 30 9 39 0.30 52 Philosophy and psychology 3 1 4 0.33 0 Physics and astronomy 3 10 13 3.33 22 Politics and government 24 4 28 0.17 7 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 9 19 0.90 44 Sport and recreation 40 12 52 0.30 38 Transport 9 3 12 0.33 9 Video gaming 5 6 11 1.20 21 Warfare 31 51 82 1.65 27 Total 446 Note A 248 Note B 694 0.56 482 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

We need your help!

Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity at WP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following the featured article criteria.

Here's how any editor can help:

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed, but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article who would otherwise not look at it.

Feedback and commentary

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

How to assess comprehensiveness of wide-scope articles

In my last nominations (Education and Knowledge), I was struggling with the comprehensiveness criterion (the article neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context). To prepare better for future nominations, I was hoping to learn how to best assess the comprehensiveness of articles on very wide topics for which it is not possible to consider every source mentioning the topic or include every single aspect, view, or example somehow related to it. This problem was also shared by several reviewers who did not vote because they did not feel confident about assessing comprehensiveness.

Based on high-quality reliable sources, how do you determine whether an article of this type is comprehensive? If an article does not cover a specific aspect, view, or example, how do you assess whether it requires a sentence, a paragraph, or a top-level section to cover that aspect, view, or example? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For the broad articles I worked on like Armenian genocide, the article's coverage was weighted largely based on coverage in sources that provided an overview of the topic (like the books cited whose stated topic is "Armenian genocide"). All of the main topics were in their own subsection and often summary style for other Wikipedia articles. Details were filled in based on the criteria of how much it is covered in the sources and my intuition about "does the reader need to know this to understand the topic", which helped both ensure comprehensiveness and control length. Without any overview sources it would be a lot harder to determine the appropriate article structure and which information to include. However, I think any article that is at a reasonable length and has the topics correctly weighted can be considered comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say a lot depends on how many sources exist on a topic. My volcano articles often have only a few sources (even if "a few" numbers in the thousands) so including everything that isn't utterly trivial or unreliably sourced or contested is how I work. For your topics, naturally we can't include every passing source. Here one way to go about it would be to look for overview sources and see what they consider worth mentioning. Or as Buidhe said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the helpful and practical explanation. Relying on overview sources to decide what the main topics are and how they should be weighted has also been my approach so far. More specific sources can be used to fill in details and for some details it may be optional whether to include them or not.

Personally, I often find myself in a situation where a reviewer requests the addition of a topic that is somehow relevant but not discussed in any of the overview sources. I'm not sure how to best handle this type of request and I would be interested to hear how you react in such cases. Unless there is a good reason otherwise, I usually try to find a place within the existing structure to add anything from a footnote to a paragraph (depending on the circumstances) without making any drastic changes to the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, it really depends. Overview sources are not perfect but they are probably the best thing we have to go on, so if it's not mentioned there I may be inclined to push back on the request and suggest inclusion in a sub-article instead. I can remember cases where there is an aspect that is clearly one of the things the topic is known for, but not mentioned in overviews, but I've only seen it with narrower topics. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that you probably need to follow the advice above, have an objective(ish) breakdown of what should go into the article in what proportions, and argue WP:UNDUE at reviewers who want to add interesting bits and pieces. At worst they should end up saying that it is a fine article but opposing promotion on the narrow grounds of it not including X, or not enough of X. Which will punt the final decision to the coordinators; who aren't enthusiastic about overriding opposes, but can do and have done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I probably have to work on better communicating these points to reviewers who may not be familiar with the overview sources, for example, by clarifying why a suggestion is WP:UNDUE. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I, at least, would much prefer hashing things out on the backside of Wikipedia over getting just a footnote or a sentence in response to something I have claimed deserves a section. Please take as just a friendly note! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you are right that taking a stricter stance on this is preferable. I sometimes find myself implementing suggestions for which it is not directly clear that they constitute improvements.

It's a good point about overview sources being our best guess. There may be exceptions in specific cases but the burden of proof is on who wants to go against the overview sources, especially if that would involve considerable changes to the article. One danger looming here is the reliance on personal opinions and original research about the prominence of certain topics. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this emphasises the importance of peer review before FAC, especially for big-picture topics. PR is really the place these questions should be nutted out. I know you use PR, for instance re. the Knowledge article, but don't always gain a great deal of input. Perhaps more active pinging of relevant projects and some of our experienced reviewers could help. This is also a reminder for our regular FAC reviewers that there's no need to wait for something to appear at FAC before having a look, keep an eye on PR too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar is an excellent tool to keep an eye on FAC wannabe articles. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that while PR may not be a magic pill, it can be quite useful for identifying potential difficulties. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Phlsph7,

I appreciate your diplomatically not naming names, but I am guessing my critical comments and eventual opposition to the promotion of knowledge is no small part of what motivated this query.

I most readily name myself, however, and I welcome feedback here or on my talk page—should anyone here actually have the patience to read through all the comments and have any advice to share. I'm new to the process, and I genuinely welcome it.

To get to the general point: Is it correct that the burden of proof is on the reviewer to provide alternative tertiary sources, rather than upon the nominator to defend the comprehensiveness of the overview sources upon which the article relies (in the event this is called into question)? Because the comprehensiveness of overview sources emerged as an explicit point of disagreement in the discussion about this nomination, and this went nowhere productive. Obviously a great deal will vary on a case-by-case basis, but is there a rule of thumb?

I took myself to establish the non-comprehensiveness of these sources with reference to large fields of study with large literatures that I took to be (and was ready to defend in elaboration) quite obviously and directly concerned with the declared topic of the article in a way not covered by the governing overview sources. Although I can see the other side of the issue, I would submit that reviewers should not be expected to go out and review university press handbooks/companions/encyclopedias/glossaries/whatever to legitimize a content-based objection with a supporting secondary literature.

Please, please, please, I must be clear that I am not interested in further litigating this nomination. (And to whatever extent I am further justifying a call I did not want to make, this is in spite of myself.) As I said in both my first post and the penultimate post in which I opposed nomination, I have no problem whatsoever being overruled by a coordinator if I've misunderstood "comprehensiveness". This stands.

For such a general topic as knowledge, however, I continue to believe that reference to disputed tertiary sources will tend mostly to just displace the alleged problem. And, I must add, tend also to exasperate and discourage well-meaning editors trying to contribute at the level of content coverage. No one is going to participate in this process if it requires reading the most cited sources from a very long bibliography and, further, researching additional sources situated at a just-so level of generality.

In short, I echo the frustration of the OP. For issues as general as knowledge (or, coming up, existence—and so @Gog the Mild, not merely a rhetorical question, I do not think!), the current guidelines seem to sometimes leave editors involved at an unfortunate impasse. The closest thing I have to a solution is well stated by another reviewer of this nomination, @Shapeyness: with a topic as massive as knowledge, it is also pretty much impossible to even cover every area of study in the literature, never mind assess weight in the totality of high-quality reliable sources. For that reason, I think that the coverage of the article is (more than most other Wikipedia articles) a matter of editorial judgement and editor agreement. This too, however, is hardly without problems.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a relative newcomer to WP:FAC, but my approach has been to oblige such reviewers when I deem the requests to fall within a reasonable interpretation of WP:Balancing aspects, and to tell them that it would be undue based on the overall coverage in the sources in the remaining cases. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 is a case in point. TompaDompa (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Another point that might be good to clarify: is it impossible for articles on broad topics like these ones to fulfill the comprehensiveness criterion? I guess the answer is already contained in the responses above but I'm asking because some reviewers explicitly used this idea as an argument against promotion. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that you have recently successfully nominated logic, philosophy and communication, I assume the question is rhetorical. Just ensure that such reviewers are clear that this is their only objection. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Appologies for the trivial question. I fear that this point may also come up in future nominations so it's good to have a consensus to point to in case I have trouble convincing the other party. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

While in my own experience I've never (luckily) had a reviewer make "demands" that I didn't think would improve the article, but have seen plenty of instances where the nominator should let an oppose stand, after giving refuting rational. Speaking generally here, but aware of the poisoning of the well effect, and FAC shouldn't require the support of 100% of the reviewers who give a vote. I know the co-ords know and practice this but re-stating anyway. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

When I've worked on high level articles (Australian Defence Force, Air raids on Japan and a few others), my test for comprehensiveness was whether the article covered everything noted in other high level overviews of the topic, such as short books and magazine articles. I also consulted all the major book length works on the topic to ensure that the articles covered the main issues they covered, as well as to ensure that they reflected the views of the authors. I also consulted the recent academic and 'grey' literature to ensure that the articles reflected the topics modern experts consider worth covering. There isn't an exact science here though - the key principle to keep in mind that these are encyclopedia articles, so should provide a high level overview of the topic without needing to cover absolutely everything about it. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for March 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March 2024. 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 facstats tool has been updated with this data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for March 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 10 7 Nikkimaria 15 RoySmith 9 1 SchroCat 8 1 UndercoverClassicist 8 1 Gog the Mild 7 Kusma 6 Mike Christie 5 1 TompaDompa 5 ChrisTheDude 4 Epicgenius 3 1 Jens Lallensack 4 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 2 Vami IV 1 2 1 ZooBlazer 1 3 Eddie891 3 Grungaloo 2 1 Heartfox 3 JennyOz 3 Johnbod 3 SusunW 2 1 Tim riley 3 Volcanoguy 3 AryKun 1 1 Draken Bowser 2 Dudley Miles 2 Esculenta 2 FunkMonk 2 Guerillero 2 HJ Mitchell 2 J Milburn 2 JimKillock 2 MyCatIsAChonk 2 Shapeyness 2 Vanamonde93 2 Voorts 1 1 Your Power 2 ZKang123 1 1 Adam Cuerden 1 AirshipJungleman29 1 Aoba47 1 Brachy0008 1 Buidhe 1 Caeciliusinhorto 1 Casliber 1 Ceoil 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 Choliamb 1 Czar 1 Daniel Case 1 Edge3 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 Eewilson 1 Elli 1 Femke 1 FrB.TG 1 GeoWriter 1 Gerald Waldo Luis 1 Graham Beards 1 HAL333 1 Hawkeye7 1 Hdog1996 1 Hog Farm 1 Hydrangeans 1 Ian Rose 1 KN2731 1 Lankyant 1 Miniapolis 1 NightWolf1223 1 PatrickJWelsh 1 PCN02WPS 1 Peacemaker67 1 Pendright 1 Phlsph7 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 Pseud 14 1 Rodney Baggins 1 Sammi Brie 1 Sandbh 1 Serial Number 54129 1 SnowFire 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Sohom Datta 1 Steelkamp 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 Teratix 1 The Night Watch 1 Tomisti 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 Umimmak 1 Vaughan J. 1 Wehwalt 1 WhatamIdoing 1 Ykraps 1 Totals 166 25 32

Supports and opposes for March 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 17 18 Nikkimaria 15 15 RoySmith 4 6 10 UndercoverClassicist 3 2 4 9 SchroCat 6 3 9 Gog the Mild 6 1 7 Mike Christie 3 1 2 6 Kusma 6 6 TompaDompa 1 3 1 5 Premeditated Chaos 2 2 4 ZooBlazer 1 3 4 Epicgenius 2 1 1 4 Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 4 Vami IV 4 4 ChrisTheDude 4 4 TechnoSquirrel69 4 4 SusunW 1 2 3 Grungaloo 2 1 3 Eddie891 1 2 3 Johnbod 2 1 3 JennyOz 3 3 Volcanoguy 1 2 3 Tim riley 2 1 3 Heartfox 1 1 1 3 ZKang123 1 1 2 Vanamonde93 2 2 AryKun 1 1 2 HJ Mitchell 2 2 MyCatIsAChonk 2 2 Shapeyness 2 2 Your Power 1 1 2 Esculenta 1 1 2 Voorts 2 2 J Milburn 2 2 Dudley Miles 2 2 Guerillero 2 2 Draken Bowser 1 1 2 JimKillock 1 1 2 FunkMonk 2 2 Phlsph7 1 1 Czar 1 1 PCN02WPS 1 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Tomisti 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Choliamb 1 1 Pseud 14 1 1 Hog Farm 1 1 Vaughan J. 1 1 Ceoil 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Miniapolis 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Lankyant 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Elli 1 1 Sammi Brie 1 1 PatrickJWelsh 1 1 Femke 1 1 Edge3 1 1 Buidhe 1 1 Ykraps 1 1 FrB.TG 1 1 Peacemaker67 1 1 Teratix 1 1 Gerald Waldo Luis 1 1 Sohom Datta 1 1 Rodney Baggins 1 1 Eewilson 1 1 Trainsandotherthings 1 1 Umimmak 1 1 Serial Number 54129 1 1 Sandbh 1 1 Caeciliusinhorto 1 1 The Night Watch 1 1 Brachy0008 1 1 Sturmvogel 66 1 1 Aoba47 1 1 Adam Cuerden 1 1 Wehwalt 1 1 Casliber 1 1 KN2731 1 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 HAL333 1 1 GeoWriter 1 1 Hydrangeans 1 1 Daniel Case 1 1 WhatamIdoing 1 1 NightWolf1223 1 1 AirshipJungleman29 1 1 Hdog1996 1 1 Totals 96 1 16 110 223

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) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) AirshipJungleman29 7.0 33.0 4.7 Aoba47 4.0 63.0 15.8 ChrisTheDude 10.0 104.0 10.4 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 3.0 0.6 David notMD 2.0 None 0.0 Dudley Miles 2.0 29.0 14.5 Edge3 2.0 4.0 2.0 Elias Ziade 1.5 1.0 0.7 Epicgenius 7.5 21.0 2.8 FrB.TG 4.0 24.0 6.0 FunkMonk 3.3 27.0 8.1 Generalissima 3.0 4.0 1.3 Hawkeye7 6.0 39.0 6.5 Heartfox 8.0 33.0 4.1 Hog Farm 4.0 19.0 4.8 Ippantekina 6.0 9.0 1.5 Jens Lallensack 3.3 22.0 6.6 Jo-Jo Eumerus 5.0 152.0 30.4 Kusma 2.0 23.0 11.5 Lankyant 2.0 1.0 0.5 Lee Vilenski 6.0 9.0 1.5 LittleJerry 3.0 1.0 0.3 MaranoFan 11.0 46.0 4.2 Matarisvan 2.0 None 0.0 Mattximus 2.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 6.0 66.0 11.0 Nick-D 2.0 11.0 5.5 Peacemaker67 7.0 4.0 0.6 Phlsph7 4.0 8.0 2.0 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 2.0 1.0 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 23.0 2.5 Pseud 14 5.0 44.0 8.8 RoySmith 3.0 25.0 8.3 SchroCat 14.5 110.0 7.6 SounderBruce 2.0 4.0 2.0 Sportzeditz 2.0 None 0.0 The Night Watch 3.0 9.0 3.0 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 12.0 3.0 Therapyisgood 1.3 3.0 2.2 Tim O'Doherty 1.5 13.0 8.7 TompaDompa 3.5 18.0 5.1 UndercoverClassicist 4.0 64.0 16.0 Usernameunique 3.0 2.0 0.7 Vami IV 2.8 14.0 4.9 Voorts 4.5 22.0 4.9 Wehwalt 7.5 33.0 4.4 Wolverine XI 2.0 1.0 0.5 ZKang123 6.0 14.0 2.3

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is the underlying data compiled by hand? Edge3 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Partly. A bot creates its best guess and puts it in User:Mike Christie/sandbox. I then go through with the FAC archive on a second screen and edit it to correct things the bot wasn't able to spot -- e.g. I remove edits that are not reviews, such as formatting fixes. Then the bot returns and generates the text posted above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What is a FAC review's purpose?

What is to be done if a GA which is a FAC does not meet basic GA criteria? It contains original research, copyright violations and close paraphrasing, does not address the main aspects of the topic, its sourcing is also problematic. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)