Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
| FACs needing feedback view • |
|
|---|---|
| 2006 Subway 500 | Review it now |
| Dopamine | Review it now |
| Featured article removal candidates |
|
|---|---|
| Tamils | Review it now |
| Georg Forster | Review it now |
| O-Bahn Busway | Review it now |
 Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |
|
|
| Threads older than 2 weeks may be archived by MiszaBot II. |
Contents
Image/source check requests[edit]
Urgent list and a comment about dopamine[edit]
I've updated the urgents list at the top of this page to include all the open nominations in the "older" section of the page which have less than three supports. I'd also like to suggest that the experienced reviewers here consider reviewing dopamine, which is one of the urgents. FAs tend to be about highly specialized topics, because if you're not a professional academic it's hard to know the literature well enough to cover a broad topic. When a topic of broader importance comes up at FAC I think we should make an effort, as a group, to review and help improve the article. Dopamine is a fairly high-visibility article and it's high-importance in several ways. Those of us who, like me, can't review the biochemistry in any detail can still help with prose, article structure, and clarity. Trying to learn a subject you don't know from an article is a good way to determine how well the article explains its topic, and that's a good basis for review comments.
I know we're all here as a hobby, so there's certainly no obligation to review articles like this. However, I think we also all share a desire to see important articles reach featured status, and I think that's worth a little extra effort now and again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take a look soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of equal if not greater concern should be the fact that of 40 live FACs, only six have source reviews. I'll try and do a few on Tuesday, but we badly need volunteers to do this on a regular basis. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a guide to doing source reviews? If someone wanted to start helping with these, it would be good to have a resource that outlined what to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- When I do a source review on DYK, I run down the page and compare each claim to the citation provided. And I check if the citation provided looks reliable. While doing so, I make a list of unsupported or cherrypicked claims as well as citations that don't seem reliable.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a guide to doing source reviews? If someone wanted to start helping with these, it would be good to have a resource that outlined what to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Of equal if not greater concern should be the fact that of 40 live FACs, only six have source reviews. I'll try and do a few on Tuesday, but we badly need volunteers to do this on a regular basis. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Source checking procedures[edit]
Referring to the above thread, I would have thought that any of the experienced editors who regularly nominate and/or review at FAC are fully competent to carry out a sources review, but for some reason they seem reluctant. If you've seen an article through FAC you'll know what you're looking for. What what it's worth, here's a rough guide:
- Check all citation formats for consistent presentation, format and MOS compliance. For example, p. for single pages, pp. for page ranges, ndashes not hyphens in page ranges, appropriate italicization, etc. This can be tedious when there are 200+ citations, but it has to be done.
- Check that all the external links within the sources are working and going to the right place
- Identify any sources (particularly online) that look as though they may not meet FAC standards of quality/reliability.
- For less experienced nominators, carry out spotchecks to see that cited sources do support information in the article, and to check for close paraphrasing.
- List your concerns in the sources review
Fairly obvious , really. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- See also:
- Other suggestions (and edits to my guides) welcome. @Mike Christie: does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Yes, both of those are helpful; thanks. I've never done source reviews myself, partly because I've always had source problems that people like Nikki have to point out to me. I've never had a FAC go through with no source issues. Part of the reason I'm poor at checking my own sources for consistency is that I've never learned all the rules, despite having done this for years. Instead I typically copy the sources from an article that recently passed FAC, and add more that look the same.
-
- I might start doing source reviews, but since article reviews are in short supply too I gravitate to doing those. I know there are some FAC submitters who have been hesitant about doing article reviews -- perhaps some of those folks might consider doing some source reviewing. I also wonder if Nikki's "brief guide" could be converted into something like a detailed checklist, which could be used by both article writers and source reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Two FAs nominated for deletion/merger[edit]
FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. BencherliteTalk 11:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Timeline: This article was scheduled as a TFA for Nov 25. The FAC nominator has been gone for over 5 years, so as is usual in such cases, I notified the wikiproject instead, at WT:CRICKET#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2015. Three of the people who saw that (I'm assuming) showed up at WT:TFA in this thread to talk about their reservations about this article showing up on the Main Page. This deletion request is one proposed method of dealing with their request. I'm not wedded to any particular approach to the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I selected this as TFA from my "centenaries" list (25 November is Hamence's 100th birthday). Assuming the article is kept I see no harm in a TFA appearance, which might surprise and delight a few elderly Australian cricket fans (who have had little to cheer about in recent years). Besides, being the "forgotten man" of the mighty 1948 tour is a kind of distinction in itself. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Socks notice[edit]
Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
