Wikipedia talk:Featured articles
| FACs needing feedback view • |
|
|---|---|
| CMLL Championship | Review it now |
| Old Pine Church | Review it now |
| 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 | Review it now |
| Featured article removal candidates |
|
|---|---|
| Enceladus | Review it now |
Contents
Creating a bot to identify out-of-date information in Wikipedia entries[edit]
There are a mass of entries in English and Chinese Wikipedia that include out-of-date facts or references. And there are some existed software tools or algorithms relative to natural language pattern matching to solve this problem. We would like to measure the usefulness of these tools and algorithms and create a new bot to identify those information based on the result of measurement. During the work of measuring existed tools and testing the new bot, we will try to collect abundant Wikipedia entries and create some new cases. And the modular software can be used by Wikireview and other contributors of Wikipedia.
URL of detailed proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Li Linxuan (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
How?[edit]
How can I make Let's Marry a featured article? !Moscowamerican (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Moscowamerican, you would want to improve the article so that it meets the featured article criteria. You can seek feedback on how best to do that by requesting a peer review, or by first nominating the article as a good article if you think it already meets those criteria. I would advise you to improve the article first, though. For example, bare URLs are generally not considered adequate as citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- wow,thanks a million! Moscowamerican (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2016[edit]
Some problems with this blurb. Take a look and see what you think. --John (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Water fluoridation[edit]
Hi folks! They could sure use a few eyes over at Water fluoridation. Please have a quick look at the history and please drop by Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 to share your thoughts. Many, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- All I can say is "wow". --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Claiming FA contributions[edit]
Jonas Vinther, now Doctor Papa Jones, claims by way of a FA star on their userpage (first version) that they are to be credited with having raised Gary Cooper to FA status--there is no other way such a star can be read. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gary_Cooper/archive1 contains one single comment by them: "Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status".
As the article history indicates, this is rather an overstatement, and I note that the substance of their edits (see here), except for this one, have been reverted one way or another in the editing process, mostly by Bede735, the FA nominator who undoubtedly deserves full credit. I find this seriously troubling and invite your opinions. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at all their GA claims, but in Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville, they have not a single edit, though they have a review at Talk:Harriet Leveson-Gower, Countess Granville/GA1. They also categorize themselves as a "Million Award" editor on their userpage, but their name is missing from Wikipedia:Million Award. I would appreciate it, Doctor Papa Jones, if you could explain. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was I who brought Gary Cooper to GA-status, by completely transforming the article on a subpage. This explains why I have few edits to the actual article. And by the way, I don't claim to have brought the article to FA-status; I simply list the article as one I have significantly improved, which I have, so saying Bede735 deserves full credit is only true when talking about the FA-review. And if you think I'm lying about the Million Award, click here and see for yourself. You're making a big deal over nothing! Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing to that user space and for the Million thing--I stand corrected. Your edits in the Cooper article are this, besides this and this, which I already linked. Bede started cleaning up as soon as you were done with that first series (here, for instance--your references). This is basically "your version"--now compare that to this here, a few hundred Bede-edits later. Compare the "Early life" section, for instance: twice as long, and better. Compare your "Early Silent Films" to their "Silent films, 1925–1928"--ditto. I'm not saying you didn't do anything for the article, but clearly Bede did the legwork that got it to FA; you didn't participate in the FA review, did nothing to address comments by peer reviewers, and only commented "yeah it's good and I worked on it". So the problem is that you placed an FA star that I believe you don't deserve on your user page which--typically--means you were instrumental in bringing it up to FA status. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed the FA-star from my userpage. Best, Doctor Papa Jones • (Click here to collect your prize!) 20:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Meh; users claiming credit for writing articles they didn't write goes back pretty much to the invention of the article assessment scale a decade ago; those who actually need to know (of which there are few, mainly those involved in notifications in relation to TFA scheduling) are aware that WP:WBFAN is the 'real' list of who was responsible for what, and that to check who was responsible for any given FA you check the bot-generated box at the top of the talkpage. Practice has always been to turn a blind eye to it unless people try to use their supposed achievements as evidence of their superior abilities in discussions. @Drmies, if you think exaggerating one's input to a single FA is a serious offense, I hate to think what you'd have made of User:Mattisse/Contributions/FA. Is it possible that the Wikicology case is making you unduly sensitive towards people exaggerating their on-wiki abilities? For what it's worth, there's nothing in WP:UPYES to say that claims made on one's userpage need to be true, providing they don't cross the line into "material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense". ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- My feeling about this is pretty well summed up with "meh" as well. I've seen some pretty serious scraps erupt on Wikipedia over claims of achievements and levels of contribution. They always end in bad feelings on all sides—I'm not sure who's winning in that scenario. We should maintain focus on the reader. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Bot problem[edit]
This change by Edokter on 16 May replaced all the middle dots (unicode character b7) with asterisks (unicode character 2a). This caused a catastrophic failure of the FACBot's FANMP (Featured Articles Not on Main Page) process. It couldn't find any articles and zeroed the page. (It rebuilds the FANMP page each time because, in theory at least, the delegates could promote multiple articles at once). I have corrected the problem. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- The page seems to be working fine, suggesting the bot ignores markup (as it should) and only modifies the link. I don't know why is emptied as a result while it continues to add articles to the main list.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}10:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- It seems the bot has already adapted. Your revert could have broken it again.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}10:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems the bot has already adapted. Your revert could have broken it again.
