Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
two replies |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1:
<includeonly></includeonly>{{skip to bottom}}{{shortcut|WT:FAC}}{{FA sidebar|expanded=FAC}}
{{archives
|collapsed= yes
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em;
|auto = no
|editbox = no
|search = yes
|searchprefix = Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive
|1=<div class="nowraplinks">
[[/archive1|1]] [[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]] [[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]] [[/archive6|6]]
[[/archive7|7 (April Fools 2005)]]
[[/archive8|8]] [[/archive9|9]]
[[/archive10|10]] [[/archive11|11]]
[[/archive12|12]] [[/archive13|13]]
[[/archive14|14]] [[/archive15|15]]
[[/archive16|16]] [[/archive17|17]]
[[/archive18|18]] [[/archive19|19]]
[[/archive20|20]] <br />
[[/archive21|21 (2007)]] [[/archive22|22]] [[/archive23|23]]
[[/archive24|24]] [[/archive25|25]] <br />
[[/archive26|26 (2008)]] [[/archive27|27]] [[/archive28|28]] [[/archive29|29]]
[[/archive30|30]] [[/archive31|31 (Short FAs)]]
[[/archive32|32 (Short FAs cont)]] [[/archive33|33]]
[[/archive34|34 (Context and notability)]] <br />
[[/archive35|35 (2009)]] [[/archive36|36 (new FAC/FAR delegates)]] [[/archive37|37]]
[[/archive38|38]] [[/archive39|39 (alt text)]] [[/archive40|40]] [[/archive41|41]] <br />
[[/archive42|42 (2010)]] [[/archive43|43 (RFC)]] [[/archive44|44]] [[/archive45|45]] [[/archive46|46]] [[/archive47|47]] [[/archive48|48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate)]] <br />
[[/archive49|49 (2011)]] [[/archive50|50]] [[/archive51|51]] [[/archive52|52]]
[[/archive53|53]] <br />
[[/archive54|54 (2012)]] [[/archive55|55 (RFC)]] [[/archive56|56]]
[[/archive57|57]] [[/archive58|58]] <br />
[[/archive59|59]] [[/archive60|60]] (2013)<br />
[[/archive61|61]] [[/archive62|62]] [[/archive63|63 (proposals)]] (2014)<br />
[[/archive64|64]] (2015)<br/>
[[/archive65|65]] [[/archive66|66]] (2016)<br/>
[[/archive67|67]] [[/archive68|68]] [[/archive69|69]] (2017)<br />
[[/archive70|70]] [[/archive71|71]] [[/archive72|72]] [[/archive73|73]] [[/archive74|74]] (2018)<br />
[[/archive75|75]] [[/archive76|76]] [[/archive77|77]] (2019)<br />
[[/archive78|78]] [[/archive79|79]] [[/archive80|80]] [[/archive81|81]] [[/archive82|82]] [[/archive83|83]] (2020)<br />
[[/archive84|84]] [[/archive85|85]] [[/archive86|86]] [[/archive87|87]] (2021)<br />
[[/archive88|88]] [[/archive89|89]] (2022)<br />
[[/archive90|90]] [[/archive91|91]] [[/archive92|92]] (2023)<br />
[[/archive93|93]] [[/archive94|94]] (2023–2024)<br />
[[/archive95|95]] [[/archive96|96]] (2024–2025)<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">'''Archives by topic:'''<br />
[[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Alt text|Alt text]], [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates (technical)|Citation templates (load times)]]
</div></div>
}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive%(counter)d
|counter = 96
|maxsize= 150000
}}
{{dablink|Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding [[Wikipedia:Nominations viewer|nominations viewer]] to [[Special:MyPage/skin.js|your scripts page]].}}
{{dablink|For a list of foreign-language reviewers see [[User:Simon Burchell/FAC foreign language reviewers|FAC foreign language reviewers]].}}
{{Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests}}
==FAC mentoring: first-time nominators==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
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 [[Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC|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. [[User:Brianboulton|Brianboulton]] ([[User talk:Brianboulton|talk]]) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
<!-- DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 09:21, 8 May 2053 (UTC) -->
==
<!-- please do not archive this note or move its position on this page -->
For advice on conducting source reviews, see [[Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC]].
== The WMF would like to buy you books ==
There's a new pilot program open at [[Wikipedia:Resource support pilot]], where editors can submit requests for the WMF to buy sources for them. I encourage folks to check it out, and notify any WikiProjects and editors that may be interested. <small>Apologies if you've seen this elsewhere already.</small> [[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">'''Toadspike'''</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant: small-caps;font-weight:bold;">[Talk]</span>]] 07:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
:Apropos to this, the WMF also runs [[WP:The Wikipedia Library]], and has done so for a number of years (possibly the single most awesome thing the WMF has done in memory). I'm mentioning this here because I was just perusing an old FAC where, when questioned about some sourcing, the nom responded, "I don't have access to <resource which is available in TWL>". The reviewer was inordinately generous and offered to do the research themselves. I would have been grumpier and told the nom to go set up TWL access and come back when they've done that. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::I find myself less willing as time goes by to pay out of pocket for resources to improve the sixth-most viewed website in the world, which I have quite a bit in the past. I'm glad that they're offering to pay for resources for serious editors and I hope we see more of it.--15:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for June 2025 ==
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for June 2025; thanks to Hog Farm for doing the analysis on these. 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 [https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/ new facstats tool] has been updated with this data, but the [https://facstats.toolforge.org/ old facstats tool] has not. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for June 2025}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# reviews'''
! colspan="4" |Type of review
|-
!Reviewer
! data-sort-type="number" |Content
! data-sort-type="number" |Source
! data-sort-type="number" |Image
! data-sort-type="number" |Accessibility
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|1
|14
|5
|
|-
|MSincccc
|9
|
|2
|
|-
|Nikkimaria
|2
|1
|8
|
|-
|Dracophyllum
|1
|2
|5
|
|-
|RoySmith
|6
|1
|
|
|-
|SchroCat
|7
|
|
|
|-
|Gog the Mild
|6
|
|
|
|-
|750h+
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Aoba47
|5
|
|
|
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Noleander
|4
|
|
|
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|4
|
|
|
|-
|Arconning
|2
|
|1
|
|-
|Borsoka
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Epicgenius
|3
|
|
|
|-
|HAL333
|3
|
|
|
|-
|History6042
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3
|
|
|
|-
|PCN02WPS
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Tim riley
|3
|
|
|
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Dudley Miles
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Eddie891
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|FunkMonk
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Ippantekina
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Jenhawk777
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Medxvo
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Vacant0
|2
|
|
|
|-
|ZKang123
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|Arcticocean
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Averageuntitleduser
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Bagumba
|1
|
|
|
|-
|BarntToust
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Brachy0008
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Casliber
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Choliamb
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Crisco 1492
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Crystal Drawers
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Cukie Gherkin
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Departure–
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Fortuna imperatrix mundi
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Fowler&fowler
|1
|
|
|
|-
|FrB.TG
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Gatoclass
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Gonzo fan2007
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Graham Beards
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Guerillero
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Hahnchen
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Hurricane Noah
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Igordebraga
|1
|
|
|
|-
|ImaginesTigers
|1
|
|
|
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Joeyquism
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Johnsoniensis
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Jon698
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Kusma
|1
|
|
|
|-
|LastJabberwocky
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Left guide
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Lieutcoluseng
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Matarisvan
|1
|
|
|
|-
|NegativeMP1
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Nub098765
|1
|
|
|
|-
|PARAKANYAA
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Parsecboy
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Rjjiii
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Shapeyness
|1
|
|
|
|-
|SounderBruce
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Star Manatee
|1
|
|
|
|-
|T8612
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TenPoundHammer
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TenthAvenueFreezeOut
|1
|
|
|
|-
|The Rambling Man
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Toadspike
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TompaDompa
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Unlimitedlead
|
|
|1
|
|-
|UpTheOctave!
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Vanamonde93
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Vestrian24Bio
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|-
|WikiOriginal-9
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Z1720
|1
|
|
|
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''149'''
|'''22'''
|'''24'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for June 2025}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations'''
! colspan="7" |'''Declaration'''
|-
!'''Editor'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose converted to support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''None'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Total'''
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|
|
|
|
|
|20
|20
|-
|MSincccc
|8
|
|
|
|1
|2
|11
|-
|Nikkimaria
|
|
|
|
|2
|9
|11
|-
|Dracophyllum
|
|
|
|
|
|8
|8
|-
|SchroCat
|4
|
|
|
|3
|
|7
|-
|RoySmith
|2
|
|
|
|1
|4
|7
|-
|Gog the Mild
|4
|1
|
|
|1
|
|6
|-
|750h+
|4
|
|
|
|1
|
|5
|-
|Aoba47
|1
|
|
|
|1
|3
|5
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|2
|
|
|
|
|2
|4
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|2
|
|
|
|
|2
|4
|-
|Noleander
|3
|
|
|
|
|1
|4
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|2
|
|
|
|1
|
|3
|-
|PCN02WPS
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|HAL333
|1
|
|
|
|1
|1
|3
|-
|Borsoka
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Arconning
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Tim riley
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|History6042
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Epicgenius
|1
|
|1
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Medxvo
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Jenhawk777
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Eddie891
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Dudley Miles
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|FunkMonk
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|1
|
|
|
|1
|
|2
|-
|Vacant0
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|ZKang123
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Ippantekina
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Hog Farm
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Shapeyness
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|TompaDompa
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Guerillero
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Igordebraga
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Joeyquism
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|T8612
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Toadspike
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Kusma
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|UpTheOctave!
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|IntentionallyDense
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|TenPoundHammer
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Z1720
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Bagumba
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Gatoclass
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Jon698
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Left guide
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Lieutcoluseng
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Departure–
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Fortuna imperatrix mundi
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Rjjiii
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Parsecboy
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Johnsoniensis
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Crystal Drawers
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|TenthAvenueFreezeOut
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Matarisvan
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Nub098765
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Unlimitedlead
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Vestrian24Bio
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Hahnchen
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Casliber
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Star Manatee
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Gonzo fan2007
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|The Rambling Man
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|BarntToust
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Vanamonde93
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|PARAKANYAA
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|FrB.TG
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|LastJabberwocky
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Choliamb
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Graham Beards
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Brachy0008
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Cukie Gherkin
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Arcticocean
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|SounderBruce
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|NegativeMP1
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|WikiOriginal-9
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Hurricane Noah
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Crisco 1492
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Averageuntitleduser
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Fowler&fowler
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|ImaginesTigers
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''87'''
|'''1'''
|'''1'''
|
|'''16'''
|'''90'''
|'''195'''
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
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. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for April 2025 to June 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!Nominations (12 mos)
!Reviews (12 mos)
!Ratio (12 mos)
|-
|750h+
|9.0
|60.0
|6.7
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|7.5
|41.0
|5.5
|-
|Amir Ghandi
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Aoba47
|3.0
|52.0
|17.3
|-
|AssociateAffiliate
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Borsoka
|2.0
|32.0
|16.0
|-
|Brachy0008
|2.0
|8.0
|4.0
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|9.0
|57.0
|6.3
|-
|Curlymanjaro
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|EF5
|5.0
|4.0
|0.8
|-
|Epicgenius
|8.0
|18.0
|2.2
|-
|FunkMonk
|1.8
|20.0
|11.4
|-
|GamerPro64
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Generalissima
|12.0
|76.0
|6.3
|-
|Gog the Mild
|11.0
|86.0
|7.8
|-
|HAL333
|2.0
|7.0
|3.5
|-
|Hammersfan
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Hawkeye7
|7.0
|15.0
|2.1
|-
|Hog Farm
|8.0
|63.0
|7.9
|-
|Ippantekina
|6.0
|12.0
|2.0
|-
|Jenhawk777
|2.5
|2.0
|0.8
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0
|218.0
|36.3
|-
|Jolielover
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Jon698
|2.0
|8.0
|4.0
|-
|Lazman321
|2.0
|4.0
|2.0
|-
|Lililolol
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|LittleJerry
|2.5
|2.0
|0.8
|-
|MaranoFan
|9.0
|19.0
|2.1
|-
|Medxvo
|3.0
|22.0
|7.3
|-
|MFTP Dan
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Min968
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Noleander
|3.0
|31.0
|10.3
|-
|Phlsph7
|6.5
|23.0
|3.5
|-
|Pickersgill-Cunliffe
|2.0
|8.0
|4.0
|-
|Pollosito
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|6.0
|41.0
|6.8
|-
|PSA
|2.5
|4.0
|1.6
|-
|Royiswariii
|4.0
|1.0
|0.2
|-
|RoySmith
|3.0
|49.0
|16.3
|-
|SchroCat
|18.5
|161.0
|8.7
|-
|Skyshifter
|6.0
|2.0
|0.3
|-
|TenPoundHammer
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|TenthAvenueFreezeOut
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|The Green Star Collector
|5.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|5.0
|5.0
|1.0
|-
|TheJoebro64
|2.0
|3.0
|1.5
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|7.0
|84.0
|12.0
|-
|Vestrian24Bio
|2.0
|2.0
|1.0
|-
|Voorts
|2.0
|5.0
|2.5
|-
|WeatherWriter
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Z1720
|5.0
|22.0
|4.4
|-
|ZKang123
|4.0
|9.0
|2.2
|}
{{cob}}
-- [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
== An increasing scrutiny on the quality of sources used in FACs ==
I note as of late, on recent FAC nominations, there is increasing scrutiny on the quality of sources used. Now, I understand based on criteria 1c: that an article must be '''well researched''', and that it is ''a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature''; claims are verifiable against high-quality [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable sources]].
However, up till that point, our understanding have been that the FA criteria doesn't require that the article use citations from non-local publications if such citations don't exist, or if they are necessarily superior to the coverage provided by local publications. Many topics only receive in-depth news coverage from a relatively small geographical area because that topic is only relevant to that particular area.
For example, a [[WINC (AM)|local radio station]] or [[Fort Concho|a former installation]] in any small settlement would be covered predominantly by the area's newspapers or other sources. Or that local news sources on a major incident, like a [[Fountain Fire|wildfire]], would have more comprehensive details than national or state newspapers. The source could be not only the most reliable source available, but the most reliable source possible on a certain subject.
I felt such attitudes are rather gatekeepy as it implies that from here onwards, only articles that receive sufficient, non-local, independent commentary would have a chance of standing at FAC. It's especially problematic for articles from places where there would be greater difficulties to find independent and third party sources, and it would be impossible to create a comprehensive, or even broad, article without using the local sources available at hand.
I personally don't think a rigid adherence to the 1c criteria would be helpful for articles which are more niche in nature and only mainly covered by local sources. I just hope for further clarification on the interpretation of criteria 1c and advice on how to proceed when reviewing or working on articles to FAC from here on out.--[[User:ZKang123|ZKang123]] ([[User talk:ZKang123|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/ZKang123|contribs]]) 13:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:I think I agree with your general point, but it might be helpful if you could cite an example of a FAC where you disagree with the source review? I haven’t really seen the gatekeepy attitude you describe. The examples you link did, after all, all pass FAC at the end of the day. [[User:Eddie891|Eddie891]] <small>''<sup> [[User talk:Eddie891|Talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Eddie891|Work]]</sub>'' </small> 13:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::An example I will raise is the recent [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sounder commuter rail/archive1|FAC nomination]] for [[Sounder commuter rail]]. While it has received three supports, an image and source review, someone stepped in to question the use of local-based sources, and that discussion (despite not being a formal oppose) resulted in its archival.--[[User:ZKang123|ZKang123]] ([[User talk:ZKang123|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/ZKang123|contribs]]) 13:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think {{u|RoySmith}} was necessarily questioning the reliability of those local sources, but that it might be worth looking for other, non-local sourcing. And his main concern was with the reliance on self-publishd sources, a different discussion. I would say that is a valid point to raise, but one that is different from the point that you're trying to make here. [[User:Eddie891|Eddie891]] <small>''<sup> [[User talk:Eddie891|Talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Eddie891|Work]]</sub>'' </small> 14:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::My gut feeling is that [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1|there is another FAC]] that is the source of this thread with unique equities at play -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 14:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I used two local sources in [[2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning]] to source statements that were explicitly about local press reports, and that was questioned/passed in [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning/archive1|the FAC]]. That's all covered by [[WP:RSCONTEXT]]. But given the apparent persistent use of primary sources in the FAC links above, I'm not sure that this answers the OP's overarching question. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 14:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I get the frustration here. There's two parts to it. The first is that [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] is right that some more advanced notice of Sounder being at archival risk would've been nice, but that's a question for the archiving coordinator.
::::The second is whether it's a good review practice to question primary source without demonstrating harm—e.g., that other sources have been neglected or that they're supporting exceptional claims. I feel there is a bit missing from [[User:Roy Smith|Roy Smith]]'s review at the Sengkang LRT line nomination. Should we remove those primary sources (and the dry commentary they contain) to maintain an appearance of neutrality? I must be missing something there. Primary sources are not "[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1#c-RoySmith-20250617110400-ZKang123-20250617033400|bad sources]]", as [[WP:PRIMARY]] very clearly explains.
::::Broadly gesturing to primary sources and saying "these are bad" without referring to the article content is – with respect Roy – an incredibly low level of engagement with a nomination, and obviously frustrating from a a nominator's perspective. If the nominator removes them, someone else could quite reasonably say, "Well it's not comprehensive if you aren't including X info". — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 14:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:UndercoverClassicist|UndercoverClassicist]]'s review of the very same content is much more reasonable because it includes reference to the actual claims. ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1#c-UndercoverClassicist-20250617142300-UC|link]]). — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 14:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:Generally, more scrutiny of source quality is a good thing. What sources are appropriate for an article does depend on the article, to some extent. Local sources may be fine in some circumstances (and better than random newspapers from far away that happen to reprint the same agency story), but if there are not enough independent sources, we need to be careful whether statements will require in-text attribution. That can only be determined by ... more scrutiny. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::In the case of Sengkang LRT, I think the use of primary sources for explaining the station names is perfectly appropriate. The question is not how many times primary sources are being cited, but what type of claims they are used for. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::: {{replyto|Kusma}} I am quite sympathetic to fears about DUE, but in my view it does not make much sense to argue that something is UNDUE because of sources they can't find. There is a fairly strong subtext across both of these responses, including [[User:UndercoverClassicist|UC]]'s, that some articles can't be featured articles. I'd be interested in ''that'' conversation developing rather than litigating one archived and one ongoing nomination. It's a fair prompt, but a higher level view from Roy and UC rather (over what "can" be an FA) will be more productive than a defence of particular reviews. I don't work on these sorts of niche topics, so it isn't something I've considered myself. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]])
:::: I'm not really sure that it's possible or helpful to have discussions like this beyond looking closely at specific examples, because niche topics differ so wildly from each other in the sort of coverage they get. Even in the two examples above, there's a clear difference in, for example, the depth of Roy's comments on the Sounder commuter rail nomination and the Senkang LRT line, and I don't think they are particularly comparable. In the former case, I agree that it would have been helpful for the co-ords to leave at least some sort of heads-up before archiving [[User:Eddie891|Eddie891]] <small>''<sup> [[User talk:Eddie891|Talk]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Eddie891|Work]]</sub>'' </small> 15:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::: Yeah, that's a fair point. I suppose the particular class of articles being discussed are Singaporean railways using significant primary sourcing. [[User:ZKang123|ZKang123]] has 13 of them. I won't list them all but they are on the editor's Talk page. I've picked a few at random.
::::* [[Dhoby Ghaut MRT station]] ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dhoby Ghaut MRT station/archive2|FAC Review 2021]])
:::::* In this one, [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] <s>expresses a very similar position to Roy's on [[Sounder commuter rail]], down to not opposing but not supporting: {{tq|IMO there is still an overemphasis of non-independent sources, but I'm not opposing over that issue.}}</s> <small>See below replies — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 18:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::* [[Toa Payoh MRT station]] ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toa Payoh MRT station/archive1|FAC Review 2022]])
::::* [[City Hall MRT station]] ([[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City Hall MRT station/archive1|FAC Review 2023]])
::::: We can actually see that this encourages our noms to directly ask editors they know to give feedback. That isn't bad, necessarily – but it does mean in practice some editors require more friends to get a nomination through, which is a sort of uneven enforcement / practice. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 16:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just a note about Nikkimaria’s review: you say that she was “down to not opposing but not supporting”. Nikkimaria (along with most source reviewers) doesn’t support based on source reviews. A source review will be passed if successful, or opposed if unsuccessful. I’m not sure you can read anything into non-support, but you can probably read something into her passing the source review. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 18:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure this demonstrates anything about 'friends' reviewing? There is a difference in what different reviewers pick up on or emphasize - or even what the same reviewer says in different reviews, per Eddie - but to a certain extent that's the nature of having humans review things. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Got you. I'll strike that to avoid misleading. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]])
::::It is quite possible that some articles can't be Featured Articles ... yet. If the only source for half of a biography is the subject's autobiography, we should wait for other sources to appear that put the primary material into context and vouch for or dispute its veracity. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::: I strongly believe that there are many, many, articles which could not get FA with the current levels of sourcing, and articles where the sourcing is skewed very heavily towards lower-quality or non-independent sources are a lot of those. The solutions to FAC candidates with unavoidable inherent source quality issues is generally going to be to not have the article at FA, not to lower the standards because there's nothing better. As an example, I worked on [[Battle of Clark's Mill]] awhile back. The current sourcing on the article is very thin on details, but several decades ago the landowner of the property where the battle was fought put out a longer-ish book about the battle. I don't have a copy of that book to confirm, but I suspect it has more detail than the current article does. I don't think the answer is to push the article through FAC that bare, but I also don't think the rationale is to ask for the FA standards to be lowered to allow for the former landowner's book (and possibly even Ingenthron) to be shoved through a source review because there's nothing else present either. The answer to that article is to not have it go through FAC unless a high-quality detailed work on it is ever published. I think [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/archive1]] from 2023 is a relavent FAC here. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 23:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I just felt an implication of that means articles on subjects where independent press is non existent (e.g. authoritarian nations like PRC or Singapore) would be unlikely to be brought to FA. I'm not arguing for the lowering of FA standards, but as Epicgenius below said: If no better sourcing exists for a certain article, then (at least in my view) it would qualify for FAC. This is consistent with [[WP:FACR]] criterion 1(c), which says that an FA must be {{tq|a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate}}.--[[User:ZKang123|ZKang123]] ([[User talk:ZKang123|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/ZKang123|contribs]]) 07:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I agree... I am disappointed that a nomination would be closed/archived without discussion or even a rationale given. I don't know how the FA project works, but at FL, the coordinators post requests for further input on nominations that have gone beyond the normal time without consensus, and in the event that they close it, they don't just close it, they identify it as "not promoted" and give a rationale, which was not done in this case. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 18:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:I admit, I am always sceptical of using newspaper sources because I think they aren't very good sources in many cases (not always subject matter experts, too narrow focus to gauge DUE with them) but as far as I know mine's a minority viewpoint, so I don't generally question on that basis. However, it's worth noting that "high quality reliable sources" does not by default exclude local sources, and certainly not primary sources. Using primary sources for {{AEIS}} is a problem and using unreliable source is a problem, but primary sources on their own aren't unreliable and independent and reliable aren't interchangeable concepts. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 18:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:I believe that excluding local sourcing solely on the basis of being local and "too close" is an absurd overreach that would not be tolerated in most academic settings. By the letter of FACR 1(c), an article would not be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" if these local sources are excluded, as local coverage meets this definition with flying colors. In the specific case of the Sounder FAC, the majority of local sources are from a collection of four daily newspapers that have strong editorial standards. A daily with regional significance such as ''[[The Seattle Times]]'' will have coverage of a far higher quality and more accurate than an [[Associated Press]] reprint or travel guide-like article from a paper thousands of miles away.
:This level of scrutiny certainly is needed in ''some cases'', such as those for broad topics that will have high-quality materials that could fill a modest library. An inherently local topic is not going to have more than a passing mention in a national-level publication or journal, and no one should expect that an article be limited to just using those few sources. These local topics should be evaluated on the baseline FA criteria, which should be sufficient for ''all'' FAs, rather than the extra requirements needed for a broad or vital topic.
:On the use of primary sources, there seems to be a misinterpretation of [[WP:PRIMARY]]. There is no outright restriction on the use of primary sources from reliable publications or institutions (such as a normal government agency) to state basic facts, specifications, or statistics related to their purpose. Much of this information may be picked up verbatim for reporting by secondary sources, but the leftovers may be potentially useful to avoid any ambiguity; one example is the use of non-rounded ridership figures for Sounder, which are also reported to federal databases and checked for quality control. I see it as similar to citing [[United States Census Bureau]] data for demographics; very few people will dispute the accuracy and quality of their work, even if there are political influences from time to time. '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#2dc84d; color:#0033a0; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#7ce0d3; color:black; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 20:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:Just gonna leave my two cents. It is true that some articles can't get to FAC with the sourcing they have now. If a higher quality source exists for a certain topic, an article without that source shouldn't be put through FAC and expect to pass. It's also true that primary sources shouldn't be the basis for an FAC, but this is true of all articles - they shouldn't derive their notability mainly from primary sources. However, I should point to [[WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD]], which says {{tq|Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.}} "Primary" is often used to mean "bad", when in fact it merely means that it's just one step closer to the topic than a secondary source would be,{{pb}}If no better sourcing exists for a certain article, then (at least in my view) it would qualify for FAC. This is consistent with [[WP:FACR]] criterion 1(c), which says that an FA must be {{tq|a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate}}. This holds true even if someone knows some details that aren't published and, thus, can't be in the article per [[WP:OR]]. However, such pages would be on the lower end of FA quality, since even though there's no source for that info, somebody somewhere has details that Wikipedia editors don't. Ideally, we want to be able to summarize all key details in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic, which necessarily means that the topic would be covered in a greater number of high-quality sources. For some niche topics, it may be hard to obtain such sources, but if a decent number of high-quality reliable sources exist, we don't want to shut these articles out of the FAC process just because some details have to be backed up by primary sources. – [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 02:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::The issue arises more when a certain topic isn't covered in sources that are agreed to be high-quality - "there is no better source" doesn't necessarily mean "this is a good source". [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:38, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::So, to raise an example for clarity of the matter, if a rail line in Singapore is only mainly covered by the local press (The Straits Times) which reliability is questioned, but is the only source regarding the rail line commissioned by the government, is the source still insufficient to be considered reliable in this comtext?--[[User:ZKang123|ZKang123]] ([[User talk:ZKang123|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/ZKang123|contribs]]) 07:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
::::If a topic is only covered by a random anonymous comment on [[Reddit]], should we consider it reliable? Wherever our bar is for reliability - and I don't think this is the right venue to discuss the reliability of a specific source - it shouldn't drop because alternate sources are hard to come by. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 22:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree with that. I'm just saying that if an article relies on news sources that ''are'' deemed reliable (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fleetwood Park Racetrack/archive1#Comments Tentative support from Girth Summit|Fleetwood Park Racetrack]], where [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fleetwood_Park_Racetrack/archive1#Source_review|this issue was brought up]]), it shouldn't be a disqualifier for FAC. I'm also saying that articles that use a large number of primary sources shouldn't be disqualified from FAC, either, if these sources' reliability isn't questioned (so long as the entire page doesn't rely mainly on these primary sources). – [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 12:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:As a broad comment, since it feels like there's a couple issues being discussed above... I would say as a general recommendation that people actually opposing rather than leaving "can't support" comments on core elements of a candidacy would help FAC run better. I can work on giving more guidance and notifications in nominations, but at a practical level given the number of nominations and the number of reviewers, getting firm declarations means FAC will run smoother. No one likes to feel like they're shitting on someone else's work, and I don't think any of the coords want to archive nominations that have had a lot of work put into them, but right now the status quo is basically a lot of stuff that was going to fail is still failing, just much more slowly than if people just opposed early and often and allowed more dialogue between reviewers and more expectations on what can be done in the process. If FACs are only getting promoted or failed based on random samples of who shows up rather than clear expectations for what meets criteria, that likewise is just going to be more frustrating for everyone. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 18:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
== Exception to the two-week wait period ==
{{@FAC}} Does the exception to the two-week wait period apply to [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hedonism/archive1|this nomination]] per [[WP:FAC]] ({{green|A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.}}) since it did not receive any reviews? [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 09:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] I would say you can renominate at your leisure, yes. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 18:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
== Proposal to remove spot checks at GAN ==
A [[Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal: Remove the spot check requirement|discussion about removing the spot check requirement]] at Good article assessment has been made at WT:GAN. I am alerting this page because the GAN and FAC processes are connected and not everyone here will regularly visit WT:GAN. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 21:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:I'm unsure what is meant by "the GAN and FAC processes are connected". [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
::In the wise words of (parallel universe) Nog: "The Continuum is real. You see, there are millions upon million of articles in the wiki, each one filled with too much of one kind of source and not enough of another. And the Great Continuum flows through them like a mighty river, from FAC to GAN and back again. And if we navigate the Continuum with skill and grace, our encyclopedia will be filled with all the verifiable sources our hearts desire" [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 22:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Right now I'd settle for Earwig 2.0 (for offline sources) and a comfy chair. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
::It's unusual (although I don't believe impossible) for a non-good article to become featured; in manufacturing, the term is [[Downstream (manufacturing)|downstream process]]. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 23:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm still unsure why you say that; many FAs bypass the GA step. And there is no connection between the processes that I'm aware of, other than both being assessments -- very different ones -- one involves consensus between multiple reviewers, and the other is one person's opinion (see [[WP:DCGAR]]). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:If you mean for non-GA articles to be nominated at FAC and be promoted, it happens all the time. But only after the effness of the article has been removed from its ineffability. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 23:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
::Pretty interesting to hear that Gog. I like the stepping stone, I think – gives me an opportunity to peace out if I get bored. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 23:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
=== FAC spot checks ===
:Pure curiosity Gog (or anyone), any chance you know where it was decided to do spotchecks only for first-time reviewers? I've had a look but I'm useless at navigating archives. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::Is it really only for first-timers? At Featured List, a source review is required for every nomination. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 11:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes. There are some reviewers who perform spot checks for every or nearly every review (like {{noping|Epicgenius}}, myself), but my understanding is that consistent reference style and bibliography is the explicit, enforced rule component. I'm guessing it's a reviewer labour shortage but that's why I'm a bit nosey to look back at the discussion. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Many FLCs pass without spotchecks, see e.g. [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Côte d'Ivoire/archive1]], promoted a couple of weeks ago. They are more common at FLC, probably because there are are a higher proportion of online sources than at FAC, and so spotchecks are easier. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I just assumed the closing administrator did the spot check before closing in those cases, as was done with [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/European Figure Skating Championships/archive1]]. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 11:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::...did anyone notice that the nominated article is not in any way a list?!? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Nah, that’s a list. I think some of the lists I took through FLC had more text and less table than that one. If it was nominated at FAC I think I’d oppose on the basis it’s a list. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::...Are you kidding? It's 6 short paragraphs of context followed by a ''mile'' of tables. It would never get a single support at FAC. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 00:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::If I close a nomination with "source review passed", it can be assumed that I did a full source check, including spotchecks. I don't bother writing it all down, but I don't think a source check that doesn't verify that the sources back up the cited information really counts. Because lists are more "fact[source]", it's less complicated than an article where the fact is turned into a sentence/paragraph that needs deep checking, so it's more valid to say "yes the sources that purport to list the competitors+scores at an event actually do that" than that they verify the subjective phrasing of a sentence. --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 23:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} Formatting isn't the only enforced rule. The range of sources used and a judgement on whether they are be best and most reliable is key. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::: My bad – I phrased that wrong. When I reviews, I tend to spot check as I go out of curiosity. If I have no knowledge on the subject, I use the references provided by sources to inform comprehensiveness as best I can, but avoid making a support on that basis. If I have some knowledge, I can do self-directed research into comprehensiveness. Again my bad for oversimplifying. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't know offhand (and my searching back through the archives doesn't immediately bring it up), but [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive47#Sources reviewing|this thread from 2010]] suggests that the spot check for first-time nominators had not yet been formalised. It certainly existed by [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive60#Questions about image/source check requests|this discussion in December 2013]]: {{tq|Related to the source review is a spotcheck, which is only needed on a first nomination and then periodically after that. In a spotcheck, a reviewer is making sure that the sources do back the information being cited, and that the prose isn't paraphrasing too closely}}. The earliest discussion I can find proposing spot-checking sources is [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive17#Footnote spot checks|this one from 2006]]. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 11:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::: Thanks so much for finding those. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy]] is in that 2006 thread, so she might have some institutional memory here. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::We formalized spotchecks after and because of the Halloween 2010 plagiarism scandal: see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page]]. That would give you some dates and ideas of where to find other FAC talk discussion threads, but the original notion of spotchecking first-time nominators was based on needing early detection of plagiarism. Because the first concern was plagiarism, we weren't worried about spotchecking every nomination for, as an example, experienced FA writers like Brianboulton. We were initially looking to pick up sooner those who had poor source-to-text integrity (ala [[WP:DCGAR]], where one editor wracked up over [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023/Doug Coldwell GA list|200 GAs that had to be delisted]] (or even deleted) with issues that dozens of reviewers failed to detect). Also, the institutional memory on source checking resides more with {{u|Ealdgyth}}, who pretty much ran that side of the process for years. As Ealdgyth rightfully wearied of the amount of work, Nikkimaria took on more. In 2021, I suggested a [[user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4|two-stage reviewing model]] in which nominations would not advance to the second stage until/unless they had been source checked, so that reviewers wouldn't spend so much time on ill-prepared nominations. That proposal went nowhere. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I forgot to mention that Ealdgyth begin reliability checks in about 2008. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
: I would support normalizing spot checks for more than just first-time nominations. Everyone makes mistakes now and then, close paraphrasing can happen accidentally (I'm always a little paranoid of accidentally creating close paraphrasing when I action prose rewriting suggestions without looking back at the underlying source), and something things can just go very badly wrong with an experienced nominator. See [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin F. McAdoo/archive1]], where an experienced nominator had requested permission to open a second nomination and the nomination had passed a source review, but I found numerous issues with source-text integrity including several direct factual errors. (courtesy ping to {{u|Generalissima}} whose nomination is being discussed). The current process is not ideal - we've basically got a situation where if a nominator gets their first one or two FACs through with a lax spot-check and their stuff might not get spot-checked again for months. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 15:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::Unfortunately a fundamental issue with any kind of article review on Wikipedia is that the importance of any aspect is inversely correlated with how easy it is to do. Anyone can pick a particular MOS issue to have a bee in their bonnet about and easily point out articles that violate it ([[MOS:LQ]] and [[MOS:BOLDLINK]] come to mind as ones I frequently notice), but fundamentally this impacts readers not at all. Fixing infelicitous prose (e.g. [[WP:INTOTHEWOULDS]]; overuse of "however"; tautology and repetition; typos) is the next easiest thing to do and has some small benefit to readers. Checking text-source integrity and for plagiarism and copyvio is much more time consuming but finds much more major issues. And establishing whether an article truly is neutral and comprehensive requires some level of actual familiarity with the scholarship – you can't just trust that the sources cited in the article are indeed a fair reflection of the scholarly mainstream – but systematic POV issues or the omission of major details are the biggest flaws in an article to most readers. I try to spotcheck at least some sources whenever I review at FAC, and I'd love to see reviewers encouraged to do so – but fundamentally prose and MOS reviewing is relatively easy and rewarding (you'll almost always be able to find something to suggest fixing which makes your review worthwhile) whereas source spotchecking is time-consuming and (at least for experienced FAC nominators with well-prepared articles) you're going to find a lot fewer issues even if you are incredibly thorough. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 16:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd still like to see my [[user:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4|2021 proposal]] given consideration; it makes no sense to perform prose or MOS nitpicks on an article with sourcing issues. Sourcing should be number 1; just like FAR works as a two-stage process, a nomination only progresses if sourcing passes. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm all for that. I never understood why FAC seems to be more worried about proper punctuation in citations than in whether the citations actually support the claims in the article. "I looked something up in Wikipedia and was horrified to discover a citation that capitalized a title the wrong way", said no researcher ever. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 22:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::When Ealdgyth was doing source checks (2008 to around ... 2012 ??), it was more about reliability. Other MOS-y people did citation checking. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Here's another bit of institutional memory about source checking. In 2008, I processed almost every FAC solo; it was '''extremely''' rare for me to recuse to review -- only if there was a real conflict did I ask the FA process director Raul654 to step in. So, when I saw [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company]] happening (click on the "old nom" -- it was a restart), I was mortified. I saw an article passing without reliable sources, with reviews by serious reviewers, the nominator was an absolute gem (who basically defined -- along with Jappalang -- image reviewing at FAC), and I was just undone for days about what the effect would be of me recusing to oppose, but equally mortified about passing the article because it had consensus and no one had noticed the sources weren't reliable, much less high quality. Fortunately <whew>, Elcobbola the gem responded quite well, and sourcing was fixed. But that was, I believe, the turning point when we got more serious about reliability checks. I don't believe anyone has ever taken over the same work Ealdgyth did for years on source checking. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Could someone link to that proposal please? cheers, '''''[[User:Dracophyllum|<span style="color:Crimson;">Draco</span>]][[User talk:Dracophyllum|<span style="color:Darkgreen;=">phyllum</span>]]''''' 22:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|Dracophyllum}} [[User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4]]
::::Had a look at the proposal earlier. I think it's really good conceptually. Huge changes are hard to get through but it's grounded in actual problems. I like the two-prong approach – sort of like a checkpoint system. Initially I thought the shortage of image/source reviewers would push us to breaking point very fast but, the more I've reflected on it today, it might encourage people to approach their reviews differently.
::::For sourcing, some basic tweaks to the template could potentially assign spot checks? If we expect folks to review sources at GAN, it's pretty reasonable to split the load between a bunch of reviewers (similar to what me and EG did at Beyonce). Broadly I'm really receptive towards it and think it's a good starting point for discussion/refinement. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 22:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree, I quite like this proposal. Actually I thought all FAs had to be spotchecked, for [[Talk:Symphyotrichum lateriflorum/GA1|my first GA review]] iirc I checked every source I could access! in my view, image reviews are not as critical as source reviews, but it makes sense to lump them together in that "first half" of the FAC. cheers, '''''[[User:Dracophyllum|<span style="color:Crimson;">Draco</span>]][[User talk:Dracophyllum|<span style="color:Darkgreen;=">phyllum</span>]]''''' 22:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::It may feel like image reviews aren't as critical as source reviews, only because of past success -- that is, the kinds of issues that used to pop up no longer do so frequently, and those were serious problems. (Or maybe they do still pop up, and we're missing them since we no longer have Elcobbola reviewing -- I don't know -- I never spoke images as I left them to Elc.) But then Elcobbola did this: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches|Reviewing free images]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches|Reviewing non-free images]], and the whole Wikipedia upped its game. How nice it would be to see {{t1|FCDW}} (the featured content Dispatches published in the Signpost weekly) reinstated! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's intuitive that the highest form of content assessment should involve source checking. How intense it must be is a different question. For FAC, maybe a fixed % measured against some kind of new criterion ("Not substantively misrepresented"?). This stays true to the spirit of Sandy's proposal – i.e., retaining FAC's current working practices. The review mentioned by HF above, for example, passed. Sandy provides another example of a troublesome source review that, ultimately, passed. Important to leave room for good-faith mistakes.
::::::Mashing together "make spot checks mandatory" ''and'' "new FAC process" might be a tall order at once, though. That's my main concern right now. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 22:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If there is sufficient pre-discussion, and you want to bring it forward, I think the sandbox is still good to go. I suspect it would be better received today than it was in 2021. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::PS, I know quite a few reviewers who left FAC over the years from concern that nominations were turning into long prose nitpicks without serious review of sourcing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Sandy, could you link to the discussion about the proposal? I remember it happening, but can’t seem to find it. Thanks - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 04:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'll try ... from my sandbox, it looks like February 2021 is the place to look. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Found it by using "What links here" from my sandbox ... appears that it started with the Transclusion limits issue ... [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive87#Additional solutions to page limitations]]. Bedtime here, [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::And honed in at ... [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive87#Move to a completely new reviewing model]] ... it appears that I started working on the idea in February, but didn't advance it until many months later. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thank you. Memory is such a fickle thing - I thought I had commented on the idea, but see I didn't. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::There's more at [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4]]. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent|::::::::::::}} Is it true that ''spot checks'' are required for a first-time noms? My understanding was that ''all'' refs were checked for first time noms (that's what happened for me). I realise that would be harder to enforce the more ambitious the first nomination, though. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 19:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:It is.
:It is not.
:(I guess you were just lucky.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 20:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
=====Pre-proposal workshop=====
There seems to be some general agreement in this thread and the one below that compulsory spot checks for all nominations (not just for first timers) would be a beneficial step. How should that work in practice should be looked at before a formal proposal, and I’d be interested in hearing other people’s thoughts. I’ve put down three main points that came to my mind, but others may have other points to include.
* Should we enshrine this with additional wording within the instructions or elsewhere)?
* Should there be a minimum number or percentage of checks done (is, say, five sufficient, or does it need to be more in line with 25 per cent of all citations - or is that something to be left to the reviewer)? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 05:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
* Should this be part of the prose review, or a separate review entirely that can be done independently of any other review?
: 1% or 10, whichever is higher --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 16:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
::I don't know if I've ever seen an article with 1000 citations... [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
: I don't think putting a number on it is likely to be beneficial. I'm planning to do a little write-up of some thoughts on this topic once I've concluded a couple of my open reviews, but in brief, not all citations are created equal -- some are very easy to verify, others are quite difficult; some support trivial information and are almost certain to check, others support controversial information and/or present pitfalls into which the nominator is fairly likely to have fallen. For most articles, there are ten citations that you ''could'' check, and it would be both easier and less important than checking the right one or two, so I would suggest some vague language like "a representative sample" rather than a focus on the raw numbers. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 12:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
::Yes: like what I've said at WT:GAN a few times, if a hypothetical article relies on three references for ten paragraphs of prose and then a hundred references for a table with two pieces of information per row, a "random" check of 5 or 10% of the citations is not useful in the slightest because it'll likely miss out on what's important. Instead, a spotchecker should highlight parts of the article that are most in need of spotchecking—opinions or attributions, potentially controversial sentences, lines that sound a bit weaselly, etc. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
:::You are probably right that the instructions should focus on checking important things (the main source and anything that looks fishy for CLOP, anything contentious for NPOV) but I do think some element of randomness is useful to prevent reviewer laziness from skewing the "representative sample" towards only easily accessible sources. I usually aim to spot check between 5 and 30 citations (square root of total citations for articles with a large number), depending on length of the article and how many of the sources I have already examined as part of my general review. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:UndercoverClassicist|UndercoverClassicist]] you may wish to contribute to [[Wikipedia:Spot checking sources]] instead of starting your own. Up to you. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
* <s>I oppose compulsory spot checks.</s> I am not seeing who is going to do all this work, as we do not have an abundance of source reviewers. Spot checking is for detecting systematic sourcing issues, but for most FA regulars, I do not expect to find such issues to begin with. I understand that even FAC regulars can make mistakes, but these mistakes are probably ''not'' systematic, so a spot check could only find them by chance, as a sort of fishing approach. Consequently, I simply feel that there are more effective ways to spend my Wikipedia time than doing spot checks for FA regulars. And yes, comments on the very new essay [[WP:SPOTCHECK]] would be very welcome. --[[User:Jens Lallensack|Jens Lallensack]] ([[User talk:Jens Lallensack|talk]]) 20:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
*:As a "sneak preview", I've done spotchecks on three recent nominations -- all of which I think could fairly be described as good nominations by excellent contributors -- and received a spotcheck on one of mine (which I hope falls into the same category!). ''All'' of those found stuff that needed addressing -- when I was the one doing the checks, "all fine, no issues" came back a minority of the time.{{pb}} Some of what came up was fairly trivial (e.g. "this is cited to p. 2 but it carries onto p. 3"), but much of it was far more serious than most of the comments I'd normally make on prose: "the source doesn't actually say this", "we've missed something very important from the source", "the emphasis in our article is really quite different from that in the source", for instance. Whether that qualifies as systematic is perhaps one for the philosophers, and indeed there's an open question as to what we should do when these kind of issues come up, but I would for now push back on the idea that spotchecks of FAC regulars are unlikely to find issues. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 10:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Others have said repeatedly said now that reviewers can't assess comprehensively correctly compared to what the nominator can. I agree to a very limited extent. Checking what sources say – seeing what has been utilised, what hasn't – is the only means by which we can mitigate that. Nominators have a choice to amend or defend their omissions/understandings. If we acknowledge that most reviewers aren't experts, then not completing a source review (that dives into the sources) is not fully assessing against the criteria.
*::* I reviewed [[Terraria]] recently and found a lot of material missing. They had multiple previous FAs. The reviewer made amendments.
*::* I reviewed another in-flight nomination and, looking through the sources, said I thought it was deficient when it came to academic analyses (i.e., on feminism). The nominator made the changes requested (a representative overview) but was (perhaps understandably) resistant to doing a lot more work on the topic. I had no experience with that material: I had to go into the sources to check. (Nominator has multiple previous FAs.)
*::While response to the proposal below was mixed, HF supported it precisely because of what you state here ([[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#c-Hog Farm-20250720211000-Discussion|comment]]). — '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 11:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::I think it does depend what kind of thing the subject is -- if it's a video game or a recently released book, for example, it's fairly straightforward to Google around "[title of book] review" -- you can then fairly quickly get a sense of the critical mood, and it's usually pretty easy to tell if a major publication's review has been missed out. Similarly, for one of my obscure archaeological biographies, the chances are that every non-trivial hit you get on Google Books is going to be a source that needs to be mentioned, because there simply aren't that many sources to begin with. For heavily studied topics, however, that's less the case: think of [[Abraham Lincoln]] or [[History of Christianity]], both of which came to FAC recently and have ''reams'' of scholarship about them -- there, it takes quite a lot of disciplinary knowledge to be able to tell whether the article is in step with the broader field(s) of study about its subject matter. So it's probably fair to say that at least ''many'' articles can be source-checked well by non-experts, in a way that will throw up ''most'' serious problems. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 11:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::When I say comprehensiveness, here, I'm trying to describe two sorts. There's "does it accurately reflect the big works" (which can be accomplished through Google-fu; my 2nd bullet point), but there's "does it accurately reflect the nuance of what a publication said" (the 1st bullet point). There's a few examples in Hog Farm's reviews where half a sentence was accurately described, but a later clause (or a clarification a few sentences along) either contradicted it or omitted important context. That can only be accomplished by looking at a source. Looking at a source may even reveal important work that Google doesn't show.
*::::For the type of content you work on, an example might be that the article accurately rendered a fact of scholarship (attributed to one scholar) but (following the citation chain) neglected to mention that it was another scholar's lifelong contribution to the field. Depending on context, that would definitely be worth including, and that couldn't feasibly be revealed by googling a bunch of references. Only a spot check would reveal that sort of thing. — '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 12:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
One crazy idea I have is that some spotchecking could be fobbed off onto an AI. That is, you have a bot pick a randomized sample of citations (20 or the root of the number of refs, whichever is larger), then grab the text of the reference and have an AI compare the article text to the source text (essentially my course of action). I wonder if ChatGPT and similar could already do this. Yes, I know paywalls etc but that's why I ask for copies or screenshots. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 09:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:I wouldn’t trust AI as far as I could throw it for something like this. It may be okay for doing straight copyvio checks, but not for something as potentially nuanced as spot checks. -[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:As a non-expert, how much of a concern would hallucinations be here? Would the human user be able to trust it enough not to have to verify that the correspondences/discrepancies picked up by the AI were actually real -- and if not, would it actually save any time? ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 09:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
::In my experience, it's easy for humans to hallucinate too when going through a spotcheck if there are a lot of claims to check - which will be a problem in any "mandatory spotcheck" scenario as there'd be a lot more sources to check. I am also not certain that the AI hallucination problem extends to text comparisons (which is what spotchecks are) as opposed to factual claims. [[User:JoJo Eumerus mobile|JoJo Eumerus mobile]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|main talk]]) 15:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:Given that LLMs do not understand the meaning of text, and so would be unable to account for summarization and paraphrasing, I think this is a terrible idea. ♠[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]♠ [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 10:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think this idea is as crazy as people are making it out. I would not trust the current crop of LLMs to make yes/no decisions, but they're still a useful tool for doing a lot of the legwork as long as a human makes the final decision. It's much like the Earwig tool most people use for copyvio detection. It makes mistakes in both directions, so you can't just blindly rely on the big percentage number it puts at the top, but it's still an invaluable tool. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 12:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree with RoySmith tho I would be equally/more cautious/conservative, I wonder if we can effectively use a bastardized version of [[NotebookLM]]'s capabilities (or insert "deep research" LLM API here) to basically have it say "these passages from Y source [link here] might be relevant to verifying X statement". You go through the passages linked to make sure they align with cited material manually marking each as checked (or not if the LLM is inaccurate) and once done with the (easy) LLM generated ones, you could go through and manually look at the ones the LLM got wrong. In effect, what we could use the LLM for is a fancier version of a search API similar to that which you would find inside Google or even your browser's Ctrl+F search feature. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 15:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I did run the example CLOP at [[WP:CLOP]] past ChatGPT (the prompt was to the effect of "I'm about to give you a quotation from a source and a passage from a student essay which cites it. Are there any concerns with close paraphrasing or academic integrity here, bearing in mind that it is cited as the source?), and it got it "right" -- its explanation of the problems was pretty much the same as that on the page. Perhaps this is a case where someone could try it out and report back? ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 16:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::One of my pet peeves is when I point out to people examples of [[WP:CLOP]], they counter with (quoting from a recent example) "how else could you word ... that paragraph?" I just tried [https://claude.ai/share/91de4b64-e121-4185-90c8-bbfa856d7de8 claudifying the particular example I was talking about in that case] and unfortunately what it came back with was a textbook example of [[WP:CLOP]], so yeah, it can be hit or miss.
:::::Another of my pet peeves is choppy writing. I've found ChatGPT and Claude both do a pretty good job with "Please rewrite the following to make flow better", so I sometimes suggest to authors that they try that in the privacy of their own laptops. From a pedagogical point of view, it's useful to be able to give somebody a tool they can use on their own. People naturally get defensive when you tell them their writing sucks. Giving them a way to explore alternate wordings without the human criticism factor getting in the way is a good thing. The trick here is to not just blindly copy-paste what the LLM gives you, but rather to use it as some examples of what you might do with your prose.
:::::I often turn to the LLMs when doing research. Usually they just give me the same stuff I was able to find myself with diligent use of the search engines, but sometimes they will uncover whole areas of material that I never would have found because my searches were too narrow. They're just a tool and like all tools they take some effort to learn how to use well. I've paid my dues searching through card catalogs in libraries and scribbling call numbers on scrap paper, but there's better alternatives now and it's stupid not to use them. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
::I definitively do not get the impression that AIs are "unable to account for summarization and paraphrasing"? However, one major advantage that AI has over people is that it doesn't burn out or tire or has to shut down the computer because they need to go to work etc. Ideally, every claim in any FAC would be reviewed for its accuracy, but we all know that humans can't do this - too much work. Incidentally, RoySmith, my idea was to have the AI write things like "Yes, the claims in article text A are backed by the source text C, D in source B" and "No, I can't find the claims in article text D in source B". With a carefully crafted prompt one could get them to distinguish between a close paraphrase, straight-up copy-paste and so on. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 07:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I am sceptical of using them to {{tq|pick a randomized sample of citations (20 or the root of the number of refs, whichever is larger)}} for reasons [[User:AirshipJungleman29|Airship]] outlined [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#c-AirshipJungleman29-20250731133400-UndercoverClassicist-20250731125400|here]]. If you give them text to directly compare, they'd be fine at the basic task. If you give them the whole source, they will subsume it into their wider data set and likely be unable to pinpoint the relevant material, making monumental errors.
:::At that point it doesn't seem like it would actually be any quicker than a human review; repeating this at scale (to me at least) does not seem like "enhancement". I have Pro access to Gemini and Claude so I could investigate making a gem/artifact (app) for direct-purpose comparison. Ultimately it isn't something I would use, but how a given editor conducts their reviews is up to them. – '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 08:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Spotchecks at FAC don't always work the way Airship describes, in many cases one picks the claims to cite purely randomly without any prioritizing. Nor would handpicking be necessary if you check every referenced statement in the article ... which is something an AI can do better than a human because AIs don't tire and humans become much more error-prone when checking a lot of things. I am not sure what the distinction between "the whole source" and "text" is in this context - and note that in articles whose references include page numbers, only the content of the page with the specified page number matters so one needs to grab that content and give it to the AI for comparison. And not the whole source. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 09:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Doubling down on a deficient method of spot checking because it is currently done/easiest doesn't seem right to me, but you can conduct source reviews however you like. In any case, ''requiring'' people to use LLMs for source reviews is obviously a non-starter. If it's optional, there's no sense codifying it. Maybe you could write an essay to generate discussion in a thread dedicated to this topic? – '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 10:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::Um, who said anything about ''requiring'' people to use an AI for source review? My idea was to use the AI for the "compare the text in the article sourced to a particular reference, to the appropriate page of the source cited in that reference" part. eta: And since an AI doesn't tire, one could apply it to ''every'' claim in the article, not just the randomly picked (my method) or important ones (Airship's preferred method) ones. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 10:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::::This thread ("pre-proposal workshop") is about generating ideas for the RFC proposal. Your top-line reply started with {{tq|One crazy idea I have}}. I just misunderstood.
:::::::I like LLMs more than many, so I have more comments about using it at scale (I even suggested making an app!), but yes I don't think this thread is the place for it. – '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 10:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
::The only way I could think of utilizing AI for spot-checks is to have it compare the article with the source and ask it to explicitly quote (if applicable) whatever is missing or misinterpreted. This way the reviewer can make the final judgement if what AI suggested is indeed true or yet another case of hallucination. However, as a source reviewer, I wouldn't have AI randomly pick the citations to spot-check; that's something I'd do myself for reasons Airship highlighted above although there should be ''some'' randomization in selecting them. It could save ''some'' time if used properly but I'm definitely with Roy on not trusting it to make a final yes/no judgement. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 09:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]], [[User:Guerillero]]: As you started both phases of this conversation, do you think it is too early to draft a proposed question to guide the conversation? – '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 08:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
*I think it may be a bit early, but it depends what pathway people would want. We’ve gone down an AI rabbit hole - and I think that way madness lies, certainly without any rigorous testing first. I don’t think AI is mature enough to do what is needed at the moment, and trying to build a proposal that incorporates it will end badly at this stage. I can write up a basic proposal and some guidelines for further discussion, but it will be for manual spot checking only. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
*:Yes, I agree. I pinged both of you because I thought the AI bit was an unnecessary digression that wouldn't go anywhere. Look forward to the proposal. – '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 09:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
*::Perhaps spin out the AI thing to its own section? [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 10:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::Sounds good to me. I do that for my own comments sometimes but I figured it was a faux pas to do that to another editor's. – '''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''' 10:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
== Make source reviews come first ==
Back in 2021, [[User:SandyGeorgia]] proposed '''[[User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4|a new structure]]''' for FAC.
Sandy's aims are outlined in her sandbox. I won't go into too much detail, but some of the problems she described first:
* A flood of prose reviews – long, hard to navigate, and more time-intensive for coordinators to gauge consensus to promote.
* Last-minute source reviews becoming contentious, particularly after multiple prose-based supports.
* A long tail on the Oldest nominations pile.
The gist is to '''split the FAC process into 2 stages:'''
* A '''first stage''' for sourcing and images.
* A '''second and final stage''' for prose, style, comprehensiveness, and length.
Sandy moved the FA criteria around a bit to show this. I believe it could be refined further – e.g., "Criteria 1 and 2 apply to stage 1; criteria 3 and 4 apply to stage 2". '''This does not change any of the criteria.''' It changes when they are assessed and makes reviews shorter and more focused.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
! style="width: 30em;" |Current [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|Featured article criteria]]
! style="width: 30em;" |Proposed criteria (re-arrangement to reflect two stages)
|-
|A [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]] exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the [[Wikipedia:List of policies#CONPOL|policies regarding content]] for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
# It is:
## '''well-written''': its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
## '''comprehensive''': it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
## '''well-researched''': it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] against high-quality [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable sources]] and are supported by inline citations [[Wikipedia:When to cite|where appropriate]];
## '''neutral''': it presents views [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|fairly and without bias]];
## '''stable''': it is not subject to ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit wars]] and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
## '''compliant with [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's copyright policy]]''' and free of [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|plagiarism]] or [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|too-close paraphrasing]].
# It follows the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|style guidelines]], including the provision of:
## '''a lead''': a concise [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|lead section]] that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
## '''appropriate structure''': a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical [[Help:Section|section headings]]; and
## '''consistent citations''': where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing sources]] for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
# '''Media.''' It has [[Wikipedia:Images|images]] and other media, where appropriate, with succinct [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions|captions]] <!-- brief and useful [[Wikipedia:Alternative text for images|alt text]] when feasible, --> and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]. Images follow the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|image use policy]]. [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Non-free]] images or media must satisfy the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|criteria for inclusion of non-free content]] and [[Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free|be labeled accordingly]].
# '''Length.''' It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]].
|A [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]] exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the [[Wikipedia:List of policies#CONPOL|policies regarding content]] for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
# Content is '''summarized from high-quality sources''', and '''compliant with Wikipedia copyright and image use policy'''. The article:
## is '''well-researched''': it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] against high-quality [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable sources]] and are supported by inline citations [[Wikipedia:When to cite|where appropriate]].
## contains content that complies with [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's '''copyright policy''']], and is free of [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|plagiarism]] and [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing|too-close paraphrasing]].
# Content has [[Wikipedia:Images|images]] and other '''media''', where appropriate, with succinct [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions|captions]] and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]. Images follow the [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|image use policy]]. [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Non-free]] images or media must satisfy the [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|criteria for inclusion of non-free content]] and [[Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free|be labeled accordingly]].
# It is:
## '''well-written''': its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
## '''comprehensive''': it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
## '''neutral''': it presents views [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|fairly and without bias]]; and
## '''stable''': it is not subject to ongoing [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit wars]] and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
# It follows the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|style guidelines]], including the provision of:
## '''a lead''': a concise [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|lead section]] that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
## '''appropriate structure''': a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical [[Help:Section|section headings]].
## has '''consistent citations''': where required by criterion 1, inline citations are consistently formatted using footnotes—see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing sources]] for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
## appropriate '''length.''' It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]].
|}
This is '''a starting point for discussion''', not a formal proposal – but I think there's clear gains:
* Crucially, we acknowledge that source reviews are already a prerequisite step for promotion.
* We acknowledge the pain of a last-minute source review utterly derailing a nomination.
* We make it easier to understand reviewer expectations.
* We encourage reviewers to source review early, and nominators to solicit those reviews early.
** We reduce pain caused by long prose reviews becoming invalid because of extensive changes.
In the first draft of [[User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4|the restructure under discussion]], the "Older nominations" pile would disappear. There would be a stage one bucket and a stage two bucket. There's still room for languishing nominations to be promoted – and with this, it's easier, because it can tell you specifically what's missing. Prose reviews know they're reviewing something with solid sourcing.
This conversation grew out of a discussion about spot checking – the above doesn't actually represent any changes to the as-is system. The criteria aren't changed; they are moved around.
Please share any thoughts, feedback, or concerns. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
=== Discussion ===
* Conceptually, I'm a huge fan – big benefits to putting source reviews first. As an additional thought: I think comprehensiveness reviews should take place alongside source reviews instead of what is shown above (where they're part of the prose review). Distributing the criteria makes it easier to give a short, focused review. A shorter, focuses review makes it more likely reviewers will reply to each other in the place where it matters—i.e., I'm not going to reply to someone who's given 40 lines of prose feedback, but I would reply to a paragraph or two about comprehensiveness.
: This would increase my overall number of reviews. "Consensus to promote" is not just votes: it's a bit of chat, it's agreeing or disagreeing with other editors. I should be able to provide support my support to someone else's review. With the current model, when I don't know what's going on, I'm not likely to do that. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
* I would move "has consistent citations" down to the style section. If somebody is citing unsuitable sources (or mis-citing them), that's a fundamental problem that needs to be found quickly and may well lead to the nomination being rejected outright if the problem can't be resolved. If they've got the citation formatting wrong, that's something that can get fixed up whenever. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] ([[User talk:RoySmith#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoySmith|contribs]]) 11:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)</small>
:: Thanks for that Roy; makes sense. I'll make some tweaks to show how I think it should be (criteria 1 and 2 for Stage 1; criteria 3 and 4 for Stage 2) with that change. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 11:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|RoySmith}} I can recall seeing citations that were so incomplete that reliability was hard to gauge -- eg missing publishers, missing authors, wrong article titles or dates, and similar. But then, it has always been my view that a nomination presented in that state should get declarations to Withdraw so that the Coords can archive it right away, as FAC is not the place for cleanup of basics, and those kinds of problems should be more quickly cleaned up off FAC and brought back in two weeks. Anyway, that's why that is mentioned in the first phase. I still see very little use of Withdraw allowing for early archiving of ill-prepared nominations ... maybe these kinds of issues are becoming more rare, but ... {{pb}} ... even after my 2021 proposal, and discussion that reviews were incomplete, [[Socrates Nelson]] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1073231708#March_3_TFA,_Socrates_Nelson considerable] [[Talk:Socrates Nelson#Continued from WT:FAC discussion|source-to-text integrity]] issues happened, and [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Socrates Nelson/archive1|passed a source check]] (HogFarm, others and I cleaned up the article). Just adding to the institutional memory here. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
* I think would likely oppose this; it seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Some of the reasons I would oppose are the same as were raised in 2021, others differ slightly. Firstly there are three problems that were identified in 2021. I don't think these are necessarily still an issue now, or if they are, they are either not as much of a problem as they may have been then, or this measure will not help. Looking at the problems: "A flood of prose reviews – long, hard to navigate, and more time-intensive for coordinators to gauge consensus to promote": that will continue whenever the source review takes place. "Last-minute source reviews becoming contentious, particularly after multiple prose-based supports": I have not seen any such contentious source reviews for some time, and not after multiple prose supports. Maybe the {{@FAC}} can say if this is an issue they have seen recently or regularly. The third problem listed is "A long tail on the Oldest nominations pile": I'm not sure this measure is going to solve that tail.{{pb}}A real problem is that we have a very small number of people who can do proper source review, whereas most people can comment about prose matters. If prose reviews are forced into the earliest steps, then we're putting too much pressure on the very small pool of people who regularly conduct such reviews. And once the source review is passed and a prose reviewer asks for additional information is added, this could require new sources which means a re-visit from an already-stretched prose reviewer. I'm not sure the 'gains' listed are as promised either: we ''already'' acknowledge a source review is a prerequisite; there is no evidence of the "pain" of a last-ditch fails, nor that "reviewer expectations" are not understood.{{pb}}The reorganising of the criteria seems rather odd to me - it doesn't seem to have any benefit that I can see. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Hey SchroCat. Thanks for giving some thoughts. I won't do the back-and-forth detail if you don't like the underlying idea, but look up a few threads for some contentious source reviews (we lost some contributors over uneven enforcement in source reviews). David mentioned there that reviewers won't oppose/support in a comment there, too – IMO, distinct stages makes this clearer – sharper focus, shorter commentary, easier to gauge negative or positive sentiment. RE: Reorganising the criteria – I did that to show what comprised each stage (C1 and C2 in Stage 1; C3 and C4 in Stage 2). There aren't meant to be any benefits beyond illustrating a system that doesn't exist. Best 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC) — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::I think that review would have been contentious whether it was the first review or the tenth. The issue was nothing to do with ''when'' the review was conducted: the nominator was upset at the seeming different standards between his previous nominations and the ones that failed. This proposal would make zero difference in that particular example. It's a waste of a scant resource (good prose reviewers) if time is spent reviewing for an article to then fail on prose. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, SC, I don't understand.
*:::* On the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1|Sengoku line FAC]], Roy and UC left sourcing objections, then 3 people left prose reviews after those concerns were raised. That was absolutely a waste of time for them – prose wasn't being disputed. Archived.
*:::* On the Sounder rail line FAC, there were 3 supports, then Roy highlighted his issues; this resulted in archival, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FSounder_commuter_rail%2Farchive1&diff=1299364012&oldid=1299322300 annoying the nominator and a bystander]. There's a big disconnect there. The coord was confident in their decision, but it wasn't understood – because there was a disconnect on what mattered there.
*:::— '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 13:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::What's not to understand? The nomination would not have been automatically archived the moment an oppose is posted. It would have been left open to see if the nominator could have worked on it further to change the opposes to supports. That's not going to be affected by the change and is entirely right and proper. I'm not sure you can say the reviewers wasted their time: the article was improved by their comments.
*::::Again, the annoyance seems to be less about the archiving ''per se'', and more about the perceived changes in standards between that review and earlier ones. If there is "disconnect", then maybe we need to sharpen the instructions to make it clearer that image and source reviews are the only reviews that can lead to a failed nomination. That has been the ''de facto'' standard for years, so there should be no problem in highlighting it. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 14:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|Image and source reviews are the only reviews that can lead to a failed nomination}}: ''is'' that the case? As I understand it, the coords archive nominations where consensus to promote is not likely to develop in a reasonable timespan, or without changes that would be unreasonable to make in the course of a fundamentally summative process. I don't think it's necessarily true that the words "source review -- fail" ''automatically'' lead to archiving, though obviously most of the things that would cause an article to fail a well-conducted source review would ''also'' make it very unlikely to generate consensus to promote in a reasonable time. At the same time, even if the image and source reviews are fine, we archive plenty of nominations on the basis of dissatisfied ''prose'' reviews, even without concerns raised on images or sourcing -- see [[Yoshi's New Island]], which had a passed source review and no image review (but would certainly have passed the latter). ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 20:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Articles can be promoted with prose opposes in place (although that’s not to say that valid prose opposes, such as at Yoshi, will let an article proceed far - it depends on how problematic the prose is). But no review will be promoted unless both image and source reviews have been passed, and a valid oppose on either of those will lead to archiving. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 20:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Looking through, I don't think the FAC instructions actually mention image or source reviews explicitly. It might not be a bad thing to clue nominators in that all articles are expected to pass specific reviews for both, as you say. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 20:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::It's definitively not the case that only image or source reviews can lead to a nomination failing: The [[Misti]] review noted text quality issues (clarity, mainly) which were the reason for one oppose. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 10:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::I’m not sure it’s right to say the archiving of the nomination was down to the one oppose. The closing rationale was that “{{tq|there are still issues being worked out here and the nom has been open for three months}}: that’s more of an issue than just the one oppose. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 05:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it was down to that one oppose, but that the issues noted were not source/image ones and hence the theory that only image/source reviews lead to archival was wrong. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 07:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I don’t think anyone has said that. Indeed, I think most failed reviews at FAC are down to prose-based opposes. But it’s possible to be promoted with an oppose or two based on prose as long as there is a strong enough consensus to promote. But it’s not possible for a promotion if there is a valid oppose based on sourcing or images. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::"Image and source reviews are the only reviews that can lead to a failed nomination" sounds like that, though. But getting into the weeds here... [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 08:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
*I do think that the current practice emphasises non-expert prose reviews too much and does too little to address accuracy and due weight. When my articles are reviewed, I always hope for some critical comments on scope and emphasis but these are comparatively rare. (Then again, I certainly need the help of the prose reviewers, so I should not complain). I do not know whether reordering the criteria would help to fix the emphasis issue but we could try. I would strongly suggest to change the numbering scheme, though, to make the "new" criteria something like "A.1" and "B.3" etc., so a comment like "fails 1c" stays unambiguous. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 12:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I think the criteria could remain exactly the same, so long as instructions were updated to which criteria specify to which stage. Rearranging is convenient, but if there's no support for the basic proposal – frontloading source/comprehensiveness/images – then refining numbering on the criteria, I think, matters less. Does that make sense? — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 12:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*I'm inclined to share SchroCat's impression of "solution in search of a problem", though could certainly be persuaded that there ''is'' indeed a problem here. A few fairly disconnected thoughts:
:* I think the proposed approach would probably work well for first-time nominations -- in essence, encourage reviewers to check for ship-sinking problems (like plagiarism, copyvio, TSI or bad sourcing) before spending hours fussing over commas, dashes and semicolons -- but I'm not sure it would help to mandate it.
:* I sympathise with and largely share Kusma's perspective above that the best reviews are the really detailed ones that are able to pick out gaps in the research, misconceptions of the scholarly consensus, and areas where the narrative ought to be tied together in different ways -- however, FAs are specialised things, and in (almost) any given topic area we only have a handful of real experts -- and the chances are that one of those is going to be disqualified because they're the nominator! Honestly, in most cases where source reviewers attempt to check comprehensiveness, all we're practically able to do is Google around and make sure that the obvious hits are indeed cited, which sets a pretty low bar -- robustly vouching that the work fits the scholarship requires quite serious ___domain expertise, and it's a rare but happy coincidence to find a reviewer and a topic matching up such that they can do it.
:* I do think spotchecking should be more normal, even for experienced nominators, and not necessarily limited to source reviews -- I'm not sure I'd go so far as to make it a requirement (though I note that ''all'' GA nominators are expected to pass spotchecks on ''all'' nominations), but I don't think it would be a bad thing if, culturally, more reviews included "I've checked the following citations and all checks out/there seem to be a few points not fully supported/the source seems to put a different spin on it than we do".
:* As for {{tq|A flood of prose reviews – long, hard to navigate, and more time-intensive for coordinators}} -- yup, I'll hold my hands up -- guilty as charged! ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::Doing a handful of spotchecks each time seems reasonable -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 13:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:: Hi, {{replyto|UndercoverClassicist}} Thanks for chiming in. I've been thinking about reaching out to you.
:: My interest in Sandy's proposal is partly motivated by some recent FACs. At Sounder rail, the archival [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FSounder_commuter_rail%2Farchive1&diff=1299364012&oldid=1299322300 caused consternation] because of a disconnect between a nominator/reviewer's perception (multiple prose supports) and what the coordinator saw (unaddressed sourcing concerns).
:: At [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1|Sengkang LRT line]], we lost a contributor. We had multiple editors – after you and Roy opposed – performing what are (IMO) rescue-attempt reviews... but are focusing on entirely the wrong thing (prose).
:: In the first stage, we acknowledge how critical sourcing is and that nothing else matters if there are concerns. It vastly increases the chances editors will engage directly with each other on what matters. Editors are right to be frustrated if they have spent accumulative hours reviewing and actioning feedback, and it all falls apart for reasons they cannot fully see. As I see it, it is an improvement to user experience. Possibly coordinator experience – I'm hopeful they will weigh in.
:: This may overall reduce the full time required for a review cycle – consensus can develop quickly if it is focused. Regarding comprehensiveness – this isn't intended to reduce the quality of comprehensiveness reviews (we can't meaningfully change that), but the focus of the discussion. If the review itself is insufficient, that's true in the current process. Thank you — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 13:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::It sounds like you're suggesting "promoting" sourcing to a higher tier -- essentially making clear that, if the sourcing isn't right (that is, there are worries about reliability, representativeness or integrity), no amount of tinkering with the prose will lead to a promotion. I'm not sure that's the way to do it: after all, articles need to pass ''all'' the FA criteria, so the same is true if (for example) an article is impeccably sourced and beautifully written but fails NPOV, or has a wonderful body but an inadequate lead. As you say, {{tq|sourcing is [critical] and nothing else matters if there are concerns}}, but that's equally true of all of the other criteria. {{pb}}Now, you might fairly say that it's easier to fix prose, leads, NPOV etc than to overhaul the sourcing, but I think reviewers probably look at other reviews before they kick off -- I certainly do, and probably wouldn't launch into a detailed nit-pick of an article that is clearly going to see major content changes before it passes. However, if others think that would be a good use of their time, I'm not sure it would be right to create a rule to stop them. {{pb}}I hadn't seen the conclusion of the Sengkang nomination -- I think it's unfortunate, but I don't get the impression that having fewer prose reviews on that page would have helped -- nor would requiring source reviews to be done first, since the very first review on the page is Roy's, raising the source issues, and the second is mine. If we had a rule that the prose reviewers had to wait until the source concerns were addressed, it seems likely that the nomination would have been archived or withdrawn before any came in, and I don't think that would have been any less frustrating for the nominator -- the crux of the issue there seems to have been that ''previous'' FAs were promoted without the same concerns being raised. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 13:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:::: Thanks UC. I don't think perfect should be the enemy of good, but I'm grateful for your substantive engagement. Ultimately my goal here is to generate some friendly chat, and this is very thoughtful and others should definitely pay attention to what you've raised. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 14:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
* I certainly agree that we should prioritise issues with sourcing, neutrality, and comprehensiveness over prose issues, let alone the minutiae of MOS compliance and citation formatting – but like Schro and UC I'm not entirely convinced that this is the solution. As I said above, the fundamental problem is that reviewing the issues I consider priorities require a level of time, access to potentially hard-to-obtain sources, and expertise which prose and MOS reviewing do not – and as UC points out above, the nominator is usually by far and away the most expert editor on the topic they are nominating. My worry would be that having a two stage review with the former reviewed first means that, unless someone interested and knowledgeable in the topic happens to see a nomination, nominees will just language at stage one waiting for someone to pick them up, and then once they've gone through that they'll still get the same laundry list of prose and MOS nitpicking. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 13:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Appreciate the response [[User:Caeciliushorto|Caeciliushorto]]. Do you think the problem you describe are largely unmitigable (or, even, not worth fixing), or have any thoughts on what might be done? Thank you — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 14:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::I do think to some extent the problem is inherently unfixable: if a sufficiently knowledgeable nominator writes an article on a sufficiently obscure topic, they can skew the POV in a way which is just unnoticeable to anyone who isn't themselves fairly expert on the topic – if the subject is obscure enough, there might only be a handful of people in the world for whom that's true.{{pb}}For [[Corinna]], I would not be surprised if every single living person who has read more of the relevant sources than me is literally cited in the bibliography. Have I given appropriate weight to the various views about her date? I hope so, but the only people really qualified to judge are the authors of those views – and even if we could get them to give an opinion, do we trust them to be neutral on this? I have an opinion about which side is correct which I hope is not detectable in the article, and which I hope has not skewed my presentation of the various arguments – but I could have written the article to give slightly more weight to my preferred side than I in fact did and if I had done so I think it's vanishingly unlikely that it would have been picked up at FAC.{{pb}}On a more optimistic note, I think things are already better than they were when Wikipedia was founded (or FAC was established) for reasons external to FAC itself. Academic sources are enormously more accessible to editors: between [[WP:TWL]] and [[WP:RX]], the increasing number of academic journals indexed on online repositories like JSTOR, and the increasing number of articles which authors make freely available on places like academia.edu, it's much easier both for editors to use high-quality sources when writing articles, and to spot-check those sources when reviewing.{{pb}}As for what we can do as FAC reviewers: on an individual level, spot check sources! And explicitly say that you have done it in the review, even if you don't find anything to question the nominator about. Normalise spot checking as a standard part of a review; that way when new reviewers look to see what the expectation is, they will internalise that source checking is part of it. On a more systemic level, I would love to see it as a requirement for all FACs that at least one reviewer has to say that they have done at least some spot-checking before promotion, though I don't know whether there'd be appetite for that. Getting more reviewers would also help – the more eyes on an article, the more likely it is that issues will be picked up. I don't have any brilliant ideas for solving that one, though! [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 18:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::The question of spot checking is outside the scope of this proposal and belongs in the thread above, but I think I would support the introduction of spot checking for all nominations, with a need for more to take place for first time nominators to help instil the requirements in them from an early stage. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 19:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::I don't think separating the criteria for new users vs regulars is a good idea, if we choose a criteria, we should expect ''all'' articles to be treated equally and subjected to extensive or atleast (greater than) a statistically significant amount of spotchecks. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 20:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::::But we have separated the criteria for first timers for eons. We currently insist on spot checks for first timers, but not for anyone else. By having a heavier requirement on the first timers, it both shows them the levels required and gives reassurance to reviewers and coords that the nominator (and article) are hitting the right spot. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 20:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::<small>A total nitpick but I don't think "criteria" is the word – it seems to have arisen in practice as a bit of oral culture, gaining consensus through practice rather than policy. [[Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC#Spot checking|This essay]], linked at the top of this page, says coordinators will "usually" require spot checks for a first time nom, but is of course an essay, and I didn't have spot checks done so much as all refs </small> — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 20:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I'm aware of this "first-timer-only" requirements, but I don't understand why it exists in the first place and I would oppose putting more criteria into the "first-timer only" category when in actuality all nominations should be held to the same high standard. [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 01:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Search the page for 13:14, 19 July; it is explained in the section above this one (spot checks on first-time nominators originally were related to a concern about plagiarism, where we sought to make sure first-time nominators knew how to correctly represent sources while paraphrasing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Fair enough! But I still don't see the argument for special casing newcomers in a concern that affects all FAs alike. Perfectness in terms of source-to-text-integrity and reliability of sourcing should be the baseline that we should aim to reach with FAs, the rest is the criteria (the fact that the article is well written and uses consistent citations) is the icing on the cake that makes it presentable. In our current system, we are caring more about the ingredients in our icing and less about the ingredients going into the innards (to make a analogy). [[User:Sohom Datta|<b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b>]] ([[User talk:Sohom Datta|<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>]]) 06:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Just to clarify slightly, there are no "extra criteria" for newcomers. All FAs ''are'' held to the same criteria. What there is is an extra step in ensuring newbies understand one of those criteria from the beginning and the best way to do that is through checking the first nomination. If you're wanting '''all''' nominations to be spot-checked, then the thread above is the place to discuss that further. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::It may also be worth saying here that spotchecks are explicitly ''welcomed'' for all nominations, and all nominators are expected to cooperate with them if asked by any reviewer to do so. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 09:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
* I think the outcomes of [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area/archive1]] (over a month into the FAC and after engagement from several prose reviewers, source review identified major sourcing issues which led to archival) and [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/archive1]] (multiple supports, passed source review w/o spot-checking, archived after source-text integrity issues came up) speak to the need for something like this. Sourcing is foundationally more important (and harder to fix) than prose issues, and while there are articles that arguably could never (or not easily) be made into FA due to inherent issues in the potential sourcing, this isn't a thing that would exist with prose. From what I've seen of roughly 5 years at FAC, sourcing is usually much more of a non-starter for noms with problems that prose is, and it makes sense to check for sourcing issues before much effort is put into prose. The trick will be to get editor engagement to an extent that nominations will get a source check quickly; I know I should be doing more source reviews but as someone who is also just plumb wore out mentally most days I understand why this seems daunting to reviewers. I think the requirement for some sort of spot-checking on any nomination should be considered separately from the more radical proposal and should be adopted; this doesn't have to be done by the primary source review (I try to work spot-checks into my prose reviews where possible). At a minimum, everyone entering into a support declaration at a FAC should really have at least taken a cursory look to see if there are any obvious source quality issues; a pure MOS/prose support is of lesser value that something that attempts to look at the whole article comprehensively. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 21:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Thanks for the thoughts [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]]. To draw out your views a little: do you see the radical component here working better when enforced by a social measure (i.e., boldface instructions that say '''do not provide a source review''') or a technical measure (e.g., the reviews are technically separated—as in a dedicated stage one page like [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Famous movie/Stage 1]]). <small>One of the bigger parts of Sandy's concept, for example, is retiring the "Older nominations" bucket and using those groups for stage 1 and 2, while still preserving how they are chronologised (stage 2, the older reviews, still go at the bottom).</small> For future participants (including the coords, who haven't weighed in yet), I'm interested if you'd be keen to eloquently ramble about implementation a little. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 21:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*:: Well, I guess what I meant to say was that I think the proposition of spot checks for all noms should be considered as a fully separate proposal by the community, so that it could pass even if the restructuring proposal does not. As to the restructuring program - I agree with the idea of scrapping the idea of the "older nominations" bucket if this is implemented, and then having the Stage 1 and Stage 2 groups. With the Stage 1 nominations sorted from top to bottom with the oldest-added at the bottom; for Stage 2 (post-source review) the nominations would be added to the top of the Stage 2 stack as they pass Stage 1, with the lowest part of the page being those which have been in Stage 2 the longest. I think a social measure would in the long run be the most effective for keeping non-source or image reviews until Stage 2; my concern is that fragmenting the FAC into multiple subpages might make it difficult to later reviewers to see what sort of stuff came up in Stage 1 unless we're really careful of how we structure the FACs under the new proposal. What to do with out-of-process prose reviews in Stage 1 - I really haven't come up with a good idea for that. (Move to talk and then move back over to the main FAC page when Stage 2 is reached?) [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 22:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::IT, re {{tq|stage 2, the older reviews, still go at the bottom}}, except note that prose and MOS review can still be occurring during stage 1, while waiting for source work (but hopefully done on article talk to reduce the length/template limits/prose-and-MOS nitpick problem at FAC, while major concerns are being addressed), so that older reviews don't necessarily fall to the bottom or take longer than now. That nominations wouldn't move to the second phase without sourcing work doesn't mean the other work can't be going on concurrently. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::: That makes much more sense than how I was conceptualizing it. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 22:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::Think of it like FAR; you enter issues in the first (FAR) phase, while you only enter Keep or Delist in the second (FARC) phase. But work is still going on regardless of phase. In this case, reviewers aren't prevented from entering anything in phase one, but we don't move to declarations of Support until a nomination has passed on sourcing and moves to phase 2. Hopefully then the endless lists of minor prose issues and MOS nitpicks would be occurring elsewhere, like article talk, which would result in a more streamlined page overall. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for this clarification Sandy. I was overcomplicating it in my head too. IMO, this could really accelerate overall timelines. Provides high visibility to where source reviews are needed. Allows reuse the existing infrastructure with some slight tweaks. Means the FA criteria could remain identical, too, if there's preference for that – and minimal (to no) benefit if we still allow prose reviews. — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 23:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*I definitely think "stage 1/stage 2" makes a lot more sense than "nominations/older nominations", but comments on nomination pages should probably still occur naturally regardless of which stage they belong to. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 23:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
*In theory I'm in support of this. In practice I fear this will cause FACs to stall/get archived in the first phase because there are few editors with the self-confidence and desire to conduct source checks. If this is implemented, I would like [[User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You|Ealdgyth's excellent guide]] to be emphasised more prominently (maybe under the Phase 1 banner?) I would also like an easy way (that is not the big scary WT:FAC) for new source reviewers to ask a more experienced editor to mentor them, so they feel more confident in the process and want to do more (similar to [[WP:FAM]]?) [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 02:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*Yes, I think FAC would be improved with a greater focus on reviewing sources rather than just "prose comments". But my conviction is that this needs to be a matter of institutional change (i.e. across all reviews). Prose and sourcing are intimately connected, and it makes no sense to disconnect them entirely—how is a hypothetical "prose reviewer" in the second stage above supposed to assess comprehensivity, neutrality, appropriate length, or summary style without looking at the sources. On the topic of stages, I am fundamentally opposed to any such proposal which comes perilously close to replicating the inane bureaucracy of [[WP:FAR]]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 10:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Valuable feedback. As Sandy describes it above, I don't think it functionally works like FAR because there's discrete, fully separate compartments there. With this, comments on other criteria are ''acceptable'' during the first stage, but source reviews are strongly preferred / what are visibly needed. I think this does, in practice, achieve what you want while not being absolutist bureaucracy. Is there a way we can tweak it to alleviate your concerns? What do you think? — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 10:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*::{{green|"comments on other criteria are ''acceptable'' during the first stage, but source reviews are strongly preferred / what are visibly needed"}} So what's the difference between the current process and this? Right now, source reviews are strongly preferred and visibly needed, but comments on other criteria are also acceptable; however, it is only when a nomination receives a source review that it can be promoted. In stage 1 of the proposal, source reviews would be strongly preferred and visibly needed, but comments on other criteria are also acceptable; however, it is only when a nomination receives a source review that it can be promoted to the promoting zone, from where it can be promoted. Exact same process, just with one unnecessary step. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::I suppose my concern here is the diagnosis of the problem. It sounds like this proposal comes from a feeling that reviewers are choosing to do prose reviews when it would be better for them to choose to do source reviews, and so that we should encourage them towards the latter. Honestly, I don't think that's what's going on -- I think source reviews and prose reviews are very different animals. In most cases, the person who would have dropped in to give a fairly light-touch prose review (looking at dashes, grammar, source formatting and so on) isn't going to be equipped, either in time, inclination, skills, subject-matter knowledge, resources and so on, to offer a proper source review.{{pb}} We do already have the box on FAC talk which highlights articles that need a source review, so I'm not sure that the implicit diagnosis in {{tq|Provides high visibility to where source reviews are needed}} (that it's not yet sufficiently visible where a source review is needed) is the right one. I'd be more in favour of some of the suggestions above to make it easier for prospective reviewers to learn the ropes of how to conduct a good source review -- I think {{u|Roy Smith|Roy}}'s essay is a great start, and that expanding the mentoring programme would be another good move. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 11:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*::::What is "a proper source review"? Does it cover just the three factors at [[WP:FARS]]: verifiability, source quality, and formatting, and if so why do we need a separate section just to assess that? On the other hand, does it make judgements on comprehensiveness? Neutrality? Excessive detail? As Caecilius has said above, there are articles nominated where the only people in the world who can make judgements on the latter three aspects are the authors cited and the nominator. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*Two editors, above, have already described the proposal as a solution in search of a problem and I echo their use of that phrase. I fear the adoption of the proposed two-stage process would further gum up what is already a long and often, for nominators, wearisome process. Unless I've missed it in the sea of text, above, we have not heard from any of the FAC coordinators. It would not seem to me inappropriate to ask [[user:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]], [[user:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]], [[user:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]] and [[user:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] what they think, either jointly or severally. – '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Tim riley|<span style="color:# 660066">Tim riley</span>]][[User talk:Tim riley|<span style="color:#848484"> talk</span>]]</span>''' 12:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I would join others in wondering at the need for this at a time when we barely have enough reviewers to get the job done. A spot-check is a lot of work. And since many FAC candidates are based on offline resources, it's going to be considerable coordination with the nominator, who will either have to type in the text (which may be quite a bit) on which a statement relies, or send scans etc to the reviewer. After the burst of initial enthusiasm, finding people to do the job is going to be an issue. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*I am not sure that the coordinators do much "jointly", other than by accident. Personally I am always a little wary of joining these sorts of discussions, at least at their initial stages, as it is, I feel, more for the community to tell the coordinators what they want than the coordinators to tell the community what they are going to get. In this particular debate, when {{u|SchroCat}}, {{u|Wehwalt}} and {{u|UndercoverClassicist}} are so eloquently, succinctly, relevantly and compellingly hitting the nail on the head I have found nothing so far which I wish to add. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 13:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Away for a few days but I think this one is a killer. A big part of my motivation was narrowing discrepancies in how people are reading consensus. I disagree with some of the analyses but, ultimately, if the core idea isn’t registering, that’s all that matters. “Solution in search of a solution” is classically brutal. If the cords don’t see any value, I don’t object to a SNOW close, but it’s hard for me on mobile.
*:A few folks have possibly misunderstood this thread as being about mandatory spot checks? For example, Gog cites Wehwalt’s analysis as eloquent but it seems (to me at least) like he’s replied in the wrong thread. I’ll reflect on what I messed up in the proposal when I get back to my main device. Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts — '''''[[User:ImaginesTigers|ImaginesTigers]]''''' ([[User talk:ImaginesTigers|talk]]) 13:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't think you've messed up in your proposal, Tiger, just people have different estimations of practical considerations. Having caught up on the conversation, I think part of the difficulty of a two-stage process is that it's difficult to disentangle source and prose criteria so completely—even if you passed a source review there can still be issues with how that is reflected in the actual text, for instance. Having a focused distributed scope, however, could definitely alleviate the complaints I've seen that "this has gotten the magic number of reviews, so why isn't this being promoted" that right now seems to treat absolute numbers as the most important thing instead of meaningfully engaging with critiques and building a better article out of the discussion. I can see the concerns about stretching source reviewers thin; on the other hand, forcing that process by necessity could prompt more engagement with that part of the criteria reviewing. It's absolutely a vital part of reviewing, and if the goal is quality and not quantity, it makes sense to keep encouraging that. In the absence of format changes it could perhaps be useful to be more explicit in our instructions and explanation of the review process what coords are expecting and will action, alongside giving more prompting on status so it's less of a surprise (I had assumed a lot of repeat nominators understood the 'squishiness' of the process, but that seems to be in error.) [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 19:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:::Spot checks are available to reviewers who deem them necessary without regard to first time status. That's always understood, and I've asked for them and been asked. If there is confusion somewhere it is because this has become an incredible wall of text and it might be easy for points to get lost. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 20:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
*:Like Gog, I tend to feel discussions like this are primarily for the community to guide the coords, but since I've been specifically invited... I've always advocated the greatest preparation for FAC noms, going so far as to propose on one or two occasions that PR (or A-class review for articles from relevant projects) be mandatory beforehand. Not unreasonably that got pushback from older hands, and were I to try it again I'd probably suggest if just for the newbies (perhaps the same people qualifying for the mentoring program). I've always welcomed more spotchecks of sources but have generally found the community satisfied with it being ''required'' only for first-timers, or those returning to FAC after extended absence. As to the 2-stage solution, I think it's difficult to disconnect source reviewing from questions of neutrality, comprehensiveness and expression (yes, prose). It's true we often see different reviewers taking on source checks as opposed to neutrality, comprehensiveness and prose commentary, but at least in the current method they're all in the one comprehensive review. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 15:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
*::To be honest, I've always found PR kind of frustrating. My current example is [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Louis Abramson/archive2|Louis Abramson]]. I know there were some issues, which I think I've fixed, but I'm not sure so I've brought it to PR (twice) hoping to get some useful feedback. That doesn't seem to be happening, which is unfortunate because eventually I'll end up bringing it to FAC and I'd much rather get beaten up at PR than beaten up at FAC :-)
*::The real issue (as others have pointed out) is that there's not enough reviewers doing enough reviews. On the one hand, I'm all for stricter standards, but if we're already in a deficit for reviewing resources, piling on more work isn't going to be practical. I pushed for mandatory source checks at GA because I think in general the quality of sourcing there demands greater scrutiny. But at FA, the quality is generally better (and certainly better from some regulars) so I think mandatory source spot-checks of all FACs would difficult to justify as an effective use of limited resources. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
== Note to the coords ==
{{@FAC}} with no archiving/promotions in the past six days and 58 currently-open nominations, [[WP:FAC]] is the longest it has been in several years at around 1.85 million transcluded bytes; not only is this really annoying if you want to view the page as a Wikipedia page should be, but it is steadily getting nearer to the [[WP:PEIS]] limit, at which point the nominations will begin to not transclude properly. Could we please get some movement on the front lines? Thanks, [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
{{@FAC}}: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/To Zion/archive1]] has been moved to the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2025|archive page]] but no {{tl|FACClosed}} was added, so the nomination cannot be processed by the bot. Could one of you add the required template? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 03:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
:I’ve done it on Gog‘s behalf. Thanks for keeping an eye, Hawkeye. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 03:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
== [[:J.K. Rowling]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Information.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:J.K. Rowling]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Talk:J. K. Rowling#RfC: J.K. Rowling's views on transgender issues|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
== FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for July 2025 ==
Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for July 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 [https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/ new facstats tool] has been updated with this data, but the [https://facstats.toolforge.org/ old facstats tool] has not. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 00:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Reviewers for July 2025}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# reviews'''
! colspan="4" |Type of review
|-
!Reviewer
! data-sort-type="number" |Content
! data-sort-type="number" |Source
! data-sort-type="number" |Image
! data-sort-type="number" |Accessibility
|-
|Nikkimaria
|4
|
|21
|
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|2
|15
|7
|
|-
|SchroCat
|12
|6
|
|
|-
|Tim riley
|11
|
|
|
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|9
|1
|1
|
|-
|Hog Farm
|8
|1
|1
|
|-
|MSincccc
|9
|
|1
|
|-
|RoySmith
|9
|1
|
|
|-
|Arconning
|3
|1
|5
|
|-
|Eddie891
|8
|
|
|
|-
|Aoba47
|4
|2
|
|
|-
|Gog the Mild
|5
|1
|
|
|-
|HAL333
|6
|
|
|
|-
|ImaginesTigers
|5
|1
|
|
|-
|750h+
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Dudley Miles
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Graham Beards
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Noleander
|5
|
|
|
|-
|Vacant0
|4
|1
|
|
|-
|Jimfbleak
|4
|
|
|
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|3
|
|
|
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Femke
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Generalissima
|2
|
|1
|
|-
|Ippantekina
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3
|
|
|
|-
|MaranoFan
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Pokelego999
|3
|
|
|
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|3
|
|
|
|-
|<none>
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Bruce1ee
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Ceoil
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|Chrishm21
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Epicgenius
|2
|
|
|
|-
|FunkMonk
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Hawkeye7
|1
|
|1
|
|-
|History6042
|1
|
|1
|
|-
|Howardcorn33
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Icepinner
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|John
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Nick-D
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Parsecboy
|2
|
|
|
|-
|PCN02WPS
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Pendright
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|2
|
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|2
|
|
|
|-
|The ed17
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|2
|
|
|
|-
|TheDoctorWho
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Toadspike
|2
|
|
|
|-
|Z1720
|1
|1
|
|
|-
|2A00:FBC:E7FB:96FC:0:0:0:2
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Aza24
|1
|
|
|
|-
|BeanieFan11
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Bgsu98
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Borsoka
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Bruce leverett
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Cartoon network freak
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Chipmunkdavis
|1
|
|
|
|-
|CosXZ
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Crisco 1492
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Daniel Case
|1
|
|
|
|-
|DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dmass
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Dracophyllum
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Dunkleosteus77
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Elli
|1
|
|
|
|-
|ErnestKrause
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Figureskatingfan
|
|1
|
|
|-
|Ganesha811
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Gatoclass
|1
|
|
|
|-
|GGOTCC
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Gonzo fan2007
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Harper J. Cole
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Heartfox
|
|1
|
|
|-
|IgelRM
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Jon698
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Joy
|1
|
|
|
|-
|KJP1
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Kusma
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Lazman321
|1
|
|
|
|-
|LEvalyn
|
|1
|
|
|-
|LittleJerry
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Medxvo
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Michael Aurel
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Michael Bednarek
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Nub098765
|1
|
|
|
|-
|OlifanofmrTennant
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Reconrabbit
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Richard Nevell
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Rjjiii
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Sailing moose
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Sawyer777
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Shapeyness
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TenPoundHammer
|1
|
|
|
|-
|TheBritinator
|
|
|1
|
|-
|Trumpetrep
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Unlimitedlead
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Volcanoguy
|1
|
|
|
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|-
|WereSpielChequers
|1
|
|
|
|-
|ZKang123
|1
|
|
|
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''232'''
|'''37'''
|'''44'''
|
|-
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for July 2025}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!'''# declarations'''
! colspan="7" |'''Declaration'''
|-
!'''Editor'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose converted to support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Struck support'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Oppose'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''None'''
! data-sort-type="number" |'''Total'''
|-
|Nikkimaria
|
|
|
|
|
|25
|25
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|
|
|
|
|
|24
|24
|-
|SchroCat
|9
|
|
|
|2
|7
|18
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|6
|
|
|
|
|5
|11
|-
|Tim riley
|10
|
|
|
|
|1
|11
|-
|Hog Farm
|6
|
|
|
|
|4
|10
|-
|RoySmith
|6
|
|
|
|2
|2
|10
|-
|MSincccc
|8
|
|
|
|
|2
|10
|-
|Arconning
|3
|
|
|
|
|6
|9
|-
|Eddie891
|4
|
|
|
|
|4
|8
|-
|Aoba47
|4
|
|
|
|
|2
|6
|-
|HAL333
|5
|
|
|
|
|1
|6
|-
|Gog the Mild
|3
|
|
|
|
|3
|6
|-
|ImaginesTigers
|4
|
|
|
|
|2
|6
|-
|Dudley Miles
|4
|
|
|
|
|1
|5
|-
|Graham Beards
|4
|
|1
|
|
|
|5
|-
|Vacant0
|3
|
|
|
|
|2
|5
|-
|750h+
|3
|
|
|
|1
|1
|5
|-
|Noleander
|5
|
|
|
|
|
|5
|-
|Jimfbleak
|4
|
|
|
|
|
|4
|-
|Pokelego999
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Femke
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|3
|-
|Generalissima
|1
|
|
|
|
|2
|3
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|3
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Ippantekina
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|MaranoFan
|2
|
|
|
|
|1
|3
|-
|Jens Lallensack
|3
|
|
|
|
|
|3
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|2
|
|
|
|1
|
|3
|-
|Z1720
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Ceoil
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|FunkMonk
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Epicgenius
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Icepinner
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Toadspike
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Nick-D
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Chrishm21
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|2
|-
|Premeditated Chaos
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Parsecboy
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|John
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|Bruce1ee
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Howardcorn33
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Pendright
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|PCN02WPS
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|History6042
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|<none>
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Phlsph7
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|TheDoctorWho
|2
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Hawkeye7
|1
|
|
|
|
|1
|2
|-
|The ed17
|
|
|
|
|
|2
|2
|-
|Cartoon network freak
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Gonzo fan2007
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|LittleJerry
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Gatoclass
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Reconrabbit
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Aza24
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|CosXZ
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Rjjiii
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Sailing moose
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Wehwalt
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Dracophyllum
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Joy
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Chipmunkdavis
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|TenPoundHammer
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Figureskatingfan
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Crisco 1492
|
|
|1
|
|
|
|1
|-
|LEvalyn
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Harper J. Cole
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Volcanoguy
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Medxvo
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Trumpetrep
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|ZKang123
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Elli
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|KJP1
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Bgsu98
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|ErnestKrause
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Kusma
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|IgelRM
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Shapeyness
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Sawyer777
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Unlimitedlead
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|BeanieFan11
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|TheBritinator
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Dunkleosteus77
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|2A00:FBC:E7FB:96FC:0:0:0:2
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Bruce leverett
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Lazman321
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Nub098765
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Michael Bednarek
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Borsoka
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Dmass
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Ganesha811
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Michael Aurel
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|OlifanofmrTennant
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|WereSpielChequers
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Richard Nevell
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|GGOTCC
|1
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|-
|Heartfox
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|Daniel Case
|
|
|
|
|1
|
|1
|-
|Jon698
|
|
|
|
|
|1
|1
|-
|'''Totals'''
|'''148'''
|
|'''2'''
|
|'''9'''
|'''154'''
|'''313'''
|}
{{collapse bottom}}
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. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 00:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
{{cot|Nominators for May 2025 to July 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!
!Nominations (12 mos)
!Reviews (12 mos)
!Ratio (12 mos)
|-
|750h+
|9.0
|57.0
|6.3
|-
|AirshipJungleman29
|6.5
|40.0
|6.2
|-
|Aoba47
|2.0
|51.0
|25.5
|-
|AssociateAffiliate
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|BeanieFan11
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Brachy0008
|2.0
|8.0
|4.0
|-
|ChrisTheDude
|8.0
|54.0
|6.8
|-
|Curlymanjaro
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Epicgenius
|8.0
|20.0
|2.5
|-
|Fortuna imperatrix mundi
|2.0
|8.0
|4.0
|-
|FunkMonk
|1.8
|20.0
|11.4
|-
|GamerPro64
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|Generalissima
|12.0
|63.0
|5.2
|-
|Gerda Arendt
|2.0
|16.0
|8.0
|-
|Gog the Mild
|13.0
|85.0
|6.5
|-
|Hammersfan
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Hawkeye7
|8.0
|16.0
|2.0
|-
|Heartfox
|5.0
|16.0
|3.2
|-
|Hog Farm
|8.0
|69.0
|8.6
|-
|Ippantekina
|7.0
|15.0
|2.1
|-
|Jenhawk777
|2.5
|2.0
|0.8
|-
|Jo-Jo Eumerus
|6.0
|229.0
|38.2
|-
|Jolielover
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Jon698
|3.0
|9.0
|3.0
|-
|Lazman321
|3.0
|5.0
|1.7
|-
|Lililolol
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|LittleJerry
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|MaranoFan
|10.0
|19.0
|1.9
|-
|Medxvo
|3.0
|23.0
|7.7
|-
|MFTP Dan
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Min968
|3.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Noleander
|4.0
|36.0
|9.0
|-
|Parsecboy
|2.0
|5.0
|2.5
|-
|Phlsph7
|7.5
|23.0
|3.1
|-
|Pokelego999
|2.0
|6.0
|3.0
|-
|PSA
|2.5
|2.0
|0.8
|-
|Rollinginhisgrave
|2.0
|11.0
|5.5
|-
|Royiswariii
|4.0
|1.0
|0.2
|-
|RoySmith
|2.0
|53.0
|26.5
|-
|SchroCat
|19.5
|165.0
|8.5
|-
|Skyshifter
|5.0
|1.0
|0.2
|-
|SounderBruce
|2.0
|2.0
|1.0
|-
|TenPoundHammer
|3.0
|2.0
|0.7
|-
|TenthAvenueFreezeOut
|2.0
|1.0
|0.5
|-
|The Green Star Collector
|4.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Thebiguglyalien
|5.0
|7.0
|1.4
|-
|TheJoebro64
|2.0
|3.0
|1.5
|-
|Tim riley
|4.0
|70.0
|17.5
|-
|UndercoverClassicist
|6.0
|87.0
|14.5
|-
|Vacant0
|3.0
|32.0
|10.7
|-
|Vestrian24Bio
|2.0
|2.0
|1.0
|-
|Volcanoguy
|6.0
|5.0
|0.8
|-
|Voorts
|2.0
|3.0
|1.5
|-
|WeatherWriter
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|Z. Patterson
|2.0
|None
|0.0
|-
|ZKang123
|5.0
|9.0
|1.8
|-
|Zmbro
|3.0
|5.0
|1.7
|}
{{cob}}
There were an unusually large number of reviewers this month. Some of the FACs were also very long, and the [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2025|July featured log]] has hit the [[WP:PEIS|PEIS]] limit, so the last FAC on that page does not display. I had a quick look to try to find expensive templates but came up with nothing.
-- [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 00:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
: Has that been fixed, {{u|Mike Christie}}? If not, someone may need to go in and pick a very long FAC and move some of the comments from the FAC page to the talk page of that FAC, so that the archives will display. Sorry to see this problem continues, but you know my views on that :) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:: My gut says that the hidden table of DYK-type symbols in the spot-checks for [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terraria/archive1]] is causing a fair bit of this. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 14:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I have just taken those out. Let's see if it helps. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 15:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like it has fixed the issue. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 15:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
=== WP:FAS audit needed ===
I don't think it's fixed. I had another look and [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Easter Oratorio/archive1]] seems to be the most expensive, though I haven't looked to see why. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 17:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
: I wonder if the large amount of color-formatting text within in the collapsed section is magnifying the PEIS usage for both the collapse and the color-formatting. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 18:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:There seem to be 188 instances of the "tq" template, according to a cF of tq. That would do it! [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 18:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:It doesn't seem fixed, and if [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Truce of Malestroit/archive1]] is the 32nd promotion (dropping out because of limits), then the summary page is wrong, and something is wrong at [[WP:FAS]]. (That's how we discovered the problem initially -- the numbers didn't add up.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::It's now fixed. Yes, it looks like the count at [[WP:FAS]] is off by one, presumably because the last one was missed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 01:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Z1720}} ... could you look at the July numbers you input at [[WP:FAS]]? (I'm busy with doctors.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
There are other instances of the error above at [[WP:FAS]], so it needs an audit and for Coords et al to figure out what is going wrong with FAC archives, as in the error above. For example, at FAS
* The link to FAs at the end of April show 6,733 not 6,734
* 6,734 plus 6 (18 added, 12 delisted) is not 6,741, as shown for May. Doesn't work for 6,733 either, so double error now.
I haven't checked back further than that, but three errors on the page in four months, so a full audit is probably in order ... if there are errors in archives (as above), reflected in the tallies or the stats, we don't know how many FAs there actually are. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|CosXZ}} who has also worked on the FAS page recently. When you update the stats, you have to make sure the numbers add up. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for letting me know. ''[[User:CosXZ|Cos]]'' ''<sup>([[User talk:CosXZ|X]] + [[Special:Contributions/CosXZ|Z]])</sup>'' 03:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:No one? So I started.{{pb}} There were three errors in WP:FA and WP:FAS (!!!), compounding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&diff=prev&oldid=1292319923 this missed one] ({{u|Casliber}}). {{pb}}{{u|DrKay}} might you work your script magic to see if the number on the page now agrees with the tally reported? We had, after accounting for errors, 6,779 at end of July, 8 promotions so far, 7 demotions, so the tally is still off at 6,779. Still looking. Perhaps I got something wrong. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::The problem is probably [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&diff=prev&oldid=1306045710 here]. {{u|RobertG}} those have to go through FAR. {{ping|Nikkimaria}} -- everyone needs to keep better tabs on [[WP:FA]] because that would be now four errors in a short time span. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Hector_(2018)&diff=prev&oldid=1306058564 that is the problem]. Editors can't just remove an FA without leaving a record for FAR (we need a housekeeping FAR added to archives, as August deletions so far have been eight, not seven). [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
::: [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Hector (2018)/archive1]] will fix that piece; because there have been so many cumulative errors, it may still be worthwhile to run a check on the total number of FAs to make sure it's correct. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I think error fixes are done now. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&oldid=1307424081 FA tally shows 6,780], which agrees with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_statistics&oldid=1307392819 6,779 (three errors adjusted) at end of July] plus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2025&oldid=1307312320 10 promotions] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2025&oldid=1307423914 9 removals] to date. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:Cut and pasting the raw list and searching for double opening square brackets shows 6780 of them - it's only a way to double check, rather than a concrete method, but it at least supports your figure. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== Second nomination? ==
{{@FAC}} [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Abramson/archive1|Louis Abramson]] seems to be well on its way: 3 supports, a 4th review in progress and the image review done (I think). I only recently realized that December 1st is [[World AIDS Day]]. I know the timeline is tight, but [[Julio and Marisol]] is ready to go and it would be a great [[WP:TFA]] on that date if it were possible to make it work. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Like to see the source review first; if that's comes back okay I'd have no prob with another nom. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 06:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'll pick that up for you, Roy. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]])
== [[False title]]s: add guidance to Manual of Style? ==
In case anyone is interested in [[false title]]s, there is a [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Should_brief_guidance_on_False_titles_be_added_to_MOS?|discussion at MOS]] about whether to add guidance covering false ttiles. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 03:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
== Permission for second nomination? ==
May I have permission to initiate a second nomination? The article already in the FA nomination process is [[WP:Featured article candidates/Atlanta Compromise/archive1]], which has four Supports, no Opposes, and the image review and source review are complete, I believe.
[[Captain James Cook]] is the article I want to nominate next for FA. I've been working on it for months, and I've run out of improvements to make. It has been through two Peer Reviews (including four reviewers). I have all the sources and citations at the forefront of my mind, and they'll start to slip away if I move onto another article. But it is not big deal if I have to wait ... so don't be afraid to say "no" if that is best for FA. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
:Please, coords, say yes. I've watching @[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] obsess over this at PR for weeks wondering when he was finally going to admit that it's long since ready for FAC :-) [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 12:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:Go ahead. [[User:FrB.TG|FrB.TG]] ([[User talk:FrB.TG|talk]]) 19:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 21:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
== 49 open noms ==
{{@FAC}} were now at '''49 open nominations''', meaning this has only shrunk by ten noms since [[#Note to the coords|the last post on this]] which was less than a month ago. Although this is great as it shows FAC is thriving, there are a few noms that could be closed one way or another to slim the list down to a more manageable length. Cheers - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 19:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpu5a0Bl8eY There's almost a song in that]. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 22:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
::<small>And here I thought it was going to be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6qnRS36EgE 49 noms, just waiting for a close].</small> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 11:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
== Withdraw nomination for Xi'an Incident ==
I've been advised that it's a good idea to put an article through the GAN process before this one, so I'd like to withdraw my FAN for Xi'an Incident. Thanks!
[[User:SilverStar54|SilverStar54]] ([[User talk:SilverStar54|talk]]) 18:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
== What's up with reserving a spot? ==
One of the oddities I wondered about when I first started hanging out at FAC was people posting "Reserving my spot" notes. Now, two years later, I still don't understand it. I don't mean this in any unkind way, but what's the point of this? [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 12:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
: You mean in FAC reviewing? - While I don't do it, I understand it as meaning "I am planning to review but not now" and is welcome information. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sure people's reason differ, but I always take it as being a 'note to self' to remind someone of something they're going to do. If it drops off people's radars, the nom normally gives a gentle nudge to remind them, so everyone's happy. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed, it is a note to self that shows up in my contributions, and also lets the nom and coords know a review is coming, if they are concerned that there hasn't been a review. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I was wondering if there used to be some quota on how many reviews each nomination could have and people needed to reserve a slot lest other people grab them first. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Heh, nothing so elaborate -- as indicated above, just a notice of intent for the benefit of nominators and coords. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 16:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
== 2 Week: Start or End ==
Hello everyone, I was told when my nomination at [[Battle of 42nd Street]] was failed that I had to wait two weeks before renominating. Could anyone tell me if this means 2 weeks from nomination or 2 weeks from closing? Thank you, [[User:History6042|<span style="color:darkorange">History6042😊</span>]] '''([[User talk:History6042|<span style="color:blue">Contact me</span>]])''' 01:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
:From closing. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 02:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks for letting me know. [[User:History6042|<span style="color:darkorange">History6042😊</span>]] '''([[User talk:History6042|<span style="color:blue">Contact me</span>]])''' 02:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== Seeking a mentor for my first FAC nomination ==
I’m preparing to nominate [[Shalom Nagar]] (Israeli prison guard best known for executing Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann) as an FAC and would welcome the support/input of a mentor if anyone fancies it? This would be my first FAC nomination.
The article passed GA earlier this year and has since been expanded based on additional sources.
Many thanks for any guidance or direction offered. [[User:Jonathan Deamer|Jonathan Deamer]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Deamer|talk]]) 17:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
== MOS update ==
Of possible interest to this project, the MoS has been updated to incorporate information on [[false title]]s.
See: [[MOS:PSEUDOTITLE]]. [[User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">'''—'''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span>]], [[User talk:Fortuna imperatrix mundi|<span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span>]] 10:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
== Some thoughts on spotchecking ==
Following from the various discussions above, I undertook an informal experiment by making spotchecks part of my FAC reviews, and asking reviewers for one in my own nomination.
The articles in question were:
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive4|Abraham Lincoln]], nominated by {{u|ErnestKrause}} and {{u|Nikkimaria}}
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tell es-Sakan/archive1|Tell es-Sakan]], nominated by {{u|Richard Nevell}}
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser/archive1|Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser]], nominated by {{u|Parsecboy}}
* [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Brest (1342)/archive1|Siege of Brest (1342)]], nominated by {{u|Gog the Mild}}
My own nomination was [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georg Karo/archive1|Georg Karo]], which {{u|Kusma}} very kindly spotchecked; {{u|Tim riley}} also checked a couple of additional sources, and some of {{u|Choliamb}}'s comments were similar in concept.
While I didn't choose the articles with any particular criteria in mind -- they were simply the next ones that I would have decided to review anyway -- I'll note that they all seem to be "good" nominations (on first read, I expected to eventually support) from what I can see, with very experienced nominators. Lincoln and Tell es-Sakan subsequently passed and the other two seem to be well one the way. Karo has also been promoted.
Some sources are very easy to check (nice [[WP:FUTON|FUTON]] articles, books in [[WP:TWL|TWL]]), and some are a real pain in the neck; some support trivial details which are almost certainly true, and others hold up contentious or potentially [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY|extraordinary]] claims. [[Sod's law]] says that the latter are usually the tough ones. I tended to select my citations by scanning the article for the latter sort of claim and focusing on those, then taking what I considered to be a representative sample of the rest. For Lincoln, I checked about 25/c. 400; for Tell es-Sakan, five out of 83 (plus a couple of incidental statements cited to the same sources, which were all fine); for Prinz Adalbert, 10 out of about 50; for Brest, 10 out of about 70.
====Observations====
The most important bottom line up front -- ''all'' of the spotchecks found issues. None were "this nomination needs to be archived immediately", but many were issues that I would not have been comfortable seeing the article pass before they were fixed, and most were more serious than the sort of stylistic and readability concerns that I would normally have raised in a prose review. In addition to straightforward errors of reading and transcription, the sort of things in question included:
* Small details added to a source which were not actually included in it: sometimes these were found elsewhere, sometimes they could not be and had to be removed.
* It was fairly common for a chunk of material to be simply missing from the cited source, and to turn up in another one cited elsewhere -- probably because the nominator had lost track of the citations in the editing process.
* There were quite a few important changes of framing: for example, where the source presented something as a conjecture, story or rumour, and it was expressed as if a fact in the Wikipedia rendition.
* Less commonly, I came across sentences where the facts checked out, but important context in the source put a different spin on them -- for instance, a source giving two reasons for a person's actions, which were reduced to one in the article, or where a person's decision was presented but not the circumstances which arguably forced them into it.
* In my article, a translation error where I had misunderstood the German word {{lang|de|Evangelisch}} as meaning "Evangelical" rather than "Protestant".
From a workload point of view, I estimated that the spotchecking phase took about the same amount of effort, from my part as a reviewer, as the remainder of the review. Responding to the Georg Karo spotcheck was relatively quick, but probably took as long as responding to a medium-sized set of general comments. I did notice that nominators tended to be slower to respond to spotcheck comments, and often needed a nudge, when they had been very quick off the mark with prose fixes -- I don't know whether I'm justified in inferring from this that they put them off as a more laborious job?
{{u|Tim riley}} raised an important point about subject knowledge -- in many cases, it takes a degree of expertise to be sure that the source actually does support the point made, particularly if the terminology is equivalent but slightly different. Similarly, it's not uncommon for articles to be substantially based on sources not available in English and not easily amenable to Google Translate -- I can't be the only one who saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Image_and_source_check_requests&oldid=1304891809 this top note on the requests box] and wondered how on earth we were going to get that fulfilled (eventually, we didn't). For Georg Karo, the most important and most cited sources were in German, so it was very fortunate to have Kusma around as a native speaker.
====Tentative conclusions/recommendations====
* '''I think more people should do more spotchecks for repeat nominators'''. ''Pace'' some wise contributors, I think it's important that we continue to fuss over the minutiae of hyphens, dashes, semicolons and so on -- but if we're going to do that, we should also fuss over little things like whether our sources actually support what we write.
* '''I would have concerns about making spotchecks mandatory''': so much depends on the expertise of the checker and the approach taken that it would be easy to do a spotcheck as a box-ticking exercise. Holding out for that sort of thing would gum up the process with no real benefit to the articles. On the other hand, waiting for the perfect marriage of article, reviewer, time and opportunity would leave perfectly good articles sitting in a very long queue.
* '''I will probably carry on doing spotchecks in my own reviews''', but expect I may find that I scale them back. They're a noticeable workload increase on both sides, though my ''current'' view is that, even for a "good" nomination with an experienced nominator, they're worth the effort.
;Questions for the audience
* '''What's the "remit" of a source review/spotcheck?''' Obviously, a reviewer should check for obvious plagiarism, citations that clearly don't support the cited text, and so on, but what about, for example, "I don't think the source quite frames it like that" or "I would have included this detail from the source"?
* '''What should we do when the spotchecks come up with dirt?''' In the case of [[Abraham Lincoln]], almost every bucket I put down the well had ''something'' in it (though it should be said that some of these points were a little subjective). At Good Article level, I've had reviews from {{u|Mike Christie}} -- his approach, as I gather it, is to take three citations or so, and if any come up with a problem, give the nominator one more go at the same test. In this particular case, every one was fixed, but basic statistics says that if my random sample pulled up a lot of errors, the chances are that some of the untested citations had them too. Should I have opposed after the first batch, or checked every citation before supporting?
* '''Should there be "official" guidance as what a "good" spotcheck looks like?''' {{u|RoySmith}} (EDIT: and his many collaborators) have what is in my view [[Wikipedia:Spot checking sources|an excellent essay]] giving some advice, but actual practice varies considerably -- and may, I suspect, risk making nominators unhappy when a reviewer comes along with greater expectations than they're used to.
''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 11:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:A quick spot-check of the [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Spot_checking_sources editing history] shows that attributing this essay only to me would be a gross overstatement of the facts. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 11:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::Collective credit/blame now added. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 11:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::A note to say that my approach to spotchecking a GA review, mentioned by UC above, is indeed as described, but I would like to add a couple more details. I sometime pick more than three, but at GA I think that's rarely needed. (It's been a while since I've done FAC source reviews but I think more are needed for a FAC.) I don't pick them at random. UC describes how he picks them; I feel I can tell when a citation is more likely to need spotchecking, but it's hard to articulate (I've thought about writing an essay on it). I scan the article looking for citations that I think are the most likely to fail, or perhaps that would give me the most confidence if they succeed. If any fail I give the nominator another chance; I've done third chances on occasion, depending on how bad the failures are and how many there were. To answer UC's questions above: (1) the remit, certainly at FAC, should be to cover all the points UC suggests, though some, such as "I would have included this detail" may be presented as optional for the nominator to comply with; (2) I think second bites at the apple are justified, but beyond that it's a judgement call and I don't think it's going to be easy to legislate. Hog Farm has said in one or two spot checks he's done that once you lose faith, you can't pass the spot check even if you find no more errors; it's then time to archive or call in another source reviewer. (3) Given that a spotcheck that finds nothing wrong does not require the nominator to do any work, I don't think there's a problem with a reviewer doing a more detailed review. I would be surprised by a nominator who objected to a very detailed spotcheck; I'd be delighted if it happened to one of my own nominations. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 12:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:In general, discussions at FAC talk have evolved towards using the word ''spotcheck'' differently from how spotchecks were originally started at FAC. Ealdgyth started reviewing for source ''reliability'' in 2008. In 2010, ''spotchecks'' were started to look for ''copyright and plagiarism'' issues. Source-to-text integrity is a different and broader thing wrt all the criteria, and was presumed to be part of any Support declaration. {{pb}}I find the need to ask whether reviewers are checking sources and how; the need to remind them to check sources before supporting; and the implication that this is not routinely done at FAC concerning. It seems that the idea of a separate "spotcheck" has supplanted all of the review that should be part of any complete review. For some aspects of [[WP:WIAFA]], it is possible to ''separately'' check for MOS compliance or other minor items, and indicate whether that one aspect meets the criterion, but how are reviewers supporting an article without consulting sources and checking for source-to-text integrity? A support should not be entered if this most fundamental step hasn't been done, and that is how seriously deficient articles like [[Socrates Nelson]] got through. FAC has become increasingly focused on prose review and nitpicks, with Supports entered based (apparently?) on prose review alone, as if one can evaluate vs the criteria without close examination of sources. {{pb}}The idea that source reviewing (beyond plagiarism, a basic check for general reliability/quality of sources, and stylistic/MOS checks for how citations are written) can be separated from the overall review towards a Support is dangerous. Rather than official guidance on a good spotcheck (other than plagiarism, basic reliability and stylistic issues), there should be instead a push to encourage the Coords to disregard any Support that does not fully engage every aspect of [[WP:WIAFA]], and to remind reviewers that a Support based on a review of prose only is basically useless. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::I'm a relative newbie here, but I do note that [[WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE]] is explicit that you don't have to review every aspect: {{tq|A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria}}. In many cases, I'm reviewing articles in subject areas I know little about. Having me do a source review would be useless since I have no way to evaluate if the sources are appropriate for that field, or if there's important sources which were not consulted. I [[Special:Diff/1304418955|try to be explicit about that]] in my review so people know where I'm coming from. I don't think that's a bad thing. If only SMEs were to be reviewing articles, we wouldn't have anybody evaluating how well somebody has explained the topic in a way non-experts can understand.
::That being said, I do agree that a lot of reviews are nit-picking trivia. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 15:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::You don't have to review every aspect (an independent MOS review, or a check for citation consistency, is doable, for example -- or a jargon check from a non-topic expert), but entering a support declaration after some prose nitpicks, and without checking sources, is something to be discouraged. I understand that the gist of UC's queries is to establish better practices wrt source-to-text integrity, but want to make sure we're all clear on the big picture when we use the word "spotcheck". How can a Support be valid without consulting sources? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I think you are on a different page from the rest of us. It's always been the case that supports without consulting sources are valid: look at any month even back when you were a coord or whatever it was called back then, and nearly every mention of sourcing that goes beyond the completely superficial is from Ealdgyth only. I've tried to encourage the position that source-based reviewing is ''stronger'' than purely prose-based, but it's not like the latter has ever been completely invalid. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes -- we over-relied on Ealdgyth, so that when we lost her, it was a problem. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand the point you're making, {{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}}, but what you're describing (that an unqualified support vote should include vouching that the article meets [[WP:TSI]]) hasn't reflected actual practice in any of the FACs I've been involved in over the last two years or so. Even taking [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2011|a sample]] by looking at the March 2011 nominations, I can't see any direct evidence in just almost any of the support votes that the reviewer had checked TSI at all. Whether this ''should'' be the case is another matter, but in practice I think you're proposing a change to the (de facto) status quo rather than reminding people of what it is. {{pb}}[[WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE]] says {{tq|To support a nomination, write '''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text.}}, which only strictly requires that a) a support has at least one reason behind it and b) that reviewers, ideally, read the whole article. It doesn't legislate on what those reasons should be and, arguably, gives permission not to check the sources via [[the exception that proves the rule|specifying that the reviewer should have read the ''text'']]. Again, whether this ''should'' be the case is another matter. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]</sup> 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||