Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

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

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

Image/source check requests

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

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

FAC source reviews

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

"only one nomination at a time"

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

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

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

This seems like a good idea -- the current blurb certainly doesn't reflect the rules as implemented. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've been bold and added it. It now reads "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor should only add a second sole nomination with the specific approval of the coordinators after the first has gained significant support." I've left in the 'sole nominator' wording as that is the default that editors can follow without needing permission. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that's now contradictory. Could I propose ""An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support." It's tricky to find a form of words that is both accurate and vaguely comprehensible! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

  Much better. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for February 2025

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for February 2025. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers for February 2025

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 2 2 14 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 14 MSincccc 14 1 Crisco 1492 6 2 5 Gog the Mild 11 SchroCat 5 5 DoctorWhoFan91 4 2 2 Tim riley 8 Graham Beards 6 History6042 6 Matarisvan 6 RoySmith 5 1 UndercoverClassicist 6 Borsoka 5 Hog Farm 5 Mike Christie 5 Premeditated Chaos 4 1 AirshipJungleman29 4 Aoba47 2 2 Boneless Pizza! 4 Fortuna imperatrix mundi 2 1 1 Hurricanehink 4 Toadspike 3 1 UpTheOctave! 4 ChrisTheDude 3 Dudley Miles 3 Dunkleosteus77 2 1 Edwininlondon 2 1 Esculenta 3 Heartfox 3 Kusma 3 LEvalyn 3 Noleander 3 Dylan620 2 ErnestKrause 2 FrB.TG 2 Gerda Arendt 2 Guerillero 2 ImaginesTigers 2 LunaEclipse 2 Rollinginhisgrave 2 SnowFire 2 Surtsicna 2 TompaDompa 2 ZooBlazer 2 185.237.102.58 1 3family6 1 750h+ 1 Aa77zz 1 Arcticocean 1 AryKun 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 Brachy0008 1 Bruce leverett 1 Cmguy777 1 Epicgenius 1 Femke 1 Generalissima 1 Hawkeye7 1 Ian Rose 1 Iazyges 1 Ippantekina 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Jimfbleak 1 Kanguole 1 KN2731 1 Leafy46 1 Medxvo 1 NegativeMP1 1 Phlsph7 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 Plantdrew 1 Rodney Baggins 1 Royiswariii 1 Shapeyness 1 Shooterwalker 1 SilverTiger12 1 Steelkamp 1 TheAstorPastor 1 Tintor2 1 Unlimitedlead 1 Urve 1 Vacant0 1 Volcanoguy 1 Wildfireupdateman 1 蒙古天骄 1 Totals 204 36 28

Supports and opposes for February 2025

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 2 16 18 MSincccc 13 1 1 15 Jo-Jo Eumerus 1 14 15 Crisco 1492 5 7 13 Gog the Mild 7 1 1 2 11 SchroCat 4 1 5 10 DoctorWhoFan91 3 5 8 Tim riley 8 8 RoySmith 2 4 6 Graham Beards 5 1 6 History6042 5 1 6 Matarisvan 6 6 UndercoverClassicist 3 1 2 6 Borsoka 5 5 Hog Farm 5 5 Mike Christie 5 5 Premeditated Chaos 4 1 5 Hurricanehink 3 1 4 AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2 4 Boneless Pizza! 2 2 4 UpTheOctave! 4 4 Fortuna imperatrix mundi 2 2 4 Aoba47 4 4 Toadspike 1 3 4 Kusma 3 3 Heartfox 1 2 3 Noleander 2 1 3 Dunkleosteus77 1 2 3 Edwininlondon 2 1 3 ChrisTheDude 3 3 Dudley Miles 2 1 3 Esculenta 1 1 1 3 LEvalyn 3 3 SnowFire 1 1 2 TompaDompa 1 1 2 Gerda Arendt 1 1 2 Rollinginhisgrave 1 1 2 ImaginesTigers 1 1 2 Guerillero 1 1 2 ZooBlazer 1 1 2 Dylan620 1 1 2 Surtsicna 2 2 FrB.TG 1 1 2 LunaEclipse 2 2 ErnestKrause 2 2 Tintor2 1 1 AryKun 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 SilverTiger12 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Arcticocean 1 1 Rodney Baggins 1 1 3family6 1 1 Generalissima 1 1 Brachy0008 1 1 750h+ 1 1 Wildfireupdateman 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Femke 1 1 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 1 1 Kanguole 1 1 Vacant0 1 1 Leafy46 1 1 Plantdrew 1 1 Royiswariii 1 1 Phlsph7 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Aa77zz 1 1 TheAstorPastor 1 1 Unlimitedlead 1 1 KN2731 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Iazyges 1 1 Volcanoguy 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 Bruce leverett 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 Cmguy777 1 1 Jimfbleak 1 1 蒙古天骄 1 1 Urve 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 1 185.237.102.58 1 1 Medxvo 1 1 Totals 135 1 2 24 105 268

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Nominators for December 2024 to February 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 8.0 61.0 7.6 AirshipJungleman29 7.0 43.0 6.1 Amir Ghandi 3.0 None 0.0 Aoba47 3.0 53.0 17.7 AssociateAffiliate 3.0 None 0.0 BernaBotto 2.0 None 0.0 Boneless Pizza! 4.0 17.0 4.2 Chrishm21 2.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 10.0 66.0 6.6 Crisco 1492 4.0 52.0 13.0 David Fuchs 2.0 11.0 5.5 EF5 3.0 1.0 0.3 Eiga-Kevin2 2.0 None 0.0 Epicgenius 8.0 21.0 2.6 Ganesha811 3.0 3.0 1.0 Generalissima 11.0 79.0 7.2 Gog the Mild 6.0 82.0 13.7 Hawkeye7 6.0 7.0 1.2 Heartfox 7.0 30.0 4.3 Hog Farm 7.0 58.0 8.3 Hurricanehink 3.5 25.0 7.1 Ippantekina 6.0 9.0 1.5 Jenhawk777 2.0 3.0 1.5 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 237.0 39.5 Kiril Simeonovski 2.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 3.5 5.0 1.4 Lisha2037 2.0 None 0.0 LittleJerry 1.5 2.0 1.3 Llewee 3.0 8.0 2.7 LunaEclipse 2.0 15.0 7.5 M4V3R1CK32 3.0 None 0.0 MaranoFan 7.0 15.0 2.1 MFTP Dan 2.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 7.0 61.0 8.7 NegativeMP1 3.0 12.0 4.0 PanagiotisZois 2.0 3.0 1.5 Phlsph7 6.0 20.0 3.3 Premeditated Chaos 8.3 46.0 5.5 PSA 3.0 4.0 1.3 Royiswariii 3.0 1.0 0.3 RoySmith 3.0 43.0 14.3 SafariScribe 3.0 3.0 1.0 SchroCat 16.5 165.0 10.0 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 Sohom Datta 2.0 6.0 3.0 Thuiop 2.0 1.0 0.5 UndercoverClassicist 7.0 94.0 13.4 Vacant0 2.0 18.0 9.0 Vanderwaalforces 2.0 None 0.0 Volcanoguy 6.0 8.0 1.3 XR228 2.0 1.0 0.5 Z1720 3.0 19.0 6.3 ZKang123 4.0 11.0 2.8

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much it matters, but I see that my review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oriental Stories/archive1 was counted as a source review rather than a content review. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; now fixed in the list above and in the tool's database. I don't know if this is how you spotted it, but for the benefit of anyone who wants to see what was counted for which FACs, the data on which these reports are based is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Forever & Always

A discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Forever & Always, BLP in lyrics could use some more input. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Source reviews of translated content

If I translate a featured article in another language, do I have to possess the physical sources in question to be able to pass a source review in English? I seek to make Alice in Chains (album) a feature in time for making the front page on its 30th anniversary; by and large, it is complete and I am ready to send it to candidacy following a speedy copyedit. Some very impressive work has been done on all the albums by this band on the Russian Wikipedia; they're all relatively recent FAs. The sources in question are (mostly, if not all) English-language heavy metal magazines which, all things considered, would be at the top of the chain in musical journalism. My work in quoting any material has been very sparing, so that should not be an issue. I was hoping we could AGF that the sources were used correctly if we compare to the native promoted version, at worst case scenario.

Some of these sources do have scans available that I can access, but they're not kosher to link directly to on Wikipedia (I don't think). Yes, I know I should have thought of all this and asked way earlier in the process, but I had the ball rolling already. If this is feasible, I'll nominate immediately. I did also post in the community's Discord chat about this. mftp dan ^oops 01:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I clicked through to the Russian version of that article and clicked on the first English-language source to catch my eye - this one, meant to be supporting a claim comparing the sound of the album to Cream, Crosby, Stills and Nash, and The Allman Brothers. That source mentions none of those groups. So, small sample - but not inspiring confidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for pointing this out. This is a placement error on the parts of both languages. There is sourcing for this information, but the specific bands come from Rolling Stone, not the LAT. Not as big a deal as I initially thought, I've fixed it. mftp dan ^oops 22:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's questionable to submit an article to FAC when you don't have physical access to all the sources employed there. Physical access - translation issues are a problem too but less so than not being able to check the source at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to link to the sources on Wikipedia, but you do need to be able to produce them (for example via e-mail or by giving some excerpts) if challenged. People misread sources all the time, even in enwiki FAs. A translation can further alter the meaning, and translating what Russians say about an American rock band easily involves two instances of translation, which is just not safe. If you do not have access to the original sources, then WP:SAYWHERE says you should cite your actual source, which in this case would probably be the Russian Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. —Kusma (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

(Incidentally, the sources issue is why I have stopped translating articles from other Wikipedias. I find it more fun to just take as many as possible of the sources of some foreign article and to write a new article from scratch based on those sources). —Kusma (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You guys were right, there are inherently problems which can arise by simply taking the words as gold, as Nikkimaria pointed out above. But I got lucky this time. As it turns out, there are scans available for every magazine used in the Russian FA. I have a place of reference to check now, and I think this is doable. mftp dan ^oops 22:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk page

@FAC coordinators: In regards to dusky dolphin FAC page; Roy Smith has stated on his talk page that "I will say that what you've got now is substantially better than what it was when I first looked at it,". Does this negate his initial concerns on the FAC page? LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, reviewers will explicitly comment when they support an article's promotion. Remsense ‥ 论 23:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Not really what I mean. I mean will this initial concerns not be taken into account in the final decision. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I generally trust the FAC coordinators to suss out whether there's consensus to promote an article. If they're not sure whether someone supports promotion, they can always ask. Remsense ‥ 论 01:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Adjusting FAC header to match actual norms (2 points)

Like the thread above WT:FAC#"only one nomination at a time", it seems due time to make sure the FAC header actually reflects the norms of the process. There seem like two major gaps which should be mentioned (the exact wording is certainly improvable):

1. A nomination needs a successful source and image review to be passed: During the process, nominations are required to pass both a source and image review.
2. First-time noms require a spotcheck: Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators, although they are suggested for all candidates.

Although these two things may seem obvious to regulars, they are not actually mentioned at all in the header. It seems worthwhile to create less surprises for new nominators, and be explicit about current expectations. Aza24 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Point two ("suggested for all candidates") isn't right. It's not a guideline I have heard about or common practice for anyone. Spotchecks can be carried out on any FAC, this is true, but I've never heard it said that it is "suggested for all candidates". - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat I may have just worded that poorly, maybe "welcomed for all candidates." I was trying to clarify that although they're required for new nominators, that doesn't mean they're not allowed for long-time nominators. Aza24 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Then why not just "Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators." It removes any ambiguity or overstretch. I think we're nudging up against instruction creep with this. The instruction section is already long (and probably mostly unread by people), so I wonder if we really need this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Maybe the second suggestion nudges, but the first seems like a major oversight given that source/image reviews are a long-time staple of the process. Aza24 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Would support Additionally, reference spotchecks are required for first-time nominators. (and, against the risk of arguing about the bikeshed, suggest that the first suggested change is likely to be uncontroversial). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Schro is right about instruction creep. Certainly the first point about image and source reviews is unnecessary given the FAC criteria spell out the requirements for properly licensed images and reliable sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree: the FAC criteria mandate a lot of things that don't have specific, must-do reviews for them. For example, we don't generally have specifically-titled MoS reviews, accessibility reviews, comprehensiveness reviews, and so on. Being clear that an article needs "Source review: pass" and "Image review: pass" is, I think, useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The Good Article instructions say a GA review must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers, and that no copyrighted material has been added to the article from the source. (emphasis original).Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

FA passing with one oppose

Can an FAC pass even with one oppose if it has more supports and passed an image and source review? LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

FACs can pass with opposes. The most recent was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al-Altan/archive1, a couple of months ago, with one oppose; the most recent to pass with two opposes was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brighton hotel bombing/archive1, less than a year ago, which had an oppose and a source review oppose. There are (old) FACs with more than half a dozen opposes which passed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to note that Brighton hotel bombing had two passing source reviews which negated the first (out-of-process) source oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

There is an RfC concerning forcing wikilinks of newspapers into references at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_work_field_and_reflinks. Given this will make the formatting of a large number of citations on FAs or nominations inconsistent, it may be of interest. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)