.png)
Featured articles (FA) show off ourbest work to the world and serve as a powerful model for all of Wikipedia's articles. Thefeatured article process (FAC) is vital to setting and maintaining our standards of verification, writing and formatting. To complement the FAnominations/archiving process, thefeatured article review process (FAR) enables the review and updating of articles that already have the bronze star. Both FAC and FAR pages are dynamic places where you'll meet and work with talented Wikipedia editors. It's a role on Wikipedia that people tend to notice; it involves a significant responsibility in setting and maintaining our high standards, and involves interacting with highly motivated people.
Some nominations are not promoted simply because not enough reviewers look at the article. The solution to this problem? More reviewers! All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC and FAR; reviews that are well grounded in an understanding of thefeatured article standards are most helpful. We've put together a list of frequently asked questions:
Featured articles are reviewed against thefeatured article criteria. Many reviewers choose to specialize in just a few criteria, or even one criterion. For example, some reviewers write critical appraisals solely of whether an article:
Even more specialized, some reviewers become experienced at checking important issues such as:
Other reviewers, when they approach a featured article that is close to their field of expertise, turn into content reviewers, judging whether the material isfactually accurate and/orneutral. This is, of course, an extremely valuable part of the process.
Some of the criteria may seem subjective to new reviewers; it's helpful to read some recentlypromoted andnot promoted candidate pages and articles to see how the criteria were applied, and then to watchthe FAC andFAR pages for a time to see how other reviewers apply the standards. Comments from editors who may not yet understand the standards can still be helpful and are welcome. It's often best to start by reviewing an article that is well down on the list, so you can benefit from seeing other reviewers' comments.
Relax, you don't have to review all the articles atFAC orFAR. Some people review only one article; others are FAC or FAR "regulars" and review several dozen each month. At any given moment a wide variety of topics are represented at FAC and FAR; you might choose to review only articles about a topic that particularly interests you, likecricket, popular culture, orbird species, or you might choose to specialize in reviewing articles for a specific criterion, like MOS compliance, reliable sources or compelling prose.
At FAC, a reviewer is expected to leave comments, prefaced byOppose,Support, orComments.New reviewers are encouraged to leave onlyComments until they are sure they understand the criteria. Some reviewers enterFixes needed and return in a few days to see if the issues were addressed, and may then switch toOppose orSupport.
All comments and opposes should be actionable, giving the nominator enough information to understand and fix the issues you have outlined. For example, "Oppose, too short", is not an actionable oppose, but if you demonstrate the article is not comprehensive, thatis actionable. Give examples, where appropriate, and link to the appropriate WP guideline or policy. For example, if you find that an article's prose is not compelling and brilliant, it's not necessary to analyze the entire article, but rather to give enough examples to demonstrate that additional copyedit attention is needed. Any comments that are not actionable will not be considered by theFA director or his delegate(s) when theyarchive or promote the nominated article.
Supports should also follow the featured article criteria. "Support because this is an awesome topic" is not a valid support reason. If you were a major contributor to the article, please note that when you support.
If you evaluated only a subset of the criteria, please note that with your comments. That way other reviewers will see what gaps they need to try to fill.
Thefeatured article review page runs at a more measured pace than FAC; nominations are at FAR for at least a month.Declarations toKeep orRemove an article's featured status are not made during the review phase; during the first two weeks (the review phase), reviewers discuss deficiencies. If deficiencies are not addressed, the article may move to the featured article removal candidate phase, where reviewers declareKeep orRemove, also based onthe FA standards.
| Also this week: | ||
| (← Previous Dispatches) | Signpost archives | (Next Dispatches→) |
The quote is SO abstruse. Most readers won't get it. (I still find it hard.) I wouldn't use it unless it can be led into more explicitly.Tony(talk)02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you do finally understand it, you realise it's implying that the editor should attract they type of fly-by reviewers who descend on SImpsons, etc. Very dangerous. You really have to be an FAC insider to get it, and that's not our target audience here.
---Featured articles (FA) show off ourbest work to the world and serve as a powerful model for all of Wikipedia's articles. Thefeatured article process (FAC) is vital to setting and maintaining our standards of verification, writing and formatting. To complement the FA nominations/archiving process, thefeatured article review process (FAR) enables the review and updating of articles that already have the gold star. Both FAC and FAR pages are dynamic places where you'll meet and work with talented Wikipedia editors. It's a role on Wikipedia that people tend to notice.
Some nominations are not promoted simply because not enough reviewers look at the article.Featured article writer. The solution to this problem? More reviewers! All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC and FAR, but reviews well grounded in an understanding offeatured article standards are most helpful. Editors who have submitted articles to FAC are encouraged to return the favor and review other articles; articles can't be promoted without review, and one way to get more reviews is for frequent nominators to give more reviews. We've put together a list of frequently asked questions:
It still relies on knowing that The Simpsons et al are frequent topics. It's very laboured. Maybe I'm not understanding something here.
There are three "nots" in one sentence.
Tony(talk)02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy et al, I wonder whether we could grab them with a more dynamic title than "Reviewing featured articles"? I have rootling around my mind phrase such as "Achieving excellence on Wikipedia: reviewing featured articles", or "A most valuable role: become a featured article reviewer", or something like that ... What do you think?Tony(talk)13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...Isn't it supposed to be bronze? I thought I'd cower fromWP: BOLD and ask on the talk page. Thanks.AshnardTalkContribs18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This tincture of self-praise by three reviewers should be marked as opinion piece; it is not factual reporting.SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
