Archives

Archives for former FARC process Archive 1: May 2004 – Feb 2005;Archive 2: Mar 2005 – Sep 2005;Archive 3: Oct 2005 – Feb 2006;Poll: Mar 2006 poll on policy;Archive 4: Feb 2006 – Jun 2006 Archives for current FAR process archive 1: to July 2006;archive 2: to Sep 2006 archive 3: to Dec 2006;archive 4: to Feb 2007; archive 5: to mid Jun 2007;archive 6: to Jul 2007 archive 7: to Jan 2008;archive 8: to Feb 2009 archive 9: to Mar 2010;archive 10: Apr 2010 to 2011 archive 11: 2012;archive 12: 2013–2018 archive 13: 2019–2021;archive 14: 2021–2022 archive 15: 2023–

See also:Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination,Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 andthe Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

		The Patience Barnstar
		To the FAR coordinators. For showing skill and patience during the sudden uptick in FAR processing - looking at the archives, FAR hasn't been this busy in years. I have to imagine it's a thankless job, but it keeps the process going, and y'all have been doing a good job at balancing allowing time for article improvements and not letting the page get unmanageable due to length. And looking atWP:FARGIVEN, the higher throughput may be coming for awhile yet. Thanks for being patient with a process that's probably a lot busier than anticipated.Hog FarmTalk06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes—second this 100%! (t ·c)buidhe06:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• They are all awesome!SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors that watch this page: the activity level at FAR has decreased in recent weeks, and there are lots of articles that need reviewers. Some are ready for additional comments so that they can be declared "keep". Others are for articles with few or no recent edits, and need reviewers to determine if the articles should be delisted. Either way, reviewers will prevent these FARs from stalling (and maybe inspire you to fix up an FA?) Feel free to post any of your questions below. Thanks for all of your help.Z1720 (talk)23:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing per full FA criteria is not my dance. But if there is a place for someone to help regarding general article quality (acknowledging that that is only a portion of FA criteria) I could help there. Let me know if that is of interest. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)23:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Reviews of general article quality are always welcome. In thier comments, editors can choose to note what they did/did not review, and small reviews are still helpful. At FARC (the second half of the page) a coordinator notes what the review's concerns were and editors can choose to focus their comments on determining if those concerns are still present.Z1720 (talk)23:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think I could help. It looks like its a matter of just picking one and starting to make review comments? Sincerely,North8000 (talk)13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (t ·c)buidhe13:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some FAR statuses:

Minneapolis is actively being worked on

Wilberforce, Concerto delle donne, Tubman, Sex Pistols, Jefferson Davis, Andrew Jackson, Redwoods, and Doolittle have all seen significant work but it is not clear if the articles are ready for FAR closure

Arbuthnot, Proteasome, Baden-Powell House, and (to a lesser extent) Arena (countermeasure) are all trending towards delisting

Chrono Cross may be ready to close, needs further reviewers

Status is unclear for Kreutz sungrazer, Marjora's Mask, Geography of Ireland, Hurricane Dean, and Olm

I'm not sure about Attalus or Edward III, and Ethan Hawke was just opened.

At least that's my take on where everything currently stands.Hog Farm_Talk15:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HF; I am road-tripping for eclipse viewing, but will try to get back in the saddle this week.SandyGeorgia (Talk)16:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When Minneapolis is done, I would be happy do an occasional review for other articles, maybe along the lines of North8000 although I don't have much experience with GAs and FAs. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. Long before this thread started I wondered if what I learn in Minneapolis could be applied to more articles. Once upon a time Minneapolis was a model forWP:USCITIES. Wikipedia needs more geography articles at featured status, otherwise editors who try are twisting in the wind without examples to follow. I have two FAs and four GAs under my belt. If that's not enough, kindly let me know. (Wikipedia has plentiful places in need of help.) -SusanLesch (talk)14:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This puts you into the upper echelon of experienced users. People with a quarter of your experience would still be appreciated as reviewers.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)16:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to re-emphaize, my limitation is that my review scope is narrower than the full FA criteria. I've gotten 2 FA rescue awards and took one article to FA (and article of the day)SS Edmund Fitzgerald but in all cases got help from others on some of the more detailed FA criteria (like reference formatting). Sincerely,North8000 (talk)17:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Firefangledfeathers. North8000, here's hoping we reach anotherKeep soon. -SusanLesch (talk)19:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF, thank you for the helpful status update. I think Tubman is ripe for final reviews and !votes. I'm still working on Redwood and would appreciate more time, though I've already taken so much!Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What eBook supplier do you recommend? I tried Kindle (and its cloud reader) and Rakuten Kobo. One has its own made up "locations" but no page numbers, and one gives its own made up page numbers by chapter (like "page 2 of 33" for a 200 page book). Google eBooks is more expensive but gives different numbers than were in the article (perhaps from a hard copy, I don't know). I use Mac OS and suspect all the help pages for these companies were written by Windows users. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk)16:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch I don't have an answer, but when citing ebooks, you can avoid the page number problem by using the loc= parameter in an sfn to indicate a section or chapter name, eg, seeDementia with Lewy bodies#References.SandyGeorgia (Talk)16:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For history research, archive.org combined withWP:TWL andsome other stuff gives me probably the best range/accuracy combination. Don't know about other areas.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. So nobody has an eBook supplier that is a reliable source? -SusanLesch (talk)18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple workarounds:

1. Search a text snippet on Google Books, which will usually find the exact page number
2. Cite a short chapter or section using the |loc= field instead of a page number (no more than 5-10 pages)
3. If all else fails put|loc=search "a short string" that uniquely identifies where the information occurs in the file

(t ·c)buidhe18:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. If the Internet Archive and Google Books can preserve a book's integrity with correct page numbers for free, I dare not call these other guys publishers. They must be jokers. -SusanLesch (talk)19:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia talk:Featured articles#Pre-2003 Brilliant Prose donated to the coordinators.SandyGeorgia (Talk)18:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to start with this; it looks like most of the article is plot. Is that how character articles are written wrt modern standards?SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's how they were written to 2007 standards  :) Is there a way to tell who fired up the bot thatclosed the discussion?Serial17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know full wellwho it was, SN :)Extraordinary Writ (talk)17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The things we do in the name of consensus <sigh>; that one's not so bad (I know where the bodies are buried).SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Honestly, It never occurred to me to check the logs. Bots automatically confuse me, I admit. Remember whatThe Turk says: "You think too much of me, kid. I'm not that clever." (Apologies for: "kid"!). SorrySandy! *facepalm*Serial17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need; there's often a backstory. And the standards were what they were back then. Anyway, as far as how to tell, Gimmetrow/Gimmebot added the feature of identifying who promoted/archived somewhere around the middle of 2008. Prior to 2008, almost all promotions were Raul (I did a very very few at the end of 2007, right after I was named delegate, and then took a month off for an unpleasant encounter with Arbcom and a now-banned user, with consequences that still reverberate in my life today). After that, and until the bot started identifying the closers, most of 2008 were mine (wait 'til URFA moves beyond 2006 and 2007 and more of my favorite bad ones surface :). But the definitive way to tell who promoted is to check who actually added the article toWP:FA, and compare to the archives, as sometimes I was cleaning up promotions where Raul forgot to add them. SN, I like the facepalm; it means I can get more sources out of you!SandyGeorgia (Talk)18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is aFeatured Article Save Award nomination atWikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status.SandyGeorgia (Talk)00:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is aFeatured Article Save Award nomination atWikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status.SandyGeorgia (Talk)23:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I learned from last weekend wikiconference about the existence of FAR process with the focus on FAs promoted in the 2000s. So I went here to look at the process and I just have one comment (and my apologies in advance if this had probably been discussed before): The three requisite stages do not involve informing the original FA nominator of the potential de-list from FA status, do we have a reason why that is, and can we improve the requisite steps?

With the current process, we only notify on the article talk page, not user talk page, and othe riginal nominator(s) would not see that unless they regularly log in and monitor their watchlist. Editors active before 2010 (who brought articles to FA status then) may not be active now, but who knows, there might be a chance that they'd be interested in going back and saving articles, were they to be informed about the existence of FAR.

I would suggest, if it were not too much trouble, that we add a step to inform the FA nominator on their talk page, and preferably by email (for those who enable emails). I understand this will take time and while I cannot provide a technical solution, I imagine a bot can run through the original FA nomination, pick up the signature of the nominator, quickly identify who that is and then shoot an email.

I am nowhere near active now as I was before 2010 but if one day my FA deteriorates to the point that it comes up on FAR, I would appreciate the email notification. I don't have my FA article on my watchlist in the first place so I just went ahead and added it to my watchlist, but even that would not work with the unfortunately long intervals between my logins these days. --PeaceNT (talk)17:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators are typically informed on their talk page at the beginning of the second stage, as per the instructions under "Nominating an article for FAR".Nikkimaria (talk)17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to know! Would it make sense to do this in the requisite stage as well? --PeaceNT (talk)17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PeaceNT -- Not really; if the original nominator no longer has an FA watchlisted, it's probably because they're gone or no longer care; the firstWP:URFA/2020 notices often sit there for months or years. Many URFA/2020 reviewers are conscientious about noticing an FA, and do ping the original nominators when entering an URFA review, and several of us keep an eye on that at the time a FARGIVEN notice is added, but the reality is that most FAs that deteriorate do so precisely because the original nominator is gone or no longer has the interest. And there is already such a high burden on FAR nominations, that it could discourage review-- it takes a long time to get through all the steps already! By the way, thanks for the interest! In terms of more background info, it might want to study up onthis Signpost article to see how you can dig in, and be aware ofWP:FARGIVEN as well. It would also be nice to know what else you heard about the FA and FAR process at this conference. Was there awareness ofWP:URFA/2020? Should we expect a sudden uptick here ?SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight. I cannot speak for others just me and I personally took my nominated FA off my watchlist after the promotion, to avoid a heavy watchlist (at that time) and move on to another page. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate to be notified or a chance to help out if my FA were under risk. Still, you must be right, with your long experience here contacting old nominators from the 2000s... Agreed that it may not be worth the extra efforts. FWIW I looked through the FA I came back here to check and fortunately it is now still in good shape. As for the conference, there were two interesting talks on FA and on FAR process, among other lectures. I cannot say anything about future upticks because there are various topics in the conference and as always people listen to what they like and work on areas that interest them. I am aware it's not easy work around here and I appreciate yours and other regulars' efforts. --PeaceNT (talk)03:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see:Buidhe andZ1720, dotellall. I've been so busy dealing with bad edit-a-thon edits hitting my watchlist, and I finally figured out this conference was the problem ... so I'm glad to know at least we were well represented!SandyGeorgia (Talk)03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeaceNT: Thanks for attending my talk at the conference! It is true that at the "Noticed" phase (Step 1) FAC nominators and other significant contributors are not pinged. Even so, I have sometimes pinged these editors if I know the editor is active and usually responsive to the notices. Some editors have liked the ping, others have responded negatively, and I don't ping if the editor has declared that they are retired (or if they are deceased). It's really a case-by-case basis. I don't think I like the email idea as some editors might interpret that as spam or bugging them to "fix up an article" when they haven't edited Wikipedia for 10+ years.

Something that also needs to be taken into consideration is that an article can be demoted and re-nominated at FAC. Maybe we need to include a notice to editors after the demotion that explains this so that they might be encouraged to fix up the article when they return.

@SandyGeorgia: and others: If you want to see the slides of my talk, a link ishere. It discussed URFA/2020 and FAR. I welcome anyone who wants to join in and help out, and I am happy to answer any questions!Z1720 (talk)14:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, Z ... exactly the sort of FA process leadership I've been banging the drum about. Is there any feedback from Buidhe or you that we should know about ?SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My talk was not about changing FAC at all, it was about helping interested editors learn more about the process and be prepared to succeed at FAC if they tried it. (t ·c)buidhe19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Sounds cool. 5,000 miles away, and I reckon I could have done with the pointers!  ;)——Serial20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Understand the point about perceived spamming. I've given it further thoughts and no long wish to suggest another step in the workload. Thanks for the efforts --PeaceNT (talk)18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeaceNT: back to your original point. If someone's gone to the trouble of re/writing an article to FA status, it is generally assumed, I think, that they are the most personally invested in it—in a positive way—and will thus be watching it. And if one does watch one's FAs, one sees the various notices they generate over the years. Of course, if one decides to take that article off their watch list, for whatever reason—which, of course, one has every right to do—one then abrogates themself of the right to get notices. One cannot expect other editors to manually check a) who nominated the article originally and b) whether they are still active at every point during FAR. I'd suggest that if one is sufficiently concerned to prevent an article from reaching this stage, one should keep a shepherd's eye on it. But if one chooses not to, then surely one cannot expect it to be done for them. HTH, and happy editing!— Precedingunsigned comment added bySerial Number 54129 (talk •contribs) 20:01, November 15, 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Fair enough. I initially thought a bot could do it but as this is manual work done, I understand it not worth the time. Thanks --PeaceNT (talk)18:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just launched my first FAR (atWikipedia:Featured article review/FC Barcelona/archive1) sinceFrB.TG kindly added the new line to the pre-load, to help eliminate confusion over why an active discussion is occurring at a page with archive in the page title; it works, thank you FrB.TG.

It was installedhere initially, and then adjustedhere based on subsequent feedback at WT:FAC. The best wording may be different for FAC vs. FAR, and I think what we ended up with isn't optimal for FAR. I suggest going back to:

• As of (date) this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.

"An FAR coordinator" is awkward, FAR is a two-phase process, and I think the wording "be responsible for closing the nomination" chosen at FAC sub-optimal.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the proposed wording for FAR. I think "consensus is reached" works in this case since reviewers assess if an article's FA status should be kept or removed unlike FAC (where it generally means promotion).FrB.TG (talk)19:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... we also have the whole thing about when to move forward to the next stage, so it's a bit different ...SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done,[1]SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is aFeatured Article Save Award nomination atWikipedia talk:Featured article review/Harriet Tubman/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status.SandyGeorgia (Talk)17:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a script, FAR-helper^[1](source), which is a one-click way to nominate an article for FAR. Super convenient.FrB.TG (talk)13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion atWikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC-nominating tool.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With both

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 (30 October), and
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 (20 May)

... stalled, I've been unable to make new nominations, and would appreciate an extension of the five limit for as long as these two continue.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with you nominating a sixth.DrKay (talk)14:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just closed one of yours anyway.DrKay (talk)14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussionhere which may be of interest to some members of this project.Gog the Mild (talk)12:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia - Apologies in advance for the ping. Just wanted to say that I've not forgottenMatthew Brettingham's FAR. I knowUser:Nikkimaria parked it somewhere but I can't remember where. The books are going to take a few more weeks to arrive at my new home. When they do, I'll get on with taking a look at the sourcing. Best regards.KJP1 (talk)17:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently on hold and can stay that way for a couple more weeks.Nikkimaria (talk)22:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1 andNikkimaria:, havenot had a chance to look, but you can find FARs on hold listed on the relevant URFA page, see the entry for Brettingham atWikipedia:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/2004–2009#2008.SandyGeorgia (Talk)18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit concerned by the degree to which we've been having FARs stall out lately. Part of it is SandyGeorgia not editing since January (which is worrying) and most of the other regulars getting "busy" but we still need to figure out how to clear some of the backlog. I just moved and won't be able to do much consistent editing until I can get reliable internet at home, and I don't know when that'll be.

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Emmy Noether/archive1 discussion on how much background material should be included and in what form; this appears to have died out. Will likely require subject matter familiar editors
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Borobudur/archive1 -construction in progress (CIP)
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shapinsay/archive1 - seems fairly close, needs further reviews
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Red Cliffs/archive2 - more CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/7 World Trade Center/archive1 - needs systematic source-text integrity checks
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3 - more CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kreutz sungrazer/archive1 - seems fairly close to me
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1 - more reviews needed; primary article worker won't be available until March
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Wilberforce/archive1 - I can't tell where this one stands
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Concerto delle donne/archive1 - CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galaxy/archive1 - needs detailed reviews
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask/archive3 - seems close, needs more reviews
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geography of Ireland/archive2 - CIP
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 - seems fairly close, perhaps some concerns about article stability
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward III of England/archive1 - I can't tell where this stands
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Wisconsin (BB-64)/archive2 - needs more opinions. Primary issues seems to be is it okay for the article to copy public-domainDANFS as extensively as it does
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doolittle (album)/archive1 - waiting onCeoil and then should be good to close as kept
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Redwood National and State Parks/archive1 - seems very close

Again, I know we're down several regulars but if we could make a concerted effort to get some of these moving again that would be good.Hog Farm_Talk14:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the status update, HF. I have a couple things to clear off my plate, but I can get into a couple reviews in the next couple weeks. I've got my eye on some subset of Doolittle, Jackson, Concerto, Minneapolis, and Zelda, in case that helps others target their efforts. If anyone has suggestions about which to take on first, I'm open.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog, I have only a para or two to added on individual songs for the Doolittle article, after than will vote keep...the prose and sourcing work is complete. Apologies for delay...will try and prioritise over next few days and then ping on the FAR page.Ceoil (talk)17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangled, I might ping you re Doolitte if thats ok :)Ceoil (talk)17:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)17:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still planning to work onConcerto delle donne – yes I'm totally I aware that I've dragged it along for quite a while, but will certainly finish it. I'm also happy to help with Battle of Red Cliffs, although I'm not exactly sure what is needed. As for Byzantine Empire, I'm planning to rewrite the arts section when I have more time (mid-March).Aza24 (talk)23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stalling is a perennial problem. Might try and spread the reviewer net wider.Cas Liber (talk·contribs)05:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is aFeatured Article Save Award nomination atWikipedia talk:Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status.Hog Farm_Talk02:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing olderFeatured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet theFA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called"Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded atthe monthly stats page. Through 2023:

• 83 FAs were delisted atFeatured article review (FAR), with 440 delisted since the initiative began
• 26 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. Since URFA/2020's inception, 248 have been marked in this category.
• The percentage of URFAs needing review dropped to 85%, and the total number of FAs needing review dropped to 60%

Entering its fourth year, URFA is helping to maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored via FAR and improvements initiated on talk pages. Nine editors received aFASA for restoring seven articles to meet theFA criteria. Many articles have been rerun asToday's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Physics and astronomy
• Biology
• Mathematics
• Warfare
• Engineering and technology
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Literature and theatre
• Royalty and nobility
• Geology and geophysics

Kudos to editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs!

Reviewing our oldest featured articles ensures that our best articles are up-to-date, helps maintain diversity atWP:TFA, and ensures that our articles are still following thefeatured article criteria.

Here's how any editor can help:

• Review a2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to theFAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can post them on the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that hasbeen 'noticed' of a FAR needed, but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article who would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help ensure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visitWikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023.Z1720 (talk)17:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone review and closeWikipedia:Featured article review/Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1? The article in question has consensus to be merged intoKeith Miller article, and so given that the article won't exist, it cannot be an FA anymore. MY understanding is that a featured article review coordinator is needed to close the FAR discussion.Joseph2302 (talk)12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article no longer exists, the nomination will be procedurally closed, but looks like it still does exist for the moment?Nikkimaria (talk)04:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I foundthis in the archives and posted on the talk page of the person who asked.—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •21:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this has passed the point of potential usefulness here. If you believe FAR is warranted, discussion at the article's talk page is the first step; if you don't, discussions about article improvement should still take place at the article's talk page. I suggest migrating whatever of the above is useful to that end over there. Please take any behavioural concerns to AE/ANI - that's not something we can address via FAR if that's where this does end up going, and it's not useful to mix with content discussion in any event.Nikkimaria (talk)03:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per moribundity, should this be marked as{{historic}}?SerialNumber5412912:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @FAR coordinators:SerialNumber5412918:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem I was the only one doing them. If someone is willing to put a list here, I could go back and catch up on those missed, butI cannot get to it for probably another few weeks.SandyGeorgia (Talk)12:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was initially aZ1720 initiative.SandyGeorgia (Talk)20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Z is feeling a bit burned out on FAR work at the moment.

I'm happy to award these where there are nominations, but do depend on there being nominations made.Nikkimaria (talk)18:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And articles saved as a result I guess 😀SerialNumber5412911:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked through all kept articles since the last FASA was awarded and added nominations where I thought appropriate. I'll try to keep this updated, but help is very much appreciated. I thinkWikipedia talk:Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2 is ready to be closed.Z1720 (talk)18:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I look like a bling-obsessed fan boy, Z10  :) but I was thinking, more broadly, if we could keep it up, it would encourage reviewers to help out at FAR; otherwise, we might as well just let articles get delisted and then renom them ourselves. Which would be a shame, I guess, as well as waste a lot more time.SerialNumber5412918:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also like to keep this going so that when articles are nominated to TFA, or if they have to go to FAR again, we can contact the FASA recipients to also address concerns. Plus, I think Wikipedia should give credit where credit is due. (So I don't think you are bling-obsessed: if anything, you are bling-adjacent :p)Z1720 (talk)18:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks,Z1720, for getting this going again.Serial Number 54129, glad you prompted it!Firefangledfeathers (talk /contribs)18:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: I was heavily involved with theWikipedia:Featured article review/Doolittle (album)/archive1, so could someone else take a look and see if editors should be nominated for FASA? Thanks.Z1720 (talk)19:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another Ceoilassic to me  :)SerialNumber5412919:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. From my side of the fence, have asked that Z1720 and Hog are also recognized for their contribution to fixing up Doolittle. They provided exhaustive and extremely benifical reviews getting to the numb of the deficiencies, which in many cases I would not have spotted. And as importantly, kept the tempo up over a relatively long period. Frankly without them it would never have had a chance. I am very grateful to both and I know FAR cant be seen to be giving credit to itself; saying this in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due.Ceoil (talk)22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with youCeoil! But fate, it would seem, has other ideas  :( and everyone has their choice, of course. They might not want to be recognised publicly, but, they are still recognised!SerialNumber5412916:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/FASA#Declined offers :)SandyGeorgia (Talk)00:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWikipedia:Featured article review/Thomas C. Hindman/archive1. I know stuff like this has been controversial in the past, so I'm just bringing this to the attention of @FAR coordinators:.Hog Farm_Talk01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any interest in getting a multi-editor group to try to clean up this listing? It's at 113 entries long as a write this, which is a bit overwhelming to try to read through. Reading through some of the entries like that forDefense of the Ancients it's unclear that FAR is still needed, while other entries likeNorthern bald ibis were listed on grounds that wouldn't alone be enough to warrant a FAR (in this case, issues only with a single image). With potentially quite a few entries listed that no longer need FAR, the utility of this listing is rather diminished.Hog Farm_Talk01:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can create criteria for articles to be removed if they meet some conditions:

• The notice is over 6 months old,
• The concerns, of the opinion of the person removing the article from the list, is in good enough shape that an FAR is not needed,
• The editor who originally listed the article is not at the maximum 5 articles allowed on FAR,
• A ping to the initial reviewer has been posted on the article talk page, and there has been no response for at least a week.

Thoughts? I don't think this will take a massive effort, just a little pruning and nudging editors to continue nominating to FAR.Z1720 (talk)01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thinkZombie Nightmare should even be considered for FAR. I wrote it up but whoever put it on notice, their reasonings are baffling.GamerPro6405:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In theWikiProject Palaeontology, we havean initiative to re-work all 25 featured articles that were promoted before 2010. All but one are dinosaurs. Since dinosaur paleontology is a rapidly evolving field, those articles are hopelessly outdated. We already finished two (Thescelosaurus andLambeosaurus), and in both cases, the changes are so substantial that little to nothing is left from the versions that were originally promoted to FA. We are doing WikiProject-internal reviews to ensure quality, but obviously, only us dino nerds are involved there, so some outside input, especially concerning readability, would certainly be valuable.

Do you think it be a good idea to run our readily reworked articles through WP:FAR? Any thoughts on how we should best handle this are welcome. Thanks.Jens Lallensack (talk)00:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: - I tried that once with one article last year, and I don't think that really worked as intended. Would the Dinos project be willing to coordinate this withWP:URFA/2020? There's still some regulars with that project - I know for one that I'd be willing to provide a non-expert review for the dinosaur articles; I was obssessed with dinosaurs as a kid. That way the URFA project could also know which dino articles can be marked as OK.Hog Farm_Talk02:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: – Thanks – I discussed with the others and we would be happy to coordinate with URFA/2020; what would we have to do? And great, a non-expert review would be very welcome indeed! I think we would be particularly interested in your thoughts on readability, level of detail, and length, and any general suggestions you might have. --Jens Lallensack (talk)02:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you just mark on URFA/2020 which have been rewritten and then the members that have checked it off, it'd provide a space for one or two uninvolved editors to look in and chime in with any thoughts.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^talk15:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we tried that:[4] --Jens Lallensack (talk)15:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, if there is so little left that almost nothing of the originally promoted article remains, then as far as I see it, it's effectively a new article. So it should really go through FAC again. It can be a slow process, but t's a steady one, and n the knowledge that the technical stuff has already been agreed on by consensus, there should be no problem in drumming up a few prose reviews. Who doesn't like dinos after all  :)Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would be happy to do that, but I'm not sure if this is even possible. FAC is for featured article candidates, not for articles that are already FAs. Prove me wrong, but I have never seen an article running through FAC that already is a FA. --Jens Lallensack (talk)16:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi17:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not up to me. It would have to go through FAR first before it could possibly be delisted, and we are already here. --Jens Lallensack (talk)17:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are more editors on Wikipedia who would like to write articles than review them. I don't think delisting and reposting on FAC is the best option because it is asking at least 5 editors to review articles that might not need to be reviewed. I think marking it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 is the best route, even if it is a little slow.Z1720 (talk)22:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no indication in the criteria that an article is considered "new" even if it has been substantially rewritten, and the process of de-listing and renominating is a waste of manpower.FunkMonk (talk)02:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the current FAC coordinators, but when I was a coordinator for FA, I wouldnot have wanted an article to be procedurally delisted and then renominated like that, as a waste of editor and reviewer time.Hog Farm_talk02:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators:Lisa Nowak was scheduled for its main page appearance on 14 September 2023, but waspulled. Since the article cannot be run on the front page, it cannot be a featured article, but has not run through the FAR process, so it has been delisted out of process. Could the FAR coordinators take the appropriate action?Hawkeye7(discuss)00:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is intended to assess an FA's compliance with the FA criteria, and appearing on the main page is not one of those. Unless there's a concern regarding WIAFA, there's no action to be taken at this venue.Nikkimaria (talk)00:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, very much appreciate that we are all volunteers, and that there are other articles needing attention in the FAR process, but I would be grateful for some feedback onHolkham Hall. I’ve tried to address the nominators’, very understandable, concerns, but in the absence of any feedback, it’s hard to know whether I’ve succeeded or whether more remains to be done.KJP1 (talk)18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this onto my list of things to review - although as a warning I've been extra busy and running behind lately.Hog Farm_talk23:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated, many thanks. I understand there are many calls on peoples’ time.KJP1 (talk)05:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been participating in FAR for several years now, using the instructions created before I got involved. Many articles receive no responses after they are noticed, but current restrictions cause some articles to wait months or years before a review is opened.WP:FARGIVEN has lots of noticed articles, many waiting for FAR (and this amount has been reduced drastically because of excellent work to purge the list). The backlog of noticed articles stops me from posting new notices, as that article might wait several months or longer to be nominated at FAR. I do not think this is a net-positive to the noticed article, as many only receive improvements after an FAR is opened. The delays also cause some articles that no longer meet theFA criteria to retain that designation, causing them to potentially get scheduled for TFA or inspire bad habits for editors using the article as a template for an FAC they are writing. When an article at FAR is closed as "keep", the article has probably been improved, a net-benefit to the project, and TFA co-ordinators will sometimes feel more confident in scheduling that article.

I think the current restrictions limit the variety of topics at FAR and prevent articles from being improved. I have also read comments that the FAR process creates bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, limiting editor desire to participate. I have some proposals below: I would appreciate feedback and ideas on how to make them even better, and which ones (if any) FAR would like to implement. I have placed each proposal under a level 3 heading so that each can be discussed separately, if desired.Z1720 (talk)00:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator" to "No more than two nominations per week by the same nominator"

Rationale: Doubling this restriction to two-a-week allows more articles to get nominated more quickly at FAR, while preventing one editor from overwhelming the FAR process by opening several articles on the same day.Z1720 (talk)00:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator." to "No more than ten nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time."

Rationale: The five-article limit prevents editors from nominating new FARs. Currently, editors can ask the FAR co-ords to nominate another article, but in practice this rarely happens and requires reviewers to open a new FAR thread, ping the FAR co-ords, then wait for a response. By increasing this amount and removing the ask for extensions, FAR is allowing reviewers to bring more articles to FAR with less hassle.Z1720 (talk)00:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire problem can be solved byindividual nominators (such as yourself) asking the Coords to relax nominations; they won't deny responsible nominators, and this avoids opening up FAR to nominators who will abuse. Z1720, I used to regularly ask for exemptions to the five limit, and those were always granted; I'm sure they would be for you as well, and I don't recall seeing you ask for one recently. I suggest trying this before seeking change to the process.SandyGeorgia (Talk)00:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @SandyGeorgia: I agree with you that co-ords have been very generous about granting additional nominations. However, this creates an extra step for reviewers, which I do not think is utilised anymore. I also feel that the request instructions create a de facto six-article review limit that I think should be extended.Z1720 (talk)00:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The current instructions don't limit a nominator to a single additional nomination - in theory you could have ten open noms now, if you asked.Nikkimaria (talk)00:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) I don't know that this is an extra step that has a pressing need for removal. FAR is inherently a more deliberate system than say GAR, and I really don't think the system is designed to hold up under 30-40 concurrent nominations which you might end up with if there are multiple nominators sending 10 up at a time. I also wonder how difficult it will be to keep the topical balance of FARs proper with potentially multiple editors have 10 open.Hog Farm_Talk00:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Editors should avoid creating a new review if an article on a similar topic is open at FAR. The featured article review coordinators may, at their discretion, keep an FAR open until an older review on a similar topic is closed.

Rationale: This codifies in the instructions that FAR doesn't want similar articles open in similar topics. Instead of trying to describe what a similar topic is, I think the FAR co-ords can make this determination, erring on the side of caution. Essentially, if two articles are likely to attract the same group of editors, like two articles on celestial bodies, the FAR co-ords will keep the newer review open until the older review is closed. With the potential increase in FARs from the above proposals, this will encourage reviewers to diversify the topics they post at FAR, potentially recruiting a variety of editors who want to improve the FAs.Z1720 (talk)00:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Already done, and the topics posted at FAR areipso facto diverse, being determined not by what reviewers are personally interested in but instead by which articles have degraded worse.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Right now there's a very diverse set of articles at FAR, but there have been times in the past where a bunch of articles on the same topic were posted at the same time. One example I can think of is when a bunch of celestial bodies were nominated at the same time by different editors. I also think that FAR will be more likely to have similar topics if the proposals above were implemented, which is why I wanted this to be proposed at the same time.Z1720 (talk)14:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that situation was handled by putting some FARs on hold while editors got round to them. What about if there are five similar articles nominated with no editor willing to work on them? Do we meaninglessly put some on hold for six or more months while the others go through the bureaucracy?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)15:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think adding it to the instructions gives the co-ords something to point to when multiple articles are nominated at the same time and an editor is worried that they cannot fix that many articles on a topic. I prefer not to have unspoken procedures that are explained to editors in individual FARs. Rather, I think it is better to be upfront and allow new editors to read about these procedures ahead of time. This proposal is to publish this information in the instructions, but I think the concern about creating more bureaucracy is valid (although I think the bureaucracy already exists in practice, but that's something to discuss elsewhere.) I am also amenable to creating a supplementary page with some of FAR's more detailed procedures for interested editors to read if others are interested and think it would be helpful. I am also interested in other solutions editors might propose.Z1720 (talk)15:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they need more outside opinions over atWikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive4.Moxy🍁02:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While doing some cleanup, I sawAutism spectrum listed atWP:FFA (former featured articles): autism spectrum was never a featured article.Autism was featured, and then was merged in toautism spectrum some time after it wasde-featured in 2021. But now autism spectrum has been changed back to autism, with autism spectrum left as a redirect.

I've spent the last hour trying to sort howTalk:Autism andTalk:Autism spectrum got so mixed up afterAutism was defeatured, and can't figure it out, but the resulting listing of autism spectrum as a former featured article is misleading. The{{article history}} of the featured Autism got attached to the autism spectrum talk page. And vica-versa for autism spectrum: the failed Good Article nomination, which was for autism spectrum, is now attached to autism.

My suggestion is to swap the article histories to the correct pages, but I don't know what else needs to be done to make this right. I'll crosspost this toTalk:Autism, alsoDrKay about getting the pieces in the right place.SandyGeorgia (Talk)06:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, atWP:FFA, on other deleted or redirected articles, we leave them listed under the featured article name, with a parenthetical.SandyGeorgia (Talk)07:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, this is another example forMike Christie of the problem we've talked about may times -- how the GA naming convention goes wonky when articles move. You have to editTalk:Autism/GA1 to see that it was actually autism spectrum, and then someonemoved it, whereas the peer reviews, FACs and FARs back (incorrectly) atTalk:Autism spectrum don't have to change when article names change. That article history could be copied over toTalk:Autism without having to make adjustments. Only the GA process has this problem.SandyGeorgia (Talk)07:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The defeatured article is atAutism spectrum. The article currently atAutism was never featured. The pages were swapped and so the defeatured article is now Autism spectrum. It was promoted in2007. defeatured in2021, redirected in2022, and movedlast year. In my opinion, the article histories are in the correct places.DrKay (talk)07:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know the broad history; the devil is in the details. On the one hand, an argument in favor of the article histories where they are is that it's good that what is now atautism is not flaggedon talk as formerly featured, because it's hard to imagine how an FA could have fallen so far even considering "anyone can edit". But that the once FA content wasn't where FFA now points is somewhat obscured if one clicks on the link atWP:FFA and doesn't know how to find all these pieces (the merge took months). So ... Can we at least find a way (new annotation?) to correct the misimpression left atWP:FFA --autism spectrum was never a featured article, and FFA is now redirecting back to what was previously autism spectrum, not autism, since renamed? Autism was defeatured after DSM and WHO changes before it was redirected to there. I'm not sure we've ever had a situation like this, with non-FA material recreated at an FA name. A different note than the usual "deleted or redirected" might help, as it's now pointing to an article that has no semblance of ever having reached FA quality, and there's nothing on talk to indicate to a new editor how to get back to the once FA content ... the{{copied from}} atTalk:Autism is messed up.SandyGeorgia (Talk)14:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is moved atWP:FA, we update the page to point at the new article title not the original article title. I see no reason to depart from that here, and suspect that doing such a thing will lead to more confusion not less.Sealand for example was moved toPrincipality of Sealand after its demotion and the history of all the featured article processes was kept atPrincipality of Sealand notSealand (disambiguation), which was the page moved to Sealand (and then moved back years later). As I said, the article that was the featured article is at Autism spectrum not Autism. The page now carrying the article title Autism has a long history of its own. It was already a fully developed article at the time that Autism spectrum was demoted.DrKay (talk)15:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But neither autism nor autism spectrum were featured when the moving/merging started (and the salvageable FA quality content has been lost); it was defeatured as autism and the moving/merging happened later, and unlike Sealand, autism was then recreated. I realize it's a complex situation: the counterexample, Sealand is no longer an article, whereas autism now is. As an example of the difficulties created, the current History section atautism is oddly tagged for expansion (the merge never really happened???), and one has to know to go back toa salvageable version of the featured article to find a History section that was FA quality. We're not best serving readers or editors here. There must be a way to fix this without breaking what we normally do.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution: change our typical annotation atWP:FFA from:

• ·Autism spectrum (deleted or redirected)

to

• ·Autism spectrum (deleted or redirected fromautism, and later recreated)

in addition to straightening out the templates atTalk:Autism spectrum and creating a new talk page box (sort of akin to a merged articlehistory) that will link to the entire history, so salvageable content can be located.

I don't believe we have another example where a former featured article was recreated from non-featured content; I'm not aware of any other "deleted or redirected" FFA that was later recreated -- much less from C-class content.SandyGeorgia (Talk)15:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Sealand was moved after its demotion:demoted in July 2006,moved in March 2007 to make way forSealand (disambiguation)[5]. In both cases, an article ("Autism" and "Sealand") was demoted, then moved, and another pre-existing page with content and long history was moved to the original article title. You seem to think that the current "Autism" page was created at the time of the move. It wasn't. Just as with Sealand, there was a swap of two existing pages. I think the featured article about autism should be listed as "Autism spectrum" because that is the location of all the featured article content and revisions. Similarly, the featured article about Sealand should be listed as Principality of Sealand because that is the location of all the featured content and revisions.DrKay (talk)15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Niobium is in danger of being downgraded, it has multiple issues. I left a message on the articles talk page and have not received a response to my concerns.Catfurball (talk)21:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is canvassing or if this is even the right place to be talking about this so I'm sorry if I'm doing something wrong, but i just want more opinions on the neutrality of Pedro II's article. I saw this article listed on Featured Picture and read the article for a bit and I genuinely think this is one of the most supportive and hyped up articles about an individual that I've ever seen on this entire website. Even the featured picture blurb shows what I'm talking about. However, I've seen many people dispute the idea that the article contains neutrality issues. Such as recently when i tried to add a neutrality concern warning to the top of the article only for it to be removed around an hour later. So I don't know if I might be wrong on this. The initial talk page complaint isTalk:Pedro II of Brazil#Neutrality Concerns? for some background.Onegreatjoke (talk)18:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Onegreatjoke: I'd suggest instead posting toWP:NPOVN.Nikkimaria (talk)01:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Onegreatjoke (talk)02:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: Would it be OK to open a sixth nomination? Here's the status of the five I currently have open:

• Manchester (FAR): Improvements continuing
• Honoré de Balzac (FAR): Delist declaration made
• Coeliac disease (FAR): Improvements continuing
• Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line (FAR): Move to FARC declaration made
• Pattern Recognition (novel) (FAR): Improvements continuing

If accepted, I would openHurricane Edith (1971).Z1720 (talk)16:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me.DrKay (talk)16:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: Would it be OK to open a sixth nomination? Here's the status of the five I currently have open:

• Manchester (FAR): Comments left, follow-up pings sent
• Pattern Recognition (novel) (FAR): No comments since move to FARC
• Douglas MacArthur (FAR): Work ongoing
• Calgary Flames (FAR): Keep status declared
• League of Nations (FAR): Open one week, no additional comments.

If accepted, I would openFlight feather.Z1720 (talk)19:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Go ahead.Nikkimaria (talk)00:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators:Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) was merged while a FAR was in process. This creates multiple problems for the FACBot so I have halted processing of FARs. The coordinator needs to process this delisting manually.Hawkeye7(discuss)20:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thanks, review and redirect talk pages updated:[6][7].DrKay (talk)21:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, The bot has been released to the regular schedule.Hawkeye7(discuss)00:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Main Page § Old FA articles.TurboSuperA+_[talk]07:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the future ofWP:FA talk pagehere, which may be of interest to those at FAR. All comments are welcome. -SchroCat (talk)07:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing olderFeatured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet theFA standards. Through 2025, with 4,526very old (from the 2004–2009 period) andold (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 556 FAs were delisted atFeatured article review (FAR).
• 322 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers. Hundreds more are marked as "satisfactory", but are awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review dropped from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 53% at the end of 2022.
• 19% of articles originally listed at URFA/2020 have been reviewed.

URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; for some, FAs are restored via FAR. For others, improvements are initiated when talk pages arenoticed.

There remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed, and any little bit helps to improve our oldest FAs.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the2022 Signpost article:

• Review a2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to theFAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and indicates to reviewers that it is ready to be checked by a neutral editor. If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers take a look at those already indicated as maintained. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors who have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that hasbeen "noticed" of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it. You can also look atthe unreferenced sub-project, which lists articles thata script has indicated might have several unreferenced paragraphs: the script is not perfect, which is why human editors are needed to verify that the article truly does have uncited statements.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visitWikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2025 report.Z1720 (talk)21:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]