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.

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.

Another nomination okay?

Howdy, coords. Would it be okay if I put up another FAC now that Meehan's gotten a source review? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay to do so again now? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for August 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August 2024. 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) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for August 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 2 2 20 Jo-Jo Eumerus 15 4 SchroCat 15 2 UndercoverClassicist 10 2 Gog the Mild 8 1 Matarisvan 5 4 750h+ 8 Mike Christie 7 1 RoySmith 7 Wehwalt 7 Generalissima 1 5 Premeditated Chaos 5 1 Aoba47 5 ChrisTheDude 5 Hurricanehink 4 1 Joeyquism 5 Femke 3 1 Serial Number 54129 3 1 Tim riley 4 Vacant0 4 AirshipJungleman29 3 Arconning 1 2 Brachy0008 1 1 1 Dudley Miles 3 Dylan620 3 Epicgenius 3 FunkMonk 3 Graham Beards 3 Heartfox 3 MSincccc 3 Penitentes 3 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 3 Pseud 14 2 1 Sammi Brie 3 Ajpolino 1 1 Ceoil 2 David Fuchs 2 Dugan Murphy 1 1 Hog Farm 2 Iazyges 2 Jens Lallensack 2 John 2 Kusma 1 1 LunaEclipse 2 PCN02WPS 2 Phlsph7 1 1 Queen of Hearts 2 100cellsman 1 Adam Cuerden 1 Andrzejbanas 1 Asilvering 1 Bcschneider53 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 Binksternet 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 Choliamb 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 Draken Bowser 1 Edwininlondon 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 Eewilson 1 Fowler&fowler 1 Graeme Bartlett 1 Ham II 1 HJ Mitchell 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 HYTEN CREW 1 Mariomassone 1 Moisejp 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 Nick-D 1 PARAKANYAA 1 Pbritti 1 Pokelego999 1 QuicoleJR 1 Relayed 1 Remsense 1 Riley1012 1 Rodney Baggins 1 Sgubaldo 1 Shapeyness 1 Shooterwalker 1 Simongraham 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Sohom Datta 1 Steelkamp 1 Teratix 1 ThaesOfereode 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 Tintor2 1 TompaDompa 1 Volcanoguy 1 Voorts 1 Z1720 1 ZKang123 1 Totals 210 37 38 '

Supports and opposes for August 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 1 23 24 Jo-Jo Eumerus 19 19 SchroCat 11 2 4 17 UndercoverClassicist 6 2 4 12 Matarisvan 5 1 3 9 Gog the Mild 6 1 2 9 Mike Christie 3 1 1 3 8 750h+ 6 2 8 RoySmith 3 4 7 Wehwalt 7 7 Generalissima 1 5 6 Premeditated Chaos 4 1 1 6 Aoba47 5 5 Hurricanehink 3 2 5 Joeyquism 5 5 ChrisTheDude 4 1 5 Serial Number 54129 3 1 4 Tim riley 4 4 Vacant0 3 1 4 Femke 3 1 4 Epicgenius 2 1 3 Dylan620 1 1 1 3 Pseud 14 2 1 3 Arconning 1 2 3 Dudley Miles 3 3 MSincccc 3 3 AirshipJungleman29 1 2 3 FunkMonk 3 3 Graham Beards 3 3 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 3 3 Brachy0008 1 2 3 Heartfox 1 2 3 Penitentes 1 2 3 Sammi Brie 3 3 Jens Lallensack 1 1 2 Ajpolino 1 1 2 Queen of Hearts 2 2 Iazyges 1 1 2 John 1 1 2 David Fuchs 1 1 2 PCN02WPS 2 2 Hog Farm 1 1 2 Kusma 1 1 2 Phlsph7 1 1 2 LunaEclipse 2 2 Ceoil 1 1 2 Dugan Murphy 2 2 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 Simongraham 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Volcanoguy 1 1 PARAKANYAA 1 1 Graeme Bartlett 1 1 Shooterwalker 1 1 Edwininlondon 1 1 Relayed 1 1 Bcschneider53 1 1 HJ Mitchell 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 Darkwarriorblake 1 1 Chipmunkdavis 1 1 Pokelego999 1 1 Teratix 1 1 Fowler&fowler 1 1 Sgubaldo 1 1 QuicoleJR 1 1 Adam Cuerden 1 1 Mariomassone 1 1 Asilvering 1 1 Z1720 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 Shapeyness 1 1 Riley1012 1 1 ThaesOfereode 1 1 Binksternet 1 1 Choliamb 1 1 Eem dik doun in toene 1 1 HYTEN CREW 1 1 HurricaneHiggins 1 1 Tim O'Doherty 1 1 Pbritti 1 1 Rodney Baggins 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 ZKang123 1 1 MyCatIsAChonk 1 1 Draken Bowser 1 1 Eewilson 1 1 Sohom Datta 1 1 Andrzejbanas 1 1 Steelkamp 1 1 Ham II 1 1 100cellsman 1 1 Remsense 1 1 Voorts 1 1 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Totals 134 ' 2 ' 23 126 285

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) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for June 2024 to August 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 4.0 35.0 8.8 AirshipJungleman29 6.0 38.0 6.3 Aoba47 4.0 48.0 12.0 BennyOnTheLoose 5.5 10.0 1.8 Borsoka 3.0 9.0 3.0 ChrisTheDude 11.0 75.0 6.8 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 4.0 0.8 David Fuchs 2.0 13.0 6.5 Dudley Miles 4.0 31.0 7.8 Dugan Murphy 3.0 10.0 3.3 Eem dik doun in toene 2.0 7.0 3.5 Epicgenius 8.5 19.0 2.2 FunkMonk 3.3 29.0 8.7 Ganesha811 2.0 None 0.0 Generalissima 7.0 40.0 5.7 HAL333 2.5 13.0 5.2 Hawkeye7 5.0 22.0 4.4 Heartfox 7.0 28.0 4.0 Hog Farm 6.0 29.0 4.8 HurricaneHiggins 1.5 5.0 3.3 Iazyges 1.5 5.0 3.3 Ippantekina 5.0 6.0 1.2 Jo-Jo Eumerus 7.0 204.0 29.1 Joeyquism 2.0 14.0 7.0 Kung Fu Man 2.0 None 0.0 Kurzon 2.0 None 0.0 Kyle Peake 3.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 4.5 3.0 0.7 LittleJerry 2.5 2.0 0.8 MaranoFan 6.0 19.0 3.2 Matarisvan 4.0 28.0 7.0 Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 5.0 57.0 11.4 MyCatIsAChonk 4.0 51.0 12.8 NegativeMP1 2.0 9.0 4.5 Noorullah21 3.0 None 0.0 PCN02WPS 3.0 23.0 7.7 Peacemaker67 6.0 3.0 0.5 Phlsph7 7.0 12.0 1.7 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 5.0 2.5 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 32.0 3.4 PresN 2.0 1.0 0.5 PSA 2.0 4.0 2.0 Pseud 14 4.0 44.0 11.0 RoySmith 4.0 44.0 11.0 SafariScribe 2.0 3.0 1.5 Sammi Brie 2.5 16.0 6.4 Sandbh 3.0 6.0 2.0 SchroCat 14.5 128.0 8.8 Serial Number 54129 2.0 47.0 23.5 Skyshifter 4.0 5.0 1.2 SounderBruce 4.0 4.0 1.0 The Night Watch 2.0 5.0 2.5 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 10.0 2.5 Therapyisgood 2.3 7.0 3.0 Tim riley 3.5 51.0 14.6 TrademarkedTWOrantula 2.0 1.0 0.5 UndercoverClassicist 5.0 93.0 18.6 V.B.Speranza 2.0 None 0.0 Volcanoguy 3.0 7.0 2.3 Voorts 6.5 21.0 3.2 WeatherWriter 2.0 None 0.0 Wehwalt 8.5 33.0 3.9 Wolverine XI 5.0 7.0 1.4 ZKang123 6.0 17.0 2.8

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Google Books web archive links and IABot

IABot adds web archive links to source templates with an url parameter to ensure that the information remains accessible even after links die. For example:

−

{{cite web |last1=Burris |first1=Stanley |last2=Legris |first2=Javier |title=The Algebra of Logic Tradition |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra-logic-tradition/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=22 January 2024 |date=2021 }}

+

{{cite web |last1=Burris |first1=Stanley |last2=Legris |first2=Javier |title=The Algebra of Logic Tradition |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra-logic-tradition/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=22 January 2024 |date=2021 |archive-date=29 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129081715/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/algebra-logic-tradition/ |url-status=live }}

While this behavior is usually good, it has been pointed out to me several times (for example, see the source reviews here and here) that web archives are not useful for references that link to Google Books, as in

−

{{cite book |last1=Artamonov |first1=V. A. |editor1-last=Hazewinkel |editor1-first=M. |title=Handbook of Algebra |date=2003 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-053297-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sLDGY4Hk8V0C&pg=PA873 |language=en |chapter=Quasivarieties |access-date=January 21, 2024 }}

+

{{cite book |last1=Artamonov |first1=V. A. |editor1-last=Hazewinkel |editor1-first=M. |title=Handbook of Algebra |date=2003 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=978-0-08-053297-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sLDGY4Hk8V0C&pg=PA873 |language=en |chapter=Quasivarieties |access-date=January 21, 2024 |archive-date=January 29, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129081616/https://books.google.com/books?id=sLDGY4Hk8V0C&pg=PA873#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}

I was curious to hear what other people think. Should all web archives to Google Books links be removed? Should something be done to IABot so that it ignores Google Books links to prevent it from re-adding removed Google Books links? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspect any consensus decided on this page would be comparatively weak to a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or even a (well-advertised) discussion at User talk:InternetArchiveBot. In any case, I agree that neither feature seems beneficial since the previews don't even appear to work on the IA. Aza24 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this would (unfortunately) a case of the tail wagging the dog, and that's never popular. Too many other projects use IABot for a consensus here to be enforceable. Still, on the merits of the question, "Yes and yes", per Nikkimaria: it might be useful in the first instance to link to IA (although never to GBooks, which just provides free advertising/hits), but when the link changes, the bot doesn't update. I would argue that, for our readers, that's worse than useless. SerialNumber54129 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I brought this up because several reviewers commented on it. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to start a bigger campaign on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone else is struggling with this problem, one way to solve it is to move Google Books links for page previews to the page parameter in the cite template or to the short footnote templates. IABot ignores urls in these places and does not archive them. This way, the url parameter in the cite template can be removed and web archives are not readded when IABot runs. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, I was going to start a discussion at User talk:InternetArchiveBot as you suggested but I searched the archives there first and found evidence that the bot isn't supposed to add archive links for Google Books. We should figure out what's going on here.

@Phlsph7, you should probably hold off on adding more {{cbignore}}s ~Kvng (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I'm not a big fan of the cbignore-workaround so I hope a better solution can be found. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kvng: Thanks for the ping, and good detecting! In that case, something funny is going on; how can it be adding links if the link is officially deprecated? Is it being manually overridden by whoever fires it up, or something else? (Somewhat hypothetical questions on my part, since I don't know the answers.)

I've left a message for Cyberpower678 (deliberately not pinging), as he originally set the bot up, he might be able to advise on its code of practice. Although it seems to now be operated by the Internet Archive themselves. SerialNumber54129 17:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

IABot shouldn't be touching Google Books. I've reset the entries for Google Books. It should keep the bot off of them. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower678, good man. SerialNumber54129 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

No bot (or script-assisted human "meatbot") should ever add archive links to still-living pages (including but not limited to Google Books pages) to Wikipedia articles, unless there is a clear consensus for a very narrow and specific set of URLs which require it. (Manually adding archive links which a human editor specifically considers helpful/necessary is fine.) Luckily the main IABot is not adding such links anymore, so we're only left with the script-assisted humans sometimes doing it. There's already an automated process for adding archives of outgoing links from Wikipedia to the IA's Wayback Machine, which is sufficient to maintain a backup, in case a link ever rots. See the discussion I started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Can we discourage indiscriminate automatic addition of Wayback archive links on all external links?

Phlsph7: Feel free to remove the indiscriminate archive links to still-living pages, or revert edits adding them. There is no site-wide consensus for including these, and in my opinion they are net-negative. –jacobolus (t) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, jacobolus, fantastic post! SerialNumber54129 13:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Quick coord question

I normally wouldn't be too concerned about this, but due to the Wikicup I want to ensure I haven't been missing something silly with regards to the review; is there anything currently holding up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Silva Meehan/archive1 from promotion, or is it just a matter of seeing if anyone else is going to give feedback? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be heading in the right direction but 3 supports are generally a bare minimum for promotion. In such cases, we tend to wait a bit longer for additional feedback, and your nomination has been open for a month now. FrB.TG (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of possible interest to this board

Here. Regarding proposed changes to the WP:INVOLVED policy. This might be of particular interest to User:Graham Beards. SerialNumber54129 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yo, check the ride SerialNumber54129 15:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

CTOP is broken; is any one able to explain to me in two sentences or less what that discussion wants to do to fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Some contention topics refer to a primary dispute, e.g Falun Gong or ARBPIA (and others like BLP do not)so any substantive edits would preclude the person from acting in administrative manner in that area, regardless of whether they made edits or not on a specific page. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Shusugah; I think I might like that idea, having seen topic bans enacted by admins with an obvious POV in the area even if they hadn't edited specific topics. What is the other side of the argument, would that not take our most qualified admins on some topics out of the game (eg User:Ealdgyth), and why is User:Graham Beards called out here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea. Graham Beards (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the opposing arguments is of two varieties:

1. Expanding definition of topic area to be a larger dispute area even in example of ARBPIA would be...too broad of a stretch. Could this hinder our limited pool of knowledgeable/competent admins and those areas are "not" primarily one dispute is the argument.

2. We shouldn't have WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP or WP:Wikilawyering. If any admin is in breach because community raises concern, and if those concerns aren't addressed we can warn them/desysop etc and don't fix what ain't broken etc..

I raised a longer thread regarding one admin's possible involvement in ARBPIA and saw that there was very divergent understandings of what INVOLVE'ment meant, from editors in good standings, so a policy clarification is in order. I don't know why the other editors were tagged here. In any case, feel free to peruse the discussion if this piqued your interest. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

@FAC coordinators: Is it possible for me to nominate North Yemen civil war as a FAC? Abo Yemen✉ 08:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Since you haven't made that many edits to the article, I recommend that you consult the main contributors of the article before nominating it, as per the instructions: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." FrB.TG (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ill try to contact them tho

Also how many edits would I need so that I can promote it without contacting anyone? Abo Yemen✉ 09:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Abo Yemen, just for future reference, you don't need the permission of the coords to nominate any article for FAC, you can just launch it (as long as you are the one who has worked on it and have all the relevant sources to hand). I would note, however, that the article would (in my eyes) be a quick fail. There are MOS breaches (starting with a seven-para lead, when the MOS has a limit of four), unsupported paragraphs, numbered lists when text paragraphs are preferred and some clunky text in need of a copy edit. Can I suggest you work on the article a little longer and than take it through peer review for a further polish? - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

yeah Ill try to get it peer reviewed first Abo Yemen✉ 09:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the four-paragraph limit was recently removed from MOS:LEADLENGTH following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Max length guideline similar to the total length guideline. TompaDompa (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Which was something of a mistake. Certainly this article shouldn't need seven paragraphs, and four would be much better than the mess that is currently there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: (but not @you personally), indeed someone raised it a couple of sections above. The project was never informed the discussion was taking place, even though it would be directly—and editorially—affected, and (again, above) it was noted that this was 'passed' by a quorum of a handful of editors. Personally, I suggest far too few to be making a decision that theoretically affects every article yet to be written and also puts many FAs at odds with a now-codified guideline which it is, mind you, meant to obey to the letter. Highly Kafkaesque all around. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

About what I thought when I stumbled across it last week. (Looking for the no longer existing paragraph guidance caused a "Duck's off!" moment.) Time to send the lads round do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, well, if you don't like duck, you're rather stuck. SerialNumber54129 17:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Rock climbing

Following on from re-writing Rock-climbing equipment (which became an FL), I have now done a re-write of Rock climbing. Can I put this forward for FA (is it near standard?), or, do I instead need to put it through GA first? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is, in principle, allowed to nominate an article without taking it through GAN. But make sure that the article is broad in its coverage. I am not an expert on the topic, but at first sight, I noticed the following possible omissions: 1) Health effects (a quick search on Google Scholar returned many hits regarding dust in halls; common injuries; risk in climbing; therapeutical effects; etc.). 2) Climbing organizations and where climbing stands in different parts of the world, legal issues, etc. 3) The history does not start with the different subdisciplines, but much earlier; there are certainly examples of rock climbing in antiquity? 4) A definition section explaining where rock climbing stands in relation to other types of climbing. Not sure if this is strictly needed but placing the topic in its broader context is usually a good idea. Furthermore, the article seems to have a strong bias towards Europe and North America. Does rock climbing not exist in China, for example? All persons listed under "history" seem to be European or US-Americans. Hope this helps for a start. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jens Lallensack. In relation to your comments:

1. "Climbing injuries" are around tendon strains and more recently eating disorders, however, it is not a major feature in the sport.

2. The only organizations are in competition climbing that I have mentioned; outside of that they are mainly mountaineering organisations (of which there are a lot), but are not specific to rock climbing.

3. There is a lot of mountaineering pre 19th-century, but really very little rock climbing outside of sporadic incidents in history that nobody really attributes to the "birth" of the sport of rock climbing (which is c. 1880s per the article).

4. Rock climbing intersects with mountaineering in multi-pitch climbing, alpine climbing (which I have mentioned in the article).

5. (Europe/US point). The article mentions climbing venues in Europe, North America, Australia (Mount Arapiles), Chile/Argentina (via Patagonia) and South Africa (Rocklands). They are definitely the main locations. There are more, although of lesser global notability.

Great comments, and I guess I am trying to keep the article from getting too big, and wanting to keep it focused on the main/most notable global material that would concern a casual reader - but let me think about it. thanks so much! Aszx5000 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: If you are looking for comments about the feasibility of nominating at FAC, I suggest posting the article at WP:PR and asking editors to comment there. This will give editors more space to leave detailed comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Following on from your comments, I have added sections on 'Health' and on 'Governance and organization' which I think are merited. I am up to 160k bytes, so am wary of adding too much more but I do think that I am covering everything that is 'notable' worldwide in rock climbing? If you feel it needs a longer-look, then we can move to WP:PR, or if this will not work out (maybe the topic is too broad for on FA article), then maybe I can try the WP:GA route as a first pass? thanks for your help! Aszx5000 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would try WP:PR; there you can hopefully get opinions from several different people. Taking it to WP:GA before nominating at FAC is preferred, but at the moment it can take a while until someone picks the review up, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that Jens and see how it goes. Thanks again for your input. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Regularly scheduled new nom question

@FAC coordinators: Alright to put up a new FAC? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. FrB.TG (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for September 2024

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September 2024. 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) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewers for September 2024

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Nikkimaria 1 1 20 Jo-Jo Eumerus 11 5 SchroCat 15 1 UndercoverClassicist 9 Gog the Mild 8 750h+ 6 Mike Christie 6 Alavense 5 Hog Farm 5 Tim riley 5 AirshipJungleman29 4 Ceoil 4 ChrisTheDude 4 Matarisvan 2 2 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 Edwininlondon 2 1 Generalissima 1 2 John 3 Shushugah 3 Steelkamp 3 Vacant0 3 BennyOnTheLoose 1 1 Choliamb 2 Crisco 1492 2 Draken Bowser 2 Dudley Miles 2 Eem dik doun in toene 2 FunkMonk 2 MaranoFan 1 1 MSincccc 2 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy 2 Penitentes 2 Phlsph7 2 RoySmith 1 1 Sawyer777 2 Serial Number 54129 2 Wehwalt 2 AryKun 1 Aza24 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 BorgQueen 1 Borsoka 1 Casliber 1 CosXZ 1 DanCherek 1 Drmies 1 Dylan620 1 Epicgenius 1 Femke 1 Graeme Bartlett 1 Graham Beards 1 Guerillero 1 HAL333 1 Hawkeye7 1 HJ Mitchell 1 Hurricanehink 1 Ian Rose 1 Ippantekina 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Joeyquism 1 Jonesey95 1 Joy 1 KJP1 1 Llewee 1 LunaEclipse 1 Moisejp 1 NegativeMP1 1 Neutralhomer 1 Nick-D 1 NordNordWest 1 Noswall59 1 Paleface Jack 1 Pendright 1 QRep2020 1 Reidgreg 1 Rjjiii 1 Skyshifter 1 SnowFire 1 Sohom Datta 1 Ssilvers 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 ThaesOfereode 1 The ed17 1 Tomobe03 1 TompaDompa 1 Unlimitedlead 1 Vigilantcosmicpenguin 1 Voorts 1 Wolverine XI 1 Wtfiv 1 Wuju Daisuki 1 Totals 167 27 28

Supports and opposes for September 2024

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Nikkimaria 1 1 20 22 SchroCat 13 1 2 16 Jo-Jo Eumerus 16 16 UndercoverClassicist 5 4 9 Gog the Mild 7 1 8 Mike Christie 5 1 6 750h+ 4 2 6 Alavense 5 5 Hog Farm 5 5 Tim riley 5 5 Matarisvan 2 2 4 AirshipJungleman29 2 1 1 4 ChrisTheDude 3 1 4 Ceoil 3 1 4 Premeditated Chaos 3 1 4 Vacant0 2 1 3 Edwininlondon 1 2 3 Steelkamp 3 3 John 2 1 3 Generalissima 1 2 3 Shushugah 3 3 Draken Bowser 1 1 2 Nineteen Ninety-Four guy 1 1 2 Serial Number 54129 1 1 2 MaranoFan 2 2 BennyOnTheLoose 2 2 Dudley Miles 2 2 Wehwalt 2 2 RoySmith 1 1 2 Phlsph7 2 2 Penitentes 2 2 FunkMonk 2 2 MSincccc 2 2 Choliamb 1 1 2 Sawyer777 2 2 Eem dik doun in toene 2 2 Crisco 1492 2 2 Dylan620 1 1 Drmies 1 1 ThaesOfereode 1 1 NordNordWest 1 1 Ian Rose 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 Graham Beards 1 1 QRep2020 1 1 Borsoka 1 1 Llewee 1 1 HAL333 1 1 Tomobe03 1 1 Graeme Bartlett 1 1 The ed17 1 1 Pendright 1 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 Vigilantcosmicpenguin 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Nick-D 1 1 Paleface Jack 1 1 Casliber 1 1 LunaEclipse 1 1 Unlimitedlead 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 Ssilvers 1 1 KJP1 1 1 Epicgenius 1 1 Neutralhomer 1 1 Reidgreg 1 1 Wolverine XI 1 1 Hurricanehink 1 1 Wtfiv 1 1 DanCherek 1 1 Noswall59 1 1 Rjjiii 1 1 Moisejp 1 1 Wuju Daisuki 1 1 AryKun 1 1 Guerillero 1 1 Skyshifter 1 1 Joeyquism 1 1 CosXZ 1 1 Aza24 1 1 Femke 1 1 Voorts 1 1 Joy 1 1 BorgQueen 1 1 Jonesey95 1 1 TompaDompa 1 1 Sohom Datta 1 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 HJ Mitchell 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Totals 122 1 1 10 88 222

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) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominators for July 2024 to September 2024 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 5.0 41.0 8.2 AirshipJungleman29 6.0 40.0 6.7 Aoba47 4.0 45.0 11.2 BennyOnTheLoose 4.5 10.0 2.2 Borsoka 3.0 10.0 3.3 ChrisTheDude 11.0 73.0 6.6 Darkwarriorblake 5.0 4.0 0.8 Dudley Miles 5.0 31.0 6.2 Dugan Murphy 3.0 10.0 3.3 Eem dik doun in toene 2.0 9.0 4.5 Epicgenius 7.5 18.0 2.4 FunkMonk 3.8 27.0 7.0 Ganesha811 2.0 None 0.0 Generalissima 8.0 43.0 5.4 HAL333 2.0 10.0 5.0 Hawkeye7 6.0 14.0 2.3 Heartfox 6.0 27.0 4.5 Hog Farm 5.0 33.0 6.6 Hurricanehink 1.5 14.0 9.3 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 207.0 34.5 Joeyquism 2.0 15.0 7.5 Kung Fu Man 2.0 None 0.0 Kurzon 3.0 None 0.0 Kyle Peake 3.0 None 0.0 Lee Vilenski 4.0 2.0 0.5 LittleJerry 1.5 2.0 1.3 MaranoFan 5.0 18.0 3.6 Matarisvan 4.0 32.0 8.0 Mattximus 3.0 None 0.0 Mike Christie 6.0 60.0 10.0 NegativeMP1 2.0 10.0 5.0 Nick-D 3.0 14.0 4.7 Noorullah21 3.0 None 0.0 Paleface Jack 3.0 1.0 0.3 PCN02WPS 2.0 19.0 9.5 Peacemaker67 7.0 3.0 0.4 Phlsph7 6.0 13.0 2.2 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 5.0 2.5 Premeditated Chaos 9.3 33.0 3.5 PSA 2.0 4.0 2.0 RoySmith 4.0 45.0 11.2 SafariScribe 2.0 3.0 1.5 Sammi Brie 2.5 15.0 6.0 SchroCat 15.0 139.0 9.3 Serial Number 54129 3.0 46.0 15.3 Skyshifter 4.0 6.0 1.5 SounderBruce 4.0 3.0 0.8 The ed17 2.0 1.0 0.5 The Green Star Collector 2.0 None 0.0 Thebiguglyalien 4.0 9.0 2.2 Therapyisgood 2.3 6.0 2.6 Tim riley 5.0 50.0 10.0 TrademarkedTWOrantula 3.0 1.0 0.3 Turini2 2.0 None 0.0 UndercoverClassicist 6.0 95.0 15.8 V.B.Speranza 2.0 None 0.0 Volcanoguy 3.0 7.0 2.3 Voorts 6.5 19.0 2.9 WeatherWriter 2.0 None 0.0 Wehwalt 8.5 33.0 3.9 Wolverine XI 5.0 8.0 1.6 ZKang123 5.0 15.0 3.0 Zmbro 2.0 1.0 0.5

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)