Wikipedia talk:One featured article per quarter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know[edit]

I don't know if 3 months is a reasonable timeframe. When I first read this I thought, "What a good idea". I had just stumbled across Toy yesterday and saw that it needed major re-structuring and a lot of work and started working on it with the thought that maybe I could improve it to good or even featured status; so when I saw this page I almost signed up. However, three months really is not very long at all. Using Toy as an example, compare the article when I found it to the article after I'd spent the better part of a day working on it. I consider that a significant improvement; but I haven't really done anything to it other than re-arrange what was already there. It still has a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced statements; whole areas that are not covered at all; stubby sections that need expansion; and some areas with poor grammer and spelling that I haven't gotten to cleaning up yet. In order to fix some of this stuff I'll need to find time to do real research in a real library or bookstore with real books. My personal library is not extensive enough, and the net is not reliable enough. It takes time to read books; and most Wikipedians have lives.

I'm not saying that I don't want to put the time or effort into it that it needs; on the contrary I'm saying that I don't want to limit myself to 3 months in which to do it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broad topics generally take longer than narrow ones, I think. For fairly narrow ones, it's quite possible to produce a roughly FA-level article in under a month, leaving two months for copyediting/illustrating/etc.
(In any case, it's no big deal if it takes longer than three months; I think that's just a reasonable estimate to use for the general case.) Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted my to-do list, with two articles I'm working on in the near-term and two in the medium-term. Perhaps too ambitious? I think I can get one or both the near-term ones to FA status in three months, as the topics are overlapping. But, if it takes longer than three months to do the job well, then so be it. One of my medium-term articles is the FBI which is a more complex topic, with NPOV issues and all, many related subarticles, and there are countless reference materials that one can consult. I don't know if the time frame is realistic for reaching FA status, but put it there anyway. --Aude (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per above, three months was only meant to be suggestive and a means of keeping FA work on the front burner. If you feel it'll take longer, bump it up to the next quarter. Glad people have signed on anyhow. Marskell 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the 3 month period seems too short to write something from scratch or sort out a poorly written article, Wikipedia:Former featured articles has a whole host of pages that could easily be brought up to FA standard again with a lot less work - a lot of them were delisted simply because nobody worked on them to keep them in line with current standards. Yomanganitalk 10:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Small question: does this title need capitals? Is it too clunky? Marskell 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter; spelling out the number might be neater, but I don't think that capitals are needed (as "featured article" is usually lowercase). Kirill Lokshin 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill's suggestion sounds good. Other shortcuts (e.g. WP:ANI, WP:FAC) lead to pages that don't use all CAPS. So, I say no CAPS here. --Aude (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I had thought of Wikipedia:Featured article drive as a title, but it didn't seem right of me to decide on that name without consultation. Fingers crossed this gets a critical mass of people and some add-on ideas—perhaps we can consider that more obvious title then, and place it in the FA content box. Marskell 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't write featured articles[edit]

<getting off chest>I don't write featured articles because of the effective prohibition on any serious quantity of equals signs. (Yes, I know there are some with equals signs. No, they are not serious equals signs.) Not to blow my own trumpet, but I know from my knowledge of the field that at least several of the technical articles I have written are of reference quality. There is however no possibility that they would ever be featured: to be able to appreciate more than the mere outline of the topic requires degree-level study or higher. This isn't academic arrogance, it's just the fact that the topics are technical and, whilst they admit the hand-waving explanations that I dutifully put in the lead section, to do the topic any kind of justice on its own terms requires getting down and dirty with it. Effectively, FAs have to be intelligible to bright teenagers (no insult, but they have much to learn, as do we all) and writing the article at that level would render it basically useless to those who will otherwise derive some genuine benefit from reading it. </chestyness>-Splash - tk 22:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have a comment from you Splash. "Bright teenagers", yes—and sometimes bright retirees, bright working age people with an arts rather than a science degree (I have myself in mind there), bright professionals outside their discipline, bright grad students, etc. It's supposed to be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists (WP:NC). The technical v lay writing problem is not particular to FAs (though it often crops in regards to them) and leaning toward the technical does not rule out one's creating an FA in lay language. I think it's often sub-articles that demand the equals sign; large topical pages are actually over-burdened by them. I have two Sci & Space FAs (one's a little better than the other...) and there isn't a single equals sign in either... I think they both do justice to their topic. Re "Basically useless"—no professional should turn to Wikipedia to be, let's say, fundamentally enlighted. They shouldn't turn to Brittanica, Encarta, or the Web in general. They should turn to discipline specific primary and secondary sources—I think most professionals already do that. Wikipedia is meant for others: those who want a way into a topic that may be difficult for them. Marskell 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I remembered this finally. You kind of make my point: the articles with equals signs would never be able to get featured. This is eminently disappointing: make your article really thorough, and no, we don't like it. But I'm off topic for this page, so I'll stop and go back to writing notfeatured articles. -Splash - tk 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there is a wiki somewhere that accepts highly-technical writing? Carcharoth 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
simple:? -Splash - tk 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're all here for the same reason...[edit]

...would anyone be opposed to my setting up an "I need help" subpage that those of us committed to this could monitor? I know that I could use some help in copyediting or possible source/credit help, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. I spend a lot of time on my FA currently, but not all my wiki time, and even if I can do some proofreading for someone for a few minutes while I'm doing other things, it could be useful. Perhaps just a page with headers about what needs help in what article, or a "public" to-do list that others could pitch in for? It might have the added benefit of getting some outside help from people who want to help get an article per quarter featured, but don't feel they can do it. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want to co-opt Peer review with this--or perhaps we do if this winds up catching on more than that sadly little trafficked page. Unless we definitely decide to do that, though, a specific review/help me section would be a duplicate here. Ideally this talk itself will be a help me section: "can some pass along this PDF..." etc.
What I would like to do is list here, or on a sub-page, a series of links and resources for various topic areas. Basically a list you could browse for where to start with any given topic. Would that work as an add-on? Marskell 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and this may only be my perception, but I see Peer Review as a general reviewing tool, while what I'm picturing is a little place where I can say "I'm working on Foo, and I was hoping someone could check my spelling and if anyone knew where I could find information on Foo" from people who have been doing the same thing with their articles. Maybe just posting them to this talk would be just as useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand that. I suppose the question would be whether a subpage diverts attention; the list itself and this talk may be sufficient. For instance, I made the teeniest edit to your listing yesterday just by noticing it on the list. Marskell 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a link to the talk page of the article from this list? That way it stays as a record with the article and doesn't dilute the potential pool of "assistants". (I agree with Marskell though, the list itself can lead to other people trying to help out - spending hours fruitlessly looking for an image of Barnard's Star for instance) Yomanganitalk 00:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added. Now we just need f**ing sign-ups. And thx for your hours on Barnard's star, BTW. I sent an e-mail off to some guy at NASA today, without reply. Perhaps no pictures are to be found. Marskell 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found one from the Lawrence Berkely Labs here. They may have restrictions, but maybe not. NASA may not be the best place to ask. You probably want to write to the actual observatory where the pics are being taken. Of course, an actual pic of a star is never going to be that exciting. I'd stick with the illustration that is already in the article. You could also try and find a free picture of E. E. Barnard if you want the article to have more pics. You might be able to find a free pic of him in this lot. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea. I, for one, am willing to contribute copy-editing (IANAPC-E), but right now, I don't really know how to contribute that in a way that will be of benefit (that is, there's no use copy-editing while people are still overhauling an article; and I prefer not to do it, unrequested, for existing FACs). Nor is Peer Review a request to copy-edit, in itself. I'd also be willing to try acquiring subscriber-only source documents for others. And in case this page is the extent of it, then: I am offering the above services to you FAC writers. :) –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added a section to the project page to this effect. I admit, it's the inverse of what badlydrawnjeff has suggested, and probably doesn't replace what he wants: but anyway, it's just an idea I had. Revert at will! –Outriggr § 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disagree[edit]

I disagree with some of the text on this project. I'm quite happy for the proportion to drop, and would be happier still if the pass rate at FAC dropped. There are too many FAs that, IMV, are not good enough under the terms of the criteria.

If this project results in a significant increase in nominations that require considerable work while in the FAC room to meet the criteria, that will degrade the process. There are simply not enough reviewers and good writers/editors to go around as it is. Tony 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind this is to better the quality overall, and to achieve that the only way to do it is by telling each other what article we are working on and helping each other to review them.
The people that have registered to make 1FAPQ have already created FA articles and they know they will bring these articles to a better format. It is better to bring more articles from Stub/Start/B to A-class than to bring a tenth as much to FA quality or even to better only a few already FA. Lincher 02:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right behind attempts to improve articles, but I worry about the standard of writing overall on WP. FAs are now required to be written to "professional" standard (Criterion 1a). Tony 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as a way of avoiding dumping articles into FAC and then sorting them out during that process. Collecting them here in advance will allow others to point out the weaknesses and make improvements. On that that topic: perhaps we should have some way of indicating how close we think the articles we've nominated are to FA? While improvements are always welcome, it is particularly important just before listing as a candidate to avoid the problem of "fix-up in FAC". Yomanganitalk 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re first, if this brings editors into FAC who are moving about elsewhere it will improve the project. The best signee on this list would be the person who's never written one but would like to try. Per Yomangi, the list means more eyes and ideally, through this talk, a specific place to query for things. I want to draw up a resource list of discipline specific sites for various topics as an add-on.
Re second, most of our core topics are already well beyond stub/start. They need to be grabbed hold of and given the FA treatment. I add Mars-geo stubs from time to time, and would like to expand a few of the notable landmarks, but getting the Mars page itself to FA is far more important. I think we need to start viewing articles that way.
Re "perhaps we should have some way of indicating how close we think the articles we've nominated are..." It seems to me that people are already doing that when they sign. I was thinking of a "status" column for "at PR" or "at FAC" etc.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant if people don't actually sign-up. It's hard to get a new drive rolling... Marskell 10:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this discussion is a bit old but, that makes my question more relavent. In addressing the concern at the top of this section, has anyone tracked the pass rate of FACs comming from here and compared to the average pass rate for other FACs? This is I think a number that should be on the project page (if its there then I missed it). Dalf | Talk 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested[edit]

Hello again! So I'm on the last leg on my FA, I was hoping a few people with a critical eye and a straightforward attitude would take a look at Kroger Babb for me. I'm worried about three things:

  1. The lead, which I'm never comfortable writing.
  2. The "Post exploitation" section, which feels stilted to me, but may be a lack of confidence on my end.
  3. Images. Are my fair use rationales up to snuff?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3, I think the pic of Babb himself qualifies as fair use but not the movie posters toward the bottom. I know it can be pain, as the page will be largely just text if you remove them, but because the subject is Babb and not the movies themselves the fair use rationale is weak. You are providing analysis of the films but not of the posters themselves.
I'll try and read the body more fully before commenting more. Marskell 12:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I find the whole fair use situation here extremely confusing, which is why I brought it up. Luckily, both posters are in use in other articles, so it'll be easy to keep around if someone else thinks that they qualify for use here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could use the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" image if you move it up to the previous section where you talk about the promotional techniques, since it quite clearly represents that topic. The lead looks fine to me (although that is one of my weak areas too)and the "Post exploitation" section is, as you say, a little stilted, although I find it hard to see how you can make it flow better unless you break the chronology or add more detail. I found the number of quotes a bit offputting, but obviously most are essential to illustrate his character and his effect on the people around him. Yomanganitalk 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

Since I'm not sure how many people check this page regularly:

Fairly impressive rollcall as it stands. Please comment on FA nominees if you're able to (yes, I'm actively begging for any commentary at this point, conflict of interest yadda yadda), but most importantly, keep up the good work. Of the roughly 20 articles listed for this quarter, 12 of them (60%) are GA nominees or better, and we still have two months to go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review needed[edit]

Aside from the articles I listed here, I am also working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. --Aude 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval cuisine up for peer review[edit]

I'm starting the push towards a successful FAC and I'm hoping I can make it before the informal deadline about a month from now. Any and all input is much appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

Possible userbox, for those so inclined:

Addhoc 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc, you substed the userbox when you put it here. Where is its main location? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, {{User 1FAPQ}}... Addhoc 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bored, so here we go[edit]

Well, I was bored of fixing up my article, and figured that it would be interesting to see how this new group was going. So, I compiled Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter/List/2006 IV. Thoughts/comments appreciated :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could make fancy graphs like that. If you make one for Q1-2007, perhaps a line item for a link to the FAC page would be helpful, too. Other than that, it looks nice, and it looks like we've done pretty well as a group for the first run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make it in the morning, Australian time, and I'll add a column that can facilitate FAC/PR's etc. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 13:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, dude! The only thing I could think of is maybe the addition date, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. Good work! I'll have to learn how to do that, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs)
You missed Platypus <sob>. Very pretty though. Yomanganitalk 13:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did too :O Sorry about that. I was thinking about addition date, but it seemed kinda redundant (and I wanted to keep the table as clean as possible). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 14:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Success rate[edit]

Looking at the statistics from the last quarter of 2006; 24 articles were listed. 9 of them made featured status, leaving this project with about a 37.5% success rate if you only count those that achieved featured. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An update - of 24 listed, 13 are featured, plus 7 are good. If a dood article is half-way to being featured, then our success rate is 68.75%. Addhoc 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty rockin'. Hell, to be above 50% for featured alone is a great thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to change what articles I have listed here? I chose two for Fall 2006 - getting one to good article [1] and the other is at WP:GAC now. [2] In addition, there is a related subarticle [3] that I think is definitely GA quality and approaching FA quality. Because there is such a backlog at GAC, I don't see a reason to put it up there and it can go directly to FAC when it's ready. For Q4 2006, I also worked extensively on a totally different article than the ones listed [4], getting it to GA status and close to FA status. Q1 2007, I have worked on totally different articles than the ones listed, getting two articles (both entirely new) [5] [6] to GA status. So, effectively I have 6 GAs (but 0 FA) since I listed articles here last September. In my opinion, having 6 GA is almost/if not equal as a success. Furthermore, one of the articles I listed for Q1 2007 [7] reached GA status last summer so counting it as a new GA is not correct and figuring into the "success" is not appropriate. Would people object if I took off the two I had listed previously, and list ones that I actually spent time on? --Aude (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and updated the list of articles I have/am working on. If it's a problem to do that, let me know and it can be reverted. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated what I've been working on too, msotly in the event that someone can help out. That's why I have 3 listed for Q2 - I don't know if all 3 will make it, but I'll be damned if I don't give it a shot since they're close, and since they're not popular topics, any extra eyes will help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short evaluation[edit]

It could be a good idea to have some sort of automatised voting machine to do quick evaluations of articles. The goal would be to let editors know when the article is ready for FAC, so as not to clutter it, per Tony above. The way it could work; contributors could give a simple evaluation for each of the FA criterions. Either yes/no, or preferably A, B, C, D. That way we could know what to concentrate on. The idea is not to overlap with peer review or FAC, but to get a simple, quick way to assess the trengths and weaknesses of an article. --SidiLemine 11:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be "evaluation creep": checking if an article will likely be supported before the actual support/oppose period... It would certainly be nice to eliminate the FAC noms that don't belong, but I think that's broadly a newbie thing and not something we can eliminate with a new evaluation (i.e., the people with a totally unready nom aren't familiar with evaluation procedures anyway). Marskell 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos...[edit]

...to the editors who added the Userbox and did up the table summarizing the last quarter. The page remains modest but alive. Marskell 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternative approach...[edit]

Hmmm... I was thinking about our increasing focus on the quality of Wikipedia articles, and that it might be best to focus on reaching only the GA standard on the large scale that this page reaches for. It is far harder, in my experience to have an article pass FA than GA, while the latter may still be almost as good. The process is also a lot faster and possibly more conducive to such a mass production of quality articles as this page endorses. And perhaps 100,000 GAs is simply a more practical future goal than 100,000 FAs, for now... Don't get me wrong, I love writing Featured Articles, and if this idealogy shifted as I have proposed, I would probably continue to go past GA status and for FA. But I am not a typical editor, and I think that on this large scale, we might do a little better to endorse such a goal that is far more managable than our current one (not that I mean to be a pessimist, but the statistics agree with me). This goal of 100,000 GAs could and would be very easily endorsable, maybe in the Signpost or something. Anyway, 'tis just a thought! -- Rmrfstar 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't completely agree, I think we should view articles that only make it to GA standard to be a partial success for this project. Addhoc 09:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a GA fan and I wouldn't like to link this project to GA at all. "It is far harder, in my experience to have an article pass FA than GA." Yes, right. "While the latter may still be almost as good." Hit-or-miss. The problem with GA IMO is that it enourages people to stop at an "almost" plateau. More importantly, its throughput is totally random. Some guy said it was a "good article"; I think it's actually ridiculous how easily a page can become GA.
But! All article space improvement is good. Whatever your goal is, keep editing. No need to be cynical on that score. Marskell 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orb peer review[edit]

  • Hiya, I haven't gotten any feedback on The Orb's PEER REVIEW in the 3 weeks its been posted. This article isn't excessively far away from FA and is my entry for 1st quarter this year, so I was hoping a couple of editors could provide some suggestions. Much thanks! Wickethewok 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that a lot of articles at peer review get little or no response. I stuck a backlogged tag on it the other day and commented at the villiage pump about it, but still... nothing. I'll take a look at The Orb when I get a chance. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA and peer review help needed[edit]

The article I've been working on, Joseph Francis Shea, has been stalled in the Good Article candidates backlog since February 6. It is also up for a WikiProject Biography peer review, but has received no comments yet. Any help or feedback on the article would be very much appreciated. MLilburne 00:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All set. It's very good, and it's GA now. –Outriggr § 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! It's appreciated. MLilburne 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update?[edit]

first quarter of 2007 done... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.107.4 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It appears to have been partially updated. I'll try to fix up the list if no one else does soon. Marskell 20:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Very Minor Publicity[edit]

I covered WP:1FAPQ on my blog. This gets picked up by the wikimedia blog aggregators, so perhaps a few more wikipedians will become aware of 1FAPQ. 1FAPQ is a great initiative. I have faith that Wikipedia culture will begin to focus more on quality than quantity. Jonathan Stokes 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia now FA...[edit]

I listed Indonesia to get FA by first quarter 2007. We were late, we got it this (2nd) quarter. Can I change its listing in 1st quarter to FA? regards --Merbabu 21:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bumped to the top of the second quarter list, and noted FA. Sound good? Marskell 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating.[edit]

Is anyone updating the main page anymore? We're into the second quarter and it's not a table. DevAlt 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Round about the end of the quarter we turn it into a table, I think. Marskell 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page dying?[edit]

Why is this page dying? Can we do something to make it not die? Is there some way to refocus things to keep the drive alive? Have any of you seen my keys? Marskell 18:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got an article listed, but no one haven't commented in the FAC for weeks (Bob Meusel) Jaranda wat's sup 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not dying any more than FAC might be dying. FA candidates seem more random or ever (or perhaps I mean "less random"). I wonder if article writing is waning, or at least people aren't submitting to FAC like they used to. I can think of two users off the top who once listed here: Yomangani and bdj. Or maybe it's the time of year (Northern bias). I borrowed your car but I put the keys back on the … oops. –Outriggr ♠ 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now for something constructive. How about a plug at Wikipedia:Community_Portal, Marskell? –Outriggr ♠ 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, judging from the stats FAC nomination is healthy and increasing. I went to the portal (I think) when first creating this page. What about the Wikipedia:Signpost? We could have an article describing the stats for the year and some successes (for example, almost all the major bodies in the Solar System are now FA) and make a plug for this page. Not sure how the signpost works, though. Marskell 10:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was referring less to stats and more to my own subjective criteria as to what constitutes healthy FAC nomination—so I can't be wrong! :-) (But seriously, there are easier and harder types of articles to get featured, and the easier seemed to have a growing share. Sure, I should talk.) Congrats on the solar bodies. –Outriggr § 02:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I like about this page is that it focuses the mind. Also, its always interesting to see what others are up to.
Marskell, did your keys switch on a small yellow 1989 Fiat Punto by any chance, because two pink shelled chaves just crashed one into my garage. You might pass on your insurance details and a small lump sum please. Ceoil 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current FAC[edit]

If anyone is here, I have an article at FAC now. My last FA passed within days, but this one has been listed for 2-3 weeks now. Reviewers have been slow in coming, so more feedback would be very appreciated. I'm happy to get any feedback, including objections (things for me to address). The slowness of the process is discouraging. --Aude (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add... when I do nominate at FAC, I always look through other articles and review some. And, keep my eye on the FAC page for articles to review. --Aude (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist[edit]

Yomangani (talk · contribs) has retired. If you're able to help maintain the FAs that he wrote and restored at FAR, please add them to your watchlist:

  1. Laika – SandyGeorgia
  2. Beagle – SandyGeorgia
  3. Red Barn Murder – SandyGeorgia
  4. Sophie Blanchard – Outriggr §
  5. Harry McNish –Outriggr §
  6. Thylacine –Outriggr §
  7. Four Times of the Day – Awadewit
  8. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump – Awadewit
  9. The Four Stages of Cruelty – Awadewit
  10. The Log from the Sea of Cortez – qp10qp
  11. John Dee – qp10qp
  12. Anne of Great Britain – DrKiernan
  13. Mary II of England – DrKiernan
  14. Order of the Garter – Dr pda
  15. Order of St. Patrick – Dr pda
  16. Order of the Thistle – Dr pda
  17. Humpback whale - JayHenry (and Casliber)
  18. Blue whale - JayHenry (and Casliber)
  19. Elizabeth Needham - Ceoil
  20. Common scold - Ceoil
  21. England expects that every man will do his duty - WesleyDodds
  22. The Adventures of Tintin - Ceoil / WesleyDodds
  23. Transit of Venus - Ceoil
  24. Platypus - Casliber
  25. Oceanic whitetip shark - Casliber
  26. List of Cuban birds -Casliber
  27. List of birds of Belize - Casliber
  28. List of birds of Nicaragua -Casliber
  29. Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre - Septentrionalis
  30. Parliament Acts -Septentrionalis

I've got Beagle and Laika. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I'll also take Red Barn Murder, but I can't be of much use on the other animals, art and British articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gawd, this is depressing. I'll take the whales. I think casliber watches them both too. --JayHenry 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I helped fix up the "Order" articles, so they're already on my watchlist. Dr pda 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cortez.qp10qp 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) (One of the great article writers gone; he taught me a lot.)[reply]
I'll take two. Ceoil 13:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aready got platypus...an' I'll take the shark an' birds. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually reading England expects that every man will do his duty yesterday. Given its stability and my background in History, I might as well take it. Comic book FAs are rare and tend to degenerate quite rapidly without constant maintenance, but I'm reluctant about watching over The Adventures of Tintin because I am not familiar with the series at all. WesleyDodds 02:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could watch and maintain Tintin & Venus, but both are outside my area. Ceoil 10:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows, I might learn something. Taken both, and volunteered WesleyDodds. Ceoil 19:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am already watching the Flavian Games; it will take considerable work to fix its major flaw; but I should be able to keep it from getting worse; I will keep an eye on Parliament Act, which could also stand a copy edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Awadewit is keeping up her end of the deal; what about the rest of you slackers? :) Incidentally, this is the best showing of teamwork I've seen around wp (though maybe I don't get around much) – which must tell us something about Yomangani. –Outriggr § 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, probably most who signed up to watch his articles did so out of awesome respect for the fine writer that he is and admiration for the legacy Yomangani gave Wikipedia. Perhaps we can all watch Inaugural games and Parliament Acts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any help watching Four Times of the Day on November 3, when it will appear on the main page, would be much appreciated. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joining[edit]

How does one join this project. I'd like to do some copy-editing, can I just add my name to the page? Mbisanz (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted, more info so I'll post it) You sure can! If you like copy-editing, there is also WP:LOCE, and the early-stage Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. –Outriggr § 01:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy table[edit]

Does anyone know how to make the fancy table for the third quarter? Awadewit | talk 12:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the fancy table and also listed the lists in reverse chronological order so that the most recent is at the top. A person coming to the page won't immediately see historical stuff. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the fancy table for the fourth quarter, but I wasn't slick enough to put it in reverse-chronological order. (Actually, I didn't think about that 'til I came here to post this announcement.) Please feel free to change or tweak or whatever. I felt weird about deleting all the commentary, so I put it in my sandbox. If I don't hear otherwise in a week or so, I'll probably delete it. – Scartol • Tok 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R.E.M will likely be promoted in the next few days. Is it ok if I switch if from a GA to an FA in Scartol's fancy, shiny, fourth quarter table as most of Dodds work was done in Nov/Dec. Ceoil (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say OK! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the star is added, of course please change the demarcation in the table. – Scartol • Tok 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets have some fun...[edit]

How about..........this...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to be a downer, but isn't writing down the whole lyrics of a song a copy vio? I like the idea, but we're not meant to put song lyrics on wikipedia... Spawn Man (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article icon[edit]

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up[edit]

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project resources[edit]

Has this list been updated relatively recently to verify the listed editors still are willing to do the items listed? It might be helpful to have some confirmation there, as only one or two editors leave any clear notes on their user page or user talk page as to whether they are accepting requests for copy editing or peer review, etc. Also, for the dingy amongst us, it might be helpful to note what months are in each quarter :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done?[edit]

I get the sense that this project is withering, if not finished completely. Obviously people are still writing Featured Articles, but it may be that no one's really keeping up with this whole push-yourself-to-do-an-FA-each-quarter thing. If I'm wrong, I'll finalize the tables. But insofar as we're in the second quarter of 2009 and no one's committed to anything, I'm thinking we should just let this puppy go. Scartol • Tok 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering too—it does seem to be dying a slow death. MeegsC | Talk 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be helping each other in a more ad hoc fashion. I suppose we should let it go. You know, two years from now, someone will say "I've got this really great idea..." Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, I think it's a great way for certain wikipedians to structure their contribution. In any case, I'm still keen if others are. Happy New Year. Ktlynch (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:One_featured_article_per_quarter&oldid=1159449213"