Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

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

To the coords

		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 at WP: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 Farm Talk 06:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes—second this 100%! (t · c) buidhe 06:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• They are all awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR reviewers needed

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Yes (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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 _Talk 15:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 for WP: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)

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)

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)

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

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)

eBooks

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)

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, see Dementia with Lewy bodies#References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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) buidhe 18:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

RBP history

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

Pauline Fowler

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)

No, but it's how they were written to 2007 standards  :) Is there a way to tell who fired up the bot that closed the discussion? Serial 17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you know full well who it was, SN :) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

@Extraordinary Writ: Honestly, It never occurred to me to check the logs. Bots automatically confuse me, I admit. Remember what The Turk says: "You think too much of me, kid. I'm not that clever." (Apologies for: "kid"!). Sorry Sandy! *facepalm* Serial 17:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

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 to WP: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)

Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia 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)

Featured Article Save Award for Jefferson Davis

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia 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)

Three requisite stages

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)

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)

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)

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 first WP: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 on this Signpost article to see how you can dig in, and be aware of WP: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 of WP:URFA/2020? Should we expect a sudden uptick here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

I see: Buidhe and Z1720, do tell all. 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)

@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 is here. 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)

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)

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) buidhe 19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Sounds cool. 5,000 miles away, and I reckon I could have done with the pointers!  ;) ——Serial 20:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@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)

@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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial 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)

New pre-load

I've just launched my first FAR (at Wikipedia:Featured article review/FC Barcelona/archive1) since FrB.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 installed here initially, and then adjusted here 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)

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)

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)

Done, [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Harriet Tubman

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia 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)

FAR-nominating tool

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

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC-nominating tool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Permission for six or seven again

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)

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

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

Matthew Brettingham

SandyGeorgia - Apologies in advance for the ping. Just wanted to say that I've not forgotten Matthew Brettingham's FAR. I know User: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)

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

@KJP1 and Nikkimaria:, have not had a chance to look, but you can find FARs on hold listed on the relevant URFA page, see the entry for Brettingham at Wikipedia:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020/2004–2009#2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Stalled FARs

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-domain DANFS as extensively as it does
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doolittle (album)/archive1 - waiting on Ceoil 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 _Talk 14:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

I'm still planning to work on Concerto 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)

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

Featured Article Save Award for Sex Pistols

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia 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 _Talk 02:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Restoring older featured articles to standard: year-end 2023 summary

Introduction

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

Statistics

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2023:

• 83 FAs were delisted at Featured 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 a FASA for restoring seven articles to meet the FA criteria. Many articles have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Topics and Wikiprojects

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!

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2023 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2023 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.56) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 14 8 22 0.36 15 Biology 16 45 61 2.81 62 Business, economics and finance 11 1 12 0.09 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 6 1 7 0.17 6 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 15 1 16 0.07 7 Education 25 1 26 0.04 2 Engineering and technology 5 6 11 1.20 3 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 47 6 53 0.13 17 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 9 4 13 0.44 4 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 30 16 46 0.53 36 Language and linguistics 4 0 4 0.00 3 Law 15 1 16 0.07 1 Literature and theatre 17 16 33 0.94 20 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 22 11 33 0.50 36 Meteorology 20 6 26 0.30 27 Music 30 9 39 0.30 52 Philosophy and psychology 3 1 4 0.33 0 Physics and astronomy 3 10 13 3.33 22 Politics and government 24 4 28 0.17 7 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 9 19 0.90 44 Sport and recreation 40 12 52 0.30 38 Transport 9 3 12 0.33 9 Video gaming 5 6 11 1.20 21 Warfare 31 51 82 1.65 27 Total 446 Note A 248 Note B 694 0.56 482 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

We need your help!

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

Here's how any editor can help:

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, an article can be moved to the FAR 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 has been '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.

Feedback and commentary

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 visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review coordinator needed

Hi, could someone review and close Wikipedia:Featured article review/Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1? The article in question has consensus to be merged into Keith 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)

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)