Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Proposal to remove alt text requirement

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)

For advice on conducting source reviews, see Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC.

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for March 2025. 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 [https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/ new facstats tool] has been updated with this data, but the [https://facstats.toolforge.org/ old facstats tool] has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Reviewers for March 2025}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for March 2025}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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) 11:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Nominators for January 2025 to March 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}

{{cob}}

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm putting together a short peer review of Religious responses to the problem of evil (recently promoted to GA), which User:Brent Silby is tentatively considering as a future FAC.

But I'm in a quandary: Some additions I would like to see are already treated (although not necessarily that well) at the parent article Problem of evil. Both articles should be self-standing, but I don't know how to determine the extent to which the child article should repeat material in condensed form.

Are there any essays or archived discussions that address FA criteria with specific respect to spinoff articles? Or does anyone here have advice to share?

Many thanks! Patrick (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Every article should be comprehensive (including all major viewpoints of RS per WP:DUE) in of itself. The same information may be present in two different articles if they are prominent enough in both. I'd say it is generally inadvisable to decide on one article's content by looking at what is covered elsewhere, except for reasons of length which do not apply here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @AirshipJungleman29, Thanks for weighing in! That's my editorial position too. I've received push-back on this in the past, however, and I wanted to be sure not give bad advice. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thought of asking this as a general discussion to all regular FAC reviewers: What are some hurdles for you personally when trying to do a source review? I noted that source reviews often tend to be the "last barrier" before an article would be promoted or otherwise. Yet, I just note not many dare to embark on source reviews, among our rather limited pool of FAC reviewers. Is it because of the need to try retrieve inaccessible/offline sources? Or the article is too long and you got overwhelmed with the large amount of sources you need to trawl through? And for those who are daring to embark on source reviews, what are your general tips? --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:The principal issue with source reviews is that with many of them, you can't readily tell whether the source is actually high-quality or not. For me it's articles on European football and popular culture like music where I see a load of books and magazines where I dunno how to tell what is high-quality and what is not. I have toyed for some time with not reviewing such articles at all for this reason. A long source list is also a problem, when you are trying to spot inconsistent format. Spotchecking is actually easier, if you step on to a source that is offline/inaccessible, you ask the nominator to provide a copy or screenshot to you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yup. Another issue is that finding a reviewer who's knowledgable enough about the topic to conduct a thorough source analysis can be a crapshoot. I've been in the European history game for years and I still struggle to identify RS. I know a few friends on here who can do so at the drop of a hat, and I still go to them regularly for guidance on which sources to use and which to avoid. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&oldid=1286416156 discussion on talk]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_noted_linguist_Anatoly_Liberman's_column_for_the_Oxford_University_Press_blog_a_RS? This discussion], concerning the sourcing of a featured article, may be of interest to participants here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Just noting that this has now rolled off into WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The folks who are working on sub-referencing are looking for feedback on the design and testers. See WP:VPT#Sub-referencing: User testing. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I leave a message for the people who reviewed my article at the peer review, and inform them it is now at FAC? jolielover♥talk 07:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, if it is a neutrally-worded message to inform them (rather than a request for a support, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources § Valnet section of project page. Z. Patterson (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for April 2025; thanks to Gog the Mild for doing the analysis on these. 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 [https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/ new facstats tool] has been updated with this data, but the [https://facstats.toolforge.org/ old facstats tool] has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Reviewers for April 2025}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|Supports and opposes for April 2025}}

{{collapse bottom}}

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) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|Nominators for February 2025 to April 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months}}

{{cob}}

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)