Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (April Fools 2005) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (2007) 22 23 24 25 26 (2008) 27 28 29 30 31 (Short FAs) 32 (Short FAs cont) 33 34 (Context and notability) 35 (2009) 36 (new FAC/FAR delegates) 37 38 39 (alt text) 40 41 42 (2010) 43 (RFC) 44 45 46 47 48 (Plagiarism, new FAC delegate) 49 (2011) 50 51 52 53 54 (2012) 55 (RFC) 56 57 58 59 (2013) 60 61 (2014) 62 63 (proposals) 64 (2015–2016) Archives by topic: Alt text, Citation templates (load times)
Threads older than 2 weeks may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Image/source check requests[edit]

Movies/TV programmes and their plot sections[edit]

Should plot sections be referenced, or are they tolerated in FA criteria? Is this documented anywhere? --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is documented anywhere, but I think they should be referenced - e.g. to a film review. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The FA criteria don't go into that sort of detail; whether plot sections should be referenced or not would have been determined by the relevant wikiprojects I think. Personally I've never had an issue with the plot section alone being unreferenced as long as what's described there really is self-evident from viewing the work in question. Of course what is "self-evident" can be open to interpretation. In any case I don't know of a media article that failed FAC purely because the plot section wasn't referenced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They're considered self-evident from the work itself to an extent—as in, the plot to Citizen Kane would simply be sourced to Citizen Kane itself so you don't need an inline citation for it. However, if there is any interpretation, or anything off-screen being mentioned, cite that to where it comes from. And if you can cite a basic plot summary to a secondary source, there's nothing to stop you doing so, but if it's just a summary of what's evident in the work itself that's not necessary. GRAPPLE ^X 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. There are a number of such articles at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page that I was struggling to assess, but I'm in a better place now. Thanks again. (And if you'd like to assess a couple of articles, please do!) --Dweller (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Two week leave[edit]

What are the rules for waiving the two-week leave requirement? I am hoping for a 25th birthday WP:TFA for Emily Ratajkowski. Waiting 2 weeks would take me inside 90 days prior to the desired TFA date. Can I pursue FA one last time immediately?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a FAC coord of course, but maybe I can shed some light on the process. At first glance, it looks like Bollyjeff's last paragraph (in his section) offered a perfectly reasonable oppose rationale. I don't see any replies to that on the FAC page ... but maybe you made some changes directly to the article that you hoped would address his points? I would think that's the first problem to address, before it goes back to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Bringing an article to FAC before essential work has been done doesn't speed up the process, it just makes for a longer and more complicated FAC. I'd say use the two weeks to get everything done to the article that you possibly can and aim for a short FAC. In my experience the long, article-building types of FAC usually end in archiving rather than promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

a.p.j. abdul kalam as a featured article[edit]

apj.abdul kalam article can be nominated as a featured article and it has all the things to be a featured article [User:Wiki tamil 100]

Well, not just like that please... It looks like you made your first edit to the article only yesterday -- per FAC instructions you should discuss with the major contributors before nominating any article for FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Resignation[edit]

Hi everyone,

I am retiring as a FAC coordinator as of today. I have already told Ian and Andy. My reasons are entirely personal and I have shared these with them. I am not retiring from Wikipedia and will continue to watch the virology articles (and others) and contribute the occasional FAC review. For the record, the FAs that I have promoted are listed here, and with one exception - about an overrated physicist in my humble opinion - I think my judgement was sound. After four years as a delegate, and nearly ten years on WP, I am deeply proud of all the writers and contributors that I have met here; particularly at FAC. I am tempted to list a few of these but knowing me I will forget someone, but I am sure you all know who I have in mind. I urge you all to continue to support our FA process - it sets the standard for all other contributions. The bar is high, this I know, but I hope that this will continue to be the case. One of the (many) things that have ensured the success of our beloved Wikipedia is our Featured Articles. Thanks to all the reviewers for helping me make the many, sometimes difficult, decisions to promote or archive. I have never kept a list of the latter, despite what some might think, I hate doing it. I know it is discouraging and might drive valuable contributors away, but little gives me more pleasure than seeing an archived FAC promoted and appear on the Main Page after the second or third time nomination. I will be 64 on May 1st and I will be expecting you all to wish me a happy birthday. I love you. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all you have done and for what you will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for setting a high standard of being a delegate, and for your cordial personal message, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and best wishes for what is yet to come. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Your work here is much appreciated and has been very valuable to the project; FAC is one of the core pieces of Wikipedia, and the coordinators are critical to FAC's success. I hope we get to see more of your article work here. I'm going to go ahead and pre-wish you a happy birthday now just in case my leaky memory fails me in May; all the best! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll say publicly what I've already said in private, that it's been an absolute pleasure working with you, Graham, and that while I'll miss your involvement in FAC coordination, I look forward to your further contributions to reviews and general editing. To echo Gerda, thanks for such a thoughtful signing-off message, too! Best Wishes, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything you've touched on Wikipedia was somehow better after your input. Cheers & happy editing in the future.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, take care and thanks for all the fish :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate loss for FAC. Best of luck, Graham! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work in the role Graham Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your great contribution. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We'll miss you, Graham, good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 08:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All the best for the future! Z105space (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the hard work Graham, and all the best. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You carried out your work with patience, fairness and good humour, a fine template for your successor. Thanks and best wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am saddened to read this, but understand. Graham has been an unsung star within the FA process and will be sorely missed. Thank you for all your work, guidance and fairness. You are leaving with the utmost respect of all concerned. Ceoil (talk) 09:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all you have done to keep FAC going. Enjoy your extra free time ;), and I hope you'll stay in touch here. GermanJoe (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Graham, and best of luck to future wiki and off-wiki endeavours. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, and best of luck with your on and off wiki activities in the future!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been out of touch with FAC for a little bit, but your work has been admired from a distance. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work and patience! All best wishes, Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No WP:FA models?[edit]

According to Category:FA-Class fashion articles, there are currently no models at WP:FA. Is this correct? Has there ever been a model at FA? I ask because I am trying to get support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA. Are there FA-level model articles to look at?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• O.K. At Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies. I see three articles with the word model in the LEAD: Kirsten Dunst, Emma Watson and Deepika Padukone. I guess that category may be incomplete. I am going to figure out if the WP:FASHION people actually regard these people as models and determine why their category is not tagging them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

All are essentially actresses - Dunst's modelling career seems to have ended by the age of 6, and she at least would not be notable as a model. In that respect they may not be the best models for your model FA. Johnbod (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, several well-known actresses were models first, e.g. Jessica Lange and Marilyn Monroe -- the latter is a recent FA and has a fair bit on that section of her life. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest[edit]

Hi all, Wikipedia:The Core Contest is running again from May 15 to June 30. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)