You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Glynn Lunney, the NASA engineer who led the team that brought back Apollo 13, died yesterday. Unfortunate that our URFA/2020 notes were not cleaned up before his death, but happy that MLilburne has come out of a 9-year absence! Please keep an eye on whether we can mark this “Satisfactory” after obit-related updates. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that we should prioritize making sure all of our BLPs of older individuals are up to snuff, eg, recent work at Sandy Koufax. User:SD0001, do you know if it is possible for a script to pull a list of every article on the URFA/2020 list that is a) a BLP, and b) of an individual older than 65 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SD0001/sandbox&oldid=1013287421 it lists BLPs from URFA/2020 born in 1956 or earlier. – SD0001 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ever so much; that was speedy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreviewed BLPs on older subjects

• Ann Bannon

  Written by Moni3 who stopped editing eons ago, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alain Prost Defeatured, Hog Farm _Talk 15:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bill Russell
• Bob McEwen Defeatured, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Brian Booth
• Bob Dylan

  Needs review for mostly verbosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Windle
• Debora Green
• Ed Stelmach
• Ernie Fletcher
• Elizabeth II
• Ernest Emerson
• Eusèbe Jaojoby
• Fred Moosally
• Ian Chappell
• Ian Meckiff
• J. R. Richard
  • Needs FAR, source-text integrity and OR concerns noted on talk. Hog Farm _Talk 22:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hillary Clinton
• Ian O'Brien
• Lanny McDonald
• Lat (cartoonist)
• Mark Satin
• Martha Layne Collins
• Mike Jackson (British Army officer)
• Mitt Romney
• Ozzie Smith
• Paul Henderson
• Paul E. Patton
• Paul McCartney
• Ram Narayan
• Richard Dannatt
• Ringo Starr
• Sandy Koufax

  Has two Satisfactory marks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger Waters
• Sandra Morgan
• Wesley Clark
• William Gibson

Continued from #2021 year-end goal ?

Don't want to get this derailed too much here, but also something to keep in mind with hurricane ones - there's four pages of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Not all are copyvios, of course, and the US government stuff should be public domain, but recommend checking for copyvio on these. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fiddlesticks, I wasn't aware of that. I'm unable to tell from the CCI which editors to watch out for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this statement give me some relief on what I need to check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

To complicate it, we've already cleared out some of the seasons of copyvio (denoted via FA icon or Green tick) and we haven't checked other articles within WPTC. I hope we can clear this soon; more editors are going to be active soon and not all of them understand copyright. Sennecaster (What now?) 17:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sennecaster, MER-C, Moneytrees, and Vami IV: - pinging CCI big dogs who know more about this situation than I do. Hog Farm _Talk 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I initially did a preliminary veiw of WPTC articles with Chlod in my userspace; that has since been deleted since the time of case opening, so that is where the checking thing came from. It shouldn't impact the flow too much; I will go through the listings and mark ones that have already been cleaned during the preliminary review.

I would be on the lookout for unattributed PD copying and a lot of meteorological agencies are copyrighted. Most of the ones that were checked were not GA/FA, and I haven't found any copying from them so far, but I definitely found an FA with pirated links. The issue with WPTC is that I haven't identified any singular editor that has been a problem; it seems to be a huge mix of what kind of copying is done, and the project itself has chronic unattributed copying issues between season articles like 2021 Pacific typhoon season and cyclone articles, like Cyclone Tauktae. Hope this cleared things up. (please ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oops sorry Sennecaster, edit conflict on my post below ... there is a list there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether I have to also worry about copyvio as I am reviewing old FAs (2004 to 2006, this list) to see if they still meet FA criteria. And if so, what am I looking for. Some of the original diffs at the CCI are revdel'd, so I can't see them. If privacy is a concern, pls do email me as to what to watch for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps this explains why I haven't gotten responses from WP Cyclone re older FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original diffs are RD1 redacted so no privacy concerns. I noticed that most of the problems are post-2006, so I think you will be fine. Wouldn't hurt to occasionally spot check, and I'll see if I can swing by and check them for CV. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm I don't think FA needs to worry about that CCI at all. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21 is probably the only CCI that has a non-negligible number of FAs listed. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, crap ... I seem to recall that I noted that issue VERY early on, MANY years ago, in a FAC DYK. Not surprised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at the talk page of the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sample hurricane CCI check

For those following at home, I have put hours, hours, and hours into this example at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1. I'm waiting for more feedback from the CCI peeps, but this work is arduous, and I doubt I caught everything. Also, on an individual hurricane URFA review here. Hope everyone will have a look at what is involved. My new knowledge forced me to go back to my days as a new editor, and template my early moving around of content as I built the Tourette syndrome suite; even though it was almost always my own writing I was moving around between sub-articles, in the early days (2006 and 2007), I did not know to state in edit summary when I was copying between articles. This has really slowed me down, and we have tons of work ahead with Hurricane article evaluation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc21 CCI

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hahc21

1. System Shock 2 2012
2. Sinistar: Unleashed 2012
3. Homework (Daft Punk album) 2013
4. Gravity Bone 2013
5. Armada of the Damned 2013
6. Typhoon Maemi 2014
7. Thirty Flights of Loving 2014
8. Flotilla (video game) 2014

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees and Wizardman: is this CCI completed and do we need to still check these older FAs? As I recall, the early problems were with Spanish-language sources, and these FAs seem different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged on list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell, Hahc21 did not get a source check on his first FAC, then this on second (scanty). And no source check on third, where I indicated article was not FAC ready. Stopped there: These will all need closer scrutiny.

@Buidhe and Hog Farm: this is why User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox4 makes that happen FIRST, before the FAC can proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the completion question, answer is no. I can put that in in my high priority list to clear since it's not a large CCI at least (sadly can't give a better guarantee than that, nearly all my edits the past 6 months have already been CCI-based as it is). Wizardman 22:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor you ... it is such hard work ... thanks for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other FAs at CCI

Per above, there are other FAs on the 2020 list that are also on the 2020 Unreviewed featured articles per User:Moneytrees/GAFAFLCCI:

• Kingdom Hearts II 2007 - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Favre1fan93
• Mana (series) 2008 - Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Judgesurreal777
• Elizabeth II 2012 - Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Dante8_02

Of these three, Kingdom Hearts II and Mana (series) have meaty edits in the CCIs while Elizabeth II doesn't. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged on list, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have time to pull the rest of Judgesurreal777's FACs from WP:WBFAN and list them here? We need to see why they aren't flagged on the CCI (or maybe they are). Not worried about Elizabeth, as that was a DrKay nomination. Haven't looked at Favre1fan93; heading out for the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super smash bros and Metroid are not on the CCI. The CCI only covers Judgesurreal's edits from 2006 to September 2011. Those FA's may of come later. The issue in that CCI is splitting and merging without attribution, so in most cases, I believe the text itself will not be removed for copyvio. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other ones, just in case:

• Final Fantasy XI (2008)
• Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008)
• Metroid Prime (2008)
• J. R. R. Tolkien (2006, kept at FAR in '09)

Just those 4. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We didn’t start copyvio checks at FAC until November 2010. I flagged all of these so we will remember to look into them—not an indication that any of them actually have copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to read the CCI pages; what are the N and X indicating? The Kingdom Hearts II edits are not by the FAC nominator, but sure are a lot of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay see the CCI at the top of this section; there is a CCI on an editor who was editing FA Elizabeth II in 2017 (after the 2012 FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems found on those edits. DrKay (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: N is the articles that the user created. We use X mark (articles with no vio} and tick (articles with vio). As for these FA articles, there could be copy violations by the CCI user but a different person nominated the article at FAC. In either case, hopefully there was no copying in the old or current revision of these FAs. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, there's also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Kailash29792 (Courtesy ping @Kailash29792:), which has six FA's listed; Keechaka Vadham (2018), Andha Naal (2017), Mayabazar (2016), Kalidas (film) (2015, went through a FAR in 2017), Enthiran (2015), Chandralekha (1948 film) (2014, went through a FAR in 2018). I haven't seen any violations on those articles, but they should probably be checked. I don't have a full list of all the FAs listed at CCI, but I think most of them have been listed here now. If I find any others I'll make sure to note them here. Moneytrees🎄^{Talk/CCI guide} 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moneytrees. This page focuses only on the older FAs, so there was only one to flag but ping @WP:TFA coordinators so they know to check this thread for all of the FAs that have open CCIs.

Moneytrees, if I might trouble you, where we most need your expertise and advice so we can move forward at both URFA and FAR, is to make sure I am doing the work correctly at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1 and Talk:Hurricane Nora (1997)#WP:URFA/2020. I hesitate to continue reviewing the hurricanes if I'm not doing the CCI checks thoroughly, or if I am tagging the article talk pages with {{Copied}} incorrectly. With so much work to be done here, I am concerned that FAR may need to take a global approach to the hurricanes, cyclones and seasons, so it's important to make sure my work so far is heading the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees might you review my work at Hurricane Irene (1999)? I did everything I know to do to check for both copying within, copyvio, and text taken from public domain sources without attribution. This includes stepping back through diffs of the hurricane article and the season article, and running general Earwig, as well as specific Earwig on archive.org links. In this case, the first two iterations of the article did contain public domain text without attribution, but that has since been rephrased, so I assumed (??) that attribution in the article was not needed. Please let me know if I'm on the right track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re this note, in the early iterations of the page, we didn't have articles divided by year, and we didn't have a counter on the page. I seem to recall that somewhere down the line, we found a few errors, that resulted in some adjustments. So, I did not try for absolution precision here. I counted in the early iteration how many were in 2004 to 2006,[2] how many in 2007,[3] how many in 2009,[4] and just lumped the difference in to 2008.

I thought we'd want these numbers for Z1720's year-end report, to see how we've done in each group. I'm thinking we may want to approach The Signpost about a year-end article, and plan to spam the main WikiProjects; that is, we should write more than just a year-end report, and aim to get more involvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a wider posting and trying to get a signpost article would be great here - I'm willing to help if needed on this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of submitting the year-end report in the WP:SIGNPOST, and talking to one of their reporters about the group. For the Wikiprojects, it would be nice if we could do project-specific reports: for example, for WP:CYCLONE we could give an update on HurricaneNoah's work on the 2004-2006 list, or provide a suggestion of 10 articles the project could review. I'd also like to get a URFA/2020 report into project newsletters, like The Bugle for WP:MILHIST. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas! Who wants to approach the Signpost ? (Not me, for reasons best left unstated.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that other than hurricane/cyclone season articles, I have checked through 2004-2007. Noah^Talk 02:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost usually publishes at the end of the month, so maybe we will aim for the Jan issue? I can contact the editor or post on their Newsroom after the December issue is published. As for project-specific newsletters, here are the ones that I think are active:

• The Bugle (Hog Farm do you want to outreach to them?)
• Medicine (SandyGeorgia)
• Women in Red (Z1720)
• GLAM
• Wikiproject Malaysia (Z1720 left message on talk page of newsletter's author)
• Downlink (Wikiproject Spaceflight)
• Hurricane Herald (Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones)
• Wikiproject Yorkshire
• WikiEagle (Wikiproject Aviation)

If everyone signs up for a newsletter, we can get project-specific reports out in no-time. I'm happy to write a draft project-report template if others are interested. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I can touch bases with Ajpolino about Medicine. We had a great save with Menstrual cycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: can you contact the editors of the Hurricane Herald and see if they are interested in a project-specific URFA/2020 report? Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've belated posted something at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom, we'll see if we can get any fish to bite. Hog Farm _Talk 16:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small note on the signpost thing, would it be a good idea to mention there the idea lab thread as a like "this is how we are trying to grow urfa into the future" type shout out? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I want a signpost article to focus on what has happened and how the process is going. If things are implemented in the future, we can mention it in the next signpost article. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have we been able to have any luck with getting something into Signpost? I think that would be a good place to get some attention to here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to send them a message after December's issue was released, to try to get our report included for January. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about right for me. First, because I hope we focus for the remaining three days on getting as many of 2006 reviewed, and as many of those "already have two satisfactories" resolved, as possible by year-end. And second, because between FASA launch, Sherman, TAMU and Tornado/CCI, I'm about out of steam, and have zero energy for a new project ... yet I see that Nikkimaria has gotten the needed book for the Great Fire, and I should help finish that up ... maybe someone can send a heads up to the Signpost after December publishes, and then we can gather our forces about the second week of Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can manage Great Fire if you're feeling overloaded, Sandy - some expansion to do there yet anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Guerillero again about the maps, and can at least clean up the image size mess as soon as I get some steam back :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors at WiR/WiG are exploring options on highlighing older FAs in need of improvement. A discussion about goals and setting this up is proposed to start at WP:WIG later this week. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To note for Signpost article, overall numbers of articles processed in 2021 at WP:FAR not seen since 2010, when the last effort (WP:URFA)—to review 523 articles after standards increased in 2006 to include a requirement for inline citations (see History of the Featured article process)—was completed. After that initiative ended, FAR was relatively quiet for the next decade (see WP:FAS), resulting in a backlog of FAs needing review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost and 2022 goals

When we start working on the Signpost article, it would be good to highlight successes and generate some 2022 goals, such as …

1. recruit more editors to work at FAR (if we each brought in one more active participant, it would make a big dent)
2. get at least 200 moved to FAR not needed (we can’t expect WBFAN top producers to keep marking their articles ‘satisfactory’ if nobody then does the second and third review)
3. get the 542 now at 2007 and the 706 now at 2008 considerably reduced (what should our goal be?)

We made a big push at year-end, and we need to either keep up or accelerate that pace in the new year. Thinking big picture, we really really need to bring in more participants … which is why it is so important not to unnecessarily offend those editors who helped build the FA process in the earlier decades. We need more Ceoils and Fuchs and FunkMonks on board here. For example, Grapple X has shown interest, and has dutifully marked their articles ‘Satisfactory’, and there they sit, with no second review … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I did the math right, we're over 13% of the way through the very olds (if the rate continues, it would take us a bit less than 8 years to complete all of those). If we can get 38 moved off of the '04-'09 page, that'll put us up to 15% by the end of the month, which ought to be doable if we all chip in. Hog Farm _Talk 18:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and assist; I'm trying to get one of my old FAs spruced up for ever 2–3 I help check off on the list, so after Populous: The Beginning gets some love I'll be diving back into the olds properly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (WP:URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. It was launched at the end of November 2020. This is the first annual report for this endeavour.

The goals of URFA/2020 are to:

• Identify deteriorated older FAs to submit to Featured article review (FAR)
• Encourage tune-ups on mostly compliant FAs that don't need a FAR
• List older FAs that are ready to be today's featured article (TFA) and help the TFA Coords check older FAs before running on TFA

The URFA/2020 list is divided into two pages: WP:URFA/2020A for very old (VO) featured articles last reviewed in 2004–2009, and WP:URFA/2020B for old (O) articles last reviewed in 2010–2015.

Progress

Since URFA/2020's launch, with 4,526 FAs needing a review:

• 195 FAs were Delisted at FAR (179 VO and 16 O)
• 151 FAs were deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR (107 VO and 44 O)
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% to 69%
• 60 editors made at least one notation in WP:URFA/2020, while others nominated, reviewed, and edited articles at WP:FAR

These numbers do not encompass the full activity of URFA/2020, however; once three experienced FA reviewers have deemed an FA 'Satisfactory' (not needing a FAR), it is moved to 'Kept or FAR not needed'. At year-end, an additional:

• 164 FAs had been given notice of the need for a featured article review
• 206 FAs had received one 'satisfactory' review (53 VO and 153 O)
• 64 FAs had received two 'satisfactory' reviews at URFA/2020 (16 VO and 48 O)
• 36 FAs were at FAR (33 VO and 3 O)

20% of the initial 4,526 older FAs have had ‘satisfactory’ feedback, or been noticed, kept or delisted at FAR. Hundreds more have been noted as having minor issues that should be addressed, work underway, or similar. Some FAs needing review per contributor copyright investigations have been flagged.

In December, URFA/2020 focused on reviewing FAs from 2004–2006. This resulted in many of the oldest articles getting reviews, particularly hurricane and typhoon articles; the number of these very oldest FAs needing review started in November 2020 at 225, and stands at 132 at year-end 2021. Reviewers are still needed for these older articles, especially editors with experience in European history, biographies, and animals. If you have any questions on how to review articles, please see the instructions tab or comment below.

URFA/2020 participants intend to write year-end reports for Wikiprojects, which will highlight articles that members of your Wikiproject might want to review. If your Wikiproject or newsletter is interested, please comment at WT:URFA/2020.

How to help

If we continued this year's trend, it would take more than ten years to review the remaining FAs, which is why we need your help! Here are some ways you can participate:

• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate an article to FAC from 2004–2015? Check these articles, fix them up, and mark them as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. If they do not meet the FA standards any more, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Fix an article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 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 that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
• Nominate an article that has been ‘noticed’ of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed.
• Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix the concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix.
• Review articles at URFA/2020: Experienced FA writers and reviewers are encouraged to help by marking articles as "Satisfactory" or posting notices for FAR. Inexperienced reviewers are also needed; articles far from meeting the FA criteria can be noticed and eventually posted at FAR. This allows experienced editors to focus on articles not egregiously failing the FA criteria and allows more articles to be nominated at FAR.
• Organise "review-a-thons" with editors and Wikiprojects: Are there editors in your Wikiproject that can help? Organise a contest with your Wikiproject to review and improve your project's FAs. The contest can even hand out barnstars and awards! Please post at WT:URFA/2020 if interested in hosting an event.

Feedback If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020#Discussion 2021 Summary.

Older reports 2021's quarterly reports are listed below:

• 2021 Q1 report
• 2021 Q2 report
• 2021 Q3 report

Discussion 2021 Summary

Discussion of this report should be placed here. Special thanks for SandyGeorgia for co-authoring this report. Z1720 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one article promoted in 2014. I would say Anachronox doesn't need an FAR but I'm open for a 2nd opinion. GamerPro64 06:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: If Anachronox doesn't need an FAR, can you mark it as Satisfactory on the URFA/2020 list? Another reviewer might come along and give notes later, and this will let them know that you are watching the page. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to update link to archive on Signpost when this section moves to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report

Hi there! Would anybody from the project be interested in participating in a short interview (6 questions) for an article in the Signpost? See also discussion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Suggestion by Z1720 (2022-01-06. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to do so, although others would likely be more eloquent/less likely to make bad typos than me. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think Sandy should be interviewed, especially to give insight on how this all started. I'd be willing to do this if more interviewees are needed. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If new editors are a useful perspective for the article, I'm glad to help as well. I haven't done many reviews myself, but thought I'd offer just in case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z, sorry I’ve not kept up (as you may have noticed, I have been otherwise entertained for weeks :) I will respond over there on the “not a WikiProject” issue. But as an informal group of editors working together, there are clear leaders, who should be heard from (Z and HF). A. C., my suggestion for the fourth would be Jimfbleak for three reasons: 1) prolific FA writer who has dutifully noted own articles satisfactory, while 2) also reviewing other older FAs and entering notes, and 3) a user of the list for TFA purposes. That really covers it all SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing up the work, so we don't overlap. What if I focus my responses on history/aims, Z1720 covers the annual summary and data, Jimfbleak takes the approach of how it helps improve quality, both across the board and for TFA choice, and Hog Farm fills in the marketing rah-rah come out and help gaps? Does anyone have something in particular they want to say? My rough is all history; why we needed it, how we did it before (URFA), what sparked my idea to get it going, how it interacts with FAR and builds camaraderie and brings new FA prospects into the fold, blah blah ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer qu. 2 (motivation to join), qu. 3 (contributions I am proud of, mention Basiliscus), and qu. 5 (pressing needs). Also happy to answer some other ones if no one is sick of my text yet. Some of these questions should be answered by more than one of us. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! Looks like organization is going great. Just a note, feel free to add extra reply sections beyond the 4 I originally added, if needed! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EpicPupper but can you clarify the formatting, per your edit here, and my start here? Are we supposed to write and sign as Buidhe did; or precede our comments with our name, and not sign; or something in between? Since (everyone knows) it takes me 500 edits to write one sentence, it would help to get off on the right foot :) I'm going to take on the "typical day", since it's all about keeping the list working effectively and efficiently! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia! I would prefer preceeding 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EpicPupper Great, thanks! Would it be possible to add this somewhere on the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia  Done with a few tweaks 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid too many interviewees in the Signpost article, I'll let others answer the questions (their responses so far are great!) This leaves SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, buidhe, and Jimfbleak as our voice! Ping me if there are any concerns or questions. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What ??? You should be in there; you could respond to at least one of the questions (we don't all have to respond to all of them). I have plopped in the basic history, which should include all of the links, so we don't end up with dupe links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'll take a look at the end and respond if I think something is missing. I don't need the celebrity: I would rather have a great article that draws people into the project than a long article that bores people. Besides, you four have a lot of prestige on Wikipedia, which will draw people into reading the interview. I'll be here, ready to answer questions when editors arrive. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. OK then, who is going to chop my verbosity when we're close to done? (PS, anyone is authorized to correct my typos.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am always available to chop out your extra words ;) Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can work on that after everyone is in. Thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've left placeholders for where I intend to weigh in; you really could fill in the other gaps, as you have been a leader of the group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 EpicPupper asked us to respond within one or two days, and we’re still short. Do you think we should ask FunkMonk to respond at “ What motivated you to become a member of the Unreviewed featured articles 2020 working group?” (Because they do so much reviewing), and should we ask a FAR Coord to respond at “ What do you see as some of the biggest achievements of the Unreviewed featured articles 2020 working group and are there any contributions you are particularly proud of?” Re the reinvigoration of FAR? Otherwise, the rest of you have to pop in some more answers! I’m going back to sleep now; please ping in those people if you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'll check later today and if there are still some missing answers I will contribute. I think there should probably be 2-3 responses per question (depending on length). Z1720 (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both … starting to look better … I’ll finish mine off after I get through my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the disaster that is my watchlist, and I cannot image what yours looks like....Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don’t watchlist very much; instead, I re-read all of FAR every day, and when I enter URFA reviews, I ask to be pinged back. And in my own area of editing, I only watchlist FAs. (Because all of the bad medical content is so depressing that I can’t follow it without despair.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have 1,330 pages on my watchlist. I've been meaning to do a general purging, but haven't gotten around to it because it's such a mess. Ugh. Hog Farm _Talk 17:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it down to 830, but it's still barely manageable. Hog Farm _Talk 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, I’m lower than y’all at 720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are mostly in now; @Buidhe and Hog Farm: since we are FA writers Who Never Overlink, can you go back now and check that links are only on first occurrence? I got many of them in to my first (history) post. We may be far enough along now that dup link check can be made. What’s missing? Do we want to ask Nikki or Cas or DrKay to pop in ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I don’t know why the flippin’ iPad can’t have a straight quote, so all of my curly quotes will need fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, although some of the dupe links may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Buidhe:, EpicPopper is asking for a few more responses[5] in the blank “Example” slots at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-01-30/WikiProject report. @WP:FAR coordinators: could y’all glance over this to make sure there are no huge fox paws (faux pas :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the report is long enough as it is and should not be padded by adding a fourth answer where there are already three, unless there is something more to say :) (t · c) buidhe 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great point 🙂 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EpicPupper could we together come up with a shorter, pithier title? The title there now doesn’t inspire one to engage … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia sure, totally agree! How about The Forgotten Featured? Feel free to suggest an alternative. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s interesting, but others here are probably more creative than I am. They are certainly pithier! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep asking them to please copyedit their own work; I've already asked three times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Well, we didn't get a lot of feedback on the article, but I was very encouraged by what was written by Ganesha811, Bilorv and Indy beetle.

Here's another good reason for working towards those important "saves": FAR is actively returning high-value FAs to status, which is not only a benefit to our readers, but also means adding these (often vital or core) articles to those that can be re-run TFA. The articles currently at FAR got last year at least five times the views as FAC's highest month of promotions did. And nine of the ten top viewed are actively being worked towards a save. I hope this will encourage more involvement, so we don't lose so many of these older "core" articles, which are a benefit to the mainpage readers, as well as editors looking for examples of Wikipedia's best work.

With a similar number of articles, comparing the visibility of the articles currently at FAR with the highest month of FAC promotions in 2021 (October):

• Current FAR: 43 articles; 1,640 daily average pageviews per article

  Ten articles with more than 2,000 average daily page views; nine of them actively being worked on towards a save

• October FAC promotions: 46 articles; 354 daily average pageviews^(a) per article

  Two articles higher than 2,000 average daily page views (Sustainable energy at 3,973; Turtle at 2,377)

  ^(a) Many ran TFA in November or December, so this measure of pageviews is somewhat inflated relative to current articles at FAR.

Comments

• Lots of editors first engage in fixing up articles when it is sent to FAR. How can we engage editors to improve articles before they are sent to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. All I can think of is to keep doing what we're doing; this is, processing down the list, leaving notes, and pinging editors we know to be capable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does URFA/2020 want to produce a mailing list for our reports? This might make it easier to deliver the quarterly reports to FAC, FAR, TFA, and URFA/2020 (so that it doesn't need to be manually posted to each talk page) while also delivering the report to interested editors' talk page (only if they sign up, though: we don't want to spam volunteers). Thoughts? Ideas on who/how to get this set up? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

generally, I don’t know. Specifically, Ajpolino knows how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to set up the list, but I have sent mass messages before and can do it as part of the admin toolkit. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the instructions are at mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage. Basically you setup a weird-looking subscription page that anyone can add their username to (example). The MassMessaging tool reads the page and sends the messages. It's user-friendly enough that I've been able to use it without major disaster. If any issues pop up, let me know. Or I'm sure if you ask at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders someone who actually understands the tool will step in to help. Ajpolino (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tentative schedule for March may be found here. It is subject to change if further TFA/Rs are filed or if there's any issues with an article. I plan to schedule next week, a bit early due to travel. Comments are welcome, and should be on that page so discussions stay centralized.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any old ones of concern, since they all either recently went through FAR, or have active knowledgeable FA watchers. Will others please check in case I missed something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Signpost article has been posted, I want to think about how to invite FAC nominators individually to participate here. When I sent out invites to top FAC nominators in 2021, about one-third started participating in URFA/2020, which I think is pretty good considering that other efforts seem to recruit fewer editors. I think it is a good idea to send out additional invites to specific editors on their talk pages, and want to brainstorm the message that we would post on their talk page. Two messages I am considering are invites to top editors at WP:WBFAN, and invites to editors that have "their" article marked as "Satisfactory" twice.

Top editors at WP:WBFAN

In this November discussion, SandyGeorgia wanted to preview the invite sent to editors. This discussion fizzled out, so I hope to bring it back so that there's one invite used each time we send another set. Here's the proposed text from before:

WP:URFA/2020

You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. Specifically, we need your help to review articles that you nominated to determine if they still meet the featured article criteria. If you have any questions, please ask on the working group’s talk page. Hope to see you there!

Comments on this invite template

Thanks for your comments below. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two satisfactories

There are some articles that need a third editor to mark it as satisfactory, and their FAC nominator is still actively editing on Wikipedia but hasn't commented on URFA/2020 yet. I was thinking that we could create an invite that would ask those editors to check their article and ensure that it still meets the FA standards. Here is a proposed message:

WP:URFA/2020

You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, ARTICLE NAME HERE, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on (insert WP:URFA/2020A or WP:URFA/2020B). If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page. Thanks for your help and happy editing!

Comments on this invite template

Thanks for your comments below. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z, they both look good to me, although I have the same concern I had before (that we aren't keeping up with the ones already marked!). Can you give me some examples from this second group? That is, who are some sample editors who might be receiving this second one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: A reason I think we struggle to keep up with the ones that are marked is because we do not have enough editors engaged in the process. My hope is that some of these editors will come to mark "their" articles, then stay to help out other articles that interest them.

Three examples of who I would send invites to are TrueHeartSusie3 for Marilyn Monroe, West Virginian for Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge and Dudley Miles for Æthelwulf. None of these editors have commented on URFA/2020 yet, and I do not think they have received a talk page invite for the project so far. Let me know if you would like me to compile a complete list of who this invite might go to. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need; those few samples make sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that some of my older FAs be granted clemency as I can only work on one at a time and each one will take me 2-3 months to update. Shoshone National Forest was at FAC in 2006 but had a massive update in 2014 where the refs were tripled and information nearly doubled. I recognize it needs another update, but not much changes in such places overall. I keep pretty good tabs on my old haunts and no new news items pertain to this forest. Glacier National Park (U.S.) was at FAC in 2006 but did have a big update in 2010. It of course needs to have refs checked and updates as well. Redwood National and State Parks was also at FAC in 2006 and I recognize it too needs an update. Banff National Park went to FAC in 2006 was listed at FAR in 2016 and was updated then and kept as an FA. Elk was at FAC in 2007 and I recognize this needs an update yet. Pallid sturgeon was at FAC in 2008 and also needs an update, however it was adjusted prior to being TFA in late 2015. Currently I am focused on the article Yellowstone fires of 1988 which is already in a FAR and as I mentioned, this will take me 60 days minimum to update. Editors can of course nominate any article they see as needing improvements to FAR, but due to my real life work commitments I can only work on one at a time and some of the ones I listed could be a year or more out before they can be updated substantively by me. Restoring demoted articles back to FA is a thankless job and in many cases, may never happen. I urge those that merely see few dead urls, some grammatical errors or such minor details like image stacking to assist where possible and make such corrections themselves if possible.--MONGO (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]