Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Shortcut

Question about reviewing

SG said on the FAC talk page: As an example, if three experienced reviewers will have a look at my 2006 promotion, Tourette syndrome, we might move it off the list. Ditto for Germany, which Nikkimaria worked on. If you find issues, please list them at article talk, so as not to bulk up the URFA page unnecessarily – for ones like these should we just mark in the notes column that they still meet FA criteria? Or go another route? Aza24 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just add Satisfactory to notes so we can begin to move out those that are in good shape and focus on the problematic ... apologies for brief ipad typing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you review an article here you already reviewed at FAC? Because that would quickly get some articles ticked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I am understanding the question, but if you mean you supported a gazillion years ago, and the article is still at standard, a Satisfactory will do the job! Yes, there should be a number of quick ticks ... and getting those moved off the page will help us focus on the truly deficient. If you find minor things that need addressing you can do what I did at the entry on the page for Rhinemaidens ( Satisfactory, with note ) ... look through some of the samples, which is easiest done if you pull up a sort on the last (Notes) column. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, I just looked at Apatosaurus, which I reviewed in 2015, so not that long ago (I remember it well), and the edits since then seem to mainly be updates, wikilinks, and other small improvements. So I ticked it off as satisfactory. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect ... precisely what we need! I'll/We'll move articles off the list when they have three "satisfactory" entries (from people who know the standards), unless there is controversy, which we'll punt to the FAR Coords. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing your own nominations

I would prefer not judging my own old nominations, so they are instead marked by uninvolved, more objective editors, but I see others have marked their own noms, so how do we feel about that? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating this question, and glad someone finally asked it :) IMNSHO, please evaluate your own articles, and then two other uninvolved editors will know to have a look. Why I think this is acceptable? Because if an FA writer evaluates one of their own deficient dated articles as Satisfactory, they will be quickly called on it, and ... the most serious issues are found in articles that are no longer watched. THOSE are the really bad ones we are looking for. That you are still watching your FAs bodes well for them, and we should get those moved off the list so we can focus on the truly bad. That doesn't mean your old FAs are perfect, nor do we expect them to be, but knowing that nominators have checked up on their FAs is a good start for other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, that said, will someone please look at my very old (2006) Tourette syndrome, which was completely overhauled in 2020, involving about a dozen medical editors as well as non-medical Ceoil, Outriggr and Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that, I have also made major overhauls post-FAC to many articles, so it would certainly not hurt to get them looked at. I'll start marking my "own" articles soon, then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way Peacemaker67 handled this, in that he identified that they were his own ... good practice for others to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked one now[1], and noted it has had major overhauls since FAC, is it too much text or ok? It has changed a lot because it was also reviewed for Wikijournal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will look momentarily. PS: In a similar vein, we should be looking for independent review, so as an example, we should not move Peacemaker's to the Kept section without review by at least one non-MilHist editor. And the biology/bird/etc articles should be looked at by non-biology types. All of this is why I am hitting as many as I can, once topic experts have seen them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to sign off on bio stuff, if it looks okay to me and two species-familiar editors think it's okay. However, I've new enough to FAC/FAR that I'm not entirely familiar with knowing who all of the science-related editors are, and what their areas of expertise are. Should we have a section where editors frequently involved here get classified by areas of expertise? Just spitballing here, it may be a horrible idea, but it's at least worth me typing this, I guess. Hog Farm Bacon 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true :0 WP:WBFAN is your friend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a ways down there, but I hope to be working my way up that list over time *:) Hog Farm Bacon 18:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but look at all those hollow stars to remember why we are doing this ... when I first started working at FAR in 2006, Emsworth was the main FA writer ... as was Cla68, whose articles have stood the test of time.
Anyway, to your question ... you know the MILHIST editors, FunkMonk is biology/animals, Jimfbleak is a bird man, I am medical/Venezuela ... who else do you want to know about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the non-Milhist editor check is necessary for Milhist articles, any more than non-medical editors are needed for medical articles. Mostly it is the Milhist editors who will see if there are content issues. Of course anyone can check the MOS and prose stuff. I watchlist and closely monitor all my FAs, and they have only been improved since promotion IMHO. The only issue with historical (as distinct from currently evolving) Milhist articles would be if the academic consensus on a subject had changed since promotion (I try to keep up on this for mine). I imagine that can also happen for other topics if the scientific consensus changes. This doesn't happen often for WWI and earlier, but can happen for WWII and more recent conflicts, the more recent, generally the more changes in academic views occur. BTW I agree anyone who is the primary editor should indicate that when they state they reckon it is ok, as I have. Everyone needs to remember this is a process of checking if they are satisfactory, not a new FAC or a FAR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we should declare a medical article satisfactory if it is not digestible to a non-medical editor, because part of the problem with some of the older medical articles is that they are incomprehensible. And, if we extend the logic that only MILHIST editors need review MILHIST articles, do we extend that same logic to every project? So, if three video game editors or three hurricane editors or three Catholic editors or three art editors pronounce an article satisfactory, we don't want external input in any of those content areas? That starts us down a slippery slope. I sure agree that we want one, and hopefully two, topic experts, but expecting independent review could save us some unforeseen agida down the road. While it may work in the organized area that is MILHIST, I am not so sure it would be good practice across the board, because we can't foresee all circumstances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we are making the process too bureaucratic to the extent that it will be unmanageable. There are a LOT of articles to check. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PM on this one. A short and snappy review of lots of articles by just one or two independent pairs of eyes should identify FAs that have decayed over the years, which is surely the aim of the game. Expecting three detailed reviews by uninvolved editors including one from outside the topic area is going to make this a years-long project that will waste a lot of duplicated effort on articles that are still up to scratch, potentially meaning it takes much longer to find deficient FAs. Btw, Milhist is an enormous topic area; for example, my war memorial articles have almost nothing in common with PM's Yugoslav articles or Gog's ancient battles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried about where the “detailed review” idea crept in? is it something in the instructions that needs to be addressed? Generally, once a MILHIST editor, bio, bird, etc, indicates an article is Satisfactory, I just scan it. (I am a few days behind, but hope to catch up today.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the requirement should just be two editors, regardless of whether one is the principal editor. The reality is that the principal editor knows the article status best, and we just need one other to confirm the article is satisfactory, and only need a third if they disagree. With such a huge list, we are wasting people's time requiring a third editor in all cases. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to be able to re-orient your thinking about how to use the list ... once I catch up and have time to compose my thoughts ;) (The blooming business of cleaning up errors from 2005 and 2006 in FAC archives is a time killer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose thanks for the new batch! I did only a few and will get back on them soon, but want to prioritize the work Mike Christie left on my talk, as I don't want to slow down his data analysis of the FA archives.

And I still mean to get back to Peacemaker67 and HJ Mitchell here, but haven't had time to type up my thoughts. The TLDR version is that these new(ish) FAs (relative to the hundreds from 2006 through 2009) are not likely where the real problems will be found, so it does not concern me if any of them sit on the page for even a couple of years (the last time we did this, it took six years to finish). It may even be advantageous to spread those reviews out over years, in case some nominators go missing and someone destroys their work in the interim. But ... they aren't the articles most likely in need of FAR, which is what we're looking for. We are more likely to find those by processing through the oldest first.

I'd like to put a list over at MILHIST of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs that we really need to prioritize, to avoid situations like Battle of Blenheim-- those that are at risk of being submitted to FAR if we don't address them first. And the serious problems are not to be found among MILHIST articles so I want to make sure our process is oriented towards the more problematic areas. More later, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to taking the old first, I have been hesitant to for example mark a lot of old dinosaur FAs as problematic yet, because we don't have the manpower at the dinosaur project to process so many that quickly, so we are trying to organise efforts to work on the older FAs gradually one by one or something like that, so they can be looked at for FAR afterwards. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For cases like that (where I have made a general note to Projects or contributors), I have been adding that note to the page on the older FAs, so we won't get premature noms (that is, we want to allow projects to approach their work methodically, and only FAR those that truly have no one willing to take them on). A note on the page helps us know who has done what! That way, when we come to something as we process them six months from now, and see nothing has happened, we will feel OK about sending them to FAR. For example most of the older FAs that need review are Hurricanes and MilHist. Hurricanes are on it; once they get through all of 2006, I'll review, and follow with a 2007 list. We need a MilHist list of all the 2006 and 2007 FAs for them to decide on a methodical approach. We just need to methodically get through the oldest first, as we have fallen so far behind. I am hoping that a goal of being through 2009 by the end of 2021 is doable ... so that we can gradually begin to catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National parks, state parks, geology of same

Hog Farm you asked above about the expertise of different editors, and I have been meaning to get back to you on this notification about a park article. (This may be of interest to @Buidhe, RetiredDuke, and Femkemilene: and anyone else regularly engaging now at FAR.)

Pretty much all of the National Park FAs on Wikipedia are User:MONGO. MONGO is still active and helping out at FAC, and has (in the past) worked through everything asked of him as standards have changed. Notifying/pinging him is more useful than pinging a WikiProject, as MONGO is the one who will do the upgrades. But ... he is only one person, and he has so many FAs, that it may be helpful to approach him like a Project-Unto-Himself, and not overwhelm him with too many at once. On those articles, it can be helpful to check the FAC to see if the article is one of his.

Similarly, many of the Geology of ... parks ... were written by Mav, who hasn't been active since 2015. At some point, I will email him and see if he can be enticed back, and we can decide whether to proceed to FAR with any of his. At the top of the list, Mav has Geology of the Death Valley area.

MONGO's are like Kirill Lokshin's in MILHIST: he has so many, and is willing to keep them at standard, and we should be considerate of their time constraints.

MONGO, can you tell us if you have a plan for approaching any of the articles on this list (particularly the oldest last reviewed), so we don't send an article to FAR unnecessarily ? I see some needs in each of these, near the top of the list, which I know you can address:

  1. Shoshone National Forest
  2. Glacier National Park (U.S.)
  3. Redwood National and State Parks
  4. Retreat of glaciers since 1850

If you do improve them, please feel free to add your own "Satisfactory" to the page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone NF was originally at FA in 2007 and I tripled the refs and did a huge overhaul in 2014. I know that is now 6 years ago and I can check and see if the cites are working and if any new news is available to add. I do not think much needs to be done here.
Glacier NP was also brought to FA I think in 2007 and was expanded and updated in 2010...thats now 10 years ago so it will need some updates of course. I will put that in my cue.
Redwood NSP is a bit out of date since it was brought to FA...Would have to run the gambit on that to bring it back up to cue.
Retreat of glaciers is currently and very slowing getting an update. Its at the top of my list, followed by the others. I expect Retreat to have a full update by end of the year.--MONGO (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, Sandy. Honestly I wasn't that concerned about the parks FAs; the ones I checked were obviously being taken care of so I just let them be, to focus on the badly neglected FAs. But yes, alerting big contributors about URFA/2020 is a must. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

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. [2] 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

Help requested at Atheism

There's a fantastic editor working on atheism, but this highly-viewed article has lots of important parts that need updating and the editor requested help to improve the article. Does anyone know of religion/philosophy experts who would be willing to lend a hand? I hope we can keep this star. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make a post to WT:FAC, which is more widely read? Also, please do ping me when there are further along, and I will look at MOS-y stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to WT:FAC, and will do. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a previous effort by WPVG

Thanks guys for this work, it's invaluable to maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's top content. :) I thought it might be helpful to drop you a link to a previous similar effort by WPVG which never made as much headway as you did but into which at least some time and effort was invested at various times. Here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: are you or someone else in the Wikiproject interested in running another review drive? I am happy to help set this up, although the link above is a great format for this effort. Are there coordinators at WP:VP? Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah WPVG doesn't have specific coordinators or anything. We're not the most tightly organized. Which is also why the abovementioned effort never got very far. You're welcome to drop a note on WT:VG or WP:Discord if you want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! (talk • contribs) 18:05, June 26, 2021 (UTC)
@Salvidrim: Let's see if Shadow of Colossus brings forward some interested reviewers. I hope you'll join us in reviewing articles at URFA/2020. We need all the help we can get. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated that list to reflect that Frank Klepacki has been delisted and Wii kept at FAR, as well as adding a link to the Shadow of the Colossus FAR. Hopefully nobody minds that. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 2Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals 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
  • Track older FAs that can be run as Today's featured article (TFA) by:
    • Listing older FAs that are ready for the main page
    • Helping the TFA Coords check older FAs before they run on TFA

This is the second quarterly update on the project. A history of the project and the Q1 report can be found here.

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, 112 FAs have been Delisted, and 110 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR. Since the Q1 Report, work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 47 articles have been delisted during this time while 0 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 25 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 8 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 20 users edited WP:URFA at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR. Help is most needed for the 2004-2009 promotions, as that section has seen 106 delisted and 80 satisfactory or kept (57% delisted), while the 2010-2015 section has seen 6 delisted and 30 kept (17% delisted)

In this quarter, the percentage of older FAs needing review reduced from 74% to 73%. We also have fewer editors marking articles as "Satisfactory" this quarter at URFA/2020, possibly because many "easy-to-review" articles have been checked and the remaining articles require a closer inspection. We also have 152 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, although older notices need to be re-checked and re-noticed, if applicable.

If we continued on the current trend, it would take over 10 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How can you help?
  • 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 anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
  • Edit and review articles at FAR: FARC/FAR is a collaborative process. We encourage all editors to WP:BEBOLD and fix article concerns posted at FAR. We also need reviewers to list concerns so editors know what to fix. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
  • 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 FA standards 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 2Q2021. Hog Farm Talk 21:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting changes to facilitate edits

As mentioned above, there are still editors who struggle to edit this page because of the page size. If it takes too long to edit, it might discourage new people from joining this project. Below are some ideas on how to reduce the page size:

  • Split the tables by year, while still keeping stats for 2004-2009 and 2010-2015. Smaller tables are quicker to edit.
  • Moving delisted articles to a new page in batches of 100, similar to what WP:DESTUB50K does (but they do it in batches of 1000). This reduces the size of this page.

Thoughts? Are there other suggestions on how to make this page more user friendly? Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't be surprised if we have to split it into WP:URFA/2020/2004-2009 and WP:URFA/2020/2010-2015, although I'd rather push that off until as late as possible. One thing to think about would be to remove the links to the user talk pages of the ones marked, since we really just need to know who checked each one, rather than the links to the user talk pages. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't struggle with editing the tables themselves, but I'm an emerging-adult "digital native" and there's a fair bit that comes naturally to me (e.g. ctrl+F to find the title of what I'm marking) that I can't assume all editors will get. I do, however, shrink a bit from the idea of giving the last satisfactory to an in-shape article with two ticks and by extension needing to move it into the right spot of an entirely new table. Vaticidalprophet 07:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had no problems finding sections. The screen just locks in edit mode and I have to control-alt-delete and close it in Task Manager. I have never had this problem here before. Graham Beards (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you using Visual Editor? It's pretty spotty for anything of non-trivial length, I've found. Vaticidalprophet 08:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I always use wikEd. Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll try to cull as many bytes from this as I can, although that would only be a short-term fix. I know a couple months ago the WP:FAC page did that to me a lot (locking up, having to kill the web browser). Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've taken all of the links to user talk pages in signatures out from the 2004-2009 section and saved over 6,000 bytes. The (UTC)s and the exact time (like the 14:58 and whatnot) are also candidates to go if we get desparate. Hog Farm Talk 17:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I checked and UTCs were 3,600 bytes by themselves, and it seemed very low-hanging fruit, so I've removed them. CMD (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will changing the diffs from urls to Template:dif make the page easier to edit and load? If so, I can make the change this week. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not familiar with how that template works. As far as I can tell, there's two components to load time - number of bytes and some template transclusion stuff. If the diff templates are simple, that won't be an issue. However, if we put too much text into templates or nest templates within each other, it hurts load time (which is what kills the FAC page sometime). So long as we don't go hog wild on how many/how much text goes into the templates and make sure to not nest templates within templates, I think that might be helpful. I think Extraordinary Writ did something similar awhile back. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first few rows of 2004-2009 use that template, which is the format I would transition to. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did go through and change a number of them to use Template:Dif a while back, but I gave up largely because 1) it was taking an interminable amount of time and 2) I wasn't sure if it was really making a difference. I just created two lists of links, one of which uses Template:Dif and one of which doesn't. Anecdotally, I'm not really seeing too much of a difference in loading time; perhaps someone else could take a look. User:Extraordinary Writ/test1 uses the compressed Template:Dif form, while User:Extraordinary Writ/test2 doesn't. Unless someone sees a huge difference in load time between the two, Template:Dif may not be worth our time. Breaking up the tables by year and putting each one under a separate section heading could conceivably be useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I like the idea of breaking up the tables by year. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • If splitting the tables by year doesn't work out, then we may just have to bite the bullet and divide the page into 2009 and earlier and 2010 and later pages. Either way, I think we ought to still keep some sort of noticeable division between the 2009 and earlier and 2010 and later. The one issue with splitting up the tables by year is that it might make updating harder when items have to be moved from the year tables into the delisted or kept tables. To get the most benefit from splitting the tables by year, it might make sense to make each year its own section if we're gonna go that route. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I am going through and trimming sigs to help with the page size. At the same time, I am removing some commas so that the sort order will work. I am not switching to the templated diff as ... I am worried with the size of the page that we could hit template limits somewhere down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping user talk links reduced the page size by 20KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing in more WP:WBFAN

In December, Sandy slowly invited some of Wikipedia's top FA nominators. The goal was to avoid overwhelming the project with reviews in similar topic areas and inviting too many reviewers at the same time. I went through the archives and URFA/2020's page history and noted who had been pinged about this project already or had edited URFA/2020 or the talk page.

I propose inviting Hawkeye7 (milthist), Hurricanehink (cyclones), and Ceoil (music and visual arts) in the coming days. They have different topic areas and are semi-active or active at the moment. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects by next week, I will send out the invites. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Ceoil has been active at FAR lately, and I believe Hawkeye's have held up well. Hog Farm Talk 02:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Invites posted on their talk pages. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: 3Q2021 summary of URFA/2020 activity

Introduction

WP:URFA/2020 is a systematic approach to reviewing older featured articles (FAs). It was launched at the end of November 2020. The goals are to:

This is the third quarterly update on the project. Previous reports are listed below:

Progress
Further information: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 § Monthly stats

Since URFA/2020's launch, 145 FAs have been Delisted, and 114 deemed Satisfactory or declared "Kept" at FAR, which the percentage of FAs needing review reduced from 73% to 71%. Work has continued to focus on articles reviewed or promoted in 2004-2009: 136 articles have been delisted during this time while 9 have been delisted from 2010-2015, and 84 have been kept from 2004-2009 while 30 have been kept from 2010-2015. Around 17 users edited WP:URFA/2020 at least once in this quarter and more reviewed articles at FAR.

The project continued to reach out to active editors listed at WP:WBFAN to check the FAs they nominated. The project encourages experienced FA writers to check articles already marked as "Satisfactory" by a reviewer; the first reviewer is often the original nominator or interested in the topic, and they might answer questions or concerns if pinged on the talk page.

As of the end of this quarter, we have 135 articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, a decrease of 17 listings from the Q2 report. This is a result of older notices being rechecked and listed at FAR. The project needs experienced FA editors to review older notices and determine if the article should be submitted to FAR or marked as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.

If we continued this quarter's trend, it would take over 29 years to check every featured article, which is why we need your help!

How to help
  • 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 anymore, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page, and mark the article as "noticed".
  • 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, and editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020.
  • 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. The sooner concerns are addressed, the quicker articles can be declared "Kept" and the nominator can list a new article.
  • 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.

Discussion 3Q2021

If you have any questions or feedback, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great job to everyone doing the reviews. This winter should hopefully be a great time to buckle down and get through marking a lot more of mine satisfactory and hopefully helping out more with others' as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a fairly inactive quarter. Things should start slowing down at work soon, so I hope to be more active with this over the coming quarter. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesomeness to Z1720 and Hog Farm for keeping this going :) SO sorry I have been so busy; I wish I could help more, and hope the muse returns, but things don't look encouraging at the pages I have visited so far :( Thanks again to all of you for the awesome work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next round of WP:WBFAN invites?

Our last round of invites to those at the top of WP:WBFAN was in July. I have been noting who has already been invited to participate in URFA/2020 and who has edited the page. By my observations, the next three editors to invite are Parsecboy (ships), Iridescent (British geography and history bios), and Ucucha (biology). Are there any concerns about sending them invites? Z1720 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z, could we preview the text of the proposed invite? Iri's talkpage is Grand Central Station, so it's akin to putting it in the Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found, here; I feel like it could explain more, but I tend towards verbosity :) How did the July notifications go? Would it make sense to explain exactly what they should do? That is, if they have continuously maintained the FAs they nominated, they can mark them "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020, which will trigger others to have a look with an eye towards moving them off of the review list. Or some such better phrasing ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the goal of the invite was to bring the users to URFA/2020, and they could read the instructions at the top. I was concerned that if the talk page message was too long, the user wouldn't read it. I'm always down for a rewording though; I think I might be the opposite where I try to shorten prose as much as I can :P. If I had to redo the July invite, I would probably add information about checking "their" articles and marking them as Satisfactory, or encourage edits to bring them back to standards and pinging our team when the work is complete.
After the last invites, Hawkeye7 and Ceoil both marked articles as Satisfactory. HurricaneHink did not respond to the message (but they have only been somewhat active the past few months). I don't recall them having problems with the process, although Hog Farm reviewed some of the articles that they marked as Satisfactory.
My best-case-scenario goal with these invites is that it brings experienced FA writers to this process who start marking articles as Satisfactory, starting with their own noms but then reviewing other ones. While this process has done well in identifying articles that need work (and bringing them to FAR), I think it lacks experienced reviewers who can mark articles as Satisfactory. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect (could be misremembering?) I had already reach Hink via a WikiProject notification earlier on. The word their can be problematic (owernship), and sticking with “nominated by” is better. My main point is that the post will generate discussion on Iri’s talk, that is likely to stay on that page rather than come here, so it should anticipate to be effective. And I agree that the bottom line is the need to get more experienced reviewers marking the Satisfactory articles, so my suggestion is we not miss the chance to make the best plug possible on Iri’s talk. Others may have better wording suggestions, as I am always too verbose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 tentative TFA schedule

1. Cleveland Centennial half dollar. (Wehwalt) Numismatics. 2015 Free choice (rescheduling of September 28)
2. Manon Melis (Edwininlondon) Sport. 2021. TFA/R
3. El Tatio (Jo-Jo Emereus) Geography. 2021 Free choice.
4. Battle of Pontvallain (Serial Number 54129, Gog the Mild) 2019. Warfare. TFA/R
5. U.S. Route 30 in Iowa (Fredddie) 2011. Roads. Free choice.

I have not looked closely, but on a quick glance, nothing stands out that should make us hide in shame at TFA. I see some 2021 text added, so not entirely dated. But I do suggest another editor here take a glance as well ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. 1860 Boden Professor of Sanskrit election (rerun of August 7, 2013) (Bencherlite) 2012. Law. Free choice.

Diff of changes since Bencherlite last edited it in 2017. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7. Yugoslav gunboat Beli Orao (Peacemaker67) 2021. Warfare TFA/R
8. 2016 Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election ( N Oneemuss) 2021. Politics. Free choice (anniversary)
9. Southampton Cenotaph (HJ Mitchell) 2019. Warfare. Free choice.
10. Prison education (Damien Linnane) 2021. Education. TFA/R (World Human Rights Day)
11. James Longstreet (Display name 99) 2021. Warfare. Free choice.
12. Sega CD (Red Phoenix) 2015. Video games. TFA/R/P
13. Dhoby Ghaut MRT station (Zhang 123). 2021. Transport. TFA/R (requested for December 12)
14. Gianni Schicchi (Brianboulton, deceased) 2010 Music. Rerun of May 31, 2011. TFA/R
15. 1988 World Snooker Championship (BennyOnTheLoose) 2021. Sport. Free choice.
16. Frederick the Great (Wtfiv) 2021. History. Free choice.
17. Hunky Dory (Zmbro) 2020. Music. TFA/R
18. Dracophyllum fiordense (Dracophyllum) 2021. Biology. Free choice.
19. Surrogate's Courthouse (Epicgenius) 2021. Architecture. Free choice.
20. Grey's Anatomy (season 17) (TheDoctorWho) 2021. TV. Free choice.
21. Australian boobook (Cas Liber) 2017. Biology. Free choice.
22. This Dust Was Once the Man (Eddie 891) 2021. Literature. Free choice.
23. 1916 Texas Hurricane (TheAustinMan) 2020. Weather. Free choice.
24. Soiscél Molaisse (Ceoil) 2021. Art. Free choice
25. Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) (General Poxter, RobertG) 2021. Music. TFA/R/P
26. Battle of Panormus (Gog the Mild) 2020. Warfare. Per request.
27. Sesame Street research (Figureskatingfan) 2013. TV. Free choice.

Not TFA disqualifying, but I see the sources here are primarily from 2011 and before. Given that AFAIK the show is still active, there may be more recent research here. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, concerning. Google scholar search restricted to *only* since 2017 reveals a lot; I suspect this article is well out-of-date. On the other hand, I think it is OK for articles like that to run at TFA, although it could end up at FAR as a result. That's how it works :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a case where it would be best to give through a bit after the TFA date and see if TFA spurs updating (and leave a brief note on talk page), and if that doesn't lead to anything, consider placing on FARGIVEN? Hog Farm Talk 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will give it a few weeks before adding to FARGIVEN. [3] On the other hand … I may forget :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28. Pepi I Meryre (Iry-Hor) 2021. Royalty. Free choice.
29. Ezra Meeker (Wehwalt) 2013. History. Free choice. Rerun of June 21, 2013
30. Jamiroquai (100cellsman) 2021. Music. TFA/R
31. 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl (Grondemar) 2011. Sport. Free choice.

Comments welcome. I have scheduled December 1, and plan to continue as time permits. Obviously nothing is ever set in stone, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I formatted links and highlighted the older ones; hope you don't mind! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I was working on doing it but you were too fast for me!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made an idea about this in Village pump

Hi! I came up with an idea related to this fantastic page over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#URFA_addition_to_article_milestones which might be of interest to you all. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFA and FACbot

I took most of the summer off from editing; did FACbot stop updating the TFAs ? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table sorting query at VPT

Izno fixed it with this, see response here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving the oldid

Grapple X did a really good thing here, as the third reviewer to mark an article “Satisfactory”. Saving the oldid in the third “Satisfactory” note means we don’t have to go looking for the “satisfactory” version, and if we convert to articlehistory, we don’t have to look up the oldid. We should probably all be doing that if we are the third reviewer marking satisfactory and moving. Thx, Grapple X (and congrats on today’s FA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane reminder

Trying again: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A small celebration

Hi! Just wanted to say that I'm really surprised and happy seeing everyone pitching in to my newbie idea in VP, and while we wait for the template editors to respond I'm optimistic about the whole thing and looking forward to how the discussion moves along :D I'm bit bogged down by work and an RfC I'm participating on but once that's done I'll give URFA a shot Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you need someone to review an article you are working on, please ping me and I will add it to my list. I prefer reviewing articles that people are working on so that I can ask questions to someone. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 year-end goal ?

@Buidhe, David Fuchs, Extraordinary Writ, Femkemilene, FunkMonk, Grapple X, Hog Farm, Hurricanehink, RetiredDuke, and Z1720: it would be grand if we could get all of the 2004 to 2006 group at least looked at by year-end. Most of the remainder are hurricanes.

I will get PTSD if I have to look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam ever again (note the use of restart on that most dreadful of all FACs), so hope someone else will have a look. I also hesitate to tackle Ketuanan Melayu as it has long been one of my least favored FAs, and don't think I can be objective there wrt length. I have avoided Angelina Jolie because of previous experiences with socks and an arbcase. I am willing to take on review of all the Hurricanes, because unless something gives after the third project-wide notice, I will start to wonder if we need to think in terms of a mass FAR for the lot. I will be interested in seeing if any of WikiProject Cyclone articles are resolved by January of next year.

Can we all make a concerted effort to get these oldest of the old moving by year-end? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add @Graham Beards and Jo-Jo Eumerus: for various biology/medical (Graham) and Mauna Loa (Jo-Jo) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that given my annual update of User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/article work and non-FA and non-Wikipedia committments I can't take on another article. If it goes to FAR I can help with Mauna Loa but I can't promise anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The three you've recused from, I'll try get looking at this week. I might be able to make a start this evening but the next few hours are already accounted for. I haven't looked at the specific hurricane articles in question but my memory is that they tend to be the shortest FAs quite routinely; on one hand that should make for lighter reviewing but on the other it does raise the question of potential mergers. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and tackle some of this once I get Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1 mostly sorted through. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not science-minded so I'll avoid hurricanes until someone else gives the article its first "satisfactory". There are still lots of non-science/math articles to review, so I'll shift my focus away from re-noticing older articles into reviewing the 2004-06 list. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been entirely sold on some of the hurricane ones. Not sure that 95% government reports is a good sourcing mix for FAs. Hog Farm Talk 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a nice place to work; you are all wonderful. @Grapple X: those are three of the most difficult. Should you find any issues at Jolie, I strongly suggest extreme care in your wording.
Thanks, Z1720; as I have processed through, I am more conscious now of also updating the notes. I have already encountered quite a few URFA sections on talk that have been auto-archived, so I unarchive and add a new note.
Hog Farm some info for those who weren't around for the extended debates, discussions and controversies a decade ago at FAC talk over "short" articles, "cookie cutter" articles, and what used to be our main "niche" articles, then referred to as "pop culture". Sometimes all of these terms were used with derision, but the delegates' (now called Coords) have to respect consensus, and consensus always favored them. While choosing my wording carefully to avoid WP:BEANS and (further) attacks on my character re "niche" articles, the problem with applying one standard to hurricanes is that there are HUGE numbers of other FAs in other large categories of FAs and by many editors with high ranking at WP:WBFAN that would then have to be looked at vis-a-vis the same standard. Delisting articles such as hurricanes by this standard is a matter that has not been sufficiently discussed at FAC, would impact huge numbers of other FAs if it did, and for which broad consensus does not exist. And, it is very difficult to discuss those topics at FAC without being attacked as discussions become personalized.
Meaning ... I will continue to apply the standard to hurricanes, "short" articles, and "niche" articles that has consensus, until/unless a discussion changes that consensus (a discussion which I hope we won't have at FAC talk during the holiday season, because I have put away my asbestos suit for the year. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a conversation for FAC anyway, I don't believe—if the issues are about size and/or independent sourcing then AFD is the best venue, featured or not. It may be best if this is delved into (if I have a look at them during this I'll decide what my own judgement says) from the smallest one up; thankfully it seems some of the worst disruptors at AFD are out of the picture so an earnest discussion on merit should be possible. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not in terms of demonstrating the enduring notability of the tropical storm, but that's also not part of FA (or GA, for that matter) criteria. Of course heavy reliance on government reports for a clearly-big-deal storm might also suggest sourcing weakness beyond notability concerns. I do think that given the number of delisted/merged tropical storm articles I've seen in recent years that it's something WPTC is aware of and the community is dealing with. I will try and step up the checks during my holiday. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk

WP Cyclone CCI

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]

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]

Could use some experienced eyes

Hi! I just made some notes on an article in the list here. I'd appreciate if one of you could tell me if that's a good edit and what steps to do next. I'd like to notify relevant wikiprojects about the notes and am wondering if there's a specific template y'all recommend I use for that. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. C., thanks for jumping in !
I have to head out for the day and evening, but others here will lend a hand. In general, you got the steps right, but I am guessing (?) you would upgrade that to Noticed, and add it WP:FARGIVEN, in the event no one responds after a week or two? Notifying WProjects at this stage is less likely to result in improvements, but browse the tools for any editors you might ping.
One other thing you should do is always provide samples, for instance:
  • prose is very hard to read in various parts of the article (give a few examples)
  • article itself is short ... that is not a WP:WIAFA disqualifier, unless ...
  • and not very broad in coverage (needs examples of what is missing, or what sources are not used), and
  • seems to need a MOS review as well. (needs some examples)
But that's a fine start you've made, and you got it added correctly at WP:URFA/2020 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 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:

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]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreviewed_featured_articles/2020&oldid=1057996335

Leave a Reply