The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 29 February 2024 [1].
This article is about the annual FAC for the main snooker tournament of the year. A bit later than usual as the GAN took a while to get looked at. Let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
To my surprise, I'm listed as 2nd on the authorship list for this article; this is almost entirely due to me running IABot on it. Co-ords, please let me know whether it would be appropriate for me to express a "vote" on this one. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
This has been open for more than three weeks and has attracted little interest. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 28 February 2024 [2].
This article is about... Notdmsforlife1 ( talk) 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 28 February 2024 [3].
This article is about the most influential English prose writer of the 19th century. Sinopecynic ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review
I may stop in and do a full review, but a few points:
UndercoverClassicist T· C 10:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose right away because the article needs quite a lot of work. It's definitely salvageable, but I don't think it can be done within the normal time frame of a FAC.
You've done a lot of good work with this and other Carlyle-related articles. I definitely think you can bring it to FA, but as I said, I don't think it's possible within the typical time frame of a nomination. Ffranc ( talk) 13:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Coord note -- this nom seems to have stalled and is still a long way from consensus to promote so I'm going to archive and recommend peer review before another try here. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 11:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot ( talk) 27 February 2024 [4].
Compared to his contemporaries in the early Mongol Empire, Shigi Qutuqu stands out perhaps most for his lack of military ability—he was in command during the most serious reverse of the early Mongol conquests. Nevertheless, he had a long and productive career, serving in numerous judicial and administrative roles in China and surviving the power struggles of the 1240s and 50s until his death at 80+. The latest in my production line on Mongolian history, this article was reviewed for GA by Aza24 in June 2023; if successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 24 February 2024 [5].
This article is about the narwhal, or as it's sometimes known, the unicorn of the sea. With a tusk protruding out of its head, the narwhal is one of the strangest beasts I know of. Narwhals are notoriously hard to study in the wild, which could have implications for the protection and survival of the species. Special thanks to RoySmith and LittleJerry. 20 upper ( talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Just for reference: Wikipedia:Peer review/Narwhal/archive1
Image review
I'll see if I find the time to do a more thorough review. For now, I'll say that the second half of the "Cultural depictions" section lacks proper sourcing, relying improperly on WP:Primary sources. Do sources on narwhals (or the cultural depictions thereof) bring up these examples? TompaDompa ( talk) 20:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
As ever, my admiration for anyone committed enough to bring a big, visible article here -- never an easy task. UndercoverClassicist T· C 21:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
|
I find nothing wrong with the Linnaeus citation—that's how most articles cites it, anyway. Completed the Title Case thing. For the date, we are precisely sure that it came out on the first, and I don't see the need for a change here. 20 upper ( talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
{{{trans-title}}}
to show the English), but translate other details, such as place and publisher. I find nothing on the Canadian Journal of Zoology website to show which day of the month it publishes on, but please do point me to anything you've found that does so (likewise for Biological Conservation).
UndercoverClassicist
T·
C
22:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ UndercoverClassicist: The majority of the items have been actioned, therefore I would appreciate it if you could transfer the ones that have been resolved to the resolved section. This would make it simpler to see what's left. 20 upper ( talk) 15:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Taking a look now...
You mention that, "Narwhals are notoriously hard to study in the wild, which could have implications for the protection and survival of the species." OTOH the article mentions naught about any of this. --- Sandbh ( talk) 12:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Googling around, several sources mention the narwhal is hard to study. This being so, the article should say something along these lines.
The quality of images of narwhals on the article are not, IMO, up to FAC standard. --- Sandbh ( talk) 01:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Pinging all reviewers @ TompaDompa, Esulanta, UndercoverClassicist, Casliber, Sandbh, Jens Lallensack, and Johnbod: Please indicate a vote, I don't know why most of you won't finish your review. I've been patient with y'all, so if you do not want to vote, just say so. Thanks 20 upper ( talk) 13:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I have been putting off doing a full review for a few reasons. One is that I'm actively working on other things at the moment. Another is that this is a fair bit outside of my wheelhouse, so I'm less confident in my ability to ascertain whether the article is indeed up to the high standards set by the WP:Featured article criteria. A third thing is that an admittedly fairly cursory look at the comments and replies above indicates to me that the article is likely not up to those standards at the moment. All of this makes me reluctant to commit the fairly substantial amount of time and effort it would take to conduct a full review at this time. I do not anticipate a full review from me to be forthcoming within the month of February. Should the article garner significant support from other editors that have reviewed the article more thoroughly, I will be significantly more likely to do a full review of this nomination. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 23 February 2024 [9].
When hearing the phrase "mobile games", you often think of tawdry knockoffs choked with blatantly inappropriate advertisements. It seems as though good mobile games are of short supply these days. But, looking far enough, past "offline" .io multiplayer games, and Homescapes-esque puzzles, you discover Letterpress, Loren Brichter's beautifully produced word game with a sleak user interface and tactical gameplay. From a simple dinner conversation, this game ended up ranking second place in the App Store's Best of 2012 list for an iPhone game. I'm very proud to nominate Letterpress as my first FA. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I hope this review is helpful. I think I would like to see how other reviewers respond to this FAC and the article in general. I do not mean that in a bad way just to be clear. I am just not as familiar with reviewing video game articles, although I wanted to help you as a first-time FAC nominator. I will keep a close eye on this nomination. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Will review. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
On a quick glance, the reception section especially seems a bit thin. A quick search of newspaper archives turn up a fair amount of coverage, from capsule reviews up to more substantial reviews. Also looks like a lite bit about how Letterpress' flat aesthetic helped influence the design of iOS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposing, but I think there's a little prose work to do here, and I'd want to be sure that David's concerns about completeness of sourcing are resolved before I would support. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to pause my review; TrademarkedTWOrantula, I see you've made some more edits in response to my comments, but I think there are still issues. Since another reviewer has jumped in I'm going to watch how that review progresses and will probably come back to the review at that point, and do another read through. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment I'm inclined to oppose this nomination on comprehensiveness grounds. I've turned up quite a few substantial sources unused in the article:
Apart from these, I have the following comments on prose:
would avoid remaining tiles on the board, thus delaying a game.I kept getting confused by this sentence because the position of "remaining" suggests it's a verb when it's actually intended as an adjective. I think you mean something like "players would tend to avoid claiming the remaining tiles on the board, leading to excessively long games".
Along with other apps, the game inspired the design of iOS 7source doesn't give this much weight to Letterpress in particular as an inspiration for iOS 7
Among those impressed has been Apple, which redesigned iOS this year with a flatter, minimalist look championed by Any.do. Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS.
own the most tilesdoes "own" refer to coloured tiles or locked tiles?
Once every square is occupieddo they have to be locked or just coloured?
playing Zach Gage's iOS game SpellTower together, he and his wife, Jean Whiteheadyou haven't mentioned Whitehead before using "together", which is jarring.
tiles would only turn into the player's colorI'm confused – tiles do turn into the player's colour, don't they?
Brichter realized that players would avoid remaining tilesI share Mike Christie's concerns here
gave players bonus points for surrounding tiles ... he made surrounding tiles unclaimablein these sentences, does "surrounding tiles" mean "tiles that have been surrounded", or "tiles that are surrounding other tiles"?
determined the namemaybe "determined the game's name"
chose screenshots of Letterpress to promote it on the App Storewhy is this significant?
updated with a replay feature"replay" can mean a few different things – explain what it means in this context
The player selects letters to form a word.Which player?
he claimed thatusing "claimed" can imply doubt
Lex Friedman of Macworld and AJ Dellinger of Gamezebo shared similar views respectivelywhat function is "respectively" performing here?
he shared that Game Center might interfere with player statistics and matchmakingI share Mike Christie's concerns with this sentence
– Tera tix ₵ 15:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot ( talk) 22 February 2024 [10].
I'm going to start with the lyrics from one of their songs: " It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll!"
This article is about Australian rock band AC/DC, first widely known about their seventh studio album Back in Black (1980), an album in tribute to one of their members Bon Scott, due to him dying of alcohol poisoning in February 1980. The article was created in 2002 by an IP user ( 203.36.248.17), first promoted to GA in 2006 by No-Bullet, and promoted to FA in 2007 also by No-Bullet, which then sadly got demoted in 2018. Five years later, me and shaidar cuebiyar have been working hard cleaning up the article to look like what it is now, and it is currently promoted to GA since 29 December 2023. This is my very first ever FAC nomination, so I can tell that this review could get a bit hectic at times, so all feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions are all welcome and very much appreciated. — VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 05:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@ Nikkimaria: I think I have fixed everything including a comment on the samples. — VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 07:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
AC/DC are far from being my favourite Australian band, but they've been one of the most important Australian musical acts ever, so it's good to see this article at FAC. I'd like to offer the following comments:
Hey Nick-D! I think I have sorted out everything except some comments. Thank you! — VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this one some time this week. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I have to oppose at this time. The article is pretty strong in terms of content, but it needs thorough copyediting. I've read the first two subsections, and there are a lot of places where fixes are needed for grammar, clarity, and flow. I'll leave the notes for those subsections as examples of what I'm seeing. WP:GOCE or WP:PR might be helpful here, but keep in mind they can both be very slow. I also strongly recommend reworking the criticism section. The article should evaluate reception to the band in its totality without compiling all of the negative things that have been said about it and featuring them separately from everything else.
Formation and name (1973–1974):
Bon Scott joins (1974–1976):
Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
This has been open for over four weeks and is showing little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild ( talk) 23:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot ( talk) 21 February 2024 [11].
The Lokrume helmet fragment is not, perhaps, what one would think of as a Viking helmet; note the absence of horns. But it is one of only five exemplars, and the first to have been identified as such. Like many artifacts, its significance outweighs its size.
This article was created in 2018, and, thanks to the input of Gog the Mild, brought to good-article status a year later. It has been refined and revised since, and is ready to be nominated here. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Image review
Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
It's hard to get away from the obvious that this is a very short article. From reading the GA nomination, it's clear that to even pull out this much is a significant achievement and represents a lot of good work by the nominator. UndercoverClassicist T· C 18:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
|
Since the nomination seems to have gone cold: I'd like to put on record that I believe this article is close to FA status, but would oppose promotion in its current state (that is, before the points raised in my review and others have been addressed). I am very open to reviewing that vote, and expect to do so if further changes to the article are made. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This takes me back a bit. UC seems to be doing their usual classy job. Ping me once you have finished with their comments and I'll see what else I can find to poke at. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
That's it from me right now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Just a few passing thoughts.
It's an interesting topic and I'd like to see it end up Featured. I'm not sure I'll have time to review properly so will refrain from !voting at this stage. Good luck, Richard Nevell ( talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note: this has been open for more than five weeks now. With two opposes and several outstanding concerns, I think it's best to time this out now. The nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia in nine days. Hopefully, when they have time, they can work with the reviewers to resolve their concerns and renominate it in the future. FrB.TG ( talk) 19:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 18 February 2024 [12].
This article is about an Irish architect whose work is most prominent in Dublin Spiritualism1234 ( talk) 03:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is not even GA-standard, because it contains significant uncited material. It is clearly not ready for FAC, and so I oppose and recommend withdrawal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Spiritualism1234: Thank you for nominating this candidate to be a featured article! I appreciate you taking steps to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia, but this article is not yet at a point where it can satisfy the featured article criteria. As Airship mentioned above, one of the first things you may want to work on is making sure all of the citations in the article are to reliable sources, and that all of the prose is supported by an explicit inline citation. Featured articles are intended to be representative of the highest quality that Wikipedia has to offer, and articles are thus held to very high standards during a candidacy. If you'd like to solicit comments from other editors in a more stress-free environment, consider taking this article to peer review. After making some improvements, you may also consider to nominate it as a good article (which have less stringent criteria). However, for this particular candidacy, I'm also going to have to oppose. Let me know on on my talk page if you have any questions! — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh) 04:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Coord note -- per TS69, GAN and then PR should be the next stages for this article; you could also consider the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 12:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12 February 2024 [13].
This article is about a current Independent member of the Australian House of Representatives. She is a thoroughly interesting person, having been a successful paediatric neurologist before entering politics, and is part of the "teal independent" movement in Australian politics that has recently become prominent. GraziePrego ( talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is much more a GA than a FA and would need quite a bit of work to reach FA standard. I have the following comments:
This is going to have to be a no as well on my end. The article reads very choppily. However, I do want to leave suggestions for improvement: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Per above comments I'll archiving this shortly. I'd strongly recommend peer review before considering another run at FAC. You could also try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 6 February 2024 [14].
This article is another sordid tale of 19th century life, love, and loss on a now-uninhabited island; but this one is in California. jp× g 🗯️ 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot ( talk) 6 February 2024 [15].
This article is about geodesy - the science of measuring the earth and other planets and their moons. Its main purpose is to collect data reliably for mapping, navigation, natural resources exploration, and scientific research. Geodesy is so important that virtually entire world depends on it in everyday activities, from positioning and transportation to timing and trade. Tinterest ( talk) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, suggest withdrawal - unfortunately this falls well short of the FA criteria, particularly in terms of sourcing - much of the current content is lacking citations. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hilarious - none of the above commenters is an expert, so the above "expert" opinions don't matter. Or as experts will notice: the commenters fail the weighted mean universal criterion - in which an expert's weight = 1 and amateur's weight = 0. Tinterest ( talk) 15:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Tinterest please reread the FAC instructions; articles should only be nominated by significant contributors to the article, of which you are not, and need to meet the featured article criteria, which require content be sourced to high-quality reliable sources. I am closing this nomination. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with our content and conduct policies or your time on Wikipedia is liable to be frustrating and short. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot ( talk) 2 February 2024 [16].
This article is about the 1961 UN peacekeeping offensive against forces of the seccionist State of Katanga during the Congo Crisis. The article is well written and structured, informative and I believe comes to a FA standard. Lankyant ( talk) 01:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
A personal interest of mine - I'm claiming a spot here. If I don't return after a reasonable time, please ping me. ~ HAL 333 21:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, better late than never:
However, the agreement would not be carried out--- >"However, the agreement was not carried out" per WP:WOULDCHUCK
was brought in to provide--> "was sent to provide" for concision.
The United States also wanted reintegration to be achieved for this end--> something like "The United States also desired reintegration for this end"
Nice work. ~ HAL 333 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This has been open for more than four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Putting down a marker: I'll review shortly. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Done to the start of "UN offensive"; more to follow. Interesting article so far, nicely written with the right balance between big picture and detail. – SchroCat ( talk) 14:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing this version and spot-check upon request. It seems like source formatting is consistent and nothing jumps out as unreliable or questionable. Keep in mind that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Not without a number of screenshots, since most sauces are offline:
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Given the lack of progress in the source review and the length this has been open, the nomination is being archived. Serial's comments above are germane—nominators should be expected to speak to the content and address points brought up by reviewers in a timely manner. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot ( talk) 2 February 2024 [20].
This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in 2022 for a FAC. I worked on it more again now, checking everything is still as it was and making other revisions because my belief is fully in this album deserving FA status as West's magnum ops after my dedication to it! K. Peake 21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot ( talk) 2 February 2024 [21].
This is my fourth featured article nomination for parasitic worms, which were chosen as they are the first animals listed alphabetically using the taxonomy system (Animalia, Acanthocephala...). This article has went through an excellent GA review by User:Mike Christie and a peer review by User:SilverTiger12. I've done by best to incorporate both user's suggestions and I've also added a bit more depth recently. I believe I've captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance! Mattximus ( talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations on the good work that has been put here. As an occasional contributor to WikiProject:Medicine, I wonder if the question whether Pachysentis infects humans cannot be avoided. One's eye falls on the CDC image on the life cycle of the phylum Acanthocephala, with human as an occasional host; and the parasite is mentioned right at the beginning of the article as a pathogen to primates, which include humans. I have not been able to locate a human infection cited anywhere. But lists of acanthocephala that infect humans do not include Pachysentis. I leave to the consensus of the contributors to decide whether something like "Humans have not been reported as hosts of Pachysentis species" can be cited to a review article like this [1], which does not include it in a list of reported causes of acanthocephaliasis. NikosGouliaros ( talk) 15:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
References
This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild ( talk) 19:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)