Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

For a list of foreign-language reviewers see FAC foreign language reviewers.

Image/source check requests

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

FAC mentoring: first-time nominators

A voluntary mentoring scheme, designed to help first-time FAC nominators through the process and to improve their chances of a successful outcome, is now in action. Click here for further details. Experienced FAC editors, with five or more "stars" behind them, are invited to consider adding their names to the list of possible mentors, also found in the link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC source reviews

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

ISSN?

Giving SoHo Weekly News a final pre-FAC grooming, I noticed some of my periodical refs have ISSNs and some don't. The ones that do have them are because Citoid added them automagically. I'm inclined to just tear out all of the ISSNs. Do people actually find these useful, or is it just fluff? RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

There isn't any guideline on the point (as far as I'm aware), but as they're not a requirement I do wonder just how useful they are. Personally I find them annoying fluff, but others may see some use in them. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I find them fluff. I tolerate them but if told I must be consistent with them within an article, I'd sooner tear them all out. Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both. I wonder if you feel the same way about ISBNs for books? RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Not as much, those seem more widely accepted and used. I do feel that way about publisher locations in an internet era. Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I would take a lot of persuading that an available ISBN should not be attached to a book source at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think these (or OCLCs) do have some value as they identify the specific source used, whereas ISSNs for journals don't. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think ISBNs, if available, are very helpful for book sources -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

ISBN and OCLC #s identify the exact edition used, like SchroCat said, and I'll not pass a source review without them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I take an either or approach for ISBNs or library IDs (OCLC, LCCN, etc.) -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have had instances where there were two journals with same name. Giving the user the ISSN allows them to get the right one from their library. But it is not as useful as the ISBN or OCLC are for books. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Particularly with offline journals, and in this age of ChatGPT, I do find the ISSN a comforting reassurance that the journal actually exists and has more stature than a parish church newsletter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

ISSN 2692-8590ISSN 2692-918X Sure about that? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention that if ChatGPT is capable of inventing citations, it's certainly capable of inventing ISSNs for them :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, but you can at least click on them (in Wikipedia citation templates, anyway) and discover that it is indeed the highly prestigious Unitarian Universalist Village Church Newsletter of Hot Springs, Arizona (with thanks to Schro for making me somewhat less comfortable). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, it's far more common for journal citation hallucinations from GenAI to involve fabricated articles but real journals (ref), so the presence of a valid ISSN doesn't help all that much. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I tend not to use them purely because a doi or link functions to specify the exact source used (in case of ambiguous journal titles). isbns and oclcs (when the former is not available) i think are a lot more useful, purely because there are more books than journals in existence. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Guide to withdrawing nomination

I've often seen a newbie struggling to find out the proper way to withdraw their nomination. I don't blame them considering there is no info available on it (unless I missed it). I'm thinking of adding something along the line of "If you wish to withdraw your nomination, you can notify the FAC coordinators by pinging them using {{@FAC}}." to {{FAC-instructions}}. Also pinging my fellow @FAC coordinators: . FrB.TG (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Me neither. Good idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this sounds like a great idea. Always good to have clear resources, especially for new editors. Aoba47 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of the FA instructions, I want to congratulate the team that put together the current FA pages ... so terse & concise. Compared to DYK or GA, the FA pages are pleasant to navigate. I love the fact that the nomination instructions are a tidy collapsible section at the top of the Nomination page. And the Criteria page is so terse and compact, it is practically a haiku. Whoever you are: you did a great job! Noleander (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Much is a team effort over many years, but especial credit for the nomination page should go to SandyGeorgia for a sterling job. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FA? on understandability criterion

WT:FA?#Add understandability as a new criterion? might be of interest to folks here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

And now an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics and nominator reviewing table for May 2025

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for May 2025. The tables below include all reviews for FACS that were either archived or promoted last month, so the reviews included are spread over the last two or three months. A review posted last month is not included if the FAC was still open at the end of the month. The new facstats tool has been updated with this data, but the old facstats tool has not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers for May 2025

# reviews Type of review Reviewer Content Source Image Accessibility Jo-Jo Eumerus 9 8 Nikkimaria 1 15 MSincccc 8 1 UndercoverClassicist 8 Gog the Mild 7 SchroCat 5 2 ChrisTheDude 6 Noleander 6 Tim riley 6 Borsoka 5 Dracophyllum 5 Hog Farm 5 Vacant0 5 750h+ 4 Aoba47 4 Graham Beards 4 RoySmith 4 Gerda Arendt 3 Kusma 2 1 Medxvo 3 Premeditated Chaos 3 TompaDompa 3 AirshipJungleman29 2 Epicgenius 2 FunkMonk 2 Nick-D 2 Pbritti 2 PSA 2 Wehwalt 2 ZKang123 2 <None> 1 A. B. 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 Buidhe 1 Chetsford 1 DaniloDaysOfOurLives 1 Departure– 1 Dudley Miles 1 Dunkleosteus77 1 Eddie891 1 ErnestKrause 1 Fathoms Below 1 Fortuna imperatrix mundi 1 Generalissima 1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1 Hawkeye7 1 ImaginesTigers 1 IntentionallyDense 1 Ippantekina 1 Jens Lallensack 1 Jon698 1 Jorge906 1 Just-a-can-of-beans 1 NegativeMP1 1 Paleface Jack 1 PanagiotisZois 1 Pendright 1 Pokelego999 1 Reconrabbit 1 Remsense 1 S5A-0043 1 Sawyer777 1 Simon Harley 1 SnowFire 1 SNUGGUMS 1 Starship.paint 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 TheDoctorWho 1 Tintor2 1 Tomiĉo 1 Vestrian24Bio 1 ViridianPenguin 1 Voorts 1 Zawed 1 Zmbro 1 Totals 147 19 30

Supports and opposes for May 2025

# declarations Declaration Editor Support Oppose converted to support Struck oppose Struck support Oppose None Total Jo-Jo Eumerus 17 17 Nikkimaria 16 16 MSincccc 8 1 9 UndercoverClassicist 5 2 1 8 SchroCat 3 1 3 7 Gog the Mild 4 1 2 7 ChrisTheDude 6 6 Noleander 5 1 6 Tim riley 6 6 Borsoka 2 2 1 5 Vacant0 4 1 5 Hog Farm 3 2 5 Dracophyllum 5 5 750h+ 3 1 4 Aoba47 3 1 4 Graham Beards 1 3 4 RoySmith 1 2 1 4 Premeditated Chaos 3 3 TompaDompa 1 1 1 3 Kusma 2 1 3 Medxvo 3 3 Gerda Arendt 2 1 3 ZKang123 2 2 PSA 1 1 2 Wehwalt 2 2 Epicgenius 1 1 2 AirshipJungleman29 1 1 2 FunkMonk 1 1 2 Pbritti 1 1 2 Nick-D 1 1 2 Simon Harley 1 1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång 1 1 PanagiotisZois 1 1 Starship.paint 1 1 Zawed 1 1 Dunkleosteus77 1 1 Jens Lallensack 1 1 SnowFire 1 1 Ippantekina 1 1 Vestrian24Bio 1 1 Sawyer777 1 1 NegativeMP1 1 1 Averageuntitleduser 1 1 Departure– 1 1 ViridianPenguin 1 1 Just-a-can-of-beans 1 1 Chetsford 1 1 S5A-0043 1 1 Buidhe 1 1 Boneless Pizza! 1 1 Fathoms Below 1 1 IntentionallyDense 1 1 Eddie891 1 1 Zmbro 1 1 Jon698 1 1 Jorge906 1 1 Generalissima 1 1 TechnoSquirrel69 1 1 Thebiguglyalien 1 1 ImaginesTigers 1 1 DaniloDaysOfOurLives 1 1 Paleface Jack 1 1 A. B. 1 1 ErnestKrause 1 1 Tintor2 1 1 Dudley Miles 1 1 SNUGGUMS 1 1 Fortuna imperatrix mundi 1 1 Reconrabbit 1 1 Remsense 1 1 Tomiĉo 1 1 Hawkeye7 1 1 Voorts 1 1 Pokelego999 1 1 TheDoctorWho 1 1 Pendright 1 1 <None> 1 1 Totals 89 19 88 196

The following table shows the 12-month review-to-nominations ratio for everyone who nominated an article that was promoted or archived in the last three months who has nominated more than one article in the last 12 months. The average promoted FAC receives between 6 and 7 reviews. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Nominators for March 2025 to May 2025 with more than one nomination in the last 12 months

Nominations (12 mos) Reviews (12 mos) Ratio (12 mos) 750h+ 9.0 63.0 7.0 AirshipJungleman29 7.5 41.0 5.5 Amir Ghandi 5.0 None 0.0 Aoba47 4.0 53.0 13.2 AssociateAffiliate 4.0 None 0.0 Boneless Pizza! 4.5 19.0 4.2 Borsoka 2.0 31.0 15.5 Chrishm21 3.0 None 0.0 ChrisTheDude 8.0 61.0 7.6 Curlymanjaro 2.0 None 0.0 Departure– 2.0 4.0 2.0 EF5 5.0 4.0 0.8 Epicgenius 7.0 19.0 2.7 Generalissima 11.5 86.0 7.5 Gog the Mild 10.0 84.0 8.4 HAL333 2.0 4.0 2.0 Hammersfan 2.0 None 0.0 Hawkeye7 8.0 15.0 1.9 Hog Farm 7.0 65.0 9.3 Iazyges 1.5 7.0 4.7 IceWelder 2.0 2.0 1.0 Ippantekina 7.0 11.0 1.6 Jenhawk777 2.5 2.0 0.8 Jo-Jo Eumerus 6.0 225.0 37.5 Jolielover 2.0 None 0.0 Jon698 2.0 7.0 3.5 Lazman321 2.0 4.0 2.0 LittleJerry 2.5 2.0 0.8 Llewee 4.0 8.0 2.0 MaranoFan 9.0 19.0 2.1 Matarisvan 3.0 64.0 21.3 Medxvo 2.0 20.0 10.0 MFTP Dan 3.0 None 0.0 Min968 2.0 None 0.0 Noleander 2.0 27.0 13.5 Noorullah21 5.0 None 0.0 Phlsph7 6.5 24.0 3.7 Pickersgill-Cunliffe 2.0 8.0 4.0 Pollosito 3.0 None 0.0 Premeditated Chaos 7.0 44.0 6.3 Royiswariii 4.0 1.0 0.2 SchroCat 18.5 163.0 8.8 Skyshifter 6.0 4.0 0.7 TenPoundHammer 2.0 None 0.0 The Green Star Collector 4.0 None 0.0 Thebiguglyalien 5.0 4.0 0.8 TheJoebro64 2.0 3.0 1.5 Tim riley 4.0 70.0 17.5 UndercoverClassicist 7.0 89.0 12.7 Vestrian24Bio 2.0 1.0 0.5 Volcanoguy 5.0 4.0 0.8 Voorts 3.0 7.0 2.3 Wehwalt 5.5 24.0 4.4 Z1720 5.0 23.0 4.6 ZKang123 5.0 11.0 2.2 Zmbro 2.0 5.0 2.5

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

False titles?

Is there any policy on the use of false titles? As far as I can tell, it's considered acceptable in American English, and I can't find anything in the WP:MOS that says one way or the other. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

My understanding matches yours: no proscription in policy or guideline. There's an essay at User:Popcornfud/The problem with false titles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:FALSETITLE is often-linked, but merely an essay. Last I checked though, the NYT and a couple of other major American sources of repute advised against its use in formal contexts. Better to avoid in the context of professional standards of writing, I think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess there are contexts where false titles are the norm also in formal American English. Sports FAs like 2008 Orange Bowl or 2004 World Series are full of false titles, for example. If professional and scholarly writers in your subject area typically use false titles, it is certainly fine to use them in a FA. —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy on it, no. As far as I can tell, it is to a large extent an WP:ENGVAR issue (and not solely or strictly an American versus British one at that). Some people think it sounds informal, while others conversely think the definite article makes the phrase sound stilted. I don't think there's any reason to enforce either approach at WP:FAC. I have had articles both with and without false titles pass. I might note that Smithsonian ([1]) and Encyclopædia Britannica ([2]) both use "astronomer Percival Lowell" without any preceding definite article. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I would probably insist against them in an article claiming to be written in BrE, since criterion 1a requires professional standards of prose, and almost every highbrow professional publication in Britain would consider them an error. In AmerE, I think it's editorial discretion, though I'd still generally advise against them: the NYT puts the case well here. As Kusma says, genre plays a role too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that the fact that Encyclopædia Britannica—by all accounts a fairly well-regarded British publication—uses false titles demonstrates that it is not a terribly big deal. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite the name, Britannica has been American since 1901, though it does write in BrE. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Huh. I could've learnt that simply by following the link I myself posted. Very well: by all accounts a fairly well-regarded British-English publication, then. The point stands. TompaDompa (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Or we could use the BBC, which mixes both styles: the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli but American amateur astronomer Percival Lowell and failed salesman Edgar Rice Burroughs. TompaDompa (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Or books published by Cambridge University Press, in case the BBC is considered too journalistic: "astronomer Percival Lowell"[3][4]. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Amusingly, in that first example they use both styles on the same page: astronomer Percival Lowell, but also the Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik :-) RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Which may be taken as further evidence that this is not a terribly big deal, and maybe even that in-article consistency is overkill (or at least not entirely necessary). TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oddly enough, in Emmy Noether (which I'm very happy to see on the front page today), we've got "mathematician Max Noether" in one place but "the mathematician Max Noether" in another :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I use them (the definite article, to avoid using a false title) and consider using a false title (in BrEng) to be too informal. I think I'm following the practice as suggested by modern editions of Fowler. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC) (edited, as I'd misread part of what had gone before. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC))

  @SchroCat what is Fowler? RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  A Dictionary of Modern English Usage CMD (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah. I see our article describes it as a style guide to British English usage. RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think it's one of those things that we should leave in the hands of the main editors, who will generally operate according to their EngVar norms. BritEng seems to avoid them, AmEng embraces them and so, for that matter, does AusEng in my experience. Until or unless MOS guides us, I would aim for consistency within the article and leave it at that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• False titles are essentially journalese in both language versions, but becoming more prevalent, and I think generally accepted in the US, although you won't find The New Yorker etc using them. For older readers in BrEng they are a flat mistake. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Some style guides prohibit false titles but Wikipedia's doesn't, and as noted above they are quite widespread these days even in professional writing. Personally I don't think this should be an actionable objection at FAC, whatever the variant of English.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• At FACs for articles written in BrE I always comment adversely on the use, if any, of false titles but if the nominator is adamant that s/he wants them I do not press the point, and certainly would not dream of opposing promotion to FA on that ground alone. By coincidence, a few minutes ago reviewing an article for GAN I wrote, "although the clunky tabloidese false titles ('by French instrument maker Jean Hilaire Asté', 'Newsletter editor Paul Schmidt' etc) are obtrusive, that is a stylistic matter that does not affect the eligibility of the article for GA", and though at FAC I'd make my plea stronger against using them, the worst you could say is that they are more suited to the popular press than to an encyclopaedia article: they are not actually wrong – just rather naff. – Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• I have used them in 3 FAs without an objection at FAC or while on the main page. I find them to be acceptable in American English --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

FAC mentor request for Ochaco Uraraka

I would like to nominate Ochaco Uraraka to WP:FAC soon, but I was advised to seek a mentor. Would any mentor be willing to guide me to prepare the FAC for this article? I would sincerely appreciate any consideration and assistance. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)