|
Reviewing featured articles This page is meant to facilitate the review of featured articles and, if need be, to remove the featured status of those pages which no longer meet featured criteria. There are three sections to Featured article review, Basic reviews, Structural reviews and Featured articles of concern. Nominators may place a Featured Article page under the first two categories. If you would like to leave a comment regarding one of the articles being reviewed, please do so. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome, though the different types of review call for somewhat different commentary. |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: |
|
Types of nomination Basic reviews Basic reviews are for pages in which all FA criteria appear to still be met but where updating and simple editing may be required. Along with general copyediting, references and their formatting should be checked and technical articles should be looked over to ensure they are up-to-date. This can also be a place for Wikipedians who have been heavily involved in structuring an article after its initial FA nom to get feedback to ensure they are on the right track. Even when an FA seems "just right" it should still come to Basic review once every year or eighteen months. A basic review lasts about a week, after which anyone can note that everything appears looked over. It will then be removed if a third party agrees. If changes are still being made and it seems useful to keep the conversation going, the period may be extended. Structural reviews Structural review is meant for articles which nominators feel have ceased to meet FA criteria. When listing here, the nominator should provide the specific criteria concerns and proposed remedies. Starting a structural review is not a "vote to remove" an article's FA status. The focus instead is much like criticism in an initial Featured Article candidacy: actionable objections needed to meet the FA criteria are presented. The nominator should be willing to return to institute changes to the article as they are offered or at least strike through issues as they are addressed. Those commenting should attempt to address the criteria concerns and make any other comments they think useful. This is a review section, not the removal period, so there is no need to note "keep" or "remove", though a general comment about whether the page is still up to standard would be helpful. Structural review should last no more than two weeks. If consensus is that the criteria concerns have been addressed the review will be closed; if not, the article will be placed on Featured Articles of concern. Featured articles of concern Articles listed at Featured Articles of concern will have a specific list of unaddressed FA criteria at the top, based on comments from the Structural review. Here people may comment keep or remove alongside any other comments. Comments should be focused on the outstanding criteria concerns; if you feel the article should be removed, explain why you feel it is impossible to address specific issue; if you feel an article should be kept explain why you feel issues have been addressed and/or are not of sufficient concern to remove FA status. If after two weeks the FA criteria issues have not been substantially addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the article's Featured Article status will be removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review will be successfully closed. Nomination procedure
| |
