Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/FAC urgents

Pointless

This list begins to become pointless when there are more than, say, five items on it. If there are many items, people tend to ignore it altogether, especially when the same effect would happen if looking at the equally long list at WP:FAC itself. If this list is to be effective, it would probably make more sense to only list up to five items, and then wait until those items have received reviews before moving on to other items. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got someone's attention :-) I'd like to see what others say, but I'm getting the feeling that people are waiting until I add articles to the Urgents list before reviewing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is also the case because this list acts as a filter. Also, people don't want to waste their time on items that have received sufficient criticism. Another thing is that consistent reviewers tend to only comment on articles that have blatant issues, and ignore articles that do not have obvious problems after skimming through them, so well written or short articles end up having less criticism. Obscure titles are receiving less criticism for obvious reasons; my Facebook FAC has received plenty of comments pretty quickly, and I imagine that is because people have heard of it but do not use it, so they are interested in it and therefore end up reading it. Also, a few titles are misleading in the sense that people do not expect what they get when they click through to an FAC; a big culprit of this is comedy television episodes, such as those for The Simpsons, which are often a play on cultural phrases so people expect one thing but get another. I guess this is all just Psychology 101, but I think it's worth repeating. I'm now thinking that maybe my idea of creating a separate list that splits FACs by category is worth trying, so people have an alternative way of browsing through them. Gary King (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with that analysis or the conclusion, and we already had the discussion about splitting the FAC page. My point is far simpler: because I've been overly vigilant in maintaining this page, people may have come to count on it, and may not be reviewing articles until they appear here. I can't say I agree that any of your analysis is correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm a computer scientist, anyhow, so usually half the stuff coming out of my mouth doesn't make sense to people, including me! Gary King (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

Why is it empty? I came here looking for some things to review... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps it might be best to limit inclusion to, say, the six most urgent FACs. Or a percentage. Either that, or maybe tighten the inclusion criteria to avoid FACs already with a lot of feedback (unless it's a parade of fanboy supports). — Deckiller 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New Criteria

I'm going to be a bit bold here and dish out some criteria: a FAC requires feedback if there are fewer than three DETAILED comments (meaning of the list type). So, if it has zero, one, or two detailed comments, it'll be listed here; if not, it won't be. Cut-and-dry...except for defining "detailed" comments, I guess... — Deckiller 04:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excluding sources and image check. The problem is, I keep end up doing this myself, and it's a chore. And, I also need to add those that only have "fan" support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How old is old?

Just wondering aloud, I guess, but after my first foray into FAC stalled on lack of feedback (not promoted at two support, two oppose), I am curious about where to beg for feedback. WilyD 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking responsibility

I'm going to try to keep the list current - any FAC that hasn't gained some sort of consensus within 10 days, I will list here. Awadewit (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

I've been adding items to this as needed, and removing them when they are archived. I don't want to put more than around five at any given time, and fewer is fine. I only list an article if it's been listed over a month and the nominator is responsive (meaning all issues have been handled, or are in the process of being handled). I also prioritize those nominees that have fewer than three supports, or that have raised both support and opposition from reviewers. Does this sound like an appropriate set of criteria? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I do wonder how many people actually initiate reviews by looking at this table. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Format

Call it poor page reading skills, but it seems like the box is a bit off-centre if you use this page directly (as I do). I've been wondering if shifting the documentation (because that's what it is) into a {{documentation}} might make it a bit more obvious that the box is in fact the list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed per suggestion; anyone can feel free to revert if not considered of benefit. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting assist on the nomination of George Town, Penang

Requesting urgent assessment on the nomination of George Town, Penang. It has been open for three weeks and in spite of improvements, participation is rather minimal, leaving it liable of being archived. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)