Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators— Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{ @FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, , filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews

Frank Zappa

Notified: Frank Zappa

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it subverts several points in the swiftly reverted)

  • Inappropriate structure Similar articles like Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson follow a logical structure which applies a division between "Biographical" and "Analytical" content. The bulk of the first sections ("Biographical") focuses on specific biographical detail, going from childhood to major career developments. The next sections ("Analytical") elaborate on the subject's personal beliefs, music style, legacy, etc. which are more general and apply to the subject's output, philosophy, and historical standing, not really the events of the subject's life.
Not only does Frank Zappa clutter these two aspects together in a very unfocused "oh by the way" fashion, it does so in spite of two already-existing "Personal views" and "Musical style" sections. Here are several excerpts that should be moved out to those sections:
  • (Religious views)

    Zappa recalled his parents being "pretty religious" and trying to make him go to Catholic school despite his resentment. He felt disgust towards organized religion (Christianity in particular) because he believed that it promoted ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

  • (Musical ethos)

    Zappa grew up influenced by avant-garde composers such as Varèse, Igor Stravinsky, and Anton Webern; 1950's blues artists Guitar Slim, Johnny Guitar Watson, and B.B. King;[22] R&B and doo-wop groups (particularly local pachuco groups); and modern jazz. His own heterogeneous ethnic background, and the diverse social and cultural mix in and around greater Los Angeles, were crucial in the formation of Zappa as a practitioner of underground music and of his later distrustful and openly critical attitude towards "mainstream" social, political and musical movements. He frequently lampooned musical fads like psychedelia, rock opera and disco. Television also exerted a strong influence, as demonstrated by quotations from show themes and advertising jingles found in his later works. ... Examples are "Plastic People" and "Brown Shoes Don't Make It", which contained lyrics critical of the hypocrisy and conformity of American society, but also of the counterculture of the 1960s. ... Nasal imagery and references appear in his music and lyrics, as well as in the collage album covers created by his long-time collaborator Cal Schenkel. ... [he] later acknowledged two of his music teachers on the sleeve of the 1966 album Freak Out! ...

Among reliable sources, there is so much detail regarding the themes, motifs, and idiosyncrasies of Zappa's work and philosophy that it would not be out of the question to have a separate article devoted to it, a la Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Although I'm not sure such action has to be taken, it should definitely be considered somewhere down the line.
  • Inconsistent citations Article has a mixture of {{ cite book}}, {{ sfn}} and manual harv cites, which I believe should all be converted to {{ sfn}}, per its superior functionality.
  • Improperly placed non-free media Too many arbitrary sound clips with unclear significance.
  • Length of section headers The way it assigns yearly periods within yearly periods is overkill. "1973–75: Top 10 album" should be simplified to "Top 10 album", or better yet, "Apostrophe (')", the name of that top 10 album.

Ilovetopaint ( talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)

Notified: Ssven2

I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation. DrKay ( talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur
  • The Schlieffen Plan section is obsolete.
  • The use of Mustard gas has it that it was fired in the first gas shells, rather than it was fired in gas shells for the first time on 10 July at Nieuport. Operation StrandfestYes check.svg Done
  • Most of the battle sections are too big now that so many more have decent articles.
  • The consequences section lacks nuance.
  • The prose is too bitty in places with paragraphs of inconsistent length.
  • Some of the pics, maps, etc could do with moving to avoid cluttering.

I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 ( talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 ( talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages