Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive77

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Largest by prose size:

 ♦ 

• ... and just for the record, the smallest is
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• What are the units, please? If these are number of words or number of sentences, they would be quite small. MPS1992 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Units are "k bytes" or "thousands of bytes" if "k" is unclear. Rather obvious. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Rather obvious"? OK... MPS1992 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or is that a much better situation than we used to have? All are pretty big subjects (unlike so many FAs, frankly). Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm quite surprised by both these.
  WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting at around 60kb readable prose, which usually works out to a little under 10,000 words. Some of these are twice as big. I can see why a comprehensive article on the history of Poland, or perhaps on a figure as influential as Nelson Mandela, needs to be big, but even so...and on the other end, I personally won't even nominate something at GAN unless it's above 1200 words; I have serious doubts that a 700-word article can ever be described as comprehensive. This isn't a reflection on the nominators, who I'm did a fine job with what was available; but there are very many topics where there just isn't enough available for FAC. If consensus here is different, well then, I have many more things I'd be willing to nominate. Vanamonde (Talk
  ) 02:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In some cases there may be good reason for expansion (e.g., Hillary Clinton ran for president since 2014), but I would not be surprised to find bloat in the ones that have grown a lot. --RL0919 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If the increases are that large, I wonder if it's time to reevaluate a lot of these. If more than half the prose in an article was written after it passed FAC, it's not unlikely that the article no longer meets the criteria. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@

Lingzhi2 (talk)

04:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There are currently 50 candidates at FAC, and they're coming in at a great rate. I can't keep up with the sources reviews; it would greatly help if content reviewers, particularly those who have expertise in the subject area of the article, would sometimes add a sources review to their contribution. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge to us all Brian: I'll try and pick up a couple where I can. While you're posting here, I think I speak on behalf of everyone involved in FAC when I say just how grateful I am for your continued efforts with reviews. You are one of the true stars of the review process. Yours and Nikkimaria's names are always at the top of Mike's monthly stats list, and we all owe you both a heartfelt note of gratitude. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Second that Brian! I shall dust down your excellent advice on SRs and get cracking. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that Dr PDAs prose size script is NOT ALWAYS reliable. Usually it is, but not always. Forex, I suspect it overestimates the size of

Lingzhi2, I have noticed similar issues with DYKcheck, which has its own prose count functionality (don't know whether it has a similar code base in that area): both mathematical symbols and some foreign text (typically non-Latin-based characters) can significantly inflate prose counts, though I'm not sure why. I think I wondered at the time whether template-created symbols and/or text was counted differently. BlueMoonset (talk

) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Depending on what type of character encoding Wikimedia uses, characters that aren't in the basic ASCII set could be encoded with two or more bytes. If the tool is counting bytes, the byte-to-character ratio can be thrown off. --RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@

Lingzhi2 (talk)

06:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Better to find out now than later, I hope. FWIW, I was interested in whether current size was reflective of FA standards, so I compared against the last "review", which often was FAR rather than original promotion. But if you want to understand how FA sizes at promotion have changed over time, you will need the promotion data. There are other potential complications, such as whether the mix of subjects has changed over time, since some subjects naturally have more content than others. One possibility might be to sample topical areas (for example, ships or musicians) that have multiple FA promotions, to see how "similar" articles compare across time. That's less data to collect and it might be more meaningful. --RL0919 (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• that's a very good analysis. From my perspective, however, any topic shifts through time are very possibly a part of what I would like to capture. I'm assuming, as two hypotheses to be tested, that median prose size has fallen through time, and median rolling prior fa's of nominator through time has increased. The latter hypothesis doesn't need to be concerned with the actual promoted version. But the former does. ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  08:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer: Awesome enough to review something on the Urgents list! In addition to Brian's ask just above, I'm here to humbly beg some help in pushing these over the line. There has been tons of activity this month... a great problem to have... --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

These are, for the record, Mullum Malarum (an Indian film), Horizon Guyot (a submarine mountain in the Pacific), South Lake Union Streetcar (a streetcar route in Seattle), Milorad Petrović (a commander in the Yugoslav army) and Pyramid of Nyuserre (a pyramid in Egypt). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm giving up on my project of investigating prose size etc. of past FA articles. Since I made the data, there's no reason to discard it. So I put it here in case anyone ever wants it:

@

Lingzhi2: Thanks for this—I'm definitely interested in the data and have engaged at one article. I'm doing some side research on the idea of revisiting and refreshing the standards, if you are interested. --Laser brain (talk)

11:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2 (talk)

15:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to add this comment to the thread about co-noms, but seems it was already archived. But I was wondering what to do if I for example want to nominate an old GA for FAC which was written by another user? I once did this with Choiseul pigeon, and I've since regretted not listing Rufous-crowned Sparrow (the original writer) as co-nom at the FAC, even though they had long been inactive at the time (so they could get credit on this list:[1]). But now I realise this could maybe be used to game the system, so that one could have two simultaneous FACs going, with one as co-nom though it is effectively also a solo nom. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• On a related note (the issue above raises a bunch of questions), one GA by a now retired user that could be taken to FAC by someone else is Limusaurus. The catch is, I GAN reviewed that (same with Euchambersia), so would I be ineligible to FAC nominate it, since I would have both reviewed and nominated it? FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I woukd not include anyone on an FAC without their consent. You might think you are giving them credit, but they might not want that, or they might disapprove of something about the current article or the FA process. You could credit their work in the nomination statement instead. If you haven't contributed on the article yet, a better choice would be to open a peer review. The feedback would help the article towards FA, and handling it should establish you as a significant contributor who can nominate for FA on your own. --RL0919 (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so basically what I did at the Choiseul pigeon FAC I guess:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I figure WBFAN is more about who shepherded the article through FAC than about who built the content. One informs the other, and we have systems in place to ensure nominators are either substantial contributors or have taken responsibility for the article and given the main contributors right of refusal. I can count on one hand the times I've seen an editor emerge and ask for credit because something was going through FAC without their involvement... and those times were mostly owing to poor communication. If someone really wanted to game the system by adding an absentee co-nom, I think we could deal with that as a community easily. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I just got permission from one retired editor to work on one of their articles for FAC per email, but I doubt I'll get a response from the other one. But I guess we can't just keep articles in limbo forever for that reason. Only thing I wonder about is whether I'm allowed to take an article I GAN reviewed to FAC? In all cases I'll do expansion and restructuring, so they will be rather different when they reach FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with taking something to FAC after reviewing it at GAN. Getting more involved with an article isn't a problem; it's trying to review it after contributing to it that would be an issue...Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Vanamonde. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

yes, per Vanamonde Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

When is the closure date for this FAC, which opened on 16 July? Based on that I'll decide whether or not to invite more reviewers. Although the consensus is now mostly favourable (opposed only by Fowler&fowler), I feel it should not turn in his favour. I solved all his comments before he said "Hello. I'm not sure what to say", but after that I could not identify what he wanted me to rewrite since he did not clearly provide the sentences needing rewriting. He only gave comments on the plot, which were fixed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There is not a set closure date for any FAC - the FAC coordinators judge whether consensus exist to promote, and if not what additional input might be required, and also what weight to assign to outstanding opposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be a fruitful exercise for us to discuss exactly what we mean, or what we think we mean, when we say "engaging prose". It has come to my attention, I think partly because I have written FAs and GAs on very widely divergent topics, that there is considerably variety in what our editors consider to be engaging prose; there is a happy medium at which a number of us sit, but there's extremes, too, and there have also possibly been changes over time. There are two main areas in which I see divergence. First, plain versus complex prose. Second, strict verifiability versus prose that has a strong authorial voice. I have personal views on both these topics, and have had respectful differences of opinion with others both as nominator and reviewer. I was spurred into opening this discussion by some fairly recent events, but I think it would be more productive to keep this as impersonal as possible for the moment. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A good part of it is the subject matter. There is less opportunity for engaging prose when describing the technical aspects of a battleship than there is, by way of example, in the biography of a musician or literary figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark! In general, I think, the more technical the prose is, the less able it is to be "engaging", and the writer has to focus on clear explanations in those sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt and Sturmvogel 66: Well, sure. There's definitely variation from topic to topic. But I strongly suspect there's more to it than that. Our biographical FAs are not uniform in tone; nor are the literature FAs; nor are the history FAs. And of course it's fine to have some personal variation in style, but the trouble begins when editor X's engaging writing is considered original research by editor Y, and editor Y's stick-to-the-sources prose is considered dull and boring by editor X. This isn't a hypothetical: I've personally been in both positions, and if you cast your eye over the current FACs and FARs, there's several more examples. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a large part also has to do with sources available; you frankly can't wordsmith something jaw-droppingly elegant out of something that is based off news coverage because news coverage isn't going to give you the latitude (or where you have to either assemble statements out of a bunch of sources, or only have one or two.) I don't really think there's any advice that really can be applied everywhere; personally I've always found the old "brilliant" standard kind of useless as a benchmark and when reviewing just focus on clear, accessible prose that flows as much as possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Defining "engaging prose" would be an exercise in finding synonyms for "engaging". I think the phrase should be kept, however, because it gives us permission to polish clunky prose, whenever such opportunities arise. It is a safety valve of sorts I guess. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk)

04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Prose in an encyclopedia is not the same as creative non-fiction. Writing the latter sometimes involves introducing techniques to attract or engage the reader. These should be avoided in an encyclopedia. But that doesn't mean that our sentences should be Dick-and-Jane simple in the manner of "according to scholar A, ...; however, according to scholar B, ..." Encyclopedic prose requires its sentences to be clear and the paragraphs to be coherent and cohesive. Clarity is mainly the art of putting the characters in the subjects and the actions in verbs. Cohesive paragraphs have a sense of flow, presenting the old and familiar before the new and complex. Coherent paragraphs are semantically meaningful, their sentences logically connected. The problem with Dick-and-Jane simple sentences is that they are rarely coherent. Writing is also a compact between an author and their reader. In an encyclopedia that compact is about faithfully translating a complex subject whose paper trail is sometimes jargon-ridden in language and concepts familiar to an ordinary layperson. The problem with a strong authorial voice is often that it violates that compact. What remains? There is spit and polish, concision, rhythm, fronting, inversion, elegance, and grace beyond the four Cs (clarity, coherence, cohesion, and compact), but those, for the most part, are gravy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue which may affect this project. Thank you. :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

And which one would that be? I see several possibilities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The big one with the half-a-dozen subsections. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

On a routine look at some of the FAs which I shepherded through the system between 2007 and 2017, I see that the sources sections have been recently disfigured by red error messages informing me, among other things, that "Cite web requires |'website=' ". My question is: since when? Who decided this? There are other, similar instructions relating to template usage. Am I now expected to go through 106 featured articles to obey these sudden orders – not to mention the large number of non-featured articles I've created over the years? Or is someone making mischief? (It's not just me, by the way; all FA nominators should inspect their articles). Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brian, It came out yesterday. There is some anger over the changes,which are being discussed further at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Every time you think this place can't do anything more idiotic..... KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I take it that, while this nonsense is being sorted out, the FAC coordinators will ignore the red messages in judging whether an article is ready for promotion. Source reviewers should do likewise. About 70% of current candidates are affected to some extent. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine they will – I certainly do not intend to "fix" any of the "errors" in the articles that I have worked on until the AN discussion is concluded and it becomes clear what is actually going to happen over the long term... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The red stuff seems to have gone...for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still seeing "Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)" though that may be a more legitimate error as I never can remember the definition of "work".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

From the AN thread, it looks like they have hidden the error messages for the two controversial changes (requiring work= parameters in the cite foo templates, and deprecating the deadurl parameter), but at least the change to require the work= param looks to my reading of the thread to be inherently controversial in itself, so that may be rolled back entirely... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is watching this but not

While I'm here, there's a discussion on

I've updated the TFAR instructions with a reminder, for FAs promoted on or after October 1, 2018, to use the blurb from the blurb review that's on the talk page of the FAC nomination as a starting point, and save that, before making your own edits to it. If you see evidence of consensus in the blurb review, then please respect that consensus if possible. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

And, since this seems to be the #1 question about

TFAP page will almost always work (as long as other requests aren't competing with yours). - Dank (push to talk

) 12:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Fellow Wikipedians, I hate to bring this up, but Sarastro1 has been inactive since February 18 without a word. I'm bringing this up now as it appears there has been quite a load at FAC lately. I don't know what the policy or procedure is for removal, but I seriously think it is time to start considering a replacement in case Sarastro doesn't return. Noah^Talk 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Sarastro did want a break and I think Andy and I have been dealing with the load pretty effectively -- the number of promotions last month helps attest to that -- but obviously we do prefer three people to handle the possibility of multiple absences for unforeseen reasons. I've emailed to see where he's at. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that when I go through to assess articles for promotion, I'd say around 90% of the time the article is not MoS compliant. I don't mind checking and making fixes, but I figure this is something that should be done in preparation for nomination, not something that hangs on until the end. I realize the MoS is a ponderous tome that few have the patience for reading. But, there are scripts that can do a lot of the checking. The scripts at User:Ohconfucius/script do a lot of useful things, for example. They do generate some false positives so, as always, you need to check the suggested edits before committing them. At a minimum I run the "General formatting" script against all articles before promotion. The nomination list has been healthy and fruitful for months now—nominators, please ensure your entries are MoS compliant before nomination to grease the wheels as much as possible. --Laser brain (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody remind me - I'm sure I've read previously that giving both the ISBN and the OCLC numbers is deprecated. Is that right? Also, assuming it is, is there any preference for one over the other? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi KJP, I'm not sure there is a hard and fast rule (if there is, I have missed it), but from the reviews I've done, I've seen people using the 13-didgit ISBN wherever possible, with the OCLC for those publications without. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - Many thanks. Shall follow this convention. KJP1 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking primarily here as editor, what SchroCat says. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Speaking as a nitpicky sources reviewer, ISBN and OCLC is overkill. Use the ISBN if one exists, otherwise the OCLC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've felt the same, that both are overkill, however a presentation at WikiConference USA in 2015 changed my opinion. The OCLC link goes directly to the Worldcat record for that number, while an ISBN link takes a reader to a page with various options, several of which may or may not be useful to actually finding a copy of the source. The OCLC therefore streamlines the search to finding a library with the source, while the ISBN link requires another click. As such, I always list an OCLC, adding an ISBN if one exists. Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that in the absence of a set ‘rule’ on how to do it, as long as each article is consistent in the selected approach, then there should be no problems. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I appreciate that everyone would like to get their FACs reviewed faster, so I don't make this request lightly; however, I would very much like to get Ursula K. Le Guin on the main page on 21 October, which would have been her 90th birthday. After accumulating four supports rather quickly, the nomination has stalled a little bit; so I would greatly appreciate any further review, that would help push it over the line. The nomination page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ursula K. Le Guin/archive1. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You may recall I summarized readable prose size for FAs recently. For comparison, GA stats:

• The median GA article readable prose size is 11kb. As for the smallest, if my estimates are correct, then there are 12,295 articles <= 9kb; 2,494 articles <= 4kb; and 65 articles that are just 1kb or less in prose size. In fact, 30 of those round out to 0kb in size.
• As for the largest, I found 52 articles having readable prose size >= 90kb. There's a table of the largest on
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  07:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: The review of Muhammad III of Granada seems to have made good progress so far. Is it okay if I nominate another article? According to the rule, I must ask permission from a coordinator. HaEr48 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@

talk

) 07:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mimihitam: Yes, that is the plan. HaEr48 (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The nom is barely two weeks old and though it's attracted a fair amount of commentary I'd prefer to wait a bit longer before you open another -- on my watchlist. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There are major issues in Muhammad III of Granada. Anyone can see that in the lead. The article has not made good progress. I would recommend that the nominator not be allowed to nominate a second article until the fate of the present one is decided. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Im just wondering about Hurricane Sergio since it has been a month since the last comment was resolved. Noah^Talk 22:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Pinging the coordinators regarding this situation. Noah^Talk 19:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for August; these are late as I was either out of the country or busy in September. The September stats will be posted this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for September. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope to nominate decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts for FAC, but it has a problem that I'm not sure I can do anything about. To display hieroglyphs relevant to the decipherment process, I used three tables and a couple of sidebar illustrations, all of them using WikiHiero. That works fine in Wikipedia's desktop format, but WikiHiero doesn't seem to work in the mobile version. I've asked at the technical Village Pump but received no useful response; I filed a bug report, but who knows how long it will be before there's a response. As an alternative to WikiHiero, I could create images for each hieroglyph and cartouche, but they would be awkward to integrate with the tables. Unicode now has hieroglyphic characters, but a lot of browsers still don't support them, and unlike WikiHiero the Unicode characters can't be arranged into the vertical groupings that were common in hieroglyphic writing, including in some of the examples in the article.

The article is written in such a way that seeing the glyphs isn't necessary for understanding the process of decipherment, but mobile users will still see broken and uninformative tables. Should I nominate the article as it stands, or should I find a solution with images or Unicode characters? A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

After a cursory glance at the FA "rules", nowhere did I see that article appearance on a mobile devise is a criterion. I think your article is way above the standards for FA and will pass with a breeze. Concerning the wikipedia on mobile app, I have noticed other bugs lately which mean many articles are concerned: for example the [show] buttons in all king infoboxes don't show up at all (yet, note how a number of these articles have been promoted without the issue being raised). As long as the problem comes from the plateform and not the article, I don't see why the article editor should be held responsible.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If there is a bug ticket in, I'm sure it's not an issue. I'd address it in the nomination; but I don't think it would cause a fail. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The five oldest noms without sources reviews are all in the video game/films genres. They are:

• Baby Driver
• Go Vacation
• Descent (1995 video game)
  (this one may have died in the hole)
• The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
• Proteus (video game)

Can editors with an interest in these areas be prevailed upon to check the sources of these articles? Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I will make a pass through any needy ones this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence of WP:Manual of Style/Capital letters (MOSCAP) reads: "In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names ..." (also called proper nouns). MOSCAP doesn't offer a lot of help on distinguishing proper from common nouns. There's a question about the capitalization of "Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs" in one of the TFA blurbs. When I want to know if something's a proper noun, I generally check dictionaries, Google searches, and reference works (like encyclopedias, including this one). Sometimes I check what academics have to say, but they tend to overcapitalize within their own fields. Does anyone have advice on what to check? - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Job title capitalization is addressed in more detail at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Titles of people, if that helps. --RL0919 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that, until we move

Prime Minister of United Kingdom is not moved to Prime minister of United Kingdom

, why are its contents not de-capitalized?

Editors insisting on JOBTITLES being de-capitalized on Wikipedia have been wreaking havoc on Wikipedia creating inconsistencies all across our encyclopedia. (See here and here where I point out how JOBTITLES is ruining consistency.) We now have stupid de-capitalized articles like Chief Justice of the United States where the article title is capitalized but the content within is not. This is in clear conflict with LOWERCASE.

In editing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2019, I was very careful to avoid modifiers in front of titles so as not to completely run afoul of JOBTITLES which tells us that modified job titles should be de-capitalized. These titles are capitalized commonly in RS and on Wikipedia when unmodified. "Assistant" may appear to be a modifier, but it is NOT. It is part of the title and therefore should remain capitalized.

As for Command Module Columbia, see Space Shuttle Columbia. This is an unsettled policy and I have chosen to apply the principle of least astonishment to readers familiar with these titles. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're acting in a reasonable manner. I'm a little tired myself of being told that "Assistant Director of the Mint" is actually "assistant director of the mint" when it isn't in any universe except the MOS. All I'm looking for in article reviews is internal consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

MoS is the set of rules that we work to. If you think that is at fault, raise it there.

Coffeeandcrumbs is totally misreading WP:JOBTITLES in relation to the UK prime minister, but I also acknowledge that I misread it in relation to the assistant director role. However, I raised this primarily in relation to the command module pilot role, and capitalisation of that is clearly not supported by the policy.

As to the vehicles, I raised it as a genuine question, but I would not necessarily agree with C&C as to where the least astonishment would lie. I do note, however, that in C&C's new article on Columbia (command module), the three word proper noun being applied in the blurb is not to be found in either of the cited sources available online. Kevin McE (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The MoS is a set of flexible guideines that should be taken with a pinch of salt if it confuses the reader or jars the language. - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia is the first reference,

CONSISTENT with Space Shuttle Columbia. As for PM of UK, see Prime Minister of Albania, President of Afghanistan and President of the United States

. How is "president of the United States" de-capitalized and "Prime Minister of United Kingdom" is capitalized. It is chaos out there.

I have reconsidered on "command module pilot". You may be right on that one. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the pilot role.

Nothing at all to do with the TFA under discussion, but the Albanian and Afghanistani examples you cite are not the formal title, and I cannot see why you think President of the United States and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom are treated differently at JOBTITLE.

More relevantly, there is nowhere in that article that it is presented as a three word proper noun. I hope you are not trying to cite title case as evidence of it being a proper noun: the article uses Apollo 11 Command Module, "Columbia,"; the inverted commas indicate a clear distinction between the proper name (Columbia) and what it is (a command module). Is it your contention that command module should be treated as a proper name? I believe that similar principles apply to Apollo lunar module.

Not sure why we are discussing this here rather than on the talk page for the TFA in question... Kevin McE (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

An old Billy Joel lyric comes to mind: "you are still a victim of the accidents you leave, as sure as I'm a victim of desire". That is, every Wikipedian has to decide for themselves how attuned and attentive they want to be to things that annoy other people. It can be argued that I'm too attentive, too proactive, and that can suck up time and get me into trouble. Where other people fall on that scale, and how that does or doesn't get them into trouble, isn't for me to say. (I'm not saying this to be clever or mean, but to acknowledge the broader context ... there's a scale that we're all on, there are choices we all make.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I am getting to be the point that I feel that a review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deactivators/archive3 is coming off as being incredibly condescending to me and I do not appreciate it. I can understand pointing out flaws in an article, but to write things like "This is one of a number of areas where the nominator, IMO, is so close to the subject that they seem to struggle to step back and write a disinterested summary." does not make me believe that I am getting a fair shake of a review. GamerPro64 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading through the review, I don't see it as anything like condescending. It's a good review on an article that still has multiple flaws. (What GOCE know about writing good content can be written on the back of a postage stamp, so I wouldn't think that their sign-off means it's at a professional level). Maybe you are too close to the subject? I've often found that technical or in-universe topics are very unclear to those who aren't interested in the topic, and the FA review system is one of the areas where these problems can be ironed out. - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How much work would an article like Laguna del Maule (volcano) need to get FAC-ready? I realize this is an odd question for a seasoned nominator of articles like this one but for some reason I am not certain of my judgment in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks to be well and extensively sourced, and rather comprehensive. From a quick scan of the prose, no major issues, as per usual with these pages. If you are uncertain, PR or GAs can be worthwhile. Ceoil (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for October. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mike, for your analysis, but there's surely something amiss with the "support/oppose" figures, which indicate that I gave 14 supports in October. I surely didn't. Have figures been entered in the wrong columns, or perhaps column headings transposed? Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Oops. Will look tonight, when I have access to the data. I will update when I figure out what I did wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Now fixed; as you suspected, the column headings were transposed. Thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radiohead stage collapse/archive1 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page. MilHistBot (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I thought nominators were supposed to manually add their nominations to the page? I did not think it was automatically transcluded.
  Aoba47 (talk
  ) 11:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes; I've just done it for the nominator. Pinging

  Popcornduff as an FYI. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library

  ) 12:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Duhh. Thanks Mike. I was in two minds about ever doing FAC again - maybe I should have stayed in bed. :)

talk

) 13:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with the nomination!

Aoba47 (talk

) 13:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mahavira/archive5 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page MilHistBot (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Now transcluded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have hundreds of pdf files of journal articles. I have one or two of the most often-cited books in electronic format, plus most of the book cites are recoverable from Google books, Amazon.com preview or the Internet Archive anyhow. Actually,

There already has been a source review of this article, which led to the reviewer formally opposing the nomination (though I'm not entirely sure if that still stands). I have also opposed the nomination due to, in part, my concerns over sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop a second source review taking place, particularly if there is an impasse with one review. If they differ in their conclusion it will be a headache for the co-ords, but that's why they get paid the big bucks... - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly right, but it seems helpful to point out to would-be source reviewers that this isn't typical example of someone looking for a source review as no-one has yet volunteered to do so given that Lingzhi2 has omitted this from the post. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone oppose or criticize a request for additional reviewers before. I didn't mean to cause you concern. Sorry. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk)

08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually Fiamh has stated "I have renamed my section so that you can get a comprehensive source review from a second editor". As it stands, the article has not had a full source review. I would do it myself, but I think I'm a bit too involved to be impartial. I hope others can be impartial when looking at the article, rather than the history of its development. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is a GA, rather than an FA, query, but I'd be interested in views from here, particularly if BB has any thoughts. I'm currently reviewing the above for GA. Three of the sources are documentaries about the theatre, hosted on YouTube. The videos are clearly professionally produced and the article's main editor indicates that the contributors are respected professionals, e.g. President of the theatre foundation, architectural historian etc. Production is by TV URBE, the channel of Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, one of Venezuela's largest private universities. To me, they seem fine as sources, and this Wikipedia:Video links appears to support that view. But this isn't my area of expertise and I'd be grateful for any input from editors who do specialise in sources. Have also posted on the GAR page. Thanks in advance. KJP1 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

YouTube isn't the source, it's the platform - the reliability (or not) of any citation to YouTube depends entirely on who the video's creators are, so if they're experts in the field there shouldn't be any problem. You'd also want to consider whether

the uploader has the right to share the video, but again that seems unlikely to be an issue in this case. Nikkimaria (talk

) 14:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - apologies for the delay in getting back, and thanks for the advice. I think the creators are fine; staff at a reputable university which even has its own Wikipedia page, and have proceeded on that basis. I have a different question on free-use images which I'll raise on your Talkpage if I may. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey I posted an expert opinion (brief, but nonetheless...) for the Bengal famine of 1943 FAC. If any reviewers request it, I am prepared to forward the email exchanges to any FAC coordinator (under condition of confidentiality; I used my real name and identifying email address in the exchange). Tks! ♦ 

@

Lingzhi2: Best thing would be to forward the email(s) to Arbcom, as, whatever else we may think of them, they have signed legally-binding non-disclosure confidentiality agreements. They will only provide, in response to enquiries, that a) the author of the email concerned has indeed given permission for its content to be repeated, and b) that it does say what it is claimed to say. ——SN54129

19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If you give a link people might click it.... Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Heh  :) Johnbod for your convenience, and of course pour encourager les autres, here. Hope all's well! ——SN54129 19:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh. You know, I thought people reading

Lingzhi2 (talk)

21:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Two emails forwarded to arbcom mailing list. Many thanks Serial Number 54129 for the suggestion. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk)

21:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what we hope to accomplish by sending them to ArbCom? Are they going to then forward them to me and Ian? Seems an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What Arbcom members think about this is irrelevant, unhelpful and diversive. They don't have the last word on FAC; Ian and Andy do. Graham Beards (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(

• Would everyone please just
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  23:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• No problem, I just didn't understand the point of that step, that's all. I was seeking clarification. --Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well then, YGM. ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  00:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Laser brain: It's because, until you join them in January, neither you nor Ian (or Sarastro, for that matter) have signed a non-disclosure agreement. While we're here, can someone remind Graham Beards that, si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses , etc. ——SN54129 04:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oh by the way, several hours ago I told the arb who responded to forget it. I forgot to tell you that I did that. I thought it was implicit in my request that andy reply to my email.... ♦ 
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  12:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• @
  Lingzhi2 (talk)
  09:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The first page is maintained by a bot which is no longer active; if no one is willing and able to take it over then that page should likely be deleted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It certainly seems that no one is prepared to take it on, so I propose that the page be deleted, until it can be replaced with something more meaningful. If the "Nominations Viewer" page is to be kept, it could do with a better explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll delete it soon unless anyone objects. The bot operators haven't edited since last year. --Laser brain (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman temple of Bziza/archive1 has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Hillhouse Buel/archive1
  has NOT been transcluded on the nomination page

  FACBot (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7, looks like an error on the part of the bot? The first was just promoted and the second is in fact on the nominations page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  No, the second was not on the nomination page. The page was renamed, and the associated nomination was not updated. I have corrected it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Damn! I fixed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman temple of Bziza/archive1 for you. Normally this would be the end of it, but now the Bot thinks it should be on the December list instead of November. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Moved it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2019. Article was promoted. You can move it back if you like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for November. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I am socked in IRL for a few days and editing from an iPad hotspot. I do not know who is watching Samuel Johnson these days. Could someone have a look ... recent red-linked activity suggests student editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The editor in question has made two contributions, both edits to Samuel Johnson. I have added the article to my watchlist and shall hold the fort until RL relents for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, thanks so much! I am momentarily on a real computer. (There were two of them, and following their contribs indicated all the classic hallmarks of student editing from an unregistered course, so I posted to the Ed board.) I don't have the time to do the usual niceties, and am disinclined to worry about C-class Ann Radcliffe, but hope the Ed Board will make contact, identify the professor, and remind them that student editors are discouraged from editing FAs.

More to the point of this page, without Mally and Ottava, I don't know what literary types are still following Samuel Johnson; I was involved mostly in the health aspects of that article, and would appreciate having others follow the article. Thanks again for your help, Gog! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been suggested that a contestant in the WikiCup who makes a significant review contribution to an FAC should be able to claim points in the WikiCup, a similar number of points to those available for performing a GA review. On the whole I would say having contestants perform GA reviews has been of benefit to the project, most of the reviews are of high standard, and the WikiCup judges (theoretically) reject poor quality reviews. A featured article scores highly in the WikiCup, and it is disappointing for the contestants if their FAC fails because of insufficient reviewers. Having some extra editors performing reviews would mitigate against this happening. Would the FAC community object to WikiCup contestants scoring points in this way? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of FAC's business what the WikiCup people want to do; after all, anyone is welcome to make a review and we don't enquire as to their motivation. In any case, FAC is hardly in a position to be choosy, overwhelmed with the number of participating reviewers as we are not.* ——SN54129 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

*Including, of course, yours truly. ——SN54129 19:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I second my learnéd friend's observations in toto. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Me, I am a little concerned that it'll lead to quantity-over-quality issues with the comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it needs to be well defined, but any extra FAC contributions would be more than welcomed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why; FACs that currently only receive cursory reviews are still held over for promotion until they recieve some of depth. So no, any reviews that are determined to be lacklustre ("done for the sake of doing them") will be treated as non-reviews by @FAC coordinators: -coords; and, note that the Wikicup would also, from their point of view, also reject those FAC reviews they determined to be of low grade (well, "theoretically", anyway!). So the reviewer would not win, nor the FA candidate get an easy pass. ——SN54129 20:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

While FAC could surely benefit from more reviews and reviewers, one thing it doesn't need is more sub-par reviews (of the type we got from many WikiCup participants in the past); those can be tremendously frustrating to nominators (and particularly off-putting to new nominators, who don't always know which reviewers are experienced at the FA level). While the coords are fully empowered to completely ignore reviewers who don't engage

WP:WIAFA appropriately or correctly, it is nonetheless a chore for the coords to have to sort through poor review commentary and to remember every year to go over to WIKICUP and see who is participating so they can be on the lookout for unexperienced nominators, reviewers, or quid pro quo.

At any rate, as mentioned above, FAC is not empowered to tell WikiCup what to do. What FAC can do and did do in the past was to make it a requirement for all WikiCup participants to declare their WikiCup participation in their FAC declarations or reviews. So, while FAC may not be able to prevent WikiCup participation, it should be noticed on each FAC, so that nominators and coordinators can then decide if the reviews are up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 21:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems a sound suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I intended my post to reflect the reality of the WikiCup culture; I am not optimistic, based on experience, about the effect this will have on FAC, which already suffers a lack of quality reviews-- something that will become much more noticeable without our beloved Brian. The coords are likely to be stuck with lengthy noms full of sub-par reviews. But I don't see that there is much that can be done besides requiring that WikiCup reviews be noticed, and reminding the coords they are empowered to archive a FAC even with dozens of supports, if they deem them to be invalid reviews ... as I once did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have indicated in the past that I am willing to disallow reviews that were not substantive enough. This is a little harder at FAC, because reviews don't have to cover all aspects of the article as they do at GAN, but if anyone is concerned about the quality of a specific review, I encourage them to bring that to the judges' attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Gamification as a motivator of interest in a process is a well-studied academic discipline at this point. There is a risk, of course, of substandard reviews but I for one welcome some fresh participation in this process. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the other coords, but I think we have enough checks in place that there shouldn't be any issues. --Laser brain (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I take that WikiCup keeps a record of all actions taken as part of it? Because if we have a list of FAC reviews carried out as part of WikiCup we could check if the reviews tend to be substandard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure how we would define "substandard" in that case, since so many of the reviews are substandard now, even if not coming from Wikicup. In the work Mike Christie now does (posting stats), I used to do those stats from the FAC delegate point of view, where I rated each review as helpful, neutral, or unhelpful in my promote/archive decision. This gave me data regarding who was helping and hindering the process, but that info is known only to the person doing the promoting and archiving. I think the coords will know if a review is substandard, but the community must continually empower them to ignore those reviews, by pointing out when they occur at the FAC, and begin to again more consistently enter on substandard FACs a declaration of Unprepared, suggest withdrawal, so that the coords can get the sizeable number of unprepared nominations off the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea that reviewers coming from the Cup should declare their interest. It does mean more subjective judgements as to a review's quality by the Cup judges, but I think that we can handle that. Would it speed things up for the delegates if we were to post any judgement of ours as substandard on the review page?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wording like "does not adequately engage the WIAFA criteria" might be less off-putting to novice (and some experienced) reviewers-- the idea being to begin to grow back a cadre of expert reviewers the likes we once had in Tony1, Malleus, Karanacs, Laserbrain, and too many others to name. Goodness, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches is over a decade old; what is FAC doing today to address the reviewer problem? How much of {{FCDW}} Might be updated and used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A general comment on disallowing substandard reviews: if you deem a review to be substandard, consider taking the time to mentor the reviewer. I have done that from time-to-time at GA and it resulted in more GA reviewers. Have not really had the opportunity at FAC because we have less participants in general. I would be willing to help some substandard reviewers increase their standards. But we have to get them here first :). Kees08 (Talk) 15:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

While I strongly support Brian's Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, I historically found that not all WikiCup participants are motivated to become better FA reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This claim surprises me. Since FA reviews have not been part of the scoring system before, I'm curious how many you've encountered and how you knew why they were there. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

FA nominations have long been part of Wikicup. I knew they were there because when I was the FAC delegate, I regularly monitored WikiCup to be on the lookout for quid pro quo, etc. and to be certain that nominators and reviewers from WikiCup noticed their participation on the FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We will not have a 100% conversion rate, but it will likely be better than 0%. Hopefully is a good venue to get editors who have been too afraid to participate because they are not ready to cross over, then we can make them ready. We will see, if this is added as points for the wikicup, which I support. Kees08 (Talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is somewhat inconclusive, but with the 2020 WikiCup due to start in the new year, I am proposing to allow scoring for FAC reviews in the Cup, with the requirement that all WikiCup participants declare their WikiCup participation in their FAC declarations or reviews. If you find that substandard reviews are being done, the decision can be reversed next year. Oftentimes, the article creators and expanders who take part in the WikiCup are motivated by the contest to work to a higher standard and may venture into featured territory for the first time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: This thread might have become a bit buried since there's been a lot of activity on this page in the last two weeks. I'd like to ensure that Ealdgyth and Ian Rose have an opportunity to review and chime in as they see fit. I feel like we'll be able to work together on a case-by-case basis if someone comes in and starts posting farcical or unhelpful reviews to get WikiCup points. --Laser brain (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth and Ian Rose's views would indeed be welcome. Actually, I am surprised at how good many (but not all) of the GA reviews are in the WikiCup, and many of the editors who have commented in this thread and on this page have been WikiCup contestants. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

My concern is with Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#What's changed from last year? - "There is no longer a requirement that you state your WikiCup participation when reviewing a FAC." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That has been there for three years and can be changed. It was introduced by me with this edit, there previously having been a rule "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC", which was widely disregarded and the purpose of which was unclear. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

A better rule would be "If you perform a FAC review for WikiCup, you must declare in the review that you are doing it for WikiCup, and the review needs to address the

Featured Article criteria", perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk

) 21:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

PS, please keep responses there so the discussion is not diluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are the FAC reviewing statistics for December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)