Difference between revisions of "Template:FAR-instructions"
imported>Laser brain (being bold here--someone who hasn't edited in four years obviously isn't a coordinator) |
imported>Outriggr (minor ce (delineate the three steps in headings, heading bold consistency, define "FA")) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<span style="font-size: 16pt;">Reviewing featured articles</span> {{shortcut|WP:FAR|WP:FARC}} | <span style="font-size: 16pt;">Reviewing featured articles</span> {{shortcut|WP:FAR|WP:FARC}} | ||
| − | This page is for the review and improvement of [[Wikipedia:featured articles|featured articles]] that may no longer meet the [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|featured article criteria]]. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. | + | This page is for the review and improvement of [[Wikipedia:featured articles|featured articles]] (FAs) that may no longer meet the [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria|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. | There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. | ||
| − | '''Raise issues at article | + | '''1. Raise issues at the article's talk page''' |
| − | * In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. | + | * In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page. |
| − | '''Featured article review''' | + | '''2. 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. | * 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. | * 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—[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]], [[User:Casliber|Casliber]], and [[User:DrKay|DrKay]]—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. | * The featured article removal coordinators—[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]], [[User:Casliber|Casliber]], and [[User:DrKay|DrKay]]—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''' | + | '''3. 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. | * 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. | * 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. | ||
Revision as of 09:48, 9 January 2020
|
Reviewing featured articles This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) 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. 1. Raise issues at the article's talk page
2. Featured article review (FAR)
3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)
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: Script error: No such module "Purge"., Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Featured article candidates (FAC) 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:
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.
| |