Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Purge page cache

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Volvo B10TL

I want to place this article as the featured article on January 2, 2005. Anyone have any discussions? --218.102.93.6 06:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Is this article really comprehensive? Anyway, there are insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 08:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Seems a little thin, and I'm getting the whole vehicle geek thing here too. Also, note that the date of a featured article is not chosen in advance. --Dhartung | Talk 11:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Intro section too short; has too many short, choppy paragraphs (several of just a sentence); and writing is fairly technical and not accessible to laymen. Some stuff that is linked to, like the Octopus Card, need some explanation in the article to demonstrate their significance. Jacob1207 02:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liberal Party (Utah)

previous FAC

Sanskrit language

I didn't have any hand in making this article, but I just thought it was a very interesting and comprehensive article that covers a lot of ground. Good example of wiki.--24.251.234.191 10:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

weak object. A lot more could and should be said about the language, and it has been on my todo list for some time. But the article could be rearranged so that the missing parts (especially one-sentence parapgraphs) are delegated to (future) specialized articles, such as Sanskrit grammar. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive article. --ashwatha 20:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Object - no references. --mav 04:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object - no picture. Plus I agree with the above objections, which I don't think have been adressed so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pictures and references have been added now. --ashwatha 15:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Object Sanskrit#Grammatical_tradition is a stub section and also a lot more can be written about the language. -- Sundar 09:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Aviation history

previous FAC

Poison gas in World War I

previous FAC

Indus Valley Civilization

previous FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Music of Nigeria

Automobile

previous FAC

Bahá'í Faith

Hey, I think this article is very comprehensive and well done. I just stumbled upon it. What do you think? (Nominated by Dmcdevit. →Raul654 07:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC))

• Support. I have read this article before, and the only reason I didn't nominate it then was because I had just joined Wikipedia and did not yet know about Featured articles. Extremely well-written and comprehensive. RyanGerbil10 08:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 08:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support now, good work, though I cannot vouch for the material personally. Object, agree with John Lee, references are critical, and this has none. Also the intro mentions it is the second most widespread of the "independent religions". What makes it more independant than any other religion? - Taxman 12:42, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok that seems all taken care of. Only thing I see left is alot of orphan paragraphs, of just one sentence or so. It makes the text flow poorly in spots. Some more should either be expanded or merged with nearby paragraphs.- Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Combined 5 sets of 2 paragraphs into 1 paragraph, where I thought the paragraphs were linked enough. There are still a couple short paragraphs, but I feel they are warrented. - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Taxman, for the answer to your question, please see the talk page. i think the related articles are still incomplete, not sure if that is reason enough not to include as a featured article though... - --Cyprus2k1 13:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • My point was more that the article needs to make that clear, not the talk page. The talk page is one editor claiming it is independent, not a verifiable source. - Taxman
    • BBC - --Cyprus2k1 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Great, that is an improvement. Why not format that BBC source and others that were legitimately used as proper references as in the featured article criteria? Specifically, Wikipedia:Cite sources shows how to properly format external links used as sources. And also, related articles do not affect the ability of this one to be a featured article. This article stands on its own merits. - Taxman 02:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • I've tried to clean up the references according to your suggestions to check out Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Navidazizi 06:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. The article looks great and is not polemical like articles on the other religions. PMLF 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Abstain. I have added references to the article, including the one for the "second most widespread religion." 01:07, 29 Dec 2004 Navidazizi
  • That is an impressive amount of references to be added. Can you confirm that those sources were used to confirm the material in the article and substantially agree with what is there? - Taxman 21:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Of the 13 references, 5 are for citations from the Bahá'í writings used in the article, 1 backs up the socio-economic development projects that the Bahá'ís are involved in, another is in reference to the relationship to the UN, 3 (including the one by the BBC) are for general Bahá'í information, 1 on the history of the Bahá'í Faith, and 2 are ex-Bahá'í websites which are included in reference to the NPOV statements that are in the main text of the article. I think that accounts for most things in the article. -- - Navidazizi 23:06, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Very nice work. Thank you. - Taxman 00:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
        • Added a couple more history references, one from a non-Baha'i source (E.G. Browne) -- - Navidazizi 5:20, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. great--ZayZayEM 05:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube

previous FAC