Template:FAC-instructions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:39, 22 January 2008

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 meet the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review.

Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and peer review or Good article candidates at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code, as this causes problems when it is archived (if necessary, use bolded headings).

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 FA director, currently Raul654, determines whether there is consensus. (References in these instructions to "the director" include Raul654's nominated delegates.) If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut

WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

(Updates daily)
List of FACs (Updated by bot)

Nomination procedure

Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria.
If there are no previous FA nominations for the article, or if those nominations have been archived, skip to the next step. If a previous FA nomination for the article has not already been archived, use the Move button to archive the previous FA candidate discussion. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1.
If you move an old nomination, please update old {{facfailed}} templates on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}, the {{ArticleHistory}} template if present, and archives of the old nomination found by checking "What links here".
Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations).
Below the preloaded title, write Nominator or Nominators, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. If there is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination.
Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, 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.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

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).
To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore 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.
If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. Graphics ( Done or Not done) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. 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.
To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 *To support a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki>, followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.
 *To oppose a nomination, write <nowiki>*'''Object''' or *'''Oppose'''</nowiki>, followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide '''a specific rationale that can be addressed'''. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore 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 <tt><nowiki><s> ... </s></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that the matter has been addressed, they should say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. 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.
+*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 <tt><nowiki><s> ... </s></nowiki></tt>) rather than removing it.
+*If a '''nominator''' feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per [[WP:TALK|talk page guidelines]], nominators should not alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary.  Graphics ({{done}} or {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.  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.
 *To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write <nowiki>*'''Comment'''</nowiki> followed by your advice.
-*Per [[WP:TALK|talk page guidelines]], nominators should not alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below previous commentary.
 |}