Jump to content

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Today's featured article
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fayedizard (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 18 December 2012 (→Stephen Hawking: :s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators: Wehwalt, Gog the Mild and SchroCat, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
    • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for re-runnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
    • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that has not yet been scheduled, or a non-specific date. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template, if the desired date for the article is beyond the 30-day period. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requesters should still nominate the article here during the 30-day time-frame.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

I.
Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.


II.
Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
III.
Write the blurb.
Some Featured Articles promoted between 2016 and 2020 have pre-prepared blurbs, found on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page). If there is one, copy and paste that to the nomination, save it, and then edit as needed. For other FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
IV.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.

Scheduling:

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from June 1 to July 1.

Date Article Points Notes Supports† Opposes†
Nonspecific 1
Nonspecific 2
January 5 Kenneth Walker 3 70th anniversary of death; 1yr FA 5 0
January 8 Stephen Hawking 8 birthday, vital article, no scientists for 6 months, 1st TFA for author 9 1
January 9 Richard Nixon 11 Centennial of birth, Vital Article (level 4), one year FA 14 0
January 10 Metropolitan Railway 5 150th anniversary of opening, nom's first TFA 9 0
January 14 Adelaide leak 1 80th anniversary, 1yr FA, similar subject within one month 4 0
January 15 Hobey Baker 1 Date relevant to article topic 2 0

† Tally may not be up to date; please do not use these tallies for removing a nomination according to criteria 1 or 3 above unless you have verified the numbers. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1

Nonspecific date 2

Specific date nominations

January 5

Kenneth Walker

Head and shoulders view of man in military uniform with decorations.
Kenneth Walker (1898–1943) was a United States Army aviator and a United States Army Air Forces general who had a significant influence on the development of airpower doctrine. Walker graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School in 1929, then served as an instructor there. He supported the creation of a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches and was a forceful advocate of the efficacy of strategic bombardment, publishing articles on the subject, and becoming part of a clique known as the "Bomber Mafia" which argued for the primacy of bombardment over other forms of military aviation. He advanced the notion that fighters could not prevent a bombing attack, and participated in the Air Corps Tactical School's development of the doctrine of industrial web theory, which called for precision attacks against carefully selected critical industrial targets. In 1942, during World War II, Walker was promoted to brigadier general and transferred to the Southwest Pacific. He frequently flew combat missions over New Guinea, for which he received the Silver Star. On 5 January 1943, he was shot down and killed while leading a daylight bombing raid over Rabaul, for which he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. (Full article...)

3 points: Two points for date relevance, being the 70th anniversary of the battle in which he won his medal of honour, and one point for being promoted in July 2011. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the TFAR page instructions at the top of this page-- the date requested is more than a month from the last one. Still, considering the similarity and how few of same we (might?) have, I agree it's unfortunate that they can't be spaced out more; there must be other significant dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The next significant date is the 75th anniversary of the battle in January 2018. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have non-specific date slots that have not been used at least in the last six weeks; why are we focusing (generally here) so exclusively on scheduling around dates when we have other options? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The other significant date would be his birthday in July, but the 120th anniversary is in July 2018. My understanding is that the non specific date category is for articles on subjects without links to a specific date. I cannot see a circumstance where I would nominate a biographical article for a non-specific slot. And while the two non-specific slots are empty now, five were full a few weeks ago. Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is your understanding of the non-specific date slots, then we need to do something to clear that up in the instructions. The intent is so that articles can be nominated generally, regardless of date connections, so that we aren't exclusively scheduling the TFA around date connections, which is (supposed to be) only one small part of scheduling. We aim for diversity, among other things. I've been following this page now for a month and have not seen the non-specific dates full; if you would find and post a link of the last time it was full, that would be helpful. Perhaps I missed it. Anyway, it is not at this point essential that an article be tied to a date, since the non-specific slots are empty and the delegates will probably run anything put up there, so my point is that it is unfortunate that we are running two articles that are fairly rare yet fairly similar so close together (even though they are the month apart that instructions allow for). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking (born 1942) is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author. His significant scientific works to date have been a collaboration with Roger Penrose on theorems on gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, often called Hawking radiation. He was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. Hawking has a motor neurone disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that has progressed over the years. He is almost entirely paralysed and communicates through a speech generating device. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking has achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; his A Brief History of Time stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks. (Full article...)
Thank you for the corrections, I should stay away from math ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The cn tags are all in one sentence, placed on separate clauses by a user with a contribs history that shows an obvious POV to push- an put there only a week after the article was promoted; apparently the lead editors haven't gone back and cleaned them up. This is an extremely minor nitpick. The TFA is appropriate, and any minor copyediting can and undoubtably will be completed prior to the main page appearance Montanabw(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith should indicate that an established user, who says that an assertion is not in the cited source, is familiar with that source. Good faith should also make us reluctant to accuse established users of pushing a POV. Articles appearing on the main page should be free of such concerns. Has anyone active on the article, or this nomination, contacted the user who added the tags? Kablammo (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everybody, I was the editor who took the article though GA and it's various FA stages (which I couldn't have done without the help and support of a large number of other editors) - and it is really extremely gratifying to find out that it is being considered for front-page status. Thank you so much for the nomination. For some general information, the editor who added the citation tags is an admin, and so it should probably be taken seriously. I'd really appriate it if a senior editor would have a go at straightening those sections out. I can certainly put some time into any other concerns raised - Kablammo - can you give me some examples of sections were copyediting would be particularly useful? SandyGeorgia has raised some issues on the talk page and I'm going to potter down and respond to them now. :) Fayedizard (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to, Fayedizard. I cannot today, but will post them to article talk page, or (if you wish) copyedit myself. Nudge me if you don't hear from me soon. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - looking forward to working with you. By the way - I'm( I believe) the significant contributor to the article, and I've never had a front-page before - does that mean we get another point? (I'll be honest, I'm a bit out of my deapth with the process...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the easy answer would be yes, but there was just a change to the instructions about the nominator point that is still Greek To Me, so I asked for clarification on talk. With 7 points, you won't likely need any more :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The easy answer is still yes. You can claim the point, but no-one can claim it on your behalf - that's not changed. 8 points. BencherliteTalk 13:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it is indeed a Featured Article, and will be for the period including TFA, even if Sandy or someone else takes it to FAR. I, for one, do not think the article is so poorly written that it should be stripped of its FA status. Nonetheless, I appreciate the views of those who think it needs a total rewrite, and I commend any such critics who step up to the task. There is no rule that says an FA must remain unchanged. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the banner is (I think) relating to a conversation on the talk about (I think) moving some of the lists. The list structure as it is now is the one that it passed FA with. I'm honestly completely confused and would appreciate some more eyes on the matter. :s Fayedizard (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon (1913–1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. After completing his undergraduate work at Whittier College, he graduated from Duke University School of Law in 1937, and returned to California to practice law. He served in the United States Navy during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. He served for eight years as vice president, from 1953 to 1961, and waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Nixon ran again for the presidency and was elected. Nixon initially escalated the Vietnam War, but ended U.S. involvement in 1973. Nixon's visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was re-elected by a landslide in 1972. Early in his second term, a continuing series of revelations about the Watergate scandal cost Nixon much of his political support, and on August 9, 1974, he resigned as president. In retirement, Nixon's work as an elder statesman, authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips, helped to rehabilitate his public image. (Full article...)
I've cut it some.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion made, suggestion answered. Hatting to ensure that nobody accidentally says something that someone else might regret. BencherliteTalk 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please audit the prose; a search reveals 16 instances of the word "however" in this version. (See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however.) Although this issue was brought to Wehwalt's attention in a previous FAC after DCGeist copyedited an article and among other improvements, reduced the uses of "however" from 12 to 3, [2] the overuse of "however" persists. Several of Wehwalt's recent FAs have improved on this score, but the older ones should be audited; it shouldn't require more than a few moments to review each FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, captions need to be audited for final punctuation throughout. The oversized images throughout will likely get objections when it runs on the mainpage (I see no reason for them to be oversized-- this isn't an article about art, for example, where there is a need to examine images closely since the article is about them). A bigger concern (back on prose) and an indication that a prose review is called for: see the image in Richard Nixon#Domestic policy and the caption: "Nixon chats with a future voter at the Washington Senators' 1969 Opening Day, with Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn (to the right of Nixon), Senators owner Bob Short and Nixon aide Jack Brennan (in uniform)." The caption misidentifies several people (and the reference to a child as a "future voter" is unnecessarily cutesy and unencyclopedic).

Another sample, the opening blurb: "In retirement, Nixon's work authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips helped to rehabilitate his public image as an elder statesman." Why "many"; what does that add? Why not just "rehabilitated his image"? His image problem that needed rehab wasn't about being an "elder statesman". Also, "Although Nixon initially escalated America's involvement in the Vietnam War, he subsequently ended U.S. involvement in 1973." "Subsequently" is another overused word-- the 1973 seems to cover it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update, one image caption corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You also incorrectly changed an image format which had consensus, and you lack consensus to change the text of the caption as I object. Come on Sandy. Let's both walk away, shall we?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article below (Metropolitan Railway) also has 16 instances of "however" in this version. It's a new FA (August 2012) Should all articles be checked for these issues? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All articles (here and at FAC) should be checked for lots of things, so I'm not sure I understand the question. Other than to say, "of course"; lots of stuff is sliding through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note I've looked over Metropolitan Railway and reduced the howevers to five. I will read over my changes tomorrow to see if I've changed the meaning. Looking at the links above it seems the problem is misuse and overuse - I don't think it's now mis-used or overused in that article. However, [sic] I don't think a simple word count is helpful. Edgepedia (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will of course check the article before it runs, and will give Sandy's suggestions the respect they deserve. (and yes, I'm aware that Sandy's trying to provoke conflict here, so the mild snarkiness in the last comment is the most she's going to get out of me)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, high quality educational and encyclopedic article on a dead politician, who has passed on, is no more, has ceased to be, bereft of life, may he rest in peace. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, he was a person, not a parrot! ;) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, someone got the reference!!! :) — Cirt (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we if the instructions (of minor importance to me) are in the way of showing an important historic person on his centenary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to go through 24 hours of hell which this article on the main page will inevitably entail to give legitimacy to an arbitrary process. The article will still be there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image placement does not follow the MOS ("Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection"), but this must be a TFA tradition ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to follow the guideline get easily termed "disruption of the TFA process", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that "avoid" does not mean "never". It is just the less-preferred path. Due to the orientation of some images, and their necessary placement in text, sometimes the best solution is to not follow that guideline. An example of this is here, as McKinley faces right in the cartoon, it must be a left-side image, and the image is best placed there as the image illustrates the "straddle bug" text nicely. This is something we trust editors with, and the article passed FAC like this, not that this makes it perfect but it's got something going for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember. The guideline says "avoid", that translates to me to: generally it is better "right" but in specific cases "left" is preferable. The current TFA format, however, has it always "left" (at least to my observation so far), regardless of the picture orientation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Metropolitan Railway

A Metropolitan Railway electric locomotive
The Metropolitan Railway opened the world's first underground line on 10 January 1863, connecting the mainline railway termini at Paddington, Euston and King's Cross to London's financial heart in the City using gas-lit wooden carriages hauled by steam locomotives. The railway was soon extended and completed the Inner Circle in 1884, but the most important route became the line to Verney Junction in Buckinghamshire, more than 50 miles (80 kilometres) from London. Electric traction was introduced in 1905 and by 1907 electric multiple units operated most of the services. The Railway developed land for housing and after World War I promoted housing estates near the railway with the "Metro-land" brand. On 1 July 1933, the Metropolitan Railway was amalgamated with the railways of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London and the capital's tramway and bus operators to form the London Passenger Transport Board. (Full article...)

On 10 January it will be the 150th anniversary of the opening of London Underground's first line by the Metropolitan Railway between Paddington and Farringdon. There are four points for the anniversary, and one point as I am a significant contributor and I have not previously had a TFA. I'm not claiming any 'similar article' points as we had Horseshoe Curve (Pennsylvania) on 13 November — although that's placed in the Geography and places section on Wikipedia:Featured_articles and the previous article to appear from the Transport section was Herne Hill railway station on 25 August — therefore 5 points. Edgepedia (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

Adelaide leak

Bill Woodfull
The Adelaide leak was the revelation to the press of a dressing-room incident during the third cricket Test match of the "Bodyline" series. During the course of play on 14 January 1933, the Australian Test captain Bill Woodfull was struck over the heart by a ball delivered by Harold Larwood. On his return to the dressing room, Woodfull was visited by the England manager Pelham Warner who enquired after Woodfull's health, but to Warner's embarrassment, the latter said he did not want to speak to him owing to England's Bodyline tactics. The matter became public knowledge when someone present leaked the exchange to the press; such leaks were practically unknown at the time. Many people at the time assumed that Jack Fingleton, a full-time journalist, was responsible. Fingleton later wrote that Donald Bradman, Australia's star batsman, disclosed the story. Bradman always denied this, and continued to blame Fingleton. Woodfull's earlier public silence on the tactics had been interpreted as approval; the leak was significant in persuading the Australian public that Bodyline was unacceptable. (Full article...)

Two points for 80th anniversary of the incident, one point for promotion over a year ago (February 2011). However, last sports article scheduled is for 22 December, so loses two points (the last cricket article was October 13). So that makes 1 point I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

Hobey Baker

Hobey Baker
Hobey Baker (1892–1918) was an American amateur athlete of the early twentieth century. Considered the first American star in ice hockey by the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was also an accomplished football player. Born into a prominent family from Philadelphia, he enrolled at Princeton University in 1910. Baker excelled on the university's hockey and football teams, and became a noted amateur hockey player for the St. Nicholas Club in New York City. He was a member of three national championship teams, for football in 1911 and hockey in 1912 and 1914, and helped the St. Nicholas Club win a national amateur championship in 1915. Baker graduated from Princeton in 1914 and worked for J.P. Morgan Bank until he enlisted in the United States Army Air Service. During World War I he served with the 103rd and the 13th Aero Squadrons before being promoted to captain and named commander of the 141st Aero Squadron. Baker died in December 1918 after a plane he was test-piloting crashed, hours before he was due to leave France and return to America. In 1921, Princeton named its new hockey arena the Hobey Baker Memorial Rink. The Hobey Baker Award is presented annually to the best collegiate hockey player in the United States. (Full article...)

Date relevant to article topic = 1 point. Similar article not showed in over 6 months. (The similar article is the Hockey Hall of Fame) = 2 points.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to the summary chart at the top of the page; this doesn't show in TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nice to see a hockey article Canuck89 (talk to me) 05:29, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 point at most as sports biographies are sports biographies, and TFAR does not sub-divide similarity by sport (and certainly not by whether or not sportsmen are in a hall of fame). I note also that a sports article is nominated for 14th January and that, if Kenneth Walker runs on 5th January, Baker would be the third US airman killed in battle to appear within 6 weeks. Blurb expanded to proper length, years of birth and death added, full names cut. BencherliteTalk 11:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=528559968"