Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:FAC coordination/archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Recusals

  • As discussed with Raul, I will (time permitting) still wish to submit my own FACs and review/copyedit others', so those will be off limits -- this is the same way I and fellow coordinators at the MilHist project operate re. A-Class noms/reviews/closures.
  • I didn't discuss recusing in general on MilHist FACs but am happy to do so if you guys think it's better, given that I'm very active in that project as a coordinator (at least until this September) and co-editor of the Bugle newsletter. Then again, most (though not all) of those FACs that I review/copyedit will be MilHist-related, so it may not make a huge difference -- I want to be completely impartial, but am not trying to get out of work here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ian, I am happy for you to decide ad hoc depending on you own judgement. Graham Colm (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion on spot checks

We've talked about this a bit on my talk page, and I have an idea ... but don't want to put it forward at WT:FAC yet, since Raul wanted to give things a chance to settle down before new proposals, and you all may have different ideas. As with the Noleander FAC, a lot of "who has had a recent spotcheck" is stored in my head as of now-- not a good place for data collection :) But the Legolas situation highlights how important source checking is. It seems to me that putting together a centralized place to track what source checks have been done, when, on each nominator will be a drain on our scarce FAC peopletime, and the more efficient way to approach this is to include in the FAC instructions that as part of the nomination blurb, nominators should state 1) what previous image and source checks have been done on this FAC, when, include link for verification; and 2) when was the last spotcheck for this nominator, any other FAC, date and link. That is, put the burden on the nominator to state whether they've had a previous check, include the link, then delegates can review and decide if they want to request another check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support this in principle, as long as it is made clear that any previous spotchecks do not automaticaly exempt the FAC from needing them. And, as you have said, the final decision would rest with one of the delegates. Graham Colm (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's a better idea than the labour-intensive (for delegates) central database. Actually, Sandy, we danced around this at the RFC, when we talked (at cross-purposes at first, remember?!) about MilHist members linking to A-Class Review spotchecks (if any) when nominating the same article at FAC -- I remember doing it with the John Balmer FAC. If I've got it right, your suggestion above is a variation on that, i.e. linking to previous FAC checks only, whether they pertain to the current article or not. Works for me and, as Graham says, it's still ultimately at delegate discretion what to do with the information. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So the problem now is how to work this in to the whole issue that a FAC page redesign/overhaul is probably also needed ... which is why I don't want to put this forward at WT:FAC until Raul is ready. I'm seeing this as something that can be automatically added to the nomination blurb on the pre-load, or something to that effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Monthly updates

Folks, these are tasks I won't be keeping up with regularly any more (I may remember occasionally, can't count on it), but that need to be done each month:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I didn't know. I'll paste this on my page to remind me. Best, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia/FA work is somewhat old, but one of you might want to move it to your own space, or somewhere, and update it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again, I have pasted it here User:GrahamColm/FAC notes. Graham Colm (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Geez, Raul never said we had to work at this, I thought it was all just cabalistic power... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I suspect you weren't alone in that notion :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Samsung

Sorry to intrude guys ... I just actioned Ian's request for a deletion of the Samsung FAC. I linked Ian's request in the deletion summary so that people will know what's up. If I misunderstood and you really preferred for Graham to do it, let me know please. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No that's fine, mate, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:HWY/ACR

Hope it's alright if I'm asking here; I figured it would be more efficient than on user talk pages. I'm curious as to how you view ACR in general, and whether it's beneficial to link it from the FAC, and regarding supporters from the ACR supporting at FAC again. Is this helpful? Thanks. --Rschen7754 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It was always my hope that Milhist's ACR would be a good way to ease people into reviewing at FAC ... all we needed was for people to take their newly promoted articles straight to FAC, so that the article and the reviews would be fresh on the minds of the A-class reviewers ... less work would probably equal more reviews. But it hasn't worked out that way for us. Most people whose articles pass our ACR don't take the articles to FAC, or wait long enough before going to FAC that the A-class reviewers would have to start from scratch, if they're still around. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I think a fair few MilHist editors would like to progress their successful A-Class noms to FAC but are constrained by the one-FAC-nom-at-a-time rule (Hawkeye is a good example, at times I've been another). On the other hand, as a delegate, I've seen quite a few ship articles and bios go straight from ACR to FAC, and there are a couple of highway ones in that situation right now (which I guess prompted this query). In short, Rschen, as a FAC delegate, I take cognizance of previous A-Class Reviews, whichever project they're from, so a link to such a review in the FAC nom doesn't hurt. It's a similar situation to a FAC supporter who states that their main review was at PR -- if the review was detailed and addressed the criteria that matter at FAC, it can have a bearing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:FA watchlist

Hi, guys ... I perused some recent FACs and see you've had your hands full, having to do a lot of work yourselves as usual ... keep up the good effort, you are appreciated and needed!

Do all of you have WP:FA watchlisted? Maralia (talk · contribs) is back (not sure if you all remember what a hard and capable FA worker and helper she is), and I just happened to notice that she deleted a (faulty) duplicate entry at WP:FA, [2] so I went digging to find out how it got there, and uncovered this way back in July. While I was in there, I also found that an editor had altered a heading, which invalidated the link to that heading [3] (most likely with no discussion). I used to keep a close eye on the accuracy of the page, and wanted to make sure you all knew to watch for things like that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, yes of course that page is on my watchlist - I edit it at least once a week. I don't know how I missed the altered heading, but I did, and thanks for spotting this and fixing it. I haven't a clue how "Tokyo Mew Mew" got duplicated, and I don't have the time to look back into the history - it was promoted in 2008 - to find out. Maralia and I have already had our reunion, and I look forward to benefiting further from her helpful interventions and advice. Graham Colm (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ditto everything Graham said -- tks Sandy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

Guys, just a note that I'm thinking of extending the Image/Spot Checks Needed section on WT:FAC to other things that are holding back apparently "largely there" noms from promotion. Aside from source formatting/reliability checks, these could include additional reviews from outside a project (a current example is the 13th Croation, which has four supports but none from outside MilHist), or additional comprehensive reviews to augment drive-by supports/opposes. Whether by luck or design (something makes me strongly suspect the latter but I've no proof!) a few old FAC hands are popping up again, so it might be an opportune time to start trying to direct reviewing effort to where we as delegates believe it's most needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In particular an "Independent review needed" heading would help direct resources. The recent crop of X-Files-related candidates is a cause for concern. I think we should add a Delegate's comment to the FAC as we do when spotchecks are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break

... from FAC in February, possibly longer. Keep the home fires burning, guys. (Working on software that may help with copyediting, and on writing.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay mate, take care -- ping me (WP or email) if you want to brainstorm on the ce stuff... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep, will do. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Another break from FAC

... effective Sept 1, again to work on copyediting software, and I expect this one will be longer. Thanks for your dedication, guys, you do great work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tks Dan, feeling's mutual of course -- hopefully with people like John and Andy (Laserbrain) spending more time on FACs now we'll be able to hold the fort. I may have to try and spend more time copyediting MilHist A-Class articles though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, just seen at T:MILHIST that you hope to continue reviewing ACRs, so that will still aid us at FAC... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling all delegates/coordinators template

Hi guys, taking a tip from one of my fellow MilHist editors/coordinators, I thought we might introduce a quick way of pinging all delegates/coordinators at once, namely something along these lines: Template:@MILHIST. We could just call it @FAC -- any objections/suggestions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Signpost op-ed

Hi guys, just when I'd been thinking for a week or so that it might be worth writing some sort of Despatch-like commentary on what we look for in FACs these days, Ed delivers this to my door... Shall we nut something out here, perhaps in the form of bullet points first up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good idea here's a few random thoughts to start the ball rolling:

Good indicators

  • The article has been well prepared and this is evidenced on the Talk Page and in the page history.
  • A peer review (or two) is always a good sign.
  • The referencing is based on quality sources with no obvious blogs and fan sites. I am always pleased to see books used.
  • The nomination statement gives a clear indication of the work done to satisfy the FA criteria.
  • Knowledge of the Manual of Style is evident, although I have never known a candidate that was archived over MoS issues alone.
  • An "A" rating from a project is helpful, but reviews from "outsiders" are needed.
  • TRIP, PubMed and other established databases have been searched and used for references.

Poor indicators

  • Obvious typos and basic grammatical errors. A basic spell-check has not been done.
  • All citations are websites.
  • An apologetic nomination statement.
  • Remaining issues from a previous FAC
  • Purely decorative images
  • Weasel words and unnecessary qualifying adjectives like "extraordinary" that contravene NPOV.

I will add a few more later. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Checks a delegate makes before closing a review (well these are the ones I make!)

  • Dab links (using toolbox checker)
  • Harv errors (using Ucucha's script)
  • Duplicate links (using Ucucha's script) -- there may be good reason for some such links in a long or complicated article, but they should be used sparingly
  • Citations at the end of every paragraph
  • Dedicated image review
  • Dedicated source review for reliability and formatting (admittedly I sometimes let this one ride and just cast an eye over the refs myself)
  • Dedicated spotcheck of sources if the nominator is new to FAC, or hasn't had a spotcheck for a while, or the nomination is by a team that hasn't all had spotchecks before
  • At least one review (not necessarily support but all comments acknowledged/resolved) by someone outside the nomination's fraternity/project

Could be more to come... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, was it really March we first looked at this? Time flies... Anyway, I think I've committed us to completing this as neo-Dispatch so let's discuss finalising it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, we need a first draft. Shall we create a subpage or work on it here? Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we move it all to a subpage, yeah. Walking through open FAC list now, will look to this in next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Older noms list

From the WT:FAC discussion, I'd rather answer Graham's question here so as to hopefully not prejudice ongoing reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which ones have withdrawal suggestions? Which six or more are over one month old but have no support? I can't speak for Ian, but when the list is relatively short, I let nominations run a little longer than we used to – particularly after your complaint about too early promotions. Graham Beards (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Standards may have changed, but a "relatively short" list would be 25–30. I am not suggesting early promotion: I'm suggesting that archiving FACs that are not going anywhere would result in better scrutiny to those that are.
And then there is also:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Re, your comment about my "complaint about too early promotions", as an example, I would have complained if Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September Morn/archive1 had been promoted without attempting to get some of our resident content experts (the Art Cabal) to weigh in. They now have! Meaning that I would always ping in people known to be serious reviewers in a given content area. Conversely, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pancreatic cancer/archive1 is getting serious review from the docs, but will also need non-doc review (eg, me and Curly Turkey, except I'm a WP:MED editor-- hence, encouraging Curly Turkey to weigh in). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Template limits

Just a heads up; Gimmetrow was the user who best understood this stuff, and I'm unsure if the overall template limit has changed in recent years. The problem in archives is that transcluded templates are double counted when a transcluded FAC is transcluded to archives, such that when there were too many transclusions, the final FACs simply got chopped off in archives because the template limit was passed.

I'm concerned now that the new pingie system means we have gazillions of transcluded templates on each FAC, so that we could pass the limit in archives. SO, when archiving a FAC, please make sure nothing is chopped from the bottom of the list. I used to also go through and remove people's hatted and habbed comments, unhatting them, since that's also a transcluded template. Anyway, because of the new pingie system being a transcluded template, please keep an eye on archives-- the sign of a problem is when the bottom simply gets chopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or the top it seems! Our new bot could not cope with all the templates, tables and tree here: [4]. I have fixed it the best I can. Perhaps we should change the "discouraged" in the FAC instructions to "not allowed"? Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that people don't understand what all is involved ... those pingie thingies are probably all over FACs these days! Not sure what to do, but I keep reminding people ... the hat/habs do it too. I guess we just have to keep telling people not to transclude anything? If we put something else in the instructions, it would be to not even use the pingie templates ... good luck with that ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
erm..thinky poo... we need to clean them out before closing I suppose. But it would be best if they were not there in the first place. The pingies are useful in preventing FACs from stagnating. Graham Beards (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
How about we just keep an eye out for a while, and keep doing what we're doing? So far, no one I've asked to remove a template has gotten hot under the collar about it (BEANS) !!! If we remind regulars to watch their templates, that may be enough ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Question from new coord

Does @FAC coordinators: consider my closure at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craig Bellamy/archive1 appropriate? Had decent amounts of support, but had a number of outstanding comments and the nominator hadn't edited since the beginning of September. Several days passed after a warning with no responses. Willing to self-revert the closure if there are objections. Hog Farm Talk 04:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to archive if the nominator stops responding. So I support this decision. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved", so the situation is covered by policy. And in this instance I think an archive was appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This was a reasonable decision after checking on the nominator's activity and pinging them. FWIW, there is precedence for inviting someone else to take up the nominator's role in their absence (I organised it recently when a nominator had to leave WP but the nom seemed to be progressing well -- naturally the article name has slipped my mind) but that's a discretionary call, and this isn't precisely the same circumstance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to argue with this archival but from my observation, archival for lack of review tends to be done 1) a few days after notifying the nominator that the FAC may be archived and 2) after reaching 21 days since nomination. It can be really frustrating for nominators to get archived when there aren't any opposes or comments that they could be addressing, and I think giving them heads-up helps soften the blow a bit. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

I am inclined to time out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Old Man and the Sea/archive2 and archive it. Do I hear any nays? Alternately, feel free to kill it of yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not from me. A fresh start is what the nom needs as and when the nominator comes back, hopefully. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nasutoceratops

My image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nasutoceratops/archive1 has become unexpectedly "interesting". A reality check or checks would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

At first blush, I agree. Wikipedia is a general publication, not a scientific one, and arguments against fully explaining the limitations of the reconstruction usually rely on knowledge that's not going to be common for readers, so "journals aren't expressly explaining what is conjecture, so we shouldn't" isn't a strong argument for me. More broadly, I think there's a lot of thorny issues with non-expert reconstructions (for paleoart to maps) and the like getting vetted; ultimately even if we're doing it to the best of available research there's a lot of original artistry involved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseudastacus

Hi Ian, are you looking after this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Still on my watch list, I gather a few things outstanding on the source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Big Raven Formation

Evening all. This has recently been nominated by a first timer. It is very reliant on a single source. This causes me to twitch. Any thoughts or advice? I am happy to be told that I am twitching unnecessarily. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think given the copyright issues identified it should just be speedily archived. I would have similar broadness criterion concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Troika (1969 film)

One of you may care to cast an eye over this, which I have just reiterated my oppose to. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 214

Hi Gog, I saw Jo-jo's response to my query but didn't pick up your drive-bys till after my quick ce -- no hurry on this, and if you get satisfactory answers don't wait for me to close if you want to do it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Aged noms

Hi guys, wondering how people feel about some of the very old outstanding noms, e.g.

There are some others 2 months old but seem not too far from consensus to promote... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Turabay dynasty is certainly old, but has four supports and a fifth reviewer's comments were all addressed four days ago. It is waiting for Jo-Jo to wrap up the image and source reviews and the nominator to address Dudley's comments. Personally I think a poke at the outstanding reviewer and a nudge for the nominator to respond to Dudley is likely to get this over the line before too long. Quite happy to be told that I am being too sympathetic. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Gog here. The nominator is actively cooperating with the reviewers and it's making progress, albeit slow I'd leave this one open for now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I have posted firm reminders against both nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Lewis W. Green time out warning

For information and/or comment [5]. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2023 World Snooker Championship/archive2

I am inclined to feel this GTG, but would really like a reality check on Benny's review, if one of you would be so kind? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would feel slightly more comfortable if one of you were to look at this with a view to closure, or not. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I’m a little sick at the moment but if it’s still open in the next few days, I’ll look at it with a view to closure. FrB.TG (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ready to close?

Natwhal

I am ready to archive this. No one who has looked at the source to text fidelity is happy with it, see Jens, UC and Roy. Roy has now formally opposed. I am pausing for 24 hours in case any of you disagree. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Wait, can someone do one last spot check and if it fails you can archive it. At least give it another week. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I have just jumped my own gun and archived it. The more I looked at it, the less happy I felt. Wolverine XI, I don't think that you understand how important the issues being raised are, how seriously they are taken, nor how unhappy coordinators become when you make a change in response to a reviewer comment which fails to address it. You need to listen to the reviewers, they are correct. "In order to spare the previous reviewers some inconvenience, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from pinging them." is not the way to go. Apologies if this comes across as blunt or worse, but after four nominations this year, I am reminded of the old definition of insanity. Something needs to change. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Yo, @Wolverine XI:! You didn't get a week. You didn't get 24 hours. You got two minutes. A bit of a coffee/keyboard interface moment there!  :) cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild and Serial Number 54129: What should I do? I think the only way this article is going to pass is if it receives a pre-FAC source review. If you know anyone who's willing to take the job, please let me know. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine XI, I recommend that you thoroughly check the entirety of the sources and once you're done, you could locate an editor (maybe Roy) who can spot-check the sources for you pre-FAC to make sure the fifth nomination runs as smoothly as possible. FrB.TG (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Starship Troopers (film)

Four weeks in and this has attracted zilch apart from some nit picking by me. I suggest it needs putting out of its misery, but preferably by someone else. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the urgents, and put some coord courtesy notes on all the 4+ week ones that haven't garnered at least 2–3 supports or discussion seems to have stagnated, including the tour below. A bunch look like they should be good to go for promotion in the next few days and I was planning on archiving if the situation hasn't changed on those at the same time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Cheers David, sounds like what was/is needed. I have just promoted a batch and archived a couple myself. I am now trying to get some reviewing done, in between beating off an over enthusiastic newbie from some of my old FACs. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

2022 Tour de France Femmes

This one is not dissimilar. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Good to go ?

The following are possibly ready for someone to look at with a view to closing. (I am recused on all of them.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Jackson and Talking to Yourself are done. Will look at Tinian today or tomorrow if no one else gets to it. Cerro Panizos, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex, and Fountain Fire are also stale and need to be closed. Jozo Tomasevich has some sourcing stuff being discussed that has to be addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Rutherford scattering experiments

This has rapidly gathered two opposes, one from me. Perhaps someone could look at it with a view to archiving? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Done earlier today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Panizos/archive1

This has been stale for two weeks now and probably needs to be looked at (I can't close it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm going to be traveling in the middle of October for two weeks, so not sure how much time I'll have to read through noms. Going to try and do a good job of being proactive before then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly ready for closure?

I shall be away from the internet for a while - the Scottish Highlands are having an outbreak of good weather, good by Highland standards anyway - so can I flag up a couple I am recused on which may be ready for a review with closure in mind?

Assuming I survive I shall report back in a week. Look after the place. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:FAC_coordination/archive_1&oldid=1248778724"