Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox

See also WP:URFA, User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page and Sandbox2 of newer FAs

Process discussion

To do

1. Continue pruning FAs of still active editors who watchlist and maintain their FAs ... approaching this a few at a time.

   Flag BLPs, particularly those that have grown significantly since last review, User:Maralia/sandbox

   Flag/add ultra long articles, that is, those that have grown significantly since last review and may have a lot of unvetted text (see this discussion)

   Flag/add any no longer maintained FAs from known sockmasters or banned editors.[1] and check Ibaranoff24

2. Check Dweller list and remove any that seem fine.
3. Sync with current URFA and move to that page when done.

As I work through these articles, I am finding so many retired or departed editors that the list may be quite large even after pruning. I suspect we will have to aim for a proxy list of "abandoned" FAs, BLPs and other FAs that have grown significantly since last review, and FAs of known sockmasters.

Once we get the size down to a dull roar, we can post to FAC and FAR to bring in more of the less frequent nominators. What is needed to complete the first pass is for still-active FA writers to indicate which of their nominations are still watchlisted and maintained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending list

1. Nev1
2. Scorpion0422
3. Serendipodous for RJHall articles and Worldtraveller articles

   Some are OK, some are not, feedback from DrK and Maralia needed. Earth may be good enough to strike? Much of the uncited text is common knowlege. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

4. Ironholds
5. Hamiltonstone
6. Hunter Kahn
7. JKBrooks

Summary

... of editors pinged so far, awaiting response: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Aude
2. Ben MacDui ‎
3. Brandt Luke Zorn
4. Cirt
5. Cla68
6. Coemgenus
7. Cyclonebiskit
8. Dwaipayanc
9. Epbr123 ‎
10. Eurocopter ‎
11. Figureskatingfan
12. Gary
13. Henry Flower
14. J. Spencer
15. Judgesurreal777
16. Juliancolton
17. Kaiser matias
18. Kane5187
19. Kevin Myers
20. Kyriakos
21. Labattblueboy
22. Lenin and McCarthy
23. Loodog
24. Looie496
25. Midnightdreary
26. Neelix
27. Neil916
28. Nergaal
29. Nev1
30. Niagara
31. Parrot of Doom
32. Scartol
33. Titoxd

I posted to user talk for the rest of the list above with {{URFA notice}} (that will give us a chance to see how that notice works). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Editors who have already responded:

1. Abraham, B.S.
2. Acdixon
3. Adam Bishop
4. Auntieruth55

   I cannot post to the sandbox page next to the articles that have my name on them. My computer crashes if I try to open large lists. I have monitored all of the articles, regularly either reversing (or not) added posts. If other material comes up that is relevant, I've added it. They should be okay. Of course, additional eyes are always welcome. auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

   and of course I'll always be willing to monitor other appropriate MHIl or Germany articles whose editors have gone missing. I suggest that these be coordinated with our head coordinator, though. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

   Thanks, Auntieruth55, I've pruned your articles. Germany is way overdue for a Featured article review, so perhaps you can watchlist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

   Always watchlist the FAs I've edited. :) I'll go through it in the next couple of weeks and give it a real go. Some stuff got added after it was passed which I thought largely irrelevant, but wasn't going to war over it. auntieruth (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

   AH, I just realized what you meant. I'll take a look at it in the next couple of weeks and let you know. auntieruth (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

   Okay, several of us have been warring I mean editing/revising Germany. We're stubbing our toes on the image of an Austrian as emblematic of the Third Reich, and Italiano seems to want to revert everyone's edits wholesale, but...for the most part, the article is updated, and it's on my watchlist. I'll keep after it as well as the articles I brought to the table. auntieruth (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

5. Bellhalla
6. Bencherlite - I keep an eye on things but outside help is always welcome. I think that the articles are generally still at or close to FA quality. Bencherlite^Talk 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
7. Brianboulton
8. Bwark [2]
9. Casliber
10. Ceoil
11. Ceranthor
12. ChrisTheDude
13. DavidCane
14. David Fuchs
15. Dweller
16. DrKiernan
17. Ealdgyth
18. Elcobbola
19. EnigmaMcmxc
20. Eric Corbett
21. Finetooth
22. Floydian
23. Gran2
24. Hamiltonstone
25. Hawkeye7
26. Hunter Kahn
27. Hurricanehink
28. Ian Rose
29. Imzadi 1979
30. Iridescent
31. Ironholds
32. J Milburn
33. Jackyd101
34. Jbmurray
35. Jimfbleak
36. JKBrooks85
37. Johnbod
38. Jonyungk

I've been gone from Wiki for some time and received your ping just today (7 Sep 2015). Will review the articles listed under my hand over the next few weeks. The only one under question seems Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky due to its length. I would argue that there is a lot to cover in Tchaikovsky's seemingly short life and the length is justified. Nevertheless, let me see how the verbiage might be winnowed or refined further.Jonyungk (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky edited down to approximately 84K. Will review other articles on list, then return to this one for a final pass.Jonyungk (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Karanacs
2. Kirill Lokshin
3. Lecen
4. Ling.Nut
5. Maclean25
6. Magicpiano

   All of my listed articles are on my watchlist. Despite recurring vandalism on some of the more popular ones, there have been relatively few substantive alterations to them, mostly filling in details or making minor (cited) factual corrections. There are a few instances where uncited items have been added, typically legacy-related material. Most images have alt text now (not a hard requirement when some were passed); I have not done a thorough check against current FA standards, just scanned diffs. Magic♪piano 18:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

7. Maky
8. Masem
9. Materialscientist
10. Mattinbgn
11. Maxim
12. Mike Christie
13. Mike Searson
14. MisterBee1966

    I keep the articles on my watch list and regularly monitor all of the articles. If other material comes up that is relevant, I've added it. My three articles should be okay. Of course, additional eyes are always welcome. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

    @MisterBee1966: Thanks for your reply. They look fine to me, so I'll go ahead and remove them from the working list. I did notice that Heinrich Bär has a red cite error in one of the footnotes; appreciate if you could take care of that when you get a chance. Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

    fixed, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

15. Mitchazenia
16. Moabdave
17. Mongo
18. NatureBoyMD
19. Nev1
20. Nick-D
21. Opabinia regalis
22. Parsecboy
23. Resolute
24. Rodw [3], [4]
25. Rschen7754
26. Ruhrfisch
27. Ruslik0
28. Sarastro1
29. Sasata
30. Scorpion0422
31. Serendipodous
32. SlimVirgin [5], [6]
33. Sturmvogel 66
34. The ed17
35. The Rambling Man
36. Tim riley
37. Wehwalt [7], [8]
38. Wizardman

Missing FA nominators ??

By WP:WBFAN, number of FAs, and date of last article edit:

1. 66 YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · logs) 23-11-2010
2. 46 Ucucha (talk · contribs · logs) 01-04-2015 sporadic
3. 35 Wadewitz (talk · contribs) deceased
4. 33 Cla68 (talk · contribs) sporadic editing but may no longer maintain FAs ?

   26 Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 28-11-2014

5. 24 Lord Emsworth (talk · contribs · logs) 13-12-2006
6. 20 RJHall (talk · contribs · logs) 27-08-2012

   19 Dana boomer (talk · contribs · logs) 03-06-2014 Maintained by Montanabw

7. 19 Moni3 (talk · contribs · logs) 05-06-2013
8. 16 PumpkinSky (talk · contribs · logs) sporadic
9. 15 Worldtraveller (talk · contribs · logs) 03-04-2007
10. 14 Zscout370 (talk · contribs · logs) 01-11-2014
11. 14 Giggy (talk · contribs · logs) 04-10-2009
12. 14 Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs · logs) 25-08-2013
13. 13 Catalan (talk · contribs · logs) 08-01-2015 sporadic
14. 13 TimVickers (talk · contribs · logs) sporadically edits but no longer has time to maintain FAs
15. 13 Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs · logs) 05-03-2009
16. 12 GabeMc (talk · contribs · logs) 21-06-2014
17. 12 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · logs) 27-09-2014
18. 11 Jappalang (talk · contribs · logs) 28-12-2011
19. 11 Steve Smith (talk · contribs · logs) 19-04-2015 sporadic

    11 WesleyDodds (talk · contribs · logs) 2013 but maintained by Ceoil

20. 10 Marskell (talk · contribs · logs) 31-10-2009
21. 10 PDH (talk · contribs · logs) 19-06-2011
22. 10 Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · logs) 2013, banned
23. 9 CloudNine (talk · contribs · logs) 13-04-2013
24. 9 DCGeist (talk · contribs · logs) 09-09-2012
25. 9 Qp10qp (talk · contribs · logs) sporadic, but no FA maintenance since 2009
26. 9 Yomangani (talk · contribs · logs) sporadic
27. 8 Apterygial (talk · contribs · logs) 2011
28. 8 Filiocht (talk · contribs · logs) 14-03-2013 sporadic
29. 8 JayHenry (talk · contribs · logs) 29-09-2011
30. 8 NSR77 (talk · contribs · logs) 10-10-2012
31. 8 M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs · logs) 2010
32. 8 Woody (talk · contribs · logs) sporadic
33. 7 17Drew (talk · contribs · logs) 2008
34. 7 Deckiller (talk · contribs · logs) sporadic
35. 7 Michael (talk · contribs · logs) 2003
36. 7 Charles Edward (talk · contribs · logs) 2013
37. 7 ColonelHenry (talk · contribs · logs) banned
38. 7 Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs · logs) 12-07-2014
39. 7 Rafablu88 (talk · contribs · logs) 2011
40. 7 Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs · logs) 25-01-2014
41. 7 Shudde (talk · contribs · logs) 04-12-2014
42. 6 Epbr123 (talk · contribs · logs) 2013
43. 6 Johnleemk (talk · contribs · logs) 30-03-2015 sporadic
44. 6 Raul654 (talk · contribs · logs) sporadic
45. 6 ALoan
46. 6 Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · logs) 2013
47. 6 Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs · logs) 22-12-2014
48. 6 BrianSmithson (talk · contribs · logs) ? gone
49. 6 Bulleid Pacific (talk · contribs · logs) 18-10-2014
50. 6 Geuiwogbil (talk · contribs · logs) 15-11-2014
51. 6 Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs · logs) 2009
52. 6 RelHistBuff (talk · contribs · logs) 2013
53. 6 Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk · contribs · logs) 2013
54. 6 Sheep81 (talk · contribs · logs) 2009
55. 6 Spawn Man (talk · contribs · logs) 2012
56. 6 Zeality (talk · contribs · logs) 07-05-2014
57. 5 Dmoon1 (talk · contribs · logs) 2009
58. 5 Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs · logs) 26-08-2007
59. 4 Nichalp (talk · contribs · logs) 27-01-2009
60. 4 PedanticallySpeaking (talk · contribs · logs) 11-07-2014
61. 4 Pentawing (talk · contribs · logs) 2013
62. 4 Rossrs (talk · contribs · logs) 2011
63. 3 Wackymacs (talk · contribs · logs) 2010
64. 2 Briangotts (talk · contribs · logs) 10-6-2014
65. 2 Geogre (talk · contribs · logs) 2009

TOTAL 757 701, stopping at six FAs on WBFAN (that is, not counting any with five FAs or less). The stragglers at the end of this list are editors from higher up on the list who have had some defeatured. So, that is 17% and still counting; if we were to tally the rest of the list (too much work!), I estimate over 20% of current FAs have missing nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of longest FAs

See Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox archive#Long FAs

Relative to FAs unreviewed through 2010, of the 75 longest FAs (a cutoff point which roughly corresponds to the SIZE guideline recommendation of 10,000 words of readable prose for attention span and readability):

FAs as of April 2015 that:	2010 and before	After 2010
Passed FAC or FAR above SIZE	15	40
Grew to pass SIZE post-FAC or post-FAR	17	3

Most of the long FAs (40) passed FAC after 2010 and aren't covered on this list, but a sizeable number passed FAC within size guidelines before 2010 (17), but then added content (significant amounts in several cases) post-FAC or post-FAR and are on this list for review. Of concern is how many FAs within SIZE guidelines have seen similar amounts of unvetted text added post-FAC or post-FAR; this analysis doesn't address any FAs below the top 75 longest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mobilising WikiProjects

Hi all, the suggestion that we try and mobilise WikiProjects to inspect "their" orphan FAs and organise "adoption" where possible has probably come up before. Wearing my MilHist Coord hat, I'll try over the next week or so to get members of that project looking over this list. By doing so we might even make a dent in related areas like general history, ships, aviation, buildings, royalty and so on; perhaps it could give a lead to sport, music, film, transport and other WikiProjects.

In the meantime, I think you could safely remove Bruce Kingsbury (nominator lasted edited 2010) and Victoria Cross for Australia (nominator edits only sporadically) from the list -- both are watched by experienced MilHist editors (including me) and seem in decent shape. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian, good idea ... but ... maybe we could hold off on mobilizing WikiProjects until we're better prepared (not all of them are as organized as MilHist or have any sort of leadership, so we need to be ready) ... I'm thinking just a few more days, to get a few informational templates in place, things like that ... Maralia has been hard at work all day, so I was waiting for her to finish so we could regroup and plan the next step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No prob, and no hurry -- you guys say the word. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Great idea. Still working on some fairly major changes format-wise; would appreciate a bit more time. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maralia, it's looking great; you're doing the heavy lifting! I'll be in the garden all day, but this evening or tomorrow can start on Iri, Imzadi, Rschen and road articles, and anything else on the pending list you don't get to. And I'm hoping we'll develop a template we can use for pinging other known frequent FA nominators we haven't yet gotten to. Ian, I'm concerned that we go slow on mobilizing others, until we have more of our ducks in a row. We can still do some more significant pruning, and when we go out to WikiProjects (most of which are quite different from MilHist), we have to be prepared for feedback from editors who may not be familiar with FA standards. It won't be helpful if editors we aren't familiar with vis-a-vis the FA standards come in and say an article is fine ... so we have to be prepared for how we will handle that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose, thanks for staying abreast on this effort. Now that we've been through the roughest first pass, even I am surprised to find us still at 2,200 articles. Of course, that number will be significantly reduced once we are far enough along to begin using {{URFA notice}} to ping in other nominators, and once we notify FAC and FAR and Wikiprojects (I can see still on the list tons of articles I know are in good shape and are watched), but the slow start has helped us get our ducks in a row and see the scope of the issue.

Anticipating the bulk of the work, and looking at the list above of missing nominators, I'm wondering what you might suggest for proceeding with:

1. Ucucha, Sarastro1 and Sasata
2. Yellowmonkey, Cla68, and Catalan (MilHist)

I am of the impression (perhaps incorrect?) that Cla no longer maintains all of his articles. I know Catalan is gone, and some of his FAs weren't particularly strong to begin with; is anyone watching them? And do you have any wisdom relative to MilHist that might help decide how to begin processing YellowMonkey's FAs? Do you know who else might be watching Ucucha, Sarastro1 and Sasata articles? I'm just still hoping on first pass that we can get the size of the list down before we mobilize WPs. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay from the top:
  • Ucucha: Sporadic editing so even if his noms remain on his watchlist I'm not sure how much attention he could be giving them. No magic formula from me I'm afraid.
  • Sarastro1: Ditto. It's an even bigger bummer if he's not around, I was hoping with his interest in cricket that he could look after some of YM's FAs in that area! I can only suggest looking at who's reviewed his recent FACs and see if one or two of them also watchlist the articles.
  • Sasata: He's the mushroom guy (shameless labelling, I know!) so my first thought is seeing if Cas with his knowledge of things biological would be a good person to approach about reviewing/adopting articles...
  • YM: His FAs are, to my knowledge, in three main areas: Vietnamese history, Australian cricketers, and other Australian sporting figures. I'd be happy to sound out some of our experienced MilHist editors about checking the first-mentioned (as I mentioned before, I have some on my watchlist already).
  • Cla: Does seem fairly active but doesn't seem to spend time around MilHist these days (though I had noticed him making the odd edit on some of his articles). I'd suggest leaving the same message for him that you left for Belhalla and Sturm and see what the response is. If negative, again I'd be happy to sound out some experienced MilHisters on checking his articles.
  • Catalan: Not active for several months so again I'd just be sounding out MilHisters to check the articles.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Sasata is busy IRL - happy to try and keep an eye on his. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm only editing sporadically, but still keep all fungus FAs on my watchlist. The species articles should be more or less fine; Fungus would benefit from an eventual FAR (there's been some unaudited text added post-FAC, and recent developments in higher-level classifications have not been updated). Sasata (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much Sasata (good to see you!) ... I left Fungus on the list for now, so please let us know if you or Casliber can get through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ian Rose; I will ping Cla, if you don't mind making inquiries at MilHist as to whether anyone follows YM or Catalan articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm lumbering out of hibernation; if it helps, I can look at YM's cricket articles, see how they are holding up and bung them on my watchlist (which I've kept up with more or less). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well! Sarastro1, isn't THIS the best news to come out of this venture! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarastro1, Sasata, my wishes are fulfilled -- excellent! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Stats

Kind of dismal; I was hoping we'd be further along by now. Here's where we are as of today (that is, lots of pruning still to be done):

Year	Unreviewed articles in sandbox as of 12 May
Thru 2006	252
2007	590
2008	565
2009	364
2010	309
Other	8
Total	2088 (46% of FAs)

And here's how we fell so far behind:

Year	Total FAs year-end	Promoted	Demoted	Net
2005	849	437	61	376
2006	1208	560	201	359
2007	1789	773	192	581
2008	2365	719	143	576
2009	2730	522	157	365
2010	3128	513	115	398
2011	3436	355	47	308
2012	3772	375	39	336
2013	4133	390	29	361
2014	4431	322	24	298

Through 2008, URFA was running only two to three years behind in systematically processing FAs for review, but after 2010, FAR fell off the map.

I was thinking one solution at this point might be to prune everything promoted in 2010, but that would make an insignificant difference in the big picture, and would also just kick the can down the road.

I'm hoping we can prune this 2088 to about 1000, which in terms of what FAR was able to process historically, is not that daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Dead links

I installed the FA toolbox on each talk page, and the External links checker reveals that JKBrooks85 is right (they all have significant dead links).[9] So, those sports-news sites go dead (but I followed JKBrooks85 FACs closely and I don't question that the text is verified); how do we want to handle this, Maralia, DrKiernan? Wouldn't it be nice if some gnome-ish person would come along and do all the archive.org work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, happens a lot, and pretty much all old links to USA Today that I've checked have gone dead also. I am thinking about personally recruiting some gnomeish folks that I've run across over the years and asking them to tackle this type of work (see my userpage that I rewrote earlier today while coming to the same conclusion). Maralia (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia and Maralia, if Archive.org doesn't work for some of those, I can always redirect to the print edition of some of those newspaper cites. For others, the articles still exist, it's just that the addresses have changed. I'm reluctant to tackle all those cite fixes, because I'm not a programmer type and I'm sure there's an easy way to get a bot to do it, but I'm not sure ... JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am not worried about any real problems with verifiability on these specific articles because I worked on and reviewed at least a few of them myself. JKBrooks85, I don't know of any bot-type solution that would work here, but don't stress yourself out over it. Maybe pick one of the articles and try to fix the links as a test run. If it turns out to be a major pain, and if (as I suspect) we end up having this issue with lots of articles on the list, I'll recruit some smartypants folks to help out further down the road. Maralia (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead links on Rampart Dam, which was the easiest to do, since it had few, and those it did have tended to be stable places. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to nominators

See also: Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox archive#Note to frequent nominators

If you are a frequent FA nominator, and are reading this because you have been pinged to this page, the list is still being pruned to hopefully result in a new list for WP:URFA of FAs that might need review. That list is not canonical, and being on the list doesn't mean the FA has deficiencies ... it only indicates the last time an FA was reviewed.

Most FAs being maintained by still active nominators (ie familiar with current standards) will be pruned from this list.

If you are a still-active, frequent FA nominator, a useful first step would be to add a note here in the event you have "abandoned" or given up on maintaining any FA you nommed, so that it can remain on a pruned version of this list.

Also, if you have taken over maintenance of any FA whose writer is departed (eg Moni3 or Awadawit), please indicate that here. Lots of pruning will be needed here; those are some of the first steps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging next round

Working down the list still, please respond here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Two highway articles recently reviewed

It was a bit unorthodox, but Ridge Route and Kansas Turnpike were reviewed through WP:HWY/ACR to give them a bit of polish and bring them back up to modern standards. Ridge Route was reviewed as of January 23, 2014, and Kansas Turnpike was reviewed as of August 22, 2013. Both should be good to go.

As for my FAs, I keep them watchlisted and I update them in terms of content and article standards as needed. I try to keep an eye on the highway FAs for vandalism and questionable editing, but I don't actively edit them for updated standards. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I had pinged you yet ! Working in bits and pieces so as not to be overwhelmed ... I'll get to these, thanks ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have also noted that SPUI/NE2 does not actively maintain any of the older FAs he nominated. Scott5114 deals with Kansas Turnpike and Rschen7755 has adopted Ridge Route. Imzadi 1979 → 19:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again ... I'm working in pieces so we don't get overwhelmed by too many messages at once, and possibly get crossways and lose track of what's been done ... and promise I'll get to you. Right now, I'm taking a break from pinging anyone new while I catch up on the long list, to make sure we don't prune something inadvertently that has grown substantially post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, just a note: that's Rschen7754 for Ridge Route. He is currently on wikibreak but can be contacted if the need arises. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sort of around, but am not really doing anything heavy-duty for now, though I'm still keeping track of my old FAs plus Ridge Route... California State Route 78 was rewritten in 2013 by me, even though it had already passed FAC in 2009, so I don't know where that would fall. --Rschen7754 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, I was up to my eyeballs yesterday trying to complete the long list, which was tedious and required focus. I have a busy day, and may not get to these until tomorrow (ditto for Iridescent). Thanks for the info; it is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rschen7743, Imzadi1979 and Scott5114. I think I pruned everything, but could you please check? Any feedback on Pulaski Skyway or any other road left on the list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

oops, typo, @Rschen7754:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, we haven't heard from Mitchazenia; any feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Floydian: @Moabdave: since you have quite a few of the road FAs remaining. As for Mitchazenia, might be best to leave a talk page note, he hates pings. --Rschen7754 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Pulaski Skyway is undergoing rehabilitation work, so there has been interest in the article. The article had an FAR at the end of 2010, and I just looked through some things on the article, so for now that article looks fine, but it will need some monitoring from time to time. After I'm back home later this week, I can look through other highway articles to see if any need some attention. Imzadi 1979 → 16:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I personally disagree about the state of that article, because some misinformed users edit warred all over the article, but I think we can handle the issues internally. --Rschen7754 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing the list on the project page sandbox is what is being discussed here, and I see the Don Valley Parkway on the list. I have it on my watchlist and check all edits to the FAs I've written. The article hasn't had any sort of non-minor edit since it was promoted, really... so unless standards have changed, I'm confident it has no issues at all. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Have removed Pulaski Skyway and Don Valley Parkway; thanks all. Maralia (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to the ping above. I've been out of the FA loop for a few years now. However, I'm willing to try to get back in. Is there anything specific that has changed in the FA standards recently? Or is this just a request to review FA's for article rot in general? For the record, I do watchlist the FA's I've nominated, and they have been stable, except for the exit list and infobox crap that seem to affect most road articles.Dave (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Moabdave; please just review the list of FAs nominated by you listed on the sandbox page, and let us know if they are all up-to-date, if you are watchlisting them, and doublecheck that no cruft has crept in. Standards haven't changed in any way that should affect your noms, although if any editor unknown to you has added content, it is always good to check for copyvio. If you let us know that your articles are still at standard and you've done these checks, we can remove them from the sandbox list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, Of the ones on my list, U.S. Route 50 in Nevada does need some minor work. Too many source links are now dead for comfort, and there is some minor things that are no longer correct (outdated). I've been meaning to fix that for some time. Thanks for the prod. U.S. Route 491 also has sme outdated items, but is 2 one sentence fixes. I'll do that now. The rest on my list are in good shape and can be crossed off.Dave (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Moabdave; I've pruned from the list all but Route 50; please ping this talk page when you have it up to snuff. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, I have the NY road ones, and can assure they are up to date with our standards at USRD and no copyios are present. Hurricane ones will be dealt with Mitch32^{(The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity.)} 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mitchazenia! I left the hurricanes on the list for now; please get back to this page after you look them over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Going through the remaining (US) road ones: @Algorerhythms: @Holderca1: (who I think retired, but others of us might have the ability to fix issues) @Juliancolton: (seems he was already pinged for the hurricanes) (also Scott5114 is still on the list but responded above) BTW, as a general statement we do check the US/Canada road FAs pretty frequently re problematic editing, though it is possible that if none of the active editors know much about the road, stuff could get by, and sometimes the latest MOS changes don't make it into some of the older ones as quickly. --Rschen7754 03:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rschen7754! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone's articles and other comments

I've come here after Sandy's ping. Here are my thoughts.

• Christopher Smart's asylum confinement - nom was banned user Ottava Rima. The article is not in my field, but I was involved in its second FAC. It struck me then, and now, as an eloquently assembled piece, engagingly written, appropriately cited, and has experienced no decay, nor any substantive additions since that time. Recommend removing from the 'unreviewed' list.
• Nicolo Giraud - nom was banned user Ottava Rima. The article is not in my field, but I was involved in its successful FAC. Unlike the above, there has been significant editing activity at the article; I have worked my through it as best as I can (the diff is pretty hard on the eye) and I think the article has improved. Recommend removing from the 'unreviewed' list.
• Geology Hall - nom was banned user ColonelHenry. Promoted in April 2014; I was the image reviewer. There have been two substantive edits since then that are a bit curious, but nothing to warrant a FAR. Recommend removing from the 'unreviewed' list.
• Makinti Napanangka - I was the nom in 2009. I conducted maintenance subsequently. The article has a small number of minor issues that appear to have crept in around consistency in naming conventions when referring to the article's subject. I will deal with these. Recommend removing from the 'unreviewed' list.

That's it for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Hamiltonstone. Are you keeping the Ottava articles on your watch list? That would be grand :) The ColonelHenry issue involves copyvio found in past work; do you have access to the sources for Geology Hall and are you able to do a copyvio check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have watchlisted those two. Ah, sorry, can't help on the Geology Hall copyvio problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ram Narayan - still maintained by active user Hekerui, and now added to my watchlist too - I was involved in the second FAC. Recommend removing from the 'unreviewed' list.

Thanks again, Hamiltonstone. I've spotchecked and pruned Ram Narayan and Makinti Napanangka, but the two Ottava articles have those obnoxious huge red harv ref errors (which remind me why I hate that kind of sourcing). Can someone address those?

There are five more FAs nommed by you still on the list ... I suspect you are still reviewing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicolo Giraud was speedily fixed by Eric Corbett; maybe he will be so kind as to do the honors as well at Christopher Smart's asylum confinement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I just did the other one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for watching, and thanks for the help ... pruned! Pending feedback on the rest of Hamiltonstone's noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ben Gascoigne - I was the nom in 2010. No degradation or substantial change since awarded FA. I have just updated one section by adding text based on a book published since Gascoigne's death. My view is that this can be taken off the list. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Steve Dodd - I was the nom in 2010. I have very carefully maintained this one, scouring newspapers for material on this relatively obscure figure in Australian performing arts. It has changed over time, particularly when a number of pieces were written at the time of his death last year, but it has not expanded significantly, and I do not think it has degraded. My view is that this can be taken off the list. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wintjiya Napaltjarri - I was the nom in 2010. The article has been maintained and not significantly changed since that time. I have just found an archived url for the only dead link, and updated with a relevant fact since it was made FA, but seems OK. My view is that this can be taken off the list. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory - not an article I am actively involved with, but familiar with the subject, and one of the older noms. This article has been significantly maintained by editors other than the nom (who is not active). This has included significantly increasing the quality of some sections, and updating the article to reflect census data and elections held since the article was made FA. Grahamec and Maralia have been vigilant on this article. My view is that this can be taken off the list. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• Ceres (dwarf planet) - not an article I am actively involved with. This is being intensively edited, in part because of NASA's Dawn mission, including ongoing active engagement by very experienced editors such as Kwamikagami, BatteryIncluded and Drbogdan. Chances of this article signficantly degrading are very low. My view is that this can be taken off the list. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Hamiltonstone: I've taken a quick look at all of these and I agree. I did find one image problem, though: File:Gascoigne Stromlo 1948.jpg, used at Ben Gascoigne, was taken in Australia in 1948 and is now PD in Australia, but I think it is not yet PD in the US due to the URAA which extended some foreign copyrights. Essentially, to be PD now in the US, the photo would have to have been PD in Australia as of 1 January 1996—but having been taken in 1948, it was not PD-AUS until 1998. Pinging Crisco 1492 to double-check my logic here. Maralia (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• That's about it, yeah. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia's response

In reply to this note: as you know, I haven't been actively watching for a while. All three of the articles, cell nucleus, proteasome, and RNA interference, are in pretty good shape as far as core content is concerned, but are noticeably dated in places. There are some minor citation formatting/MOS type issues, but to be honest I mostly ignore the MOS until someone complains ;)

• Cell nucleus: the nuclear pore complex and subnuclear bodies sections need a check for updates. The disease dynamics section is stubby and crufty. IIRC galleries are discouraged, though I don't find this one bothersome.
• Proteasome: huge research advances since this was originally written. It has been updated with text and images about the new structure information, but the text is hard to read (lots of TLAs) and other sections of the article weren't updated along with the new stuff. The clinical significance section is a recent addition by a newish editor who has done good work on related articles; however, I haven't evaluated it in detail and it looks like it needs a copyedit for over-specificity.
• RNA interference: this is a very fast-moving research area where I haven't kept up on the literature. There has been an enormous amount of work on noncoding RNA in the last ten years and I'd need to do some reading to determine how much updating is needed. The applications section in particular looks old. Incidentally, it looks like a class passed through last year and edited a lot of the sub-articles on RNAi and for once did a very good job, so the subtopics are probably more current than the main article at the moment.

Other articles:

• DNA repair: Not my nomination, but I did a lot of work on it at FAR awhile back. This is full of cruft. It seems that someone reorganized the DNA damage articles at some point, and merged a bunch of stuff into this article when it would have made more sense to go the other way around. Decrufting is on my to-do list but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
• Hydrogen: I was part of the collaboration that worked on this, but not the nominator. It looks like the elements project takes good care of their articles; this looks good to me, with the possible exception of some minor MOS issues.

I can't really recommend pruning any of these except hydrogen (and the WT:ELEM people would have better judgment). Fixing proteasome would be fairly straightforward; the others need more work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Thanks for your comments. I looked over Hydrogen and agree that it's in good shape; will remove it from the working list. I will note your concerns about the other articles directly on the list. Can you clarify whether you intend to tackle any of these? No rush; just trying to plan ahead. Maralia (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia: How far ahead are you trying to plan? I will probably work on proteasome and DNA repair in the nearish future. Some of the other bio people can probably also be prodded to help out on the nucleus if necessary. I'm conflicted on RNAi. I'll probably clear out the outdated applications (some of the enthusiasm has since moved on to other newer techniques) but updating the rest would be a lot of reading to catch up mostly on technical details that aren't of much interest to non-specialists. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Galleries are not discouraged, though sandwiched images and 2-deep ones are. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: More trying to plan who might do the work, rather than when—whether it takes weeks or months, we will just be delighted it's been done at all :) I've added a brief summary of your concerns about each article to their listings. We'll archive this thread soon, to keep the page tidy; please just drop us a note when you have an update. Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Mine and a few others

I've seen this pop up on a few talk pages I stalk, and thought I'd at last note mine here, though cutting mine doesn't exactly knock out the backlog much. A couple i think can be removed, but I'd rather someone else actually do it to be on the safe side:

• Art Houtteman: pretty much identical to promotion, offline sources so little linkrot, I'd say it's still FA.
• Orval Grove: same as above, still FA.
• Nick Adenhart: It has changed somewhat since FAC, but only in the memorials section, which I think is overly large. It can be pruned without much difficulty, and there's a couple dead links, but again nothing overly significant. Should be cleaned up, but probably low priority compared to others.
• George B. McClellan: Back in the day it was probably good for FAC, and it has remained largely the same. That being said, the sourcing is a bit scant for this day and age, and using one book for over 2/3 of the sources is concerning. What's more is that the actual article writer and watcher (I never really kept an eye on it) has since retired. Unless we can find a MILHIST guy to take him on and clean him up it's FARC bait, probably sooner rather than later unfortunately.

I'm also going to look through some of the baseball ones that are on the list as I notice them as well:

• Sandy Koufax: I only read part of it so far, but my immediate concern is the first half of the article being sourced to an autobiography written while he was still an active player. We've torpedoed FAC's in recent times for this very issue. The prose is solid, but not great, as there are pieces of POV and jargon evident in the article. I can try talking some baseball writers with a focus on the Dodgers or Jewish players on cleaning this article up (I know users in both fields) if you guys agree that this needs mid-to-high priority cleanup to avoid FARC.

The rest will be as I skim them (if I see immediate, major issues) or give them a full read-through. Wizardman 18:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wizardman: I've pruned Houtteman, Grove, and Adenhart from the list. Agree with you that McClellan and Koufax both need significant sourcing work, and have retained them on the list with notes to that effect. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Diannaa

Hi SandyGeorgia. I ran across this project by accident whilst looking at Cirt's talk page. I can tell you that I have taken an interest in helping with maintenance of Anne Frank, Tool (band), and USS Iowa (BB-61). All three of these meet high standards for sourcing requirements and images. Whether the prose is "brilliant" or not is best left to others more qualified to judge, but I might suggest these three could be removed from the list of articles that need to go to FAR. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, and thanks for chipping in! I agree that all three of those look fine, and I will remove them from the list. Appreciate if you would take a closer look at the external links on Anne Frank as they're looking a bit crufty: the two annefrank.org links could be consolidated, two of the Holocaust Museum links are dead, and the Telegraph video is worthless—a 1:35 teaser with no actual content. Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments for what it's worth

I no longer have time to maintain my articles for anything other than vandalism, but I would say they are all still broadly fine. I was surprised Troy McClure passed in the first place, and that was 8 years ago, so may be worth a review if I'm being honest. Phil Hartman is lacking anything from the recent Mike Thomas bio. I own it but haven't had a chance to do anything with it. Gran² 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gran2: Thanks for your comments. I've looked at your four, and I think three of them are okay. Homer's Phobia is fine. The Simpsons Movie needs accessdates for the last 8 or so citations, but is otherwise in good shape. Phil Hartman looks fine, and apparently the Thomas book is mostly old news, aside from the night of his death, so I'm not particularly worried about that. I agree that Troy McClure has issues: it's pretty short on coverage, choppy, and feels incomplete, so I'll keep that one on the list. With the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the show having taken place since the article was promoted, I suspect there are many more sources available these days, so perhaps it could be expanded. Maralia (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Lecen

I'm no longer an active editor on Wikipedia, although I do keep an eye on articles I wrote. Apparently, three articles I wrote are on the list:

1. Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná received a major update awhile ago from myself, based on my increased experience in grad school. It has more sources and it's better written now then when it was nominated.
2. José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is essentially the same article I wrote back then. I made no update to it, although I've been wishing to do so for quite some time now.
3. Pedro II of Brazil is also essentially the same article since I wrote it, although I removed large pieces of text, to make it smaller and more straightforward. After I wrote Empire of Brazil, I saw no reason to maintain Pedro II of Brazil so detailed as when I first wrote it.

In case you need any help from me, please let me know. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a quick read shows that all 3 of these are in good shape. I will prune them from the list. Thanks for your help, Lecen! Maralia (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sent me a message in case you need anything. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Materialscientist

I keep an eye on synthetic diamond and elements articles listed for Mav (for vandalism, low-quality additions, deadlinks, CS errors, etc.). I believe they are still up to FA standards, but I can do more substantial fixes if needed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Materialscientist. I took a quick read through synthetic diamond, and agree that it's in good shape, so I will go ahead and remove it from the working list. I did notice a few very minor issues that you could clean up: there are a handful of redundant See also links (isotopically pure diamond, memorial diamond, Hershey); a few cites are missing accessdates (Vanderbilt, De Beers, Gemesis); the accessdates need tidying for format (there are both d m y and y-m-d); and the external links might need a little pruning and/or formatting (one has no author listed, and another has no description).

I'm glad to hear you are watching Mav's elements articles. My general impression is that they're in good shape, but each has small issues (Titanium, Uranium, and Oxygen have some redundancy and uncited paragraphs; parts of Yttrium and Zinc are very choppy and disjointed). Given their broad scope, I am inclined to leave them on the list for a slightly more in-depth review. I'll make a note that you are watching them and will help. Thank you! Maralia (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've quickfixed synthetic diamond here [10]. Thanks to some scripts this takes a few minutes maximum. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

All listed articles I nominated are maintained. Of these, Glacier National Park was slightly rewritten and fully updated in 2010 to prepare it for a main page appearance as the TFA. Shoshone National Forest was completely rewritten (nearly doubled in size) and updated to avoid FAR in 2013-14. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is currently undergoing a major update. I pinged several possibly interested editors to update Banff National Park just a month ago and my conominator is not very active. Elk has been actively edited but should be in order. Yellowstone fires of 1988 and Pallid sturgeon are both rarely edited and aside from url check they should be fine. Redwood National and State Parks is likely the article that needs expansion and updating the most and I was going to get to that after Retreat of glaciers since 1850.--MONGO 05:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For User:Aude, I maintain 7 World Trade Center, Construction of the World Trade Center, American Airlines Flight 11 and American Airlines Flight 77. All those articles should be in decent shape. For User:Mav, I maintain all the articles titled as National Park as well as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens article. While still long ago, I did the update to Yellowstone National Park in 2007.--MONGO 05:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: Thanks for your comments (and for watching so many FAs!). I will keep Retreat of glaciers, Banff, and Redwood on the list with a note that you intend to work on them. I will remove your others from the working list as I agree that they're fine (I did notice a few very minor issues but I'll just make those edits myself).

All of the articles that you maintain for Aude look good, too, so I will also remove those.

I think most of Mav's national parks articles will need some work. Nearly all of these articles have one or more disclaimers asserting that PD text has been incorporated; this used to be allowable back in the day, but would torpedo a nomination these days. I helped 3 of them (Bryce, Death Valley, and Zion) through FAR back in 2008 or so; Bryce and Zion still look mostly good, but Death Valley seems to have taken on some uncited text, as have Yellowstone and Yosemite. The 1980 eruption article is generally okay, but the "Ash properties" section is rather inscrutable. I'm inclined to keep these all on the list for a closer look, especially given the PD text issue.

Thanks again! Maralia (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Maralia:...As an update, I will not be able to watch any of these articles. However, I will seek out others who may be able to do so. Sorry for any inconvenience.--MONGO 21:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Mike S

Blue iguana, Cyclura nubila, Ernest Emerson and M249 light machine gun are good to go. Webley Revolver, Komodo dragon and Aikido look like they need a once over.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I will make a note that you're planning to review the latter three. I agree that the first four are in pretty good shape; I will remove those. That being said, though, appreciate if you could give M249 a little attention for image captions (no full stop when the caption is not a complete sentence) and for citations (there are 2 bare url citations, and the very last cite is incomplete). Thank you! Maralia (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Copy. Will do.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maxim

My nominated articles are overall in good shape. two BLPs, Ray Emery and Paul Stastny, suffer a bit from proseline, which is not unusual for active athletes. I think they need a bit of pruning (looking back at the promoted version to use as a reference wouldn't hurt!). The other BLP, Trevor Linden, is in a bit better shape, although a similar check for proseline might not be worst idea. Non-BLP hockey articles -- Jacques Plante, Tiny Thompson, Stanley Cup -- are in decent shape. The first two don't attract masses of edits, whereas the latter is aggressively maintained by several editors. Finally, Hurricane Hazel is not hockey-related (for a change!) but it doesn't attract a great amount of edits either, so it has not substantially changed from promotion. In terms of going back and cleaning up where needed, I'm extremely pressed for time right now (it took me four days to respond to Maralia's ping). If specific concerns are raised, ping me and also WT:HOCKEY, who are responsive (New Jersey Devils was a recent FAR save). Hopefully I would have a little time to clean up, and if not, someone from WT:HOCKEY might be able to lend a hand. Maxim_(talk) 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maxim, and thanks for responding. I gave those a quick look:

• Ray Emery - Agree this needs work for proseline, outdated statements, and 8 bare url citations.
• Paul Stastny - Also needs work for proseline, cruft in the Early years and family section, and outdated statements.
• Trevor Linden - Looks good; I added two cn tags.
• Jacques Plante - Looks good.
• Tiny Thompson - Looks good; would like to see the cites use quote marks rather than italics for news/web article titles, but no other issues.
• Stanley Cup - I think this needs a little cleanup (the Trustees section is uncited; I tagged a couple of deadlinks I wasn't able to replace; there is a cite to About.com).
• Hurricane Hazel - Looks good.

I'm going to retain Ray Emery, Paul Stastny, and Stanley Cup on the list with our notes. If you have time to clean any of those up over the next few months, just drop us a note here about what you've done. I'll leave a note at WT:Hockey asking for help as well. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Response from Kevin Myers

I wrote and periodically maintain the following featured articles, and believe that they still meet current featured requirements: Crawford expedition, Lochry's Defeat, Pontiac's War, Daniel Boone, and Samuel Adams. Thank you! —Kevin Myers 22:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Boone article needs some work, so I'm sprucing that one up. —Kevin Myers 00:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Response from Neelix

I nominated the Carabane article for featured status, and I believe that it is still worthy of that status. I have been repairing link rot and performing other maintenance on it over the years, and I recently checked the news about the island and updated the information in the article accordingly. Neelix (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A gruff response from MacDui

I am semi-retired at present and I have not been paying the closest of attention since about mid-February.

• St Kilda, Scotland - I have no reason to suppose the content needs any updating of significance. A few dreary editors have identified some dead links but they apparently can't be bothered to take the trouble to fix them.
• Fauna of Scotland. I may not be completely up-to-speed on the latest issues but I can't see any obvious problems here except for some minor vandalism, which I have fixed.
• Renewable energy in Scotland. The problem with any topical article is that it needs constant attention. I notice a lot of recent edits - I will need to take the time to look at them. There are also a few dead links here. Surely it is about time we had a bot that could fix these? (I have tried to avoid using hyperlinked refs for quite some time now.)
• Shapinsay. The nom has not been active since 2008 and I have taken an avuncular interest in the article. The lead could probably do with an update and the wind turbine that is referred to as under construction is now operating. The financial impact on the island is likely of significance and could be mentioned. Easy to fix.

My watchlist is only an occasional indulgence at present so if you would like me to do anything useful, (or wish to offer any casual insults) please let me know on my talk page. Love and kisses to all. Ben MacDui 15:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Response from Figureskatingfan

I just finished re-vamping The Wiggles, which also happens to be my very first FA. And it showed, let me tell you. The work accomplished included checking sources for dead links and how they were utilized, improving the prose, and substantially updating the content (including two bandmember iterations and the fallout from both). I have two other FAs (both autobiographies by Maya Angelou) listed in the table; it's my intention to go through a similar process, first for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. I'm not sure what direction to go regarding The Wiggles; do I submit it to FAR (which it's now ready for) or remove it from the table, or both? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I say put it to FAR and have the delegate do a procedural close. That way it will be listed as being re-checked in 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As my favorite late Uncle Pat would say, "Okey dokey, smokey!" ;) Will do so now. I just add another important image, so I'm very pleased with it. Thanks! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)`

Response from Resolute

@SandyGeorgia: - Jarome Iginla ran as TFA on July 1 and I did a full copyedit immediately before, so it is good. History of the National Hockey League (1967–92) is also a recent TFA (late April), so also should be good. I will try to look over the other three of mine on this list soon. Also, I'll try to finish off the outstanding work on Wayne Gretzky, Which Giants2008 and Maralia have already put a lot of work into. Resolute 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Response from Hunter Kahn

As per this thread, I was asked by SandyGeorgia and Maralia to address issues on four articles that I helped work up to FA status. Sorry for the long delay in responding to this. Below are brief synopses of what I did. If anything more is needed, let me know and I'm happy to work on this more.

• Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo - There was a poorly sourced addition regarding Joseph of Arimathea, with bare url citation to an article that had no reference whatsoever to the South Park episode in question. This appears to be WP:OR trivia. I was unable to find an RS for this info, so I’ve simply removed it altogether.
• Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street) - The unsourced info turned out not only to be true, but actually a very good addition to the article. I found an RS and cited it appropriately, and added it to a new subsection called “Cultural impact.” (I’m open to any suggestions if there is a better place to put it.) I also reworked the lead to be more like it was when it first passed as an FA. Additionally, I replaced the out-of-date “cite video” template with “cite AV media”.
• Tender Mercies - The new addition was nothing more than unsourced WP:OR. I’ve removed it. And like above, I replaced the out-of-date “cite video” template with “cite AV media”.
• Parks and Recreation (season 1) - I attempted to reword the sentence and accompanying footnote as per your suggestion. I’m open to reworking it further if need be.

Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 21:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Response from Spinningspark (even though I wasn't asked to respond)

I find it a little disconcerting that articles that took so much work to get to FA are found on a list of "unreviewed" articles and, presumably, are at risk of losing their FA status if I wasn't watching.

• Otto Julius Zobel, watchlisted by me and no significant changes since promotion to FA.
• Mechanical filter, watchlisted by me and no significant changes since appearance at TFA.
• Distributed element filter, watchlisted by me. No really major changes since appearance at TFA other than the addition of a lot of photographs. Possibly this has made some of the original diagrams redundant through duplication and the article slightly overstuffed with images. However, since I have a personal attachment to my own diagrams I have refrained from doing anything, leaving it to others to decide if the photograph, the diagram, or both should remain in the article. SpinningSpark 17:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I wouldn't say they're "at risk of losing their FA status if [you weren't] watching". Rather, it's more like FAs should be periodically reviewed to make sure they still meet the criteria, including any elevation of standards that may have happened since they passed originally. In this case, "review" could be a formal FAR, or it could just be a double check that things are still satisfactory. If you, or someone else, is still actively watching and maintaining the pages, then a quick double check of the status of the articles should be sufficient. It's a three-step process to demote an FA, and you'd have plenty of notice that the process was being initiated, but this listing is more of a 0th step to determine which older articles might need to go into that process or which do not need it. Imzadi 1979 → 05:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, FA invents a new criterion, I'm no longer on Wikipedia to defend it, bang, it's gone. This process is billed as a process to remove articles that no longer meet the standard, not as a process to bring them up to the new standard. In fact, the whole FA process is entirely negative and difficult to navigate, which is why I am discouraged from bringing articles to review more than rarely. SpinningSpark 09:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you look around this talk page, Spinningspark, you'll see efforts to keep FA status for articles. It's always been my impression that FAR's main goal was to bring deficient articles back up to standards. Yes, there are articles where there is no one interested in stepping forward to make any changes, but if someone is interested, the reviewers/commenters have generally done whatever was reasonable to assist those interested parties. That's the general attitude I've found here at this 0th step. Imzadi 1979 → 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Response from Niagara

I tend to keep apprised of the goings-on for the following FA's, both the articles and the subjects, for any needed additions/removals/alterations.

• Kinzua Bridge, no major changes since FAC other than keeping updated (was worried about linkrot, but that appears unfounded)
• Pennsylvania State Capitol, no major changes since FAC other than keeping updated
• Pithole, Pennsylvania, no major changes since FAC other than keeping updated

I also have the following watchlisted, which I had a hand in promoting, but are listed for Trey (who is no longer active), for any substantial changes/vandalism:

• Erie, Pennsylvania, no major changes since FAC, but some linkrot
• Presque Isle State Park, no major changes since FAC, actively attempting to combat linkrot (was co-nom with Ruhrfisch)

—Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Response from Rodw

Some months ago Maralia contacted me about: Mendip Hills, Bath, Somerset, Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Exmoor, River Parrett, Somerset and Sweet Track. I have responded at User talk:Maralia#Somerset (etc) FA reviews but Maralia does not appear to have been active on wp recently. Thanks to helpful copy edits by User:Corinne and other assistance from other editors I now believe: Mendip Hills, Bath, Somerset and Exmoor are up to date and meet current standards - would anyone else be able to take a look and say if there is anything else they think is needed? River Parrett is nearly there but I still need some more time for Somerset, Buildings and architecture of Bristol and Sweet Track.— Rod ^talk 16:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Response from Jonyungk

Also responded on the article list so apologies if this seems redundant. Been gone from Wiki for a while, got your ping today. The only FA that seems under question currently seems Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky due to length. The amount of activity and controversy that surrounds Tchaikovsky's life would seem to warrant the length. Nevertheless, I will review the article to see how the verbiage might be further refined or winnowed. I will also review the other articles under my name over the next few weeks as time permits.Jonyungk (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky has been pared down to just under 84K, roughly 2/3 of its former length and about 8K more than Ludwig van Beethoven. I'll make another pass through it after I have reviewed some of my other FA articles due for review but suspect this might be close to its final length. Will keep you posted.Jonyungk (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Symphonic poems (Liszt) reviewed and updated.Jonyungk (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Walter Bache reviewed. No apparent issues at this time.Jonyungk (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov reviewed. No apparent issues at this time.Jonyungk (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Choral symphony reviewed. No apparent issues at this time.Jonyungk (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five reviewed. Concerns on talk page regarding article length and focus addressed; article reduced accordingly.Jonyungk (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle reviewed. No apparent issues at this time.Jonyungk (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Response from Cirt

@SandyGeorgia:Apologies for my quite belated response -- I've been preoccupied in recent months with issues going on with life and family. Unfortunately, I'm currently under an editing restriction from four (4) years ago, that prevents me from maintaining or improving several articles I'd previously successfully gotten to WP:FA quality.

I made sure back when I worked on them in the past that they all had in-line citations to back up every-single-sentence and every-single-fact in the article. I would most appreciate any help yourself and the greater Wikipedia community could provide to help out in my absence at some of these WP:FA pages, to maintain them.

I see checking the "page information" for those articles that some have a good number of page-watchers, but others do not, unfortunately. I really would appreciate whatever assistance could be provided.

I'm quite sorry I unfortunately regret I can't be more help myself.

I've shifted my focus over the past four (4) years to focus more generally to Quality improvement efforts on topics related to freedom of speech -- for example, I wrote the article on the book, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate -- and took it to WP:FA quality.

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, very much, for your efforts on this project. — Cirt (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)