Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hi Gog! How many "supports" does it take for an article to be approved as FA? I currently have two reviewers engaged in my candidacy process (plus one who has reviewed the images and one who left only a short but helpful comment). Should the two reviewers vote to support the article, is it enough or should I strive for more engagement e.g., by talking to the Wikiproject Gastropods crew?

Thanks! Barbalalaika 🐌 16:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really work like that. The coordinators get a lot of discretion and will weigh - among other things - the depth and thoroughness of each review, the experience of each review, how enthusiastically they support (if they do), the seriousness of anything any reviewer is not happy with, whether there is both an "expert" and a "non-expert" review, even - to an extent - how long a nomination has been open, a nominator's track record at FAC, and what they think themselves. That said, it is unusual to see an article promoted in less than three weeks or with less that three general supports; and almost unknown in the case of a first-timer. I hope this goes some way to addressing the question and feel free to ask a follow up.

In case it is helpful I paste below my standard boilerplate on attracting reviewers.

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply, that does answer the question :) I don't think I have the necessary Wiki knowledge to provide a FA review yet, but I reckon I can start with small inputs instead of a full-on in-depth review. Barbalalaika 🐌 19:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 review four books Op-ed: Nick-D on the Stanley Military Cemetery in Hong Kong Timeline: This month in military history

Good Afternoon! I honestly don't know what else to do with this FAC. I have tried wrangling reviews from my contacts and I have started performing FAC reviews. Do you have any other suggestions? Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, less than two hours before you posted here I left a note on the nomination discussion chasing the last reviewer for a concluding comment. And in anticipation of a support - although who knows - am about to start my own coordinator's set of checks. Fingers crossed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That reviewer has told me in the past that she is busy during the week, so it may not be until the weekend that she responds. She was the nominator for one of the FACs I reviewed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And a good quality reviewer. Did one of mine a year ago. And gave yours the thorough poking at I wanted it to get. It is on track, you have permission to start another, all is good, relax. Remember to breath. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Gog the Mild and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

I have been planning to nominate an article at FAC for some time. Since my first nomination was archived, I realise that a mentor would be helpful. However, as my examinations are approaching (they will continue until mid-March and then again in May), I was wondering what would be appropriate to do at this stage.

Should I initiate a PR and seek a mentor at WT:FAC now, or should I wait? Your advice would be appreciated. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a bit of a stream of consciousness. You have pre-empted my two main pieces of advice by doing a lot of FAC reviewing and having a decent number of GANs under your belt. Although have chosen a hideously difficult article to try and get promoted. Still want to try with the same one? My first advice would be to chose something a bit [or a lot] simpler and more straight forward for your first run at FAC. Or even your first ten. Fashion, Earthshot, or Foundation from your GAs look much more suitable for first FACs. Where you go next really depends on your mentor, and I would recommend starting your search for one ASAP. But if 'twere me I would want to work with you first getting it into really solid shape - eg re sourcing, DUE, MoS etc. Then give it a run at PR. The timing for that is whenever it is. Probably best avoid putting something there immediately before you start revising for a set of exams, but PR is fairly laid back and if it is a couple of weeks before you respond to a set of comments I don't think anyone will be too bothered. Does that help? Any follow ups? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. It does help. By the way, I was thinking of this article at present. Should I ask for a mentor at WT:FAC at present or what next? I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. In which case I suggest approaching Premeditated Chaos - who is not on the list of editors who have said they are willing to mentor, but who would IMO make an excellent mentor, especially for that article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestion, but for it to materialise will be difficult. You can take a look through this discussion and this one for context. MSincccc (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I wasn't aware of that. Looking at editors who have listed themselves as being open to mentoring, maybe Nikkimaria? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s helpful. I’ll try approaching Nikkimaria. What is your view on posting a message at WT:FAC at this stage? MSincccc (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Up to you, but I don't see the point. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for Siege of Utica, introduced: "2,229 years ago a Roman army landed near Utica in North Africa. This was an attempt to end the Second Punic War against Carthage, which had already lasted 14 years. Utica was besieged and large parts of the ensuing campaign revolved around this. Utica held out but the Carthaginians lost four battles in two years and were forced into a humiliating capitulation." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I see you have a lot of experience with featured articles, and I was considering getting Genshin Impact to FA sometime this year. I got it to GA in January, and I would need a mentor since I've never successfully gotten an article to FA before. Let me know if you're interested! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gommeh, nice of you to think of me. I have not put myself on the list of editors prepared to mentor as I am usually too busy with other things. I could perhaps be tempted, but not I'm afraid for a video game; a subject about which I know little and care less. There are several editors who are on the list and specify video games. David Fuchs catches my eye, I suggest you ask them. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd ask you anyway because of the number of FA's you have, haha. Thanks anyway! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

David has taken 57 articles through the process, and so is not exactly a beginner. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I received this message on my talk page. Could you help me understand what it means in terms of expected behaviour? This is the fourth time I’ve received such a message, and I want to make sure I act appropriately. Thank you. MSincccc (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Busy at the moment. I will answer properly as soon as I get the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog!

I hope you are doing alright!

I hope it didn't have to come to this but the article, "Die with a Smile" has received a new couple of comments to be addressed which were done as I agreed with the nominator and addressed said comments. However, I can't shake the felling this is a vendetta for my GA review on one of his articles. The article has received so far three separate successful prose reviews and an image/source review and is going through spot checks as I'm writing this. He opposes the article reaching FA status and also fails to mention more issues after the ones he point out have been addressed.

Since you are one of the coordinators I'm reaching out to you to try and sort this out. I don't mind removing myself as one of the co-nominators if that's what it takes. I do feel targeted here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. @FAC coordinators: for information. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @MarioSoulTruthFan: Sorry I diodn't have time to look in on your FAC. If I had, I would have been forced to echo the concerns of colleagues re. WP:WIAFA #1A; I would also have contested in the round the comment that FAC is precisely the place where these sorts of grammatical nitpicks can be found and fixed. A small number, commensurate to the length of the article perhaps, but WP:FIXLOOP is thing, and a thing to be avoided—otherwise FAC turns into a peer review.

En passant, I might also have waxed sardonic at the WP:ASPERSIONS and lack of WP:AGF shown in accusations of vendettas and bizarre morsels such as you are the all mighty god that knows it all... Cheers! —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. I agree that FAC is not intended to function as a full peer review, though minor copy-editing and clarification are not uncommon at this stage.

I regret if any comments were perceived as personal; that was not my intent. I believe it is best that we keep the focus on the article and the criteria. Case closed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D review four works Op-ed: GGOTCC discusses the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships Timeline: This month in military history

I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been sending the FAC welcome messages to a few first-time nominators in your absence. I hope that’s alright — do let me know if you’d prefer otherwise. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you are doing well. As I mentioned at my talk page, I was a bit busy reviewing and most of February passed without realizing. I was curious with the written text in User:Gog_the_Mild/Siege_of_Ariminum_(538) (as I have not heard your feedback on what I wrote) and tested it in the main article Siege of Ariminum (538). I liked it and implemented the changes, along with some other changes. Let me know your thoughts. Many thanks again for the advice. I am looking forward to hearing back from you. A.Cython(talk) 02:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]