Wikipedia:Featured article review

Wikipedia project page for featured articles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria, and if necessary, to remove them. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header.
    Relevant parties include
    • main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools),
    • the editor(s) who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and
    • any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified).
    The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews

Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma


Notified: Hurricanehink, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject Weather. Noticed: 2021-12-05

In 2021, Hurricane_Noah mentioned that there were lots of sources that weren't in the article. Since several sources are missing, I don't think this article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" anymore. Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: is there anything specific that's missing from the article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Hurricanehink: I haven't taken a look at the sources, so I don't know if anything is missing per se. However, these academic sources should be added (and information that they have added to the article) so that the article doesn't rely upon the National Hurricane Center exclusively. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor


Notified: Military history , Italy , Germany , Holy Roman Empire , Austria , Crusades , Middle Ages , Royalty and Nobility

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was recently heavily trimmed to meet our size policy. It originally contained nearly 12,000 words and has since been reduced to fewer than 9,000. I believe the new version is more accessible and easier to read, which has improved the article's overall quality. Still, I would appreciate any suggestions on the prose or on whether anything important is missing. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)


Comments by A.Cython

It seems a well written article deserving its FA status. I cannot speak about the content, but I briefly summarize my first (superficial) impressions.

  1. The lead is quite long (619 words) and several aspects can be trimmed, per MOS:LEADLENGTH: Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. bringing it closer to 400ish would make more inviting to the causal reader.
  2. Is it my imagination that the article overwhelmingly relies one source? 163 out of 289 citations seems excessive and potentially causing issues in WP:POV, i.e., reflecting the views of one scholar over others.
  3. Family tree, please have it in collapsed state as the default because it is distracting.
  4. Commas, not enough of them, especially in complex sentences making it a difficult reading.
  5. The figure in section "Coup of Kaiserswerth and Anno's rule" is not well placed as it disturbs the text in the following section
  6. Simplify wherever possible
    • but two of them—Adelaide and Henry—died in infancy → but Adelaide and Henry died in infancy
    • MOS:SPARETHEDASH (I found too many for my liking, others love it)

A.Cython(talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions, please find my first comments below:

  • A little trimming is always worthwhile, so I have brought the lead down to under 400 words.
  • Yes, roughly 55 per cent of the text is primarily based on a single monograph. I do not believe this raises any concerns about neutrality, since much of the material consists of biographical details (that is, factual information) unlikely to be disputed. The interpretative elements are supported by multiple sources, including works specifically devoted to the Salian period. Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    The leads reads much better now. About the sources, yeah, I agree with you. I was told that to have a smooth FA review one needs not over-rely on one source no matter how reliable this source is, hence my comment. But since the current article has already passed the FA review, we can assume that there are no POV issues. Additionally, most of these citations are accompanied by citations of other sources, which helps with verification. A.Cython(talk) 20:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I am currently working on the family tree; however, it is proving to be quite challenging.
  • The image has been deleted.
  • Could you please provide some examples of where commas might improve the flow of the text?
  • I believe the text you quoted from the article cannot be simplified, as it forms part of a sentence referring to five children.
  • There were seven dashes previously; there are now only six. I believe their use is fully in line with the cited policy. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Kalki Koechlin


Notified: Talk:Kalki_Koechlin, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Women

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails WP:FACR #1c, as a majority of the filmography is uncited. Note that unfortunately most of the top editors of this article have either left the project or passed away. jolielover♥talk 12:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

1896 Summer Olympics


Notified: Yannismarou, Jonel, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Olympics. Noticed: 2026-01-18

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. It also has an extensive "Further reading" section with sources that should be included in the article or removed. Z1720 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC. Concerns remain, and only a few minor edits have been published since this FAR has been opened. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

2001 Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident


Notified: WikiProject China, Wikiproject history China, Wikireligion project, Wiki Human rights project, Users: Skyshifter, Zujine, Path2Space, NotBartEhrman

- The article is badly written. It has inconsistent terminology and vague attribution. (GA criterion 1a) - The article is not well-researched. It relies heavily on 2001-2005 sources and fails to incorporate later work that provide essential context. Gives undue weight to initial reactions. (GA criterion 1c) - The article is unbalanced, relies heavily on deprecated sources, and reads more like advocacy than neutral encyclopedic coverage. (GA criterion 1d)

These issues were first raised in 2023 and have persisted without resolution, yet the article was featured on the main page on January 23 2026. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Delist In the discussion after the main page feature, I raised two issues which do not seem easily fixable. First, the article is structurally unbalanced towards Falun Gong's conspiracy theory about the incident being a hoax perpetrated by fake believers, or that the real believers were exchanged inside the ambulance for badly wounded crisis actors who have maintained the hoax ever since. Retrospective articles years later by more reliable sources do not give too much credence to these theories, but if the article reflected that, it would have to be substantially rewritten. Second, the article is generally outdated; its timeline focuses heavily on the early months after the incident and originally ended around early 2002. I attempted to update the timeline to reflect the years of health struggles by the self-immolators, but it seems much more work would have to be done to make it truly comprehensive. The description of the long-term impact on Falun Gong is messy. This was truly an important incident in the history of Falun Gong and religious freedom in China and deserves a good article. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I've been trying to improve the article recently. Reading it from start to finish, it's been my impression that the article is quite comprehensively researched, and later work as you mentioned, if incorporated, could make it better, but IMO may not extend too much beyond what's already there.
On another note, I do see that we are already citing some later works that provide analysis and context, including Ownby (2008), Tong (2009), Palmer (2007).
In my honest opinion, the article has been mostly adhering to the reputable sources and is generally in good shape. I can continue to work on improving it further to align with FA Criteria, but a delist would seem too much of a punishment. Thomas Meng (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The journalism on the topic was almost entirely conducted soon after the incident occurred, with especially good reporting by Philip Pan of the Washington Post and Ian Johnson of the Wall Street Journal. That reporting on what happened and what they found out about the event and participants is still the best information on it. There was so much obfuscation that later reporting is hard to verify in my opinion. However, the later scholarship on context and impact is very important. As stated by Thomas Meng, Ownby, Tong, and Palmer are good.
Attempts to discredit Falun Gong's narrative as a "conspiracy theory" are unwarranted, since a lot of research supports their claims. I disagree with NotBartEhrman's the sentiment that "Retrospective articles years later by more reliable sources do not give too much credence to these theories." I don't see how there are more reliable sources than a writer for the Wall Street Journal who won Pulitzer Prize for his work on the subject. Also, much of what makes the incident so interesting is that Falun Gong groups deny any affiliation with the self-immolators, so to me it makes sense that the opposition to the official narrative is a strong component of the article.
Now, as to the quality of the article and whether it should retain its FA status, I'm sort of ambivalent. It certainly needs work, and since the request for improvements is over two years old, I understand if editors want to delist it just on that fact alone. I think it is just an opportunity for us to sit down and improve an article that we all agree should be made better, so overall I think this discussion is very good since the end result will be an improvement to the encyclopedia regardless of decisions about FA status. —Zujine|talk 16:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Delist Everything aside, the article currently simply doesn't meet the criteria of a Featured Article. I doubt it would even qualify as a Good Article. The Account 2 (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist no way someone will be able to finish this within a reasonable time frame (a month). Even if that happens, this should be nominated for FAC again because the article has changed so substantially. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

We will move to declarations of delist or keep in the next stage of the review. This stage should be focused on reviewing the article against the criteria and suggesting improvements, not on whether or not to delist. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes Nikkimaria, I'm still intending to work on this. Please expect me to make a few improvements each weekend. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
Delist unless major work is done, tags and even more sourcing problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

USS Kearsarge (BB-5)


Notified: User:Inkbug, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Ships

I am nominating this featured article for review because I've found (and labelled) some issues that I believe would fall under criterion 1(b) ("comprehensive"). That being the namesake of the ship, which isn't verified through the given citation (more details in the talk page discussion) —Opecuted (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Wait a minute, you mean to tell us you opened a FAR because a single sentence partially failed verification? Remove the offending factoid (that the ship's name was the first instance authorized by Congress), withdraw this FAR, and give yourself a healthy WP:TROUTing. Parsecboy (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
    • That is one of the problem, yes. But the source used there also doesn't support the name of the ship, from what I've gathered, it implies the ship was named this way to memorialize the sloop "just lost"; it's a bit confusing I'd say. Which is why I've opened the discussion in the talk page. As for the FAR, I've opened it in hope of getting the attention of editors who are able to fix that. I personally do not have access to the materials beyond what's easily accessible online. —Opecuted (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
      • What do you mean, the source doesn't support the name? Yes it does. I have the source. I'm looking at it right now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
        • Then it may be possible that the online copy I've been referencing could be different. Would it be possible to provide a quotation from your copy? —Opecuted (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
          • It's the same passage as you quoted on the article talk page. In what way is that not clear that this ship was named after the earlier one? Parsecboy (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
            • I'm not certain about the meaning of "just lost" in that passage. —Opecuted (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
              • What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that there might be another USS Kearsarge that was a sloop during the Civil War, and that fought CSS Alabama? Do you not know that USS Kearsarge (1861) was wrecked in 1894, and this new battleship was authorized in 1895? What, exactly, is the issue here? Parsecboy (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
    I also think that the name being authorized by congress would be worthy of keeping if possible. I think it's quite noteworthy and thus would fall under the being comprehensive criterion. —Opecuted (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Then find a source for it. Don't open a FAR to nitpick a single factoid. This is a waste of time and resources. Parsecboy (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
I've initially forgot to include this in the nomination but there was also another thread by @Herostratus: in the talk page about the BB designation. (at Talk:USS Kearsarge (BB-5) § Why is this vessel a "BB"?) —Opecuted (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Edited: 11:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
It's because most sources backdate the modern hull number system onto ships such as this one for consistency. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
@FAR coordinators: I'm a bit concerned at the time needed to conduct a full-fledged FAR when the nominator only has a question about a single sentence. Is there no provision in the FAR guidelines for the depth of problems needed to FAR an article? Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Formal provision, no, but I would agree this seems excessive. @Opecuted: Is this single sentence your only concern about the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
That and the hull code, yes. —Opecuted (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Couldn't the hull code be dealt with by just footnoting that this is a retroactive designation? Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
Works for me —Opecuted (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
A footnote has been added; could someone source it so we can close this out? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
I missed this and have found a suitable reference confirming that the AB-1 hull classification was not created in 1920, but it will not display correctly when I replace the current cite needed tag with <ref>{{cite web|title=Standard Nomenclature for Naval Vessels: General Order No. 541|date=17 July 1920 |url=https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/general-orders/general-order-no-541-1920-standard-nomemclature-naval-vessels.html |access-date=18 February 2026}}</ref>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: - not sure why this is the case, but the {{efn}} template doesn't like references when it's nested in the {{Notelist}} template, but if you move it to the prose, it works just fine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I find the description section lacking the appropriate level of detail and will upgrade it appropriately. I've already done the machinery section and will work next on the armament.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm finished with reworking the article. Somebody else should check it for any remaining close paraphrases of DANFS and other infelicities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I think we're fine on close paraphrases of DANFS text. May be worth noting that the DANFS article for this ship was substantially expanded after this article went to FAC, so there may be material that can be added, though I know there are objections to relying on it too heavily, given that it's not exactly independent. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Are any issues outstanding here, or is this ready to close? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I moved some unused sources to the "Further reading" section: could these be used as inline citations or should they just be removed? Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I have no problem leaving them in the further reading section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Were the 8" guns in the turrets 8"/40 caliber like it states in the article body or 8"/35 caliber like stated in the infobox?
  • "In May 1901 Captain Bowman H. McCalla assumed command of Kearsarge" - not a fan of sourcing May 1901 events to a source from March 1901 as these plans could have fallen through for all sorts of reasons
    • I cannot confirm this and have deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Is Albertson a high-quality RS? Tate Publishing & Enterprises seems to have been a self-publishing outfit

My main concern is with Albertson - this is used pretty heavily and would be difficult to replace. The reliability or lack thereof for Albertson/Tate Publishing does not appear to have been discussed in the 2013 FAC. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  • This is probably replaceable with a combination of DANFS and Crawford. The section is really not much more than a laundry list of places visited, so I don't foresee any significant issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

WestJet Encore


Notified: Vanguard10, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Canada, Not posted on the talk page personally, but there's been a notice.

The history section looks ok, but the rest is in pretty bad shape. Extreme over-reliance on primary sources, very crufty at times (especially the details of the rewards program), quite a few uncited statements or facts that the source doesn't seem to support (CN tagged). A recurring issue is also that a source doesn't say something in its own voice, but it's in Wikivoice in the article. The prose isn't amazing either, with quite a few short paragraphs. The sentence about the toilets also seems to be there basically only to provide a DYK fact. Additionally, the destinations map is also 8 years out of date. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I was one of the main editors who originally brought the article to FA. I then left Wikipedia for about 7 years due to needing to finish school and to manage problems resulting from my parents dying. I have recently come back to find the article has the potential to update. Please be considerate and friendly by removing this review rather than having the pressure to revise the article in the next 7 days. Everyone should know that it is much more difficult to restore FA status rather than to just give the article a chance to get better in a few weeks. A pressurized deadline of 7 days is not good, particularly if there is a stated commitment to fix it, like I am making. Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Vanguard10: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, but FARs will typically stay open while work is ongoing. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I suggest that you give periodic updates below (once every few weeks) on your progress. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    I am willing and eager to work on this if there is a consensus to close this FAR based on a commitment to work on the article. I will not work with a gun to my head in the form of a 7 day deadline. One may legally keep this FAR open or remove the FA designation but that would not be the best for Wikipedia given my pledge and record of bringing articles to GA and some FA. (I am even willing to make a pledge to re-introduce a FAR if I do not make improvements to the article.) Thank you for your kind consideration of this. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
There is no 7-day deadline or any requirement to complete work on the article in 7 days. FARs typically remain open for as long as the review needs. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The original filer mentioned two weeks and then this report was a week ago so I thought that it left only 7 more days before the article gets the axe. In view of your comments, I will start to work on the article but not at a frantic pace as I work for a living. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Interim report: work is in progress. Progress has been made. Plan is for continued work this week. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Interim report: work continues to progress. Plan is for continued work this week. I believe that there is now no need to progress to FARC (process to remove FA) but that this FAR should remain for now. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Interim report: work continues to progress. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Interim report: work continues to progress. Recommend ending the FAR and keep the article. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Calgary Flames


Notified: Resolute, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Ice Hockey

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I also think the article can use a copyedit to remove redundant phrasing or summarise information more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I said I'd do it, but I also am fine with the review coming about. I shall work on this for the next few days. Conyo14 (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
@Z1720 I have reduced the word count down to just over 8500 words by removing some rather unnecessary information. I have also resolved some citation issues. This article fairly comprehensive, so please take your time and let me know if there are more citations required for minute details. Conyo14 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Conyo14: I have added a citation needed template to the jersey section. There are also several "further reading" sources that do not seem to be used in the article. Should these be used as sources to ensure that the article is complete? I will also do a copyedit of the article to ensure that the prose is tightened up and that no information is too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I finished the history section: there was a lot of redundant or too-detailed information that I removed. I suggest that an interested editor review the rest of the article to ensure that redundancies and phrasing is better before I continue a copyedit. Please ping me when that check is complete. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    @Z1720 Your edits were fine by my standards. I had to add back some stuff that felt pertinent, but everything else was fine. I think a third editor can review. Conyo14 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Conyo14: Thanks for looking at my edits. I have no concerns with what was added back in. There are no concerns with article length, so we are just making editorial considerations of what to include. The rest of the article will still need a copyedit, as I am more interested in doing a last pass through them and would prefer another editor did a copyedit first. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I completed a copyedit. I have no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur


Notified: Boneless Pizza!, Hawkeye7, AirshipJungleman29, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, Wikiproject Australia, WikiProject Homeschooling, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Korea, WikiProject Southeast Asia, Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Cold War, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Higher education, 2025-03-05, 2025-12-22

@Artem.G, EEng, and Jon698:

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the article length. There is lots of information that should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed from the article. Examples include MacArthur's personal thoughts on battles he has participated in, several block quotes, information about battles he participated in, and the Legacy" section. It is currently over 19,000 words, which doesn't include the block quotes. The article has been tagged with a yellow "too long" banner since July 2023. A talk page discussion did not yield a consensus, so I am bringing this here to get a wider range of opinions. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Hawkeye, but I agree with the length concerns. The article is an incredible piece of work; it's comprehensive and impeccably sourced, and I take my hat off to the amount of reading that must have been involved in producing it. But an encyclopaedia article should be a summary. The extra detail can go into sub-articles for readers who are interested in particular aspects of his life and career but the main article should just be an overview. 20,000 words is way more than an overview! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I concur. I believe the article should meet the first three featured article criteria, but there is a complete failure on all aspects of criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The Protecting the Emperor subsection has WP:NPOV problems. It relies almost solely on one source and endorses its conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. Mispoulet (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

FAC criterion 1a requires that the article neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. To cater for the readers who only read a few hundred words, we provide the lead, a summary of the article. Many only read this, hence the low average time per article. Others home in on the section that contains specific information that they are looking for. They expect the article to be richly detailed. A minority read the whole article from top to bottom. Article size seems to have little or no impact on the readers.

Unfortunately, search engines often direct the reader to the main article on a subject even when a subarticle on the specific topic is available. This came to the fore in a discussion on the article on John von Neumann. While most articles are stewarded by a single project, this one was of major importance to several projects, and while the logical split of the article would have been to create subarticles for the different projects, most wanted the information sought by their readers to be in the main article.

The guidelines were not based on academic research, which was not available when they were written, but the image of what an encyclopaedia should look like, based upon the paper encyclopaedias of the early 20th century. In paper encyclopaedias, pages cost money, so there was an incentive to keep the number of articles and their word counts down. But Wikipedia is not paper, so those constraints do not apply, and our objective is to produce a comprehensive encyclopaedia, hence we allow unlimited numbers of articles. Most importantly, it is now apparent, as it was not in 2004, that the readers do not access the articles in the same way that they accessed the old paper encyclopaedias. This is the reason that AI-generated encyclopaedias have much longer articles.

That said, Mispoulet brings up a different issue, which I will look into. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the idea these days is less about physical space and more that a reader should be able to get an overview of any given subject. There's a reasonable counter-argument that most readers skip straight to the section they're interested in, but there aren't many places someone can go for an overview. There's a market for people who want a 20,000 word biography, but the sub-article approach caters for all three—people who want the detail on one part of his career can read the relevant sub-article, people who want every detail can read all the sub-articles as a series, but this article can give an overview and direct people to other articles where they can read more. This is an outstanding piece of research and writing that you should be proud of but, at the moment, it does not "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and [use] summary style where appropriate". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
We already have multiple subarticles. I wrote Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines and Relief of Douglas MacArthur, and other editors have contributed Service summary of Douglas MacArthur and List of places named for Douglas MacArthur. An editor who wrote a short 12,000 word article on the 1948 United States presidential election contributed a two-paragraph summary to this article.
During the GAR for John von Neumann, editors expressed doubts about WP:SUMMARYSTYLE because in many cases the search engines redirected the readers to the main article even when an appropriate subarticle was available. (The subject was on top interest to multiple projects.) There was also research indicating that readers seldom click on the {{main}} links. Looking at the stats for the Relief of Douglas MacArthur, the subarticle holds up well, getting around 144,000 page views per annum compared to 1.4 million for the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: The issue has also been brought up on the GA talk page and that discussion did not result in any changes in GA criteria wording or a consensus to reinterpret GA's implementation of WP:TOOBIG. However, I do not think either the WT:GA nor the Neumann discussions are relevant here: changes to a guideline happen on the guideline's talk page or the village pump, and consensus to change them cannot happen elsewhere afaik. Right now, WP:SS says "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs" and "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." WP:AS, another Wikipedia guideline, says that articles that are over 15,000 words, "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed"; this article is over 19,000 words. After reviewing the article, I see lots of text that should be spun out or summarised more effectively, so I don't think an exception applies to this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for a section that could be spun out. Last time I did that was for Hanford Site -> Hanford Engineer Works. In that case there was a clear candidate, but it was still a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
It is less about spinning out one or two individual sections. Rather, each section should be evaluated to decide what information to keep because it is among the most important aspects of his biography, and what can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or deleted as too much detail or trivial. If I was copyediting the article, I would summarise the block quotes and removed them, as I do not think they add to my understanding of MacArthur and most of that information can be explained more succinctly. In general, when a section is spun out I recommend aiming for two-four paragraphs in the main article as a summary of the spun out information: essentially, the same length as the lead of the spun out article. Yes, removing information from the article is a lot of work and time to achieve, but I think it is necessary for the article to keep its FA status. Please ping me if you would like an example of what I would do with a section and I will edit the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Some of the quotes are very important but others less so. I had trouble with two in the past:
  • I originally added the "Our father" quote, but when I tried to remove it, another editor reverted me as he wanted it retained;
  • I tried to remove the Medal of Honor citation as it was in an image, but another editor reverted me on the grounds that other MoH winners have the citation in their articles.
I will remove some of the non-controversial ones on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
If anything is removed and then reverted, I would direct the editor to this FAR and we can discuss its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
Done. The article is much better than I realised. The work on World War I has been superb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: At over 18,000 words, I think this article is still WP:TOOBIG. Based on that guideline, I would expect about half of the text currently in the article to be spun out or summarised more strictly. I also see that the article has not been edited since January 31. Are you or anyone reading this interested in continuing this task? Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Nobody else has stepped forward with any suggestions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I recommend considering to spin out any section with a level 2 heading into a new article, then cutting that section down to roughly four paragraphs in this article (the size of the lead of the spun-out article. Such sections where this could be possible include "Korean War" (Douglas MacArthur and the Korean War), "Occupation of Japan" (Douglas MacArthur in Japan post-WWII), "Legacy" (Legacy of Douglas MacArthur). This is not a complete list. I also think "Dates of rank" can be removed as redundant and WP:TRIVIA: any significant promotions for MacArthur would already be described previously in the article body. I also recommend removing block quotes from the article, and instead summarise the information. If the block quote is significant, it can go to Wikiquote. I also recommend merging and reducing the prose from "Junior officer" and "Veracruz expedition", as these are too much detail for this level of broadness for the article. Alternatively, this information and "Early life and education" could be spun out into a Early life of Douglas MacArthur article. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've had a good at trimming the article, and at my request, Nikkimaria has also had a go. A result, the article has been trimmed by 15%. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Thanks Nikkimaria for undertaking that task. I welcome any thoughts you want to share about the article length. My thoughts above about spinning out sections remain unchanged after looking at recent edits and trims. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
    As noted on my talk, I think the Korean War and Occupation spinoffs are both feasible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    I think it needs to be strongly considered whether increasingly whittling down the article will actually make it better. As has been noted, biographical articles are harder to spin out sections from than regular articles. Normally, when you split articles, you can provide fuller context of the situations that led up to and fallout from whatever the article's subject is about. For example, Relief of Douglas MacArthur provides context around Truman's concern's with MacArthur, as well as explaining the fallout of the dismissal politically for the President, as well as in Japan. None of this stuff would be appropriate for MacArthur's biography in substantial detail, because it isn't really about the man himself. It is important to cover, so it goes in a subarticle; the ability to add this extra context is what makes the subarticle useful.
    Compared to this, what good would having an article titled Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War actually do? Everything that would go in that article would be directly relevant to the main article, where it is placed better in context of the totality of the man's career. There are two actual impacts, as far as I can tell, for having such a subarticle.
    First, a reader that wants to read a thorough account of MacArthur's service in Korea has to be shunted to a subarticle, where they will then read an abbreviated summary of the general's career before getting to the actual Korea part because we have to include the context somehow. It will just be a severely truncated, essentially worse version of the main article.
    Second, the Korea section of MacArthur's biographical article will be less thorough, and thus the article will be a poorer encapsulation of the man.
    It has already been acknowledged that the article is exceptionally well-written; to be very frank, it's hard to see how anyone reading the article could disagree with that. WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a policy, and guidelines are "best treated with common sense". Shunting portions out of the article just to make it shorter, without regard to whether it improves or worsens the coverage of the subject, is not sensible. Furthermore, what the guideline actually says is that articles with more than 15,000 words should almost certainly be trimmed, operative word here being "almost". Most articles should be shorter than 15,000 words, but this is not most articles. This is about one of the most important military commanders of the 20th century, a major figure in three separate international wars, and on top of that he was effectively the leader of Japan during the occupation, and thus a central figure in that country's modern history. It's not necessarily a problem that it takes a lot of words to explain the man. If it can be shortened without reducing the quality of the article, great, but care should be taken. If not, that's fine. It's okay to have one out of 6,873 featured articles significantly over 15,000 words. Ladtrack (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. Work to trim the article has stopped. The FAR has determined that the major discussion topic for this article is its size. I think it is time to move this article to FARC so that editors can formally state whether the article topic can justify its word count. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Eric Bana


Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Australia, talk page notification 2020-11-22, 2025-01-23, 2025-12-05

The issues were raised five years ago. Since then, there have been edits. However, the article is still listed in WP:URFA/2020A and marked there as "Satisfactory" by just one user. I just would like to know whether the article still qualifies as a Featured Article and whether issues have been addressed already. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

eh, not so sure about this nom (no offence George). The article has 131 citations and the concerns - not listed here - are more about removing recent additions, and uncited promo dept stuff like "Charity work" which shouldn't exist anyway. IMO "Filmography" sections for major actors should always be spun out so as not to overweigh the bio. Notice that LM150 is active on the page and has been responding. Can do blunt cutting and spinning out if that is helpful. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Just skimmed over the article and it looks reasonable to me. I marked it as "Satisfactory" at the time because I addressed the issues as per the talk page. The article could do with some tweaking/splitting.. which I can try to do at some point. LM150 20:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
  • comment sorry, I dont see how an article about a living person still active in their career can be considered stable and be upto date to meet the criteria of a Featured Article. This is not an intended to be a slight on the substantive efforts of those diligently working on the article to reach this point. I just point out that tomorrow is a new day anything could happen. Gnangarra 09:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
    • We have plenty of featured articles on living people. If there's something in particular you think isn't up to date, raise it, but otherwise this isn't an actionable request. SnowFire (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI