Ever since the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident in 2005 triggered the restriction against un-registered editors creating new pages, WikiProject Articles for Creation (AfC) has stood in the breach. The WikiProject's purpose is to review draft submissions from IPs (and frequently new registered editors) to sort the wheat from the chaff. The policy change at this time nine years ago shifted the burden to AfC from the New Page Patrol, whom Jimbo at the time called "very brave people (which they are) standing in front of a firehose of nonsense (which it can be)".[1] AfC has necessitated the work of hundreds of editors reviewing drafts, automating the review process, and fielding new editor questions about drafts at the AfC help desk. The work of AfC upholds Wikipedia's claim that "anyone can edit."
AfC is very much an incubator. Whereas policies about verifiability, notability, and copyright lead to article deletion in the article namespace, within the draft namespace deletion procedures aren't typically used because the slack helps new editors learn rather than penalize their ignorance. Reviewers typically provide comment when they decline a submission, letting the author know if they need to improve their use of in-line citations, tone down promotional language, or tighten the copy to what the sources actually support. Each declination of a submitted draft has a reason explicitly attached to help new editors learn what Wikipedia expects. Most drafts require a few if not several attempts before acceptance.
Wikipedia garners wide interest from a variety of would-be editors. The in-flow of drafts has continually been more than the members of AfC can keep up with. The pool of pending submissions has had over nine hundred potential articles for at least the past year. Recently the backlog has toggled in and out of "out of order" status, which indicates more than three thousand waiting submissions. The reasons for the growing number of drafts remain unclear. Efforts like the article wizard to make draft submission easier seem to have succeeded in their goal, increasing the number of submissions beyond the limit of reviewers to manage. The size of the pool of submissions correlates to a delay in response to each draft. Eager would-be editors waiting for their first draft to be accepted may lose interest as the wait passes from days, to weeks, to more than a month or longer. Those who thought their Wikipedia careers would start with a draft article may quit Wikipedia before they receive outreach. As a result, AfC's most pressing need is for reviewers. For editors with even a little editing experience (500 un-deleted mainspace edits and registration more than 90 days ago) you can add yourself to the participants' list and start reviewing drafts.
Typically, WikiProjects hold backlog drives to reduce the burden of overdue tasks. I and others have opposed starting another drive, as the last two drives (in March and again in June) were marred by the results of gamification. AfC seeks to be fair with each and every review and simply pressing "accept" or "decline" isn't sufficient. My primary reason for opposing a backlog drive despite how badly such a drive is needed is that unlike some WikiProjects, AfC is rudderless and adrift without a coordinator. My exemplar for WikiProjects is WikiProject Military History and they hold regular elections for a group of coordinators, who then take responsibility for the functioning of the WikiProject. I know other WikiProjects do this as well and I think an elected coordinator or group of coordinators could lead AfC out of its current state.
Of course, every draft submitted to AfC comes from an editor with a purpose in mind. Some editors with open conflicts of interest bring drafts to AfC to ensure neutrality in their submissions. Some number of college students submit the sandbox entries they wrote for class to AfC by clicking the button on {{User sandbox}}. Wikipedia's ubiquity and #7 Alexa rank represent a public relations goldmine and everyone from up-and-coming academics to business start-ups are writing ad copy for deployment on our wiki.
Floating in this sea of drafts alongside the detritus about garage bands and the latest candidate to stand for election are some well-written articles. These articles could help improve our encyclopedia and members of each WikiProject should be interested in fishing out these draft articles. Technical subjects like classical nucleation theory (a recently accepted draft) would benefit by the review of a specialist. Joe Reviewer at AfC won't necessarily have the same appreciation for a given draft that you might, so your participation is not only wanted, but also vital.
The views expressed in these op-eds are those of the authors only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section. Editors wishing to submit their own op-ed should email the Signpost's editor.
This anniversary issue, the WikiProject report is returning to WikiProject Articles for creation for one of our largest interviews ever. Last looked at in 2011, AfC is the method used by unregistered or new users to create articles, and provides an effective filtering system to remove all unsuitable or unsourced submissions to save them needing to be found and deleted later. Four years on from the last interview, we openly invited all active members of Articles for creation to come and have their say in this interview. So, the resulting report below is quite long, but there is a general message coming across: they need your help.
One of the perennial problems with Articles for Creation has been the large backlog of unreviewed submissions, currently at around 2,500 ("severe"). How long does the average submission wait before being reviewed, and how many participants actively review submissions to keep on top of the backlog?
AmaryllisGardener: I don't know exactly, but if I had to guess I'd say a few weeks, it depends on the subject too. BLPs and companies take the longest, I would say, things like animals and plants, stuff like that, don't usually take that long, because the notability of the subject is easy to verify.
Aggie80: It depends on the complexity of the article. In too many cases, the submitter hasn't paid any attention to the rules of Wikipedia, those are easy to see and eliminate. A good article that is properly done takes longer to validate. A couple weeks is pretty accurate.
Hasteur: It really depends on the effort put into the article. Simple ones that would be quickly CSDed if they had been created in mainspace are easily dealt with. Ones that are on the edge of being acceptable for mainspace take more time as the reviewer's reputation is on the line if it gets put up for WP:AfD.
Bellerophon: That really depends on the individual submission. Some are easily determined to be not-notable or otherwise unsuitable, and some reviewers prefer to try and filter these types of submission and get them out the pending reviews queue. Others require a more in depth examination and reviews may have to do a significant amount of clean up work themselves to make sense of a submission, or make it policy compliant. The length of time submissions wait around for review is directly proportional to the number of submissions awaiting review. Some submissions can sit around for months, but on average I would say one to two weeks based on the current backlogs. Reviewers are encouraged to review the oldest submission first.
Ritchie333: It depends on the context. A submission that would normally be speedy deleted if in mainspace can be handled within 24 hours. I tend to review from the back of the queue, which tends to be 1–2 months. Sometimes, and indeed with increasing regularity, the time lag is so long, that by the time I review the submission, another editor has created it anyway.A rough draft of Roosevelt's Infamy Speech, with many corrections as is required in most AfC submissions
Libby norman: It really depends on the article – some are obvious fails/passes but more complex or lengthy articles may 'languish' because (in my personal opinion) everyone looks at them and gulps. I've seen submissions that are a month or more old and haven't been touched. Active reviewers – couldn't hazard a guess as this varies – do their best, but it's tempting to skip an article, especially if it's in a specialist field or would require an hour or more to check properly.
Onel5969: As the other editors have rightly said, it depends on the article, although I would disagree that it depends on the length. Some very lengthy submissions are well cited, and very easy to pass. Others I have seen have virtually no citations, and are easily declined due to lack of meeting the Wikipedia criteria. I can't speak for other editors, but I know that articles can sit due to a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or lack of expertise (e.g. articles on technical subjects like physics or medicine). These can take an inordinate amount of time simply familiarising oneself with the subject matter. Personally, I focus on the "very old submissions", and try to approve/decline 10–15 a day. Every few days I'll spend a bit more time on the list, and try to "pick off the low-hanging fruit", by going through a few dozen articles and checking for obvious reasons for declining, like no references, or WP:COPYVIO issues.
Sionk: Yes, it varies a lot. I personally preferred to tackle the older, more difficult submissions while others prefer the 'quick wins'. Both strategies are equally valuable, I'm sure! Will be interesting to know whether someone keeps stats.
SecretName101: Currently, far longer than it should. It does depend on the article though. Many are addressed in a reasonable time period, while some take longer before they are reviewed. A number appear to fall through the cracks (so to speak) and seemingly are overlooked, remaining unreviewed for an inexcusabley long period time. It has proved difficult for Wikipedia's limited number of volunteers to keep up with the demand for reviews.
Theonesean: On the main page of the WikiProject, it says, "Following huge backlogs on the page, Kwsn and others started WikiProject Articles for creation on 2 June 2007.” So, obviously, the backlog is integral to our mission. We have a fairly solid core community made up of experienced Wikipedians whose main or major goal is to review articles. However, it’s been quite some time since anyone was “on top of” the backlog. On the submission box on every article up for review, it says that the reviewing process "may take several weeks, to over a month,” and, indeed, we have a large amount of articles that are older than a month and are still awaiting review.
Joe Decker: "Average time" is going to be a misleading statistic, let me phrase it another way. A lot of severely problematic article drafts, perhaps accounting for half the incoming stream of drafts, are handled within a day. Two-thirds of the remainder seem to peter out over a period of a couple weeks. Of the remainder, they often take *months*, and some of those have excellent potential. A good deal of the work is probably done by a dozen or two dozen participants.
Dodger67: Drafts on complex or "niche" topics often take the longest as very few active regular reviewers feel competent to review such submissions. Requests for assistance from relevant Wikiprojects do sometimes help but often they end up at "dead" projects. I have found that it's usually the "scientific" projects (such as Medicine, Mathematics, Physics, etc) that respond best to such requests, the Military History and Aviation projects are also responsive to requests for "expert" opinions. We need a more systematic and consistent way to draw subject-specific projects into reviewing drafts and thus avoiding or at least reducing the delays for such submissions. Multilingual reviewers are also in short supply to verify non-English references. A set of "automagical" tools to filter out the bulk of obvious rubbish drafts that constitutes the vast majority of new submissions are desperately needed. They could probably be adapted from the existing vandalism detection bots as there isn't really a difference between detecting "Johnny is a poopypants" type of vandalism in mainspace articles and finding similar content in draft submissions.
KvnG: Promising submissions are now taking about 1 month to be reviewed. Obviously flawed or incomplete submissions may get reviewed faster by reviewers who concentrate on such things. We have over 500 reviewers listed but have not recently gone through and determined how many are actually active.
How do you think the backlog could be significantly reduced? In the past, backlog drives have been held to push the numbers down – are these successful or do they present too many problems, such as sloppy and rushed reviewing?
AmaryllisGardener: I think that backlog drives are pretty good, and that we should have more of them. I think the best thing would be to try to get more experienced editors involved in reviewing AfC submissions.
Aggie80: Some gates 'up front' to get through before submission. Blank and nonsense submissions could be filtered out by macros or bots. Force anyone with fewer than a few dozen actions to go through the wizard and not allow them to bypass it.
Becky Sayles: I have not participated in backlog drives, but this does not seem like a reasonable solution. I agree with Aggie about upfront gates before submission. It would help to have some automatic way to ensure new editors have taken minimal steps towards an acceptable draft. Right now it's too easy to create garbage and submit it for review. Backlog drives by their nature encourage sloppy/rushed reviews.
Hasteur: Frankly we need more volunteers to review drafts. I believe that we get around 200 drafts in for review every day. And as referenced below we're on a trend of about 50 more drafts in than out so we're consistently losing ground. Add to this are the CSD:G13 restores where it takes nothing more than a few clicks to get a abandoned draft back and put back into our review queue without any substantial effort to improve beyond the previous decline (or that the draft was never put in for review). As a veteran of multiple backlog drives we suffer a significant problem of gamification where you are rewarded one point for every draft that you review (either as an accept or decline). If you review hordes of submissions you can bury the quality check reviewers (who look at the reviews to determine if the review was correct) and win one of the top 3 prizes as long as your reviews are correct for the most part. There is a significant incentive to do sloppy reviews to get the points and move on during the backlog drive,, Ergo this is why I've opposed doing backlog drives under the current regime as it does not solve the underlying exploting problem.
Drmies: More bodies. We could always send Jimbo Wales around to ask Chzz to come back—it was the zeal by people like him that made this thing work in the first place.
Kudpung: I'm with Drmies and Hasteur on this one. Reward-driven backlog drives are just asking for sloppy reviewing. What we need, just as we desperately do at WP:NPP, is a greater number of more competent reviewers. I see recently that some users are literally hovering over their edit count to get their name on the AfC reviewer list, and like NPP and many other maintenance places, it's the wrong reason as a newbie, to join Wikipedia.
Bellerophon: The current backlog drives are somewhat successful in reducing the backlogs and experienced reviewers do carry out checks on the quality of reviewing, but this is a short-term fix. What's really needed is a significant increase in the number of active reviewers, and we need reviewers with the right kind of experience on Wikipedia. Editors with experience at Articles for Deletion would be good candidates, as a solid grasp of the notability guidelines is pretty essential. The entire community needs to take some responsibility for Articles for Creation, along with the New Pages Feed, it is one of the only methods Wikipedia has for quality assuring new articles and helping new editors.
Ritchie333: Like others, I am dead against backlog drives as we used to do them as they encourage low-quality reviews that cause more harm than good (see Arctic Kangaroo (talk·contribs)). I have proposed the idea of an "AFC Cup" which would reward passed reviews, with increasing points for reviewing older submissions, but it would require a considerable amount of maintenance to run. To be honest, I think we need to think of something completely different, and one solution is to allow more co-operation between NPP and draft space. Instead of NPPers CSDing or AfDing articles, they could be moved to draft space where the creator can work on them. Conversely, if a submission sits unreviewed for say 90 days, it is deemed "no consensus to reject" and automatically moved to mainspace. That sounds radical, but it's no different to a new article that remains unpatrolled for 30 days and drops off the end of the queue (which admittedly is rare). AfC as we know it now would cease to exist, and become an auxiliary function of NPP. I think that's quite possibly the answer.
Libby norman: I think it would help if the backlog were more clearly divided up into unreviewed and reviewed and failed, then at least people could target the list more logically and wouldn't be so disheartened every time they looked at the backlog. Currently it feels like the more you do the larger the pile grows and that's because, unfortunately, there are some boomerang articles that are resubmitted repeatedly – either the editor doesn't understand the comments made or doesn't know how to make the required improvements. These repeat fails also clog up the system. In an ideal world, there would be further intervention to assist the editor to make the article work, although I'm pretty certain all regular reviewers have come across the 'hopeless case'. I think backlog drives are quite useful, although they present potential problems if people focus too much on the prize. They are just one tool though and I think more could be done to incentivise reviewers to tackle the boomerangs that might be salvageable but need more targeted intervention.
Onel5969: Not in favour of backlog drives, for all of the reasons stated above. Aggie's point is a good one, especially if we could have a bot that looks for COPYVIO or no references. I also like Libby's suggestion of dividing the list into new submissions, versus resubmitted versions of failed submissions. Sometimes it's difficult, since so many folks who submit articles don't put effort into their articles, they don't make an effort to bring it up to even the most rudimentary wiki standards. I think the break-out of re-submitted articles would help significantly. I find that those who submit articles, and honestly want to do it correctly, contact me and try to work to get the article in shape for the mainspace. When they do, I make every effort to work with them (not doing it myself, except for perhaps making an edit as an example), to help them get it ready. The only time this doesn't work is if the subject is simply not notable (like a beloved local HS football coach). But, as the other editors have pointed out, we need more bodies.
Sionk: I think reviewers often raise the bar too high, though I can understand why. The purpose of AfC should be to weed out the clear and blatant failures. We should simply ask ourselves "If I saw this article in mainspace would I immediately speedy delete it or nominate for AfD?" If the answer is "No" we should accept it and leave to others to clean-up/scrutinise more deeply etc. Unfortunately I didn't get any satisfaction from letting articles through that were borderline, or probably gaming the system. But to clear things more quickly we should not do such a thorough job (just a minimal one), I'm afraid.
Theonesean: Staying on top of the backlog is an extremely relative term, and truly the only thing that could reduce our backlog is more experienced and knowledgable reviewers devoting more of their time to reviewing. Backlog drives seems like a good idea, but they are a keen double-edged sword; many newer reviewers who have great potential end up valuing quantity over quality, and pumping out as many reviews as possible. This, obviously, makes waves that other reviews have to deal with.
The WikiProject desperately needs new people to help review, but backlog drives can take eager, inexperienced reviewers and misguide their energies into gaining points rather than experience.
Joe Decker: I no longer believe that the problem can be entirely solved by begging for new reviewers. I think that there either needs to be systemic change to better explain what the minimum requirements are for accepting an article before an article is submitted, or there needs to be automatic acceptance after a short period of time. The backlog pushes away new contributors in a way that is harmful to the encyclopaedia.
Anne Delong: WP:AFC is a vital part of Wikipedia's mandate to see that "anyone can edit". The Wikipedia community should all pitch in to make sure that the drafts are reviewed promptly. In order for the process to work properly, most drafts should be reviewed within a day, and those needing expert knowledge should be referred to a WikiProject within that time. This isn't happening for a couple of reasons:
Most AfC reviewers are serious Wikipedians who value the opinion of their peers. Even though the mandate of AfC is to accept any submission that has a better than even chance to pass an AfD, accepting a lot of submissions which are then deleted looks bad, so reviewers are overly conservative. Some of the reviewers would like to become admins in the future, and editors who are overly liberal at AfC are criticised for it at RfA. This leads to a lot of declined submissions and resubmits which clog up the process.
Because of the backlog, a lot of editors complain that AfC is discouraging new editors and slowing the growth of the encyclopaedia. This leads to other editors not wanting to be part of it for fear of being criticised, creating a vicious circle, since lack of participation is what is causing the backlog.
Solution: Backlog drives are at best a temporary solution. The obvious, but difficult to achieve solution, is to change the culture of criticism so that more editors will participate in reducing the backlog. A more achievable solution may be a way to get marginal submissions out of AfC without a reviewer approving them. For example, after a submission has been checked for the most severe problems (blank, copyvio, article exists, etc.), then when a draft is declined, the reviewer would have the option of including an extra notice on the draft creator's talk page which would say something like "Please read the notice on your draft to see why it was declined. You can continue to make improvements and resubmit (recommended), or you can move your submission into the encyclopedia at any time by (explanation of move or requested move process here). Be aware that if your new article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, it may be deleted, so you may want to keep a copy of your text."
KvnG: We currently don't have a core group of reviewers volunteering to run a backlog drive. That may be due to fatigue, problems with previous drives or whatever. I think this is a secondary problem. The primary problem is that, to address the backlog, we need more AfC reviewers. To make the project sustainable, we should be concentrating on recruiting more reviewers. I'm not even sure this can be successful in the context of net exodus of contributors to Wikipedia as a whole. We don't want to burn out editors by running back-to-back backlog drives. We also don't want to burn out editors by asking them to contribute to numerous critical projects on Wikipedia. I believe our best available means of addressing the backlog is to get comfortable with having a backlog. A lot of reviewer time is spent rejecting unacceptable submissions. If authors have to wait 30 days for their submission to be reviewed, they may put more effort into meeting Wikipedia inclusion standards. Of course there is also the risk that promising submissions and the new editors behind them will get discouraged by the wait and will abandon their submissions and perhaps Wikipedia altogether. We try to address the latter by pointing authors to the teahouse as part of the AfC review process. We also have a few reviewers concentrating on evaluating abandoned submissions before they're automatically deleted (6 months after last edit).
How many submissions does the project receive in an average day, and has this figure changed since the last interview? Are most submissions accepted or declined? What are some ways an unregistered user can improve an article's chance of being accepted?
AmaryllisGardener: I don't how many exactly, but I would guess around 150. That's a lot of work for the reviewers like me. Most submissions are declined, the new users don't know how to write content that follows policy, the most common problem in drafts is notability and referencing, as simple as that. Some advice I would give to the users submitting the drafts would be, take things slow, and don't submit it until you're ready, and to get a better understandings of the policies, especially policies on citing sources and notability. Some new users take it the wrong way when you tell them "X isn't notable", thinking it's a personal thing.
Aggie80: A couple hundred submissions a day. About 25% are probably re-submissions after something has been reviewed. About half don't come close to meeting the basic requirements and another 25% are being submitted for advertising or self promotion. That leaves about 50 with a legitimate subject and some attempt to meet the requirements. (These are seat of the pants estimates and not based on actual numbers.)
Becky Sayles: The numbers vary quite a bit, but according to Category:AfC pending submissions by age The number still waiting by day are: 1d 37, 2d 19, 3d 34, 4d 58, 6d 12, 7d 14, 8d 2, 9d 7, 10d 33, 11d 61, 12d 60, 13d 28, 14d 24, 15d 65, 16d 72. These seem to reflect a drop because of the holidays. But remembering from before December, as Amaryllis said above, 150 seems about right for an average. Most submissions are declined, many each day are resubmitted. Unregistered users can improve their chances by taking advantage of all the resources available for new people and drafting. It's all there for them, too many simply don't want to read instructions. With the number of autobiographies and promotional drafts submitted, it would help to make it clearer requirements for notability and references.
Hasteur: I would like to see see some sort of line in the "create a new page" that says something to the effect of "Many drafts that are submitted early in an editor's tenure at Wikipedia are not compliant with policy. Please familiarize yourself with what a good article looks like so you have a better chance at getting your article accepted". I know it's pie in the sky, but it would be nice to remove many of the "Johnny Doe is the best-est bass player in the whole world and has the most kickass garage band in the universe." type of submissions.
Bellerophon: The number has fluctuated over the years, I would say on average AfC receives between 100 and 200 new drafts per day; it has been known for it be much higher. When you correlate this with the relatively small number of active reviewers and the amount of additional work most submissions need, it's easy to see why the backlog builds up so fast. The majority of submissions are declined on first review, because AfC is almost exclusively used by new editors who are not really familiar with what Wikipedia is all about. We see a great many submissions that are simply not suitable for an encyclopaedia. However, many submissions are improved after initially being declined and go on to become acceptable articles. We do have a problem with submissions that are repeatedly declined, and we probably need to work on how we communicate problems to new editors and how we deal with those who disrupt the process. This has been a work in progress for several years.
78.26: Most submissions are declined, and it isn't even close. This is because writing an encyclopaedic article isn't an easy thing to accomplish, and AfC of course is a submission portal for new wikipedians. Even articles on historical figures or geographic locations may take several submissions before it is accepted, so that the article is verifiable and readable. A very high percentage of the submissions are designed for product visibility, and even if the subject is notable, weeding out promotional language is usually a prolonged process. To improve the chances of being accepted, if the submitter would take the time to understand WP:Notability and WP:REFB we would have a much better "accept" rate. However, these are not easy policies to understand, and I'm very glad that users whose articles are declined are sent to the teahouse.
Onel5969: I'll address the last point, since the others have been very well answered above. While the resources are there for new editors, many don't know about them, nor even where or how to look for them. Some things are easy fixes, and you can point a new editor to the right guide, e.g. WP:BIO, WP:CITE, WP:CIT or MOS:LAYOUT. I find those four help in the vast majority of circumstances. I don't know how to fix the problem, but when a new editor wants to create an article, they should be required to look at and acknowledge that they've read certain guidelines before creating an article.
Theonesean: Most submissions are not ready for mainspace, and some take two, three, or four iterations before they are ready. Obviously, most are denied the first time. However, most users can take some simple steps, like making sure the subject of the article is indeed notable, using inline citations to support claims, and making sure that the writing is clear and concise. Reading the Wikipedia guidelines for notability and generally being familiar with how Wikipedia works will work wonders in making your article mainspace-ready.
Joe Decker: 200–300, almost all are eventually declined. Most of them will be failed because they lack two or more reliable sources independent of the subject providing in-depth coverage of the subject. Because nobody ever told the contributors of that requirement, nor explained what we mean by those terms. A fair number of the rest are cut and paste copyvios, or spam.
Do many accepted submissions go on to further improvement after being approved, such as appearing on DYK, being expanded, or even become recognised content?
AmaryllisGardener: Absolutely. Some submissions start out at C-class. And as you can see here, two articles that were once drafts are now FAs, 28 are GAs, and 765 are B-class. I don't know about DYK though.
Aggie80: You bet! People are encouraged to tighten up and add to an article that has been accepted. Often they will shepherd it, coming back to review and monitor it, as well as update as new information is received.
Hasteur: One of DYK's suggestions is to look through recently promoted AFC submissions for potential DYK nominations. One of my best acceptances was F. O. Oertel which I also nominated for DYK (which subsequently passed).
Ritchie333: If an AfC submission piques my interest, I will do what I can to improve it, sometimes to DYK (eg: The Minories, Colchester). I passed 2013 meat adulteration scandal through AfC and has seen great interest from a wide variety of editors. One AfC submission, (Haim (band)) is sitting at WP:GAN as I write this. Very occasionally an AfC submission gets AfDed, and I will improve the article to ensure its survival (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Ferries). Experiences like this, though, are very much in the minority.
Libby norman: There are many articles I'm pleased I put through, such as North End, Detroit, Scarlet Road, All Saints' Cathedral, Cairo and Design School Kolding. I tend not to ask myself whether this is a potential star, but whether it's an article that adds to Wikipedia/meets criteria to be on Wikipedia. Having also checked out the articles that arrive via other routes, I would say that standards on articles that arrive on mainspace through AfC are quite often higher because reviewing editors take pains to put the basics in place. And provided articles are noteworthy and reasonably well constructed and sourced, they always have the potential to go further.
Theonesean: The process of article review is a collaboration between reviewers and authors. If an author works to make their article ready for mainspace, it’s much more likely that they will continue to tweak and expand their article once it’s on Wikipedia at large. So far, we have a long list of featured articles, good articles, and otherwise recognised content.
Joe Decker: Rarely, but I'm sure it's happened. Improvement does happen often, though. I certainly try and "level up" anything I accept at least in terms of easy improvements, and tag it for things that can summon appropriate gnomes (e.g., categories), but yes, articles do get better.
Anne Delong: AfC graduates should have a better chance to become respectable members of the article community than new articles created directly in mainspace, because they have already had many of their weaknesses fixed up before approval, been selected as not copyvios or spam, and end up on the watchlists of a number of experienced editors, who may continue to improve then or at least prevent COI editors from degrading them.
KvnG: Primary AfC acceptance criteria is that accepted submissions are not likely to be deleted. Many reviewers here use a much higher bar than WP:LIKELY so I believe most AfC articles find a permanent place in the encyclopaedia.
Can you remember the best submission you've ever reviewed? Was it well-sourced, well-illustrated, skilfully and engagingly written?
AmaryllisGardener: Flavobacterium psychrophilum was the best draft I ever reviewed. It's well-sourced and well-written overall (for a draft), it was started by an IP editor.
Cwmhiraeth: Mites of livestock had been worked on for months and was C class by the time it was accepted. I successfully nominated it for DYK and the creator has continued to work on it since then.
Ritchie333: There are AfC submissions I've enjoyed working on (see those above), but as a rule of thumb, anyone who knows how to write a good article out of the box doesn't need AfC. Every submission that's been promoted above and beyond the basic sub or start-class acceptance has required extensive copyediting and finding more or better sources. I'm not sure I have ever assessed a submission at even C-class, unless I've worked on it myself.
78.26: The best submission I reviewed happened to be on a subject matter I am familiar with, and was written by a new editor who obviously understood the subject and already cared about wikipedia's goals. The submitter and I have since struck up a friendship, making this indeed a most rewarding experience. I have assessed a couple of articles at B-class, but I've a feeling these were not by a new editor. I suspect WP:CLEANSTART in these instances.
Sionk: My first ever submissions to DYK were ones I came across at AfC. My favourite was the fascinating Great Polish Map of Scotland!
Anne Delong: The large number of basic, informative articles about topics for which people are searching contribute at least as much, and probably more to Wikipedia's usefulness and popularity than the smaller number of excellent, scholarly articles. For example, Afrocubism, a small article about a record album, gets a steady 400–500 hits per month, and there are many, many other articles like this. I guess my answer is that I don't remember which of the thousands of articles I've reviewed was the best, and I don't think it's important.
How can a new member help today?
AmaryllisGardener: A new member can help today by reviewing the submissions, of course. They should take it slow, and if they're not sure, skip it.
Becky Sayles: Aside from reviewing, the best thing a new member could do is to recruit more reviewers.
Hasteur: Any editor who has experience with editing and handling multiple mainspace articles is welcome to come assist. We ask that new reviewers follow the reviewing ruberic that has evolved as best practices for handling AFC submissions. We don't throw the entire book of CSD or Mainspace policy at the advocate for the draft, but encourage the advocate to continue improving the draft to the point that it has at least a 50% chance of passing a AfD nomination.
Bellerophon: New members are very welcome indeed. Aside from accurately reviewing articles, editors who are great at problem solving or have technical skills, such as programming and coding could help in continuing to improve and maintain the various templates and scripts we use in the reviewing process. AfC also covers Redirects and Categories for creations and Files for upload, so any editors experienced in those areas are particularly welcome.
Ritchie333: Review the "very old submissions", particularly ones that you think should pass. Identify cases at CSD and AfD where "move to draft" is an acceptable option. Promote the idea that a submission can be moved from draft to mainspace, and even back to draft.
Libby norman: Adopt an article that you think deserves to be on Wikipedia but needs a helping hand and get it through to mainspace. It is a very satisfying feeling.
78.26: New wikipedia members shouldn't be reviewing, but they can make improvements to the pending articles, as no one owns AfC drafts any more than a mainspace article. If you are a new AfC member, try to find articles in an area you have some knowledge and expertise in. It will make your reviewing much easier if you know what is and is not a reliable source for the given field.
Theonesean: I’d urge any new member to hang around the talk page of the WikiProject and familiarise themselves with the community before reviewing. Perhaps they could see how other, more experienced reviewers review certain articles, before trying one on their own. Also, there is no shame in asking for help or skipping articles that are too complicated or difficult to review.
All in all, the most important thing is to keep working at it. One only becomes a better reviewer by reviewing articles.
Joe Decker: Start at the shallow end of the pool, the quick fails are good practice. Over time, notice which explanations help people "get" what is needed (the general notability guideline is very difficult to explain to completely new editors), and consider writing some of your own boilerplate to explain those issues in your own words, you'll find yourself repeating yourself a lot. Keep on assuming good faith.
Dodger67: New reviewers (not new editors) can get their feet wet by doing "quick fail" reviews until they become more familiar with the standards and move on to more complex reviews. Don't be afraid of asking for help – some of our most competent and experienced reviewers regularly ask for help and second opinions. Don't bring your ego with you into AFC, it will get bruised quite regularly.
Anne Delong: A new AfC member could help out by looking over the submissions and leaving messages about them at appropriate WikiProjects. Some of the submissions need subject experts, and others could benefit from editors who know which sources in a certain area are reliable.
KvnG: The most recent submissions are probably the easiest for a new members to handle. Until you gain some experience reviewing, you're encouraged to just skip anything that you're not sure about or seek help from more experienced reviewers on our reviewer help talk page.
LaMona: I see a lot of new members trying to start by creating a new article, which is much harder than editing an existing one. If we could pair up new members with folks creating articles then they could learn to edit together in the Draft space. Maybe we could point new editors to the drafts?
Anything else you'd like to add?
NE Ent: AFC is yet another example of someone coming up with an idea for other people to do work based on the fantasy there's an infinite pool of ready volunteers. (See also – let's stick a tag on top of this article!) Should be abolished as soon as possible.
Libby norman: AfC is a valuable testing ground for new editors and articles – and both need nurturing. There are some very hardworking reviewers out there that make this happen.
Onel5969: I think you have to overcome a fear of "getting it wrong", as Ritchie pointed out. I've had 2 or 3 articles I've accepted which have later been marked for deletion as non-notable. My feeling is that AfC should be a nurturing tool, and that we should approve borderline cases, and then let the community as a whole make a decision it's not notable. I'd much rather that, than declining an article and then have that editor decide that Wikipedia isn't worth it. After rejoining AfC, I spend more time on it, between reviewing submissions, responding to questions from submitting editors, and helping get articles in shape for publication, than I do on any other areas. I think the folks that are involved in AfC need to remember (as most of them do), that this is the portal for new editors coming into the Wikipedia community.
78.26: There are two areas of AfC which are the least fun for me. The most common is trying to review an article with "walls of sources" trying desperately to establish notability, usually by inheritance. It takes a long time to read through these, only to find that the subject isn't mentioned at all in the source. The second (and fortunately not all that common) is to be "taken-to-task" for approving or rejecting an article. Reviewers are often dealing with marginal cases which take judgement calls, and even experienced editors may disagree. I think in general reviewers welcome collaborative discussion about our acceptance procedures, but I don't know anyone who feels they become a better editor/reviewer because they received a "what the hell were you thinking you idiot, obviously another reason AfC should be shut down, nincompoops."
Sionk: I've taken to leaving AfC for periods to recharge my batteries (it can be frustrating and tiring). When I return I often find the templates and procedures have changed, sometimes beyond recognition. Some sort of stability would be beneficial, if I have to relearn everything each time I return it may be more trouble than it's worth!
Theonesean: Thank you for doing this interview, and if anyone has any questions, please feel free to drop them on my talk page. I’ll be more than willing to help.
Joe Decker: I do a lot of work at AfC, and I think there are a number of extremely dedicated, hard-working people doing good work there. That having been said, I wonder sometimes if we would be better off without AfC entirely, whether funnelling all the weight of that effort, and the articles that would end up at AfC, into NPP instead, would be of a greater net benefit. I know this is not a popular view, and I'm actually quite conflicted about it myself, but I do wonder.
Josve05a: I would like to add a note (shoutout) about the Wikipedia help channel on IRC, #wikipedia-en-helpconnect(just press connect, or read the disclaimer first). Many users who has gotten their drafts declined come to that channel for guidance, what can be fixed and so on. During daytime (GMT) we have a few helpers that can help out, but during nightime, between 3 and 7 am (GMT), I see quite a few helpees coming search for help on why their draft has been declined, only to leave after ten minutes, because nobody was available to help out. Given that many helppees are trying to write about themself or a company they work for, many of their submissions do not get accepted, even after our help, but still.
Even though this is not a real rule or guideline, it's one that I tend to follow when I accept draft: If a draft stands a 50/50 + chance of surviving a potential AfD, I like to accept that draft.
Dodger67: Devising a way to "force" draft writers to RTFM before they are allowed to write the first word of their draft could help.
There should also be penalties for submitters who intentionally or through incompetence waste our time by repeatedly resubmitting blatant rubbish or make no attempt to actually fix the issues pointed out in reviews – AGF should not be an everlasting "get out of jail free card".
Regardless of the aforementioned we need to help some submitters understand that AfC is not an adverserial process, we do not put drafts on trial, we're here to help newbies write acceptable articles.
If we could automagically kill off most of the daily overburden of dross it would go a long way to help unclog the process.
Reviewer burnout is also a problem, I have just begun being active here again after taking several months off, though the cause of my burnout was not purely due to AfC it was a significant factor.
Anne Delong: I believe that potential article creators should have to answer a question before submitting an article, such as "All articles need references to reliable sources. Have you read Help:Referencing for beginners? (1) yes, and I have added references (2) no, send me there now (3)Yes, but I still need help, send me to the Teahouse (4) No, but I already knew how to add references and I have done it (5) Never mind, I'll submit later. This would cut down on the number of blank and unsourced submissions.
LaMona: I wish the AfC process had some of the qualities of the AfD process: a discussion and a consensus. Having 2 or more editors give the "publish" assessment would ease the "OMG am I right about this?" dilemma. I'd like to see the comments pushed to the talk page of the article, where it is easier to have a conversation with the editor, especially because many are new and need to be able to easily ask questions when things aren't clear.
Desiderius Erasmus was a Dutch Catholic theologian who lived during the Reformation. While critical of the Catholic Church, he did not join the nascent Lutheran movement, instead committing himself to reforming it from within. He is remembered today as a preeminent humanist and scholar, author of many works including The Praise of Folly.
According to the foundation:
“
Wikipedia receives the prize because it has promoted the dissemination of knowledge through a comprehensive and universally accessible encyclopaedia. To achieve that, the initiators of Wikipedia have designed a new and effective democratic platform. The prize specifically recognises Wikipedia as a community — a shared project that involves tens of thousands of volunteers around the world who help shape this initiative. ...
By distributing knowledge to places where it was previously unavailable, Wikipedia also plays an important role in countries where neutrality and open information are not taken for granted. With its worldwide reach and social impact, Wikipedia does justice to the idea of a single yet diverse world. It is a digital reference work available in various languages, undergoing permanent development. Through its open character, Wikipedia highlights how sources of knowledge are not neutral and must always be weighed. With its critical attention to text, sources and the expansion of knowledge, Wikipedia reflects the ideas of Erasmus, the world citizen after whom the prize is named.
”
Lila Tretikov, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), stated that "I am proud that Wikipedia is being recognized for the incredible collective impact it has had to date. As we look to the future of free knowledge, we will continue to be guided by the principles the Erasmus Prize today honors." An official ceremony will occur in autumn 2015.
Of note is the seeming purposeful singling out of the Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia, community. This distinction appears to have been noted by the WMF, which presciently attempted to expand the scope of the award in the opening lines of its press release. The organization called attention to this being a first time a "collaborative community" has won the award—the qualifier needed to distinguish it from the 1958 prize, which was given to the Austrian people for having "become the shining example of a positive mentality, of courage, energy and confidence in the future of Europe, by the way in which as a minorité créatrice it opened paths for the free nations of Europe to follow."
The €150,000 in prize funds for the 2015 award will be given to the Wikimedia Foundation, which has already declared that it will be given back to the community in the form of individual grants or similar support. Given the short amount of time between the announcement and our date of publication, the WMF was unable to provide further specificity at this time.
Further coverage is available in this week's "In the media" section.
Tech media took note of the release the same day of a new Androidmobile app. A version for iOS will follow. A Wikimedia Foundation blog post called it "A more immersive mobile experience". VentureBeatnoted that "the focus of the refresh is firmly on imagery", with the lead photo dominating the app's presentation of the article and the app allowing the user to easily enlarge photos and swipe through a slideshow of all the article's images. They wrote that these features gave the app "a little more visual zing". TechCrunchreported that "the search experience now features a more defined, higher-contrast search bar alongside a list of recently searched topics" and noted the "Read More" feature which offers three related pages at the end of each article.
Also the same day, the Praemium Erasmianum Foundation announced it was awarding the prestigious 2015 Erasmus Prize to Wikipedia. In a press release, they said it chose the Wikipedia community for the award because "it has promoted the dissemination of knowledge through a comprehensive and universally accessible encyclopaedia." The Wikimedia Foundation responded to the news in a press release and a blog post. English language media has not taken notice of the award as of press time, but Jimmy Wales was personally on hand in the Netherlands for the announcement and appeared on the Dutch television show RTL Late Night on RTL 4, along with Wikipedia editors Spinster and Effeietsanders. See the full story of the award in our "News and notes" section this week.
Wikipedia helps spread rumors of Fidel Castro's death
Fusionreported (January 9) on the wild spread of rumors on January 8 and 9 about the alleged death of 88-year-old longtime Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who has not been seen in public since January 2014. The rumors spread on social media, especially Twitter, though some media outlets, like Diario Las Américas and De Telegraafwerereporting on the rumors and claimed that the Cuban government would be holding a press conference about the matter. This was a claim that left many journalists who hadn't heard about a press conference scratching their heads. The Associated Pressnoted (January 10) that one publication, Corriere della Sera, even reported the rumor as fact before quickly removing the story from their website.
The Cuban government officially denied the rumors and the existence of a press conference to Agence France-Presse. Univision anchor Jorge Ramoswarned on Twitter about the prevalence of false rumors regarding Castro's death, especially in the community of Cuban-American exiles in south Florida. "Careful. Remember that here in Miami, almost like a ritual, Fidel Castro is killed several times every year." Many news outlets are speculating the source of the rumor was the January 4 death of Fidel Castro Odinga, son of former Prime Minister of KenyaRaila Odinga.
On Wikipedia, three different editors edited Fidel Castro's article to report the death as factual. One of them cited the De Telegraaf article and even submitted Castro's death as a potential story for the In the news section of the front page of the encyclopedia. Aside from Fusion, these edits attracted little attention in the English language press, but numerous Spanish language media outlets reported on Wikipedia's role, including stories in BBC Mundo, Perú.21, El Heraldo, and Página Siete.
Checking in with Whitehall's Resident Wikipedian: BBC News reports (January 14) on the anonymous UK civil servant (or servants) who has been diligently editing Wikipedia articles on Scottish football from work.
Corrupting Wikipedia: In a discussion (January 12) of "pernicious corruption" in the US government in the Washington Post, Professor Janine R. Wedel writes of public relations firms: "One firm employs 'all sorts of dark arts' (their words) on the Internet: editing Wikipedia entries deemed damaging; setting up third-party blogs that also appear independent; and gaming search results to ensure that positive content outweighs negative content. Such efforts sway public perception and mold policy yet are virtually invisible even to a trained observer."
Crazy Popes: Adweekinterviewed (January 6) Archer creator Adam Reed, who said he relies on Wikipedia for each episode. "I would be lost without it. I will go look for like, I don't know, like what type of pistol would this guy be carrying, and then an hour later I'm like, 'Man, this Pope Pius IV was crazy!' And then the afternoon is gone."
John Barrymore as the titular role in Hamlet (1922). This image has a big reflection on the lower right hand corner (not shown), which proved far more resistant to attempts to fix than I had hoped. Hence why it hasn't been replaced with a restored version yet. Possibly not ever. Curse you, light! ...Wait! I didn't mean that!
Urania's Mirror - Sagittarius and Corona Australis, Microscopium, and Telescopium
John Barrymore(nominated by SchroCat) Barrymore was that rarest of actors, one who successfully made the transition from silent films to talkies, thanks to his stage-trained voice. He is remembered today for his genius in the theater, his good looks, and as one of the most influential actors of his age. He started as a stage actor in light comedy, then advanced to classical drama. Some notable roles he played were in the play Justice (1916), by John Galsworthy, and the Shakespeare dramas Richard III (1920) and Hamlet (1922). For his role as Hamlet he earned the title of "greatest living American tragedian". For his role in the silent mystery drama film as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) and Sherlock Holmes (1922) he received the nickname the Great Profile. Unfortunately he also abused alcohol from the age of 14, was married and divorced four times, and ended up playing drunken has-beens in a kind of self-parody.
A Handful of Dust(nominated by Brianboulton) This satirical comic novel by the well-known British author Evelyn Waugh was published early in his career, but is generally considered to be one of his best works, figuring on different lists as one of the 20th century's best novels, and having been dramatised for stage, screen, and radio. A Handful of Dust follows Tony Last who, betrayed by his wife and tormented by the futility of human existence, joins an expedition to the Brazilian jungle. Last gets lost and, ill in the jungle, meets an insane settler who is illiterate but owns books. Tony offers to read to him, but even after Tony has recovered the settler keeps Tony at home and forces him to read the novels of Charles Dickens to him. Ultimately, the old man makes Last his prisoner and tells people that the failed explorer has died, so no-one will ever come to look for him, and he can read Dickens to the old man forever...
Telescopium(nominated by Casliber) Telescopium, covering 40° of the night sky, is "a minor constellation in the southern celestial hemisphere." If you're south of latitude 33°N you will be able to see the whole constellation, with its brightest star Alpha Telescopii or α Telescopii, which is 278 light-years away from Earth, has an apparent magnitude of 3.5, is blue-white, 3 times the radius of our Sun and 800 times brighter. The next brightest star in the constellation is Zeta Telescopii, an orange K-type giant, 1.52 times more massive than the Sun, and 512 times as bright, and a little bit closer: 127 light years away. Nicolas Louis de Lacaille introduced the constellation under the French name of le Telescope in 1751, after spending 2 years at the Cape of Good Hope cataloguing some 10,000 stars. By 1763 he'd Latinised the name to "Telescopium". No planets have been discovered yet, but several stars have brown dwarf companions. There's a few galaxies in it, including NGC 6845, a set of four interacting galaxies, but you'll need to look at Telescopium with a telescope to see them, ironically enough.
William Wurtenburg(nominated by Awardgive) "Bill" Wurtenburg (1863–1957) was an American college football player, coach and referee. He enrolled at Yale University as a medical student in 1886 and had a brilliant career in college football while also completing his studies. Bill played for Yale from 1886 to 1889 and again in 1891. He was awarded a medical degree in 1893, and in the following year was hired as coach by the United States Naval Academy. They had a record season. He was then taken up by Dartmouth College and coached them for five years. Bill Wurtenburg began to work as a physician in 1904, and he set up a practice in New Haven, Connecticut. He died in 1957 at the age of 93, showing that giving up football when you reach the age of 40 is good for your health.
Smyth Report(nominated by Hawkeye7) Formally known as A General Account of the Development of Methods of Using Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, this report was released to the public on 12 August 1945, six days after the first atomic bomb was dropped. It became an instant best-seller, with almost 127,000 copies of the first eight printings being sold. As anything published in the Smyth Report became public knowledge, the report contained only information that was either already common scientific knowledge, or that could be easily surmised. As such, many details of chemistry, metallurgy and ordnance were omitted.
AI Mk. IV radar(nominated by Maury Markowitz) The Airborne Interception radar, Mark IV was "the operational model of the world's first air-to-air radar system." A development of the Mk. III radar with a new oscillator fitted to the transmitter, it was first tested in July 1940, and proved itself by detecting aircraft at a range of 20,000 feet (6.1 km). A contract for 3,000 units was issued, and the Mk. IV was introduced to active service in early 1941 and fitted to Bristol Beaufighters. To use it, the operator had to pick up the signals on two cathode-ray tubes in the cockpit. Gradually the aircrews became proficient in its use, assisted by ground-based radar, and interception rates climbed geometrically. It was replaced by the Mk. VII, which used a cavity magnetron, towards the end of 1941. Thereafter aircraft fitted with Mk. IV sets were used to home in on Luftwaffe night-fighters operating their own form of radar; the absence of a magnetron meant that if one of these was shot down the Germans would not get their hands on the top secret device. You'll notice a gap in numbering, but unfortunately, the Mk. V and Mk. VI - based on secret alien technology - are classified, but if you go to my website, you'll learn the truth![citation needed]Citation needed is a joke
Hugo Award for Best Fancast(nominated by PresN) Okay, so the Hugo Award is for the best science fiction, and a fan cast is a podcast done by a fan. So the Hugo Award for Best Fancast is for "the best non-professional audio or video periodical devoted to science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects". Two fancasts have won the award (one twice) since it was first awarded in 2012. The first winner was SF Squeecast"[in] which a group of SF and Fantasy professionals squee about things SF-nal, in a never ending panel discussion of vague positivity". It won twice, and then its producers declined to be considered for an award in 2014. Last year's winner was SF Signal. The winner for the year 2125 will be SF Art, a 3D hyper-experiential fancast about science fiction artwork, broadcast from the moons of Uranus. Ed.: Did I wikilink that right?
Matthew McConaughey filmography(nominated by Cowlibob) The American actor Matthew McConaughey has appeared in over 40 films from 1993 onwards. After the new millennium he became typecast as a romantic comedy lead, but from 2010 he underwent a "McConaissance" (that's what they called it) and became better known for his dramatic roles. His latest film is The Sea of Trees about an American who travels to Aokigahara, Japan, to commit suicide. He encounters Ken Watanabe, also playing a would-be suicide, and the two men begin a journey of self-reflection and survival.
List of accolades received by Vidya Balan(nominated by Krimuk90)Vidya Balan is an Indian Bollywood film actress. Her film career started in 2003 with the Bengali film Bhalo Theko, for which she won the Anandalok Award for Best Actress. Her first Bollywood film was in 2005, and since then she's won 53 film awards. In 2012 she was given the Prabha Khaitan Puraskar for her work towards the empowerment of women, and last year Vidya was awarded the Padma Shri by the Indian government for her contributions to the arts. In 2011 Vidya starred in The Dirty Picture, a film inspired by the lives of actresses Silk Smitha, Nylon Nalini and Disco Shanti. We quote from a review of the movie; "Vidya Balan is the hot topic in every corner for her flaunts and oomph."
List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek(nominated by Jakob) This lists every tributary flowing into the 41.8-mile (67.3 km) long Catawissa Creek. There's 26 named tributaries, of which 19 flow directly into the Creek. They vary in length from 1 mile (1.6 km) to 10.8 miles (17.4 km). There's been a lot of care put into this: photographs of most of the tributaries and Catawissa Creek itself, a detailed lead, and, perhaps most impressively, a constellation of highly informative articles covering every single tributary linked to by the list, impeccably sourced .
Akshay Kumar filmography(nominated by Skr15081997)Akshay Kumar is an Indian film actor and producer, whose debut was a 7-second appearance as a karate instructor in the 1987 film Aaj - but has grown in prominence since. Kumar is a black belt in Taekwondo and does his own stunts, including a scene in the film Khiladi 420 where he "climbed a running plane, stood on top of the plane flying a thousand feet in the air, and jumped from the plane onto a hot air balloon." Said film's plot involves twin brothers, Dev and Anand, both played by Kumar; Dev is bad and Anand is good; we don't know which one was involved in the impressive stunt we described, but if he bounced off the balloon, it was probably Dev.
Robert Cornelius, the first known photograph of a human in American history: The only history that matters.[citation needed]Citation needed is a joke
Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan(created and nominated by Chris Woodrich) The Renaissance Center is a group of seven interconnected skyscrapers in Detroit, Michigan. The tall one in the middle is the "Detroit Marriott at the Renaissance Center", a 73-storey hotel built in 1977. Around it are four 39-storey and two 21-storey towers, the whole forming one of the world's largest commercial complexes, a veritable "city within a city", with 5,552,000 square feet (515,800 m2) of floorspace. It was conceived by Henry Ford II and financed by the Ford Motor Company. At the top of the main tower is a three-storey rooftop restaurant, which used to revolve to allow diners to see the views. Now if the restaurant is revolving, it's a sign you've got to slow down on the martinis.
Robert Cornelius(created by Robert Cornelius, nominated by Nergaal) This daguerreotype of Robert Cornelius is the first known photograph of a human in American history. At the age of 22 Robert Cornelius (1809-1893) began working in his father's lamp manufacturing company, specializing in silver plating and metal polishing. The high quality of his work gained Cornelius a reputation, and he was approached by Joseph Saxton to create silver-plated metal sheets for Saxton to use for a daguerreotype. This sparked his interest in photography, and in the chemical processes used. Around October 1839, Cornelius took a portrait of himself outside of the family store- he stands off-center with an inquisitive face, tousled hair and with his arms crossed looking at us with a curious expression on his face; maybe thinking - am I going to fix this, I wonder? Or am I going to screw it up.... But Cornelius didn't screw it up: he succeeded in creating what is at least one of the first "selfies". One rather wishes he hadn't: It set a bad example, and youth of the time took it up: why there's a photo in our selfie article of a woman in 1900 photographing herself in a mirror, and had the mirror not cut off her dress at the bottom, we might possibly have seen her ankles. Scandalous.
"The Plumb-pudding in Danger"(created by James Gillray, nominated by Chris Woodrich)The Plumb-pudding in danger; or State Epicures taking un Petit Souper" is a caricature by James Gillray in the form a hand-colored etching depicting William Pitt the Younger, wearing a regimental uniform and hat, sitting at a table with Napoleon, each carving from a large plum pudding which is, in fact, a globe with the continents labelled upon it. Napoleon is carving a thin slice off Europe, but Pitt's slice of the pudding - containing almost everything else - is considerably larger and wide-ranging than Napoleon's. It caricatured the suggestions made made by Napoleon in January 1805 for a reconciliation with Britain. The nominator quotes Martin Rowson as saying it is "probably the most famous political cartoon of all time - it has been stolen over and over and over again by cartoonists ever since."
The Magpie (created by Claude Monet, nominated by Sca) The Magpie is featured picture with an equally featured article too. The painting is by the French Impressionist painter Claude Monet. Although the magpie is the titular subject, the real subject of the painting is the shadows, which are among the first that Monet painted as coloured: they are blue, as befits the beautiful snow-encrusted landscape, which is actually fairly accurate, at least for how things are subjectively perceived - but which shocked the art experts at the time, and led to its rejection from the Paris Salon of 1869. It's now considered one of Monet's best snowscapes.
Saalfeld Fairy Grottoes(created by Ansgar Koreng, nominated by Chris Woodrich) The Saalfeld Fairy Grottoes are the effects of mineral deposits on an ancient alum mine near Saalfeld, Germany, which was in operation from the 16th to 19th centuries, then closed off in 1850. Mineral-laden water dripping into the mine's three chambers connected by galleries formed colorful stalagmites and stalactites throughout them. The Guinness Book of World Records suggested that the Fairy Grottoes are "the most colorful cave grottoes in the world". The third chamber, rediscovered in 1913, is called the "Fairy Kingdom" (depicted), illuminated with lights and reflected in a perfectly still pool of water. It is believed that here is were the fairies live in their miniature castles.[citation needed] Our article informs us that: Between 1914 and 2007, more than 20 million people visited the grottoes, which annually draw an average of 160,000 visitors.
Nave, choir, rood screen, Trinity Chapel, Becket's Crown and cloisters of Canterbury Cathedral(created and nominated by David Iliff)The Canterbury Cathedral, one of the oldest and most famous churches in England, is the cathedral where resides the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Church of England. It is also a World Heritage Site. The cathedral was founded in 597, by its first archbishop, Augustine of Canterbury, who was sent in 596 as a missionary to the Anglo-Saxons. Since then it has been completely rebuilt several times, by the Normans in 1070 to 1077, again largely rebuilt in the Gothic style in 1174, and in the late fourteenth century rebuilt in the Perpendicular style. The major rebuild in 1174 was to accommodate the flow of pilgrims visiting the shrine of Archbishop Thomas Becket, who was murdered in the cathedral on Tuesday 29 December 1170, by King Henry IIs knights. King Henry is said to have exclaimed "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" and the knights took it literally and murdered Becket in his own cathedral. Even death, however, would not save the poor Thomas Becket from being harassed by kings: Three hundred sixty-eight years later, in 1538, it was King Henry VIII's turn. He summoned the dead saint to court to face charges of treason, and since the saint did not appear, he was found guilty in his absence. The shrine was removed and the treasures of his shrine were confiscated, and the cathedral ceased to be an abbey in 1539. Most embarrassing; typical Henry the VIII, that. However, note the picture of "Becket's Crown": While Henry the VIII may have destroyed the relics and treasures of the shrine that had helped make the Cathedral a place of pilgrimage and a wealthy site, architecture stands a lot longer than kings, and his shrine, less its treasures, remains part of the cathedral, and likely shall as long as it stands.
Michelle Obama(created by Chuck Kennedy, nominated by National Names 2000)Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is a lawyer and writer, the wife of the 44th and current President of the United States, and consequently the first African-American First Lady of the United States. A great achievement, considering that her paternal great-great grandfather, Jim Robinson, was a slave on Friendfield Plantation in the state of South Carolina. Michelle's distant ancestry also includes Irish and other European roots. It's hard to summarize Michelle briefly: Born in 1964, she was raised in Chicago, and studied at Princeton University, graduating cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in 1985. Three years later she earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School, making her only the third First Lady with a postgraduate degree. Michelle met Barack Obama at the law firm where they both worked when she was asked to mentor him. They married in October 1992. As First Lady she advocates for women's rights. Before she was First Lady, she served in a number of influential positions, several with strongly humanitarian goals, such as Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, one of the vice-presidents of University of Chicago Hospitals, and on the board of the directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Nave of Portsmouth Cathedral(created and nominated by David Iliff)Portsmouth Cathedral is the seat of the AnglicanBishop of Portsmouth, and is located in the city of Portsmouth in Hampshire, England. It is another church that witnessed murders and has been significantly rebuilt during its history, and, in a further connection to our previous entry, its full name is the Cathedral Church of St Thomas of Canterbury. The earliest structure, built on land donated for the purpose by Jean de Gisors, was a church in cruciform shape, with a central tower which was also used as a lookout point and lighthouse. This medieval building, dedicated in 1188, was rebuilt and of the original building, only the chancel and the transepts remained intact. In 1449, when the Bishop of Chichester was murdered by local sailors, the town's inhabitants were excommunicated and the church was closed for a time. It eventually reopened, and in 1591, it had a somewhat notable worshipper pass its gates: Elizabeth I of England. Later, in the English Civil War the Royalist garrison used the church tower to observe the movement of enemy forces. That war resulted in the ruin of the medieval tower and nave. The church was rebuilt from 1683 to 1693, in the classical style; however the classical style was not meant to last: With the establishment of the Diocese of Portsmouth in 1927, the building was rebuilt by Sir Charles Archibald Nicholson to dignify its new cathedral status, changing it to a round-arched Neo-Byzantine style. We'll be seeing more of Portsmouth Cathedral in a couple weeks. However, I'm sure I shall manage to resist the temptation to just copy-paste this entry,[citation needed] even though that would save us all quite a bit of work.
Öxarárfoss(created by Diego Delso, nominated by Jim Carter)Öxarárfoss is a waterfall on the river Öxarár, which flows over the Almannagjá. One of the main attractions of Þingvellir National Park it falls onto rocks in a pool, which often ices up in winter, and is accessible via footpath from a car park. Actually, no-one knows how high the waterfall is, as the álfar forbid anyone from measuring it: that's why the article doesn't have the height.[citation needed]Citation needed is a joke
Vincent van Gogh self-portrait(created by Vincent van Gogh, nominated by The Herald) The ginger Dutchman, Vincent van Gogh, dissolves into speckles of colour. Van Gogh liked to paint self-portraits, dozens of them, and these were an important part of his work as a painter. He was most prolific: art historians have counted thirty-seven of them, painted mostly between 1886 and 1889. His face is painted in the way he saw himself, as it appeared in the mirror; i.e. his right side in the image is the left side of his face and the other way round. The curious thing about these portraits is that the gaze of the painter is seldom looking at the viewers: he seems to look somehow diffusely elsewhere. The dissolving colours, as seenhere, also tend to signal something similar, a feeling of strain and pressure: one can, perhaps, feel that the artist is under mental, physical, or emotional pressure if you stare at it long enough.
Given the number of high-quality sets of images from cathedrals in Britain being produced by David Iliff, it seemed only right to, for once, show the entirety of the set, to give some idea of the excellent work being done by him.
It's a grim certainty what topic most interested Wikipedia viewers this week. The horrific attacks on the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine have drawn anger and resolve from around the world, and also the attention of an English-speaking world that had previously never heard of it. Interest was stronger in the top 25, where four topics related to the shooting appeared. On a lighter note, this week also saw a fairly strong showing for Reddit, with two Reddit-inspired threads in the top 10 for the first time since October.
For the full top 25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions.
There have been far more heinous acts of terror committed in the name of Islam; in the days leading up to this attack, as many as 2000 people were murdered in Nigeria by Boko Haram. But it would take a skilled writer to envision an act more symbolic. A group of obsessive theocrats savage a longstanding French satirical magazine for the crime of violating their religious custom, carving a jagged gash between piety and freedom of expression. They go on to murder a Muslim police officer in cold blood. Another gunman targets a kosher market, murdering four more for the crime of being Jewish, while a Muslim employee risks his life to save the survivors. A better fable of the wrenching complexities inherent in the defining cultural divide of our time could not be asked for, were it not written in blood.
This American sniper, whose life was the subject of the appropriately named Clint Eastwood-directed film American Sniper, which went into wide release on Christmas Day, is considered the most lethal in US military history, with 160 confirmed kills. Unfortunately, he was murdered last year by a PTSD-afflicted veteran whom he had taken to a shooting range. Before he died, he had claimed that he had once punched former wrestler and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura in 2006 for badmouthing U.S. President Bush and the military. Ventura sued him for defamation, eventually getting a $1.8 million jury award. Last week, Ventura filed a new lawsuit directly against HarperCollins, who published Kyle's book, called, naturally, American Sniper.
Numbers are still strong for this Bollywood film, starring Aamir Khan and Anushka Sharma. Released on December 19, it has already become the highest grossing Bollywood film of all time, with a worldwide box office of over US$90 million. The first Bollywood film to ever top this report, it also had the highest ever opening weekend gross for a Bollywood film in the US, at $3.75 million.
The beloved wrestler, best known to the wider world for playing Fezzik in The Princess Bride, became the subject of a Reddit thread this week, when a poster learned that, due to his prodigious height, as a child he was too large to ride the bus to school and so was driven there every day by his neighbour, modernist playwright Samuel Beckett, of Waiting For Godot fame.
Wikipedia readers are a pugnacious lot, and whenever a close-contact combat sporting event occurs, you can bet it will end up somewhere in the report. This year's Ultimate Fighting Championship was headlined by light-heavyweight champion Jon Jones (... spoiler alert ...) who successfully defended his title against challenger Daniel Cormier.
This mysterious limestone block in central London, attested since 1100 AD and possibly dating back to the Roman occupation of Britain, has been a subject of speculation for over four hundred years, as learned in a Reddit thread this week.
![Robert Cornelius, the first known photograph of a human in American history: The only history that matters.[citation needed]Citation needed is a joke](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RobertCornelius.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
