This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Featured articles page.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:FAWT:FA

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Wikipedia:Featured articles is a reader-facing page intended for viewing by non-editors. Please prioritize their needs when adjusting its design, and move editor-facing elements to other pages.

Archives

pre-12/2003 and renaming poll Origins dispute to January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006 to May 1, 2006 to August 7, 2006 to January 31, 2007 to August 23, 2007 to September 19, 2007 to April 10, 2008 to September 30, 2008 to July 27, 2009 to April 2010 to October 2010 to September 2011 from September 2011

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Given the requirement for "high-quality sources" per 1c of the criteria, I think having a list of sources considered high-quality, from discourses about whether they should be considered that or not, would be very useful, similar to how we have WP:RSP for whether publications meet the bare minimum standard of reliability. Because nominators ask a lot in reviews what makes X a high-quality source, this would simplify the process so that FA writers would know for sure what to limit their sourced material to. Given the claimed goal of writing 100,000 FA, this would for sure quicken our path on getting to that goal.

My list of sources that I would imagine for sure being on the list include:

• The New York Times
• Washington Post
• Los Angeles Times
• Publishers Weekly
• NME
• Pitchfork
• Rolling Stone
• IGN
• GameSpot
• Hyper
• Edge
• Computer and Video Games
• Polygon

HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 20:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously far from an exhaustive list, but it's the ones that easily and confidently came to my head, as they are so mainstream so their high-quality probably already had a consensus with a good selection of editors beforehand, so this would be a good start. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 20:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should distinguish between Polygon before & after its sale to Valnet in April 2025. The last video games discussion on it didn't drop it to situational but put it on watch in case the quality drops. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A concern with this is that whether a source is high-quality or not is very context-dependent. A source can be high-quality for one topic but not for another - for instance, a Polygon review about a computer wargame could be a high-quality source for claims about the computer wargame, but not for claims about the historical events depicted therein. And even sources which generally produce high-quality writings can still have something slip up - the University of North Carolina Press published a book about the American Civil War a few years ago which was so poorly edited they had to issue a revised edition. Hog Farm _Talk 23:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The WP:RSP already got around this sort of problem by having separate entries for sources covering topics, for example Fox News being in the red for politics and their talk show commentary but a better color for entertainment and sports. I'd agree it would be a pretty nuanced list once we'd factor in the necessary context. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 03:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I keep this list of reliable source guides on my user page to help me when I review, and there are sure to be more. The first one is the most generally useful, and I don't think we can do better than that approach.

• Perennial sources
• WP Video games
• WP Board and table games
• WP Albums
• WP:COMICS
• Anime and manga
• WP:FILM
• WP:TV
• Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• But this isn't a potential list of "reliable sources" we're talking about. This is a list of "high-quality" sources, a distinction which confused me at first when I even dipped my toes into this at all. From what I've seen, the lists rarely noted the quality of each source listed, if at all. The only mention of quality for a source on the VG source list is for VentureBeat. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 03:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What I meant when I said I don't think we can do better than these lists was that I agree with Hog Farm -- an HQ RS has to be identified specifically in the context of an article, or group of articles. I don't think it would be possible to provide a list that would be more informative than these, which give you information to feed into that article-based consideration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What about publications that are reliable but aren't high-quality even when they cover the topic they are primarily themed around, which is the main aspect to this discourse? Hog Farm's examples seem more like extreme exceptions to the general state of the sources mentioned. Plus, who would even think about using a computer game review for info on a highly-academically documented historical subject. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 12:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• So it seems like, generally, if a reliable source stays in their lane and there's no evidence that they screwed up with a particular source cited, it's high-quality? HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 12:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hog Farm and Mike Christie. Context matters. (Isn't that like the whole mantra of RSP?) IGN may be a high quality source for a video game, but that doesn't mean they're high quality sources for complex social/political issues. And it goes both ways - I've seen high quality general sources goof on little details like release dates/years of video games too. I don't think we can conceptually do much better than the current set up, where we've got RSP for general guidance, and complimentary specialized sourcing guidance at pages like WP:VG/S and WP:RSMUSIC. Anything else would have to be resolved through discussion in the FA process. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you guys are not addressing my major comments. You guys keep bringing up these source lists when I've already established that they're only for the bare minimum standard of reliability, and you keeping bringing up hypotheticals that are not the norm and are not usually the reasons the quality of the source is questioned. On a side note, the example of release date typos is an aspect of catalog/list sources like AFI and BFI, not proper articles written by authors. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 18:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not addressing your every comment because they don't change the conceptual implausibility of your proposal. I understand a universal list would be nice, but its impossible because context matters. I very much so understand the roles of the WikiProject source lists, I've actively built and maintain a few of them. And I volunteer at RSN. I'd recommend you do the same, maybe it would help you understand that these concerns are not "rare hypotheticals" but rather, common concerns that frequently arise. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignorant on this. I've constantly read the RSP and other source lists as well as their associated linked discourses over and over again to keep up to date. I've also read several FA reviews to know that nominators ask for the quality of reliable sources even when the source is primarily an expert on the topic. I. for example, saw one FA candidate where one reviewer asked about the quality of various fashion magazines published by major publishers of other reputable, known-high-quality fashion magazines, each of which had an editorial board, in an article on a fashion topic. Even when the nominator brought up this evidence, it still wasn't enough for the reviewer. I don't know which article was nominated, but I saw it recently and I know that it was for a fashion model. So clearly this "context" is not still enough for some reviewers on here, and there's something else missing, which is absolutely frustrating for first-time FA nominators and reviewers to figure out. That's the problem here. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 20:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. This whole WP:RSP thing misses that reliability is a function of the claim being made, too. For example, many of these sources would not be fine for scientific or medical claims (->WP:MEDRS). Vice versa, a random blogger might be an expert on their specific subfield but not on any other topic. With rare exceptions, even the most unreliable source is reliable for its own claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPI § edit notice for FAs. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the sub-section for television episode FAs houses 93 articles, and there are 3 different episodes up for FAC right now, some particularly close to promotion, only bringing the total up. So, I propose splitting this into 2 sub-sections between episodes from the 20th century and episodes from the 21st century. It seems like it’s almost an exact half split between these two eras, so I think it would be easier to navigate if done this way, and would make sense. I’d be willing to do this split, but I wanted to ask the community first Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 23:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today's run of Special:WantedCategories featured a couple dozen non-empty redlinked categories of the "Wikipedia featured topics...good content" or "Wikipedia featured topics...featured content" variety, where the categories recently got moved to new names, but the content in them didn't get moved because the categories were template-generated automatic transclusions rather than direct in-text category declarations — thus meaning that the pages were still sitting in the redlinks, violating WP:REDNOT, while the updated category names were all empty categories, that were vulnerable to speedy deletion for being empty, because the pages hadn't been moved to the new categories.

Each of the categories had somewhere between 5 and 25 pages in it, forcing me to gnome my way through manually updating a couple hundred pages to the bluelinked categories — but just within the past two hours, I've had two instances of somebody else coming along and mass-reverting bunches of the pages back into the redlinked categories, where again they can't be filed because pages can't be in redlinked categories.

Since it isn't my job to take any shit from anybody for cleaning up redlinked categorization errors that required cleanup, and just leaving pages filed in redlinked categories is always an absolute and total non-starter that never has any legitimate reason for it under any circumstances, could somebody here please take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that this stops happening? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured topics is a different process. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hurricane Erika (2003) was redirected. It was still indicated as a Featured article on the talk page, so some pages are likely to still list it as a Featured article. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]