FamilySearch Wiki:Featured article candidates

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify FamilySearch Wiki's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

The FA committee determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the committee determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the committee:

• actionable objections have not been resolved;
• consensus for promotion has not been reached;
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
• a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.