This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests

Here the community can nominate articles to be selected as "Today's featured article" (TFA) on the main page. The TFA section aims to highlight the range of articles that have "featured article" status, from Art and architecture through to Warfare, and wherever possible it tries to avoid similar topics appearing too close together without good reason. Requests are not the only factor in scheduling the TFA (see Choosing Today's Featured Article); the final decision rests with the TFA coordinators Dank, Jimfbleak, Ealdgyth and Wehwalt, who also select TFAs for dates where no suggestions are put forward). Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not necessarily mean the article will appear on the requested date.

  • The article must be a featured article. Editors who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it for TFAR.
  • The article must not have appeared as TFA before (see the list of possibilities here), except that:
  • The TFA coordinators may choose to fill up to two slots each week with FAs that have previously been on the main page, so long as the prior appearance was at least five years ago. The coordinators will invite discussion on general selection criteria for rerunnable TFAs, and aim to make individual selections within those criteria.
  • The request must be either for a specific date within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled (10 spaces), or a non-specific date (4 spaces). If a section is full, you can wait for a vacancy, or ask the coordinators for advice. The template {{@TFA}} can be used in a message to "ping" the coordinators through the notification system.

If you have an exceptional request that deviates from these instructions (for example, an article making a second appearance as TFA, or a "double-header"), please discuss the matter with the TFA coordinators beforehand.

It can be helpful to add the article to the pending requests template up to 1 year before the requested date. This does not guarantee selection, but does help others see what nominations may be forthcoming. Requestors should still nominate the article here during the 30-day timeframe.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

 – Check TFAR nominations for dead links

 – Alt text

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to post a new nomination:

Create the nomination subpage.

In the box below, enter the full name of the article you are nominating (without using any brackets around the article's name) and click the button to create your nomination page.

Write the nomination.

On that nomination page, fill out as many of the relevant parts of the pre-loaded {{TFAR nom}} template as you can, then save the page.

Your nomination should mention:

  • when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page (browsing Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs will help you find out);
  • when the article was promoted to FA status (since older articles may need extra checks);
  • and (for date-specific nominations) the article's relevance for the requested date.
Write the blurb.
For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, copy in the blurb that appears on the talk page of the FAC nomination (that's the page linked from "it has been identified" at the top of the article's talk page), save it, and then edit as needed. For older FAs, you're welcome to create your own TFA text as a summary of the lead section, or you can ask for assistance at WT:TFAR. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed (including spaces) is between 925 and 1025 characters, or more when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.
Post at TFAR.

After you have created the nomination page, add it here under a level-3 heading for the preferred date (or under a free non-specific date header). To do this, add (replacing "ARTICLE TITLE" with the name of your nominated article):
===February 29===
{{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/ARTICLE TITLE}}

Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. More than one article can be nominated for the same date.

It would also then be helpful to add the nomination to the summary chart, following the examples there. Please include the name of the article that you are nominating in your edit summary.

If you are not one of the article's primary editors, please then notify the primary editors of the TFA nomination; if primary editors are no longer active, please add a message to the article talk page.


In the absence of exceptional circumstances, TFAs are scheduled in date order, not according to how long nominations have been open or how many supportive comments they have. So, for example, January 31 will not be scheduled until January 30 has been scheduled (by TFAR nomination or otherwise).

Summary chart

Currently accepting requests from November 1 to December 1.

Date Article Notes Supports Opposes
Nonspecific 1 Cretoxyrhina
Nonspecific 2 Digital media use and mental health 2
Nonspecific 3
Nonspecific 4
November 3 Parinda 1
November 9 Early history of Gowa and Talloq 1
November 23 Yugoslav torpedo boat T7 3

Tally may not be up to date. The nominator is included in the number of supporters.

Nonspecific date nominations

Nonspecific date 1


Fossil tooth of Cretoxyrhina mantelli from Cretaceous deposits in New Jersey

Cretoxyrhina was a large mackerel shark that lived in subtropical and temperate oceans worldwide about 107 to 73 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous. Up to 8 meters (26 ft) in length, this genus was one of the largest sharks of its time, and also among the fastest, with estimated burst speeds of up to 70 km/h (43 mph). It was an apex predator, preying on sharks and other large fish, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and occasionally dinosaurs. Thanks to numerous discoveries of exceptionally well-preserved skeletons of the shark during the 19th and 20th centuries, Cretoxyrhina is anatomically one of the best understood extinct sharks to date. These fossils show that it may have had a lifespan of up to forty years and a general build similar to the modern great white shark, but with facial and optical features similar to those of thresher sharks and crocodile sharks. It was also a likely user of regional endothermy. (Full article...)

  • Most recent similar article(s): Loosely Paraceratherium as a prehistoric fossil taxon
  • Main editors: Macrophyseter
  • Promoted: 23 May 2019
  • Reasons for nomination: My first FA to be nominated for TFA. I believe that this shark deserves a lot more attention than it is given considering how much we know of it as a prehistoric animal known only from fossils.
  • Support as nominator. Macrophyseter | talk 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There was a blurb review for this article at WT:Featured article candidates/Cretoxyrhina/archive2, so I've used that as the starting point for the blurb. Edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for having made the original blurb suggestion, but I take some offense that you have deleted my blurb in such a manner. I have redone the blurb that blends original suggestion with my nomination as an edit. Seeing as it had gained no traction, it would have been appreciated if you pinged me on your blurb suggestion when it was made. Macrophyseter | talk 05:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the confusion, and I think the fault is on our end; we need to update the instructions at TFAR and maybe at FAC, too. I'm currently working on the October blurbs; I'll get back to this page as soon as I can. There are some specific problems with this blurb (such as the bolding), but we should be able to keep most of what you want. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've updated the TFAR instructions and left a note at WT:FAC. Pinging the FAC supporters, in case you guys have comments: FunkMonk, IJReid, Casliber, Ichthyovenator. I'm not positive that the article supports "Ginsu shark" as a widely accepted common name, but I'll defer to you guys on that. We need the "a" in front of "large mackerel shark" because it's the shark, not the classification, that lived during the Late Cretaceous. If the "a" feels uncomfortable, then we should revert to the original blurb language. (And this is how I generally handle the "is an extinct genus" language ... if we can pull it off without saying anything that sounds weird, then it's fine, but if not, then the other language is better.) Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I share Dank's concern over Ginsu shark. The article says the Ginsu shark is a specific species, C. mantelli. The source in the article that supports that statement also refers to the same specific species. I don't think we can have that in the blurb (or at least, not as it is) without the article and its sources supporting the statement. Also ...genus of a large mackerel shark seems to have an agreement problem. Shouldn't it be "...genus of large mackerel sharks"? SpinningSpark 17:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, this is an example of the kind of comments we get when we don't use the original blurb language, so I'm reverting to that: "Cretoxyrhina, the Ginsu shark, was a large mackerel shark ... This genus was ...". That's better for a bunch of reasons. Any more thoughts on "Ginsu shark"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm mainly seeing unreliable sites and coffee-table and Children's books that make the genus a synonym. Fairly knowledgeable sources refer to the species. This is the problem with common names; they are not always stable or consistent. Frankly, I don't think we need it in the blurb at all. The ad campaign was over 30 years ago, so most American readers won't get the connection and to readers outside the US it will be pretty meaningless. SpinningSpark 17:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Removed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, with the blurb as now edited by Dank. SpinningSpark 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Cool. Well written and informative. Plus it is a while since we had a TFA with an image of a tooth. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Good read. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • BTW, I did a tiny bit of copy edit on the article. Three notes: failing to cite neither Shimada (1997)[c] nor Shimada (2005) is a double-negative, which I assume was unintended ("failing to do neither" means that one "did both"). The dental formula is given inline while the shorter formula for body length is given on its own line; I feel these could each be on their own line, separate from the text, for consistency. For notable differences in the size of the I1 tooth and lateral profiles I felt that "I1" might have been unclear and wrote that as "first intermediate" from the dental formula. I hope that's right; the source calls it "UA3" but doesn't define what this means. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Great work, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 2

Digital media use and mental health

A young boy engaged with a smartphone

The relationships between digital media use and mental health have been investigated since the mid-1990s, but the delineation between beneficial and pathological use of digital media has not been established, and there are no widely accepted diagnostic criteria. Some experts consider overuse a manifestation of underlying psychiatric disorders, but moderate digital media use has been found beneficial to mental health. Digital addictions and dependencies have also been widely studied. The links between digital media use and mental health outcomes appear to depend on the individuals and the platforms they use. The eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases includes a gaming disorder diagnosis (commonly known as video game addiction), but neither it nor the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition includes diagnoses for problematic internet use or problematic social media use. (Full article...)

  • Most recent similar article(s): Cant see a recent similar article.
  • Main editors: E.3
  • Promoted: October 12, 2019
  • Reasons for nomination: Relevant and topical. First FA. Listed as level 5 vital article.
  • Support as nominator. [E.3][chat2][me] 13:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, with tweaks. This one was just promoted at FAC, so I guess this counts as the blurb review. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Btw, this still needs to be added to the WP:TFAR page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A fine article, and just the sort of thing we should be putting on the main page. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonspecific date 3

Nonspecific date 4

Specific date nominations

November 3


Vidhu Vinod Chopra

Parinda (Bird) is a 1989 Indian crime drama film co-written, produced and directed by Vidhu Vinod Chopra (pictured). In the film, Kishan (Jackie Shroff), who works for the underworld don Anna (Nana Patekar), faces off against his brother Karan (Anil Kapoor) in gang warfare after Karan decides to avenge his friend's death by Anna. Shiv Kumar Subramaniam penned the screenplay with dialogue from Imtiyaz Husain. R. D. Burman composed the music and Khurshid Hallauri wrote the lyrics. Parinda received critical acclaim when released, and is considered by several critics and scholars to be the turning point in the introduction of realism in Hindi cinema. It won two National Film Awards and five Filmfare Awards, and was India's official selection for the 1990 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, although it was not nominated. In 2015, Chopra remade Parinda as a Hollywood film titled Broken Horses starring Vincent D'Onofrio, Anton Yelchin and Chris Marquette. (Full article...)

Done. Thanks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

November 9

Early history of Gowa and Talloq

Fort Somba Opu

The early history of Gowa and Talloq began around 1300 when the Makassar kingdom of Gowa emerged as an agrarian chiefdom in the Indonesian peninsula of South Sulawesi. Talloq was founded two centuries later when a Gowa prince fled to the coast after his defeat in a succession dispute. The coastal location of the new polity allowed it to exploit maritime trade to a greater degree than Gowa. The growth of early Gowa was supported by a rapid increase in wet rice cultivation. Verdant forests were cleared to make way for rice paddies. The population may have increased tenfold between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. Gowa and Talloq became close allies in the sixteenth century and dominated most of the peninsula, following wide-ranging administrative and military reforms. Around 1600 the twin kingdoms converted to Islam, defeated their rivals and became the most important powers in eastern Indonesia, with Fort Somba Opu (pictured) as one of their centers. (Full article...)

  • Most recent similar article(s): no recent article about South Sulawesi; 1678 Kediri campaign (also about Indonesia) ran on July 2019, but for a country as big as Indonesia I think twice a year is still an under-representation. HaEr48 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Main editors: Karaeng Matoaya, Masjawad99, HaEr48
  • Promoted: August 2019
  • Reasons for nomination: 9 November is the traditional anniversary of Makassar, the city that is highly related to this article.
  • Support as nominator. HaEr48 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Blurb looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good and well-timed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A fine article, and the topic makes a nice change of pace. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. While not a disqualifier, I counted 20 red links in the article, which seems a little high for an FA. Are all of those topics which could plausibly sustain an article? (see Wikipedia:Red link) – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment @Reidgreg: I gave this one a fairly good going over at FAC and it seemed solid. It didn't seem to have too many red links at the time, but relooking at it I see what you mean. Having got to know the topic, and having had to dig into some of the red links for the review, there are 14 which I am happy are legitimate, 1 which I am doubtful over - it seems marginal - and 5 which I don't know enough about to have an opinion. In other words, good point, but I am cautiously optimistic that the number is acceptable. Of course, other points of view are available. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

November 23

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

T7's sister ship, T3

T7 was a sea-going torpedo boat operated by the Royal Yugoslav Navy between 1921 and 1941. Originally 96 F, a 250t-class torpedo boat commissioned on 23 November 1916 by the Austro-Hungarian Navy, she performed escort, minesweeping, anti-submarine and shore bombardment operations during World War I. Following Austria-Hungary's defeat in 1918, she was allocated to Yugoslavia and renamed T7. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and used for coastal and second-line tasks, after her main armament was modernised. Following the Italian capitulation in September 1943, she was captured by Germany, and handed over to the Navy of the Independent State of Croatia, continuing to serve as T7. Her crew came under the influence of the Yugoslav Partisans, and were preparing to mutiny when the Germans intervened. She ran aground during a battle with British motor torpedo boats in June 1944 and was then destroyed. (Full article...)