Wikinews:Featured article candidates

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from Wikinews:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is where the Wikinews community selects new featured articles.

Featured articles should, at a minimum:

  • Have pictures (they should make a good visual impression)
  • Be well-written
  • Cover the news event comprehensively

In addition, we should try to choose articles with these features:

  • Good collaboration
  • Quality original material
  • Better coverage than mainstream outlets

Add suggestions for new articles below. If you are the author, or an author, please include a note that it is your own work. Please justify why you think an article should be featured.

  • Nominations are discussed for a minimum of seven days. Please discuss each nomination and try to come to a consensus before listing an article on Wikinews:Featured articles. Please add {{FAC}} to listed articles' talk pages, and add {{FA}} to successful candidates. See the archive directory for past nominations.
  • There is no upper limit to how long a nomination can be open. Newly-featured articles are often featured on social media, so it is advisable not to close more than two or three in quick succession. Likewise, multiple articles in a single nomination are discouraged.


Consider voting on previous nominations when you add an article to this list!

Please list new candidates at the top.

[OPEN] AirAsia jet vanishes over Indonesia, 162 missing[edit]

Dropping in some synthesis of mine, which highlights an intense collaboration to make for a good report on major breaking news. There's no sensible way so many sources on such a large article could have been reviewed had it been submitted in its final condition. What ultimately emerged captures the confusion and emergency scrambling that follows a major disaster unfolding. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


I'm confused by the question. Is to much information to much or is information not enough? Thanks!- David Davidson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talkcontribs) 00:48, 14 May 2015


  • Support as author and nominator. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good infographics and use of quote boxes. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as reviewer. Which is to say, reviewer for much of it; the article history shows, as remarked, an intense process (note the post-publish edits with edit summaries telling the reviewer where to find info in the sources; post-publish revision review can easily turn into a tangled mess, and didn't this time). My initial review published an article less than half the size of the archived version. Imo a good role model for breaking disaster coverage. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

[OPEN] Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green[edit]

It's rare for us to manage to get two accredited reporters on the scene, and I'd like to think the result of BRS and I working on this one made sure it's up to FA standards. Most of the photos are Iain's, with his penchant for photographing police officers rather evident. That it was also seized upon by the Signpost over a single word as another reason to demand the project be closed. Bonus!

I'd also like to encourage people to go through the open FACs below. Many of them need either an uninvolved (non-contributing) admin to decide if they're good to promote, or a vote or two more to put them clearly over the line. In the past I've closed and promoted one per week, re-posting it onto Facebook Sunday AM (UK time); this gets high visibility, since it's a rest day for many. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


  • I'd really like to see this given clear consensus before closing. With two accredited reporters working on it, and likely to vote for promotion, that'll mean more comments/votes than I think we'd usually be happy with. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we've ever had two accredited reporters on the one scene before, though I could be wrong. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Support as co-contributor, and nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as co-contributor. It took me a while to settle on this one; ultimately, it's the photos that make it once again. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as reviewer. From the text it's a sound report; as BRS notes, the pictures — with their captions — elevate it to featurable level. --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support -- David Davidson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talkcontribs) 00:50, 14 May 2015