Many more eyes are needed on this important project with huge scope. It is good to see this coverage of URFA/2020. It is confusing and misleading to editors that FAs often have substantial issues, as it is not obvious to all that the promotion date indicates lower standards or a long timeframe over which the article may have been left to rot. I relate to Z1720's experience of finding company FAs inadequate when I have looked for examples of strong FAs in other topic areas to show people. It is also really valuable to bring these FAs up to modern standards, for the sake of readers, and sometimes also as a nice tribute to an editor no longer on Wikipedia who can be remembered through their contributions. — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to compliment these users on their organizational skills. This is an inglorious but vital task for the project, otherwise those shiny stars would mean nothing. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to WikiProject report