Not all editors may respond to requests for a mentor. If an editor has not edited for a year or longer, they will almost certainly not respond to a request.
This page in a nutshell: The page is not a Wikipedia policy. It describes a voluntary arrangement in which editors with less experience of the WP:FAC (featured articles) process may be helped through it.
Discussions (August 2016) on the WP:FAC talkpage highlighted a concern at the low rate of promotion at FAC for first-time nominators – around 15 percent. This rises to about 50 percent for editors with one successful nomination behind them, and is significantly higher for more experienced editors. To help resolve the problem of the low promotion rate for first-timers, the FAC coordinators have agreed to support, on a trial basis, a voluntary mentoring scheme for first-time nominators.
This is a voluntary system, and first-time nominators at WP:FAC are not required to use it. However, editors considering their initial FAC nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Such a course of action may be specifically requested by the FA coordinators, before any resubmission of an archived nomination.
Under this scheme, any editor who has taken at least five nominations successfully through the FAC process will be acceptable as a mentor. Editors who have indicated a willingness to act in this capacity can be found in the list below.
For each article, nominator and mentor will work out their modus operandi; this may involve anything from broad general advice up to and including co-nomination. If the working relationship should fail, the nominator is free to seek a different mentor.
It is envisaged that mentors will advise generally on issues such as the quality of prose, the adequacy of citation, reference formatting, and general presentational and Manual of Style (MoS) issues, with a view to ensuring that the nomination meets the FA criteria. They will not necessarily have subject expertise, and will not be expected to vouch for an article's technical accuracy.
When the article is nominated, mentors should indicate their involvement within the article's FAC nomination statement. Mentors who wish to declare "support" should do so on the nomination page in the same way as any other reviewer.
The following editors have indicated their willingness to act as mentors in this scheme. Note: this is a general, not a specific commitment, and no mentor is obliged to accept any specific request.
(Note: when adding your name here, you may wish to indicate preferred subject areas but this is not essential)
Nick-D — I mainly work on military history articles, but can provide detailed advice on most history-related topics and more general advice on other topics.
FunkMonk — I mainly work on zoology articles, but have an interest in art (broadly speaking) and history as well.
Dudley Miles — My main interests are history, geography, science and art.
Hurricanehink — My main interests are hurricanes, roads, American pop music after 1920, and space.
David Fuchs — I tend to focus on film, video game, and media articles, but open to helping out on any subject; generally work on image and sourcing issues at FACs.
Harry Mitchell — I dabble in British history, politics, architecture, and sometimes other things (my current focus is on war memorials). I can offer advice on prose and MoS compliance.
Gen. Quon — My editing interests are all over the place, but I have the most Wikipedia experience in television (post-1990 shows mostly) and pop culture-related fields (e.g. popular and alt. rock music). I also work with anthropological and classics articles. All in all, I'm open to working with people outside my area of 'expertise'.
Masem - Particularly areas of video games and contemporary pop culture (television, films, music), but can also do physical sciences and engineering-related works too. Also anything where non-free media may be of concern, getting through the ins and outs of NFC policy.
Josh Milburn — Potentially happy to take on lots of things; I have particular interests in philosophy, biology, culture (popular or otherwise), religion, and British history. Confident with image licensing, sourcing and writing, less confident with templates, tables and accessibility.
Grapple X—I tend to have a better understanding of pop culture topics (film, television, etc), but I think I'd be of more use with things like accessibility adherence or guiding users through the various stages for article improvement before hitting FAC. GRAPPLEX07:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Burchell - Mesoamerica (and archaeology in general), and the Spanish Conquest (and early modern warfare in general), but am willing to look at many other subjects, although I am not particularly interested in pop culture.
Imzadi1979—my niche is American state highways and major roadways, and I can help with such topics in other countries, or more general advice on preparing a nomination on just about any other topic.
Peacemaker67 military history, my speciality is the Balkans, but I also do a bit of Australian military history and even political bios.
Vanamonde I don't have as many FAs as some of the luminaries here, but I've worked a fair bit on speculative fiction, and also in areas of recent political history that don't receive much attention; I'm happy to offer any advice I can. Vanamonde (Talk)03:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I specialize in the Mongol Empire and post-Alexander Hellenistic Asia, but have also contributed to other historical topics. Sports (especially Formula 1 and golf) and various niche topics are also within my range.
Epicgenius - I specialize in architecture but am happy to help out with other subjects as well.
SchroCat. A generalist with a short attention span and low boredom threshold
UndercoverClassicist: Ancient world, archaeology and academic biographies, mostly.
