This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Although Wikipedia:Accessibility is already implicitly included as a criteria under the MOS criteria (2), I think it would be appropriate to highlight these accessibility guidelines with an explicit, additional, 2d along the lines of:
In the same vein, criteria 3 should explicitly require that images have either a caption or alternative text (3 out of the 5 most recently promoted FAs have at least one image without either a caption or alternative text). Any objections to this? -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Accessibility; it would probably be better to follow up there, since that page has a larger audience. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues—After two weeks' debate, the new criteria have been implemented. This represents a reduction from 420 to 220 words, and from 15 to seven categories/subcategories. Food for thought WRT the FA criteria? Do I sniff repetition, over-complicated hierarchy, and the unnecessary inclusion of universal requirements? Tony (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Criterion_5_.28Stability.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
First, (replying to Maclean's comment above) the stability criterion does not predate me. I added it as an FA criteria in 2004 when someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis within a few hours of the school being stormed. At that point, the article was (as you can guess) in a rapid state of flux - the identities of the hostage takers were not known, the number of dead was not known, etc. I figured it would be a good idea to avoid articles that were in a high state of flux due to newsworthiness. I think most people can agree that that is a Good Thing.
I'm of two minds about the Obama article -- on the one hand, I think it's great that a major candidate has a featured article about him and I'd like to see Hilary and McCain also with featured articles; on the other hand, I can see how that would be a nightmare where the process and the stability criterion are concerned. I think Marksell and Joel feel much the same way I do. I do agree with MacClean that someone leading an unstable life should not presage an unstable article. I am very against FAC objections of the form "This person is too newsworthy -- this article could never be stable enough to be a featured article". For that matter, on principle I am very much against *any* FAC objections of the form "this article can never be a featured article" regardless of the reason given.
As for the good articles, they are free to adopt whatever criteria they like. If they think they can adequately review articles that are in a state of great flux, then more power to them. On the other hand, I know for a fact that FAC cannot handle them, so I think the criteria is very appropriate. Raul654 ( talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have suggestions for clarifying this? Raul654 ( talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish this conversation hadn't been started on five different pages; I'm responding here, since both Raul and I have directed it to here. Joel suggested a new catgory be created: [2] That means THREE archives for each of FAC and FAR, and re-programming GimmeBot, for what as of now may apply to only two FARs out of thousands. I can't quite agree with that idea, unless Gimmetrow has a suggestion for how to make it work (and he well may). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
When I asked for suggestions, I was actually thinking in terms of the bigger picture of tweaking the FA stability criteria to reflect some of the above discussion (sorry, my fault for being vague). I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of the Obama talk page, but while we are on the subject -- I definitely think that the FAR should be noted somewhere on the page. I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other on how it should appear - whatever you guys think would be easiest. Raul654 ( talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Marskell, Gimmetrow - what do you think about creating a FAR inconclusive result? Raul654 ( talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, Raul seems to want it recorded in AH (which for now would be as a default keep), and Marskell does as well (on my talk page); shall I go ahead and do that, and we can change the category later if needed ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first requirement element a states:
The phrase "even brilliant," as written, is not a part of a serial conjunction, but rather it is an Intensive which modifies "engaging." This means that "brilliant prose" is not a requirement of featured articles.
There are two courses of action here depending on what the community wants the requirement to be:
This is a subtly that has caused debate on an FA nomination. I ask that this be reviewed and one of the two options be chosen as a fix.
My personal opinion is that "brilliant prose" should not be an FA requirement. If it were, there would be very few FAs. Brilliant prose is hard to come by. Lwnf360 ( talk) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If "brilliant prose" is no longer a requirement, should reviewers maybe be a little more demanding for the article to be "engaging"? (As opposed to now where, like Tony1, most seem to be only checking only for professionalism) indopug ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the brilliant wording, but neither will I holler if it's removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we seem to have a community consensus on removing "brilliant" from 1a, which I am fine with. I do have an idea of how we can clarify what a "professional standard" of prose actually is. I note that, currently, Wikipedia:Prose redirects to the MOS, but the MOS does not seem to have a section on Prose/Writing quality itself. Maybe the words "professional standard" in 1a should link to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a or a new Wikipedia style guideline located at Wikipedia:Prose?. Writing "professional standard" prose does not come naturally to everyone, and so some guidelines would indeed help article writers at Wikipedia, especially when writing for FA standards. Thoughts? — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, let's not create another MoS page <eeeeeeek> ... and if we link to Tony's page, someone will want to move it to Wikispace, and then who knows what will be next ... I don't have a problem with brilliant, either. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the short answer is that professional prose is gauged by the FAC reviewers. To avoid being patronising or overly lengthy (or non-comprehensive) in the criterion, it could say something along the lines of "professional prose, as gauged by reviewers at [WP:FAC]]". (That probably needs wordsmithing - I'm in "ferinstance" mode here) We could wikilink one or two words of that clause (perhaps "gauged" in this example) to a new guideline page - a simple list of issues reviewers look for in professional prose. This guideline could include a link to Tony's userspace essay. I'll knock up an example in my userspace here -- Dweller ( talk) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've started to take a look at and comment on things on Dweller's page. I would ask that others do so as well. Lwnf360 ( talk) 09:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You begin: "It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
I know you mean well, but I don't like how you're worded. One could glean from you that an article needs to have an image where it is appropriate. I thought of you when I was re-reading this opposition to Peter Wall. I don't recall ever seeing an editor oppose an FAC for lack of an image before then, but there we have it. What if an article needs an image but an appropriately licensed image cannot be found?
I propose: "It has appropriately placed images and other media when they are available, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." -- Laser brain (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing discussions regarding how criteria 1b should be interpreted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Lack of sales figures and comprehensiveness. The discussion is videogame-centric, and has been based on actual sales figures for videogames, but does apply to 1b in general. The dispute is how accessibility of information affects an article's chances at FAC, based on the article then failing to meet criteria 1b. For example, if an article does not contain information about the game's commercial success, should it be opposed even though that information is simply not accessible? The main points are in the discussion linked above, so we would like some clarification on how the criteria should be applied in such instances. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Information accessibility and availability are not to be confused. If the information is published and can be obtained by someone with access to a news/journal database (through a library or school, for example), then the information can be expected in the article. If the primary editors don't have access to the information, they should find someone who does (I and many others fill requests for full-text articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange). Too many articles are researched using Google and then considered comprehensive because that method of search was exhausted. -- Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
To bring the explanatory text closer to what is being explained, I propose to change -
to -
Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 12:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the criteria are written as complete sentences, branched in many cases into list items. The punctuation and sentence structures reflect this. It's why the parentheses are used (to preserve the single-sentence structure); I know it's fussy, but looking at the criteria as a whole, don't you agree that it's more cohesive and logical that way, Butwhat? Tony (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that "even brilliant" has crept back into the FAC criteria, despite what seemed to me to be a consensus that "brilliant prose" can only be subjective.
Indeed it seems to me that the strict application of a Manual of Style together with a requirement for "brilliant prose" is inconsistent; one tends to pull against the other. I'm just wondering whether I'm singing in a choir of one? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
And in the little pink-eyed cottage next to the undertaker's, lie, alone, the seventeen snoring gentle stone of Mister Waldo, rabbitcatcher, barber, herbalist, catdoctor, quack, his fat pink hands, palms up, over the edge of the patchwork quilt, his black boots neat and tidy in the washing-basin, his bowler on a nail above the bed, a milk stout and a slice of cold bread pudding under the pillow; and, dripping in the dark, he dreams of ...
We could change it to:
The addition of "possibly" emphasizes the role that we wish the concept of "brilliant prose" to take, while clarifying the vague meaning. I say we compromise with that and stick a fork in this one. Lwnf360 ( talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think brilliant is useful, and don't suspect all editors make the distinctions that our esteemed wordnerds do. To me, it separates a dull and plodding but professionally-written technical manual from what we aspire to. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. The "keep" argument is: nostalgia?
I'm a bit frustrated at this point. The "remove" people have provided several substantial arguments as to why "brilliant" should go (not to mention severely outnumbering the "keepers"). Nostalgia is the best you got? Lwnf360 ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
To Tony and DK and MF, there's a difference that I don't see. That's why I keep them close. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
DK's back, Cool !! But, um ... it doesn't "require" [6] a References section, because some people call them Notes or Footnotes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been debated, but I believe that we can probably remove the footnote/harvard referencing examples; we do include the link to the citing sources guideline, after all. — Deckill er 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Basically, all I propose is changing:
to
It's just a minor thing. Perhaps I should waste my energy on actual articles :) — Deckill er 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
After discovering yet another TFA with malformed XHTML (luckily, it was easy to fix, unlike the previous accident), I propose to add a requirement for validity of page XHTML, unless it's caused by a MediaWiki bug. Why it's so important? Because there are lots of different browsers that may handle non-conformant pages quite differently. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The criterion currently is: "(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
This is unclear, and I would like to propose that it be clarified (it is written in the present tense, but apparently some people believe it applies to the future as well). I suggest three alternatives, of which the first is my favorite:
Uno: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process.
Dos: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are unlikely in the future.
Tres: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are very unlikely in the future.
The thing that is prompting this request for clarification is that I'm thinking about putting John McCain up as a FAC. However, regardless of what is prompting this request for clarification, 1(e) looks somewhat vague, and so a little bit of clarification would be helpful for the whole FA process.
Presumably, there is already precedent to support Uno, Dos, or Tres. If so, I'd be interested to hear what the precedent is. In any event, one reason for preferring Uno is that it is kind of crystal-ballish to be forecasting future edit wars or content changes. Moreover, if an article becomes unstable in the future, it can always be put through FAR and de-listed. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I changed the 1(e) language today (my edit summary said "Using present tense for clarity. Feel free to revert if you disagree"), as follows:
Sandy reverted it back (with the edit summary "doesn't add clarity, keep same tense throughout the page, same meaning").
I am extremely confused now about what the 1(e) requirement means. The present language of 1(e) is extremely ambiguous. Present tense is used regarding edits wars, but present tense is not used regarding significant changes.
Does "does not change" in 1(e) mean "does not ever change now or in the future" or does it mean "does not change currently"? People are making 1(e) objections during the featured article process, and thereby killing featured article consensus, because they think there is a likelihood that a stable article will become unstable in the future, and they think 1(e) therefore applies. Is that really what 1(e) means, and why not clarify it as suggesteed (by merely replacing "does not change" with "is not changing")? Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On average, it is my experience that Featured Articles have short, not long, see also's sections. Whether WP:LAYOUT should contain a suggestion that see also's sections should be shorter (it currently doesn't) is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Length_of_See_Also. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints.
I have just returned from holiday to see that the F-20 article was closed (which is fine). However there is a lingering issue that needs to be more fully explored.
I have been writing about aircraft for well over a decade. Two of my pre-wiki articles were released into the public domain and have seen some level of use. I have transcribed one of these into the wiki, with major editing, to become the basis of IAR-80. These articles were thoroughly researched, at least to the limits of my abilities as someone who cannot read the original German and Romanian sources.
Throughout this period I was constantly assisted by Joe Baugher. Joe is very well known in the aviation world, and widely quoted across the 'net. Like me, he chose to release all of his very-well-researched and amply referenced sources into the public domain on the 'web. In over a decade of reading his articles I have never found an error that does not also appear in the original source he quoted. (this is astonishingly common in the aviation world, most widely-used references are literally filled with errors) In general I consider Joe's articles to be of the highest quality.
The spirit of the law is that we want to weed out low-quality sources so we can safely remove content when someone wants to insert a dubious claim and then points to a dubious source to back it. As the V page states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." The point here is not whether or not they are published, but whether or not they are reliable. I couldn't agree more.
Yet Joe's excellent works have been declared unusable because they are self-published. No one has once questioned his reliability or quality, or raised any particular concern about the data within. From what I can tell of the limited history, this was done by fiat, following the letter of the law. So, can anyone offer any reason to suggest that Joe's body of work fails the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic" requirement? Joe is an "established expert on the topic".
Now a lot of readers will at this point be thinking "established by whom?", and that is the real issue here I think.
As time goes on I fully expect more and more content around the world to become self-published. Limitations imposed by traditional media outlets are causing all sorts of fields to move to self-publishing over time. One of the best examples are scientific papers, where there has been a major concern over the journal's reluctance to release information freely available on-line. Given my extensive writing in technology, this personally effects me, and I have paid groups like the IEEE and Nature hundreds of dollars in order to write articles for the Wiki. Music is another example. Changes in distribution have made self-publishing far simpler than it was in the past, and for smaller bands it becomes something of a no-brainer to avoid the traditional labels. And recently we have reports that open textbooks are becoming a real force in the university world, where both professors and students are trying to avoid the high costs of traditional textbook publishers.
So it seems we are moving to a world where more and more reliable content will exist solely in the internet. At that point it will not be possible to say "well it was published in AW&ST, so that's good enough". It's not going to be published, and yet will still be high quality. So what are we to do in these cases?
So it seems that it all hinges, given the current wording, on expertise. How do we know expertise? If I, someone with at least some claim to expertise in a field, vouches for the expertise of another source, is that good enough? What if five well-respected editors do it? A million? Do we need some other metric? Can anyone propose one?
Maury ( talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Baugher presents a specific, excellent working example of a self-published site which does not meet WP:SPS. Being widely quoted across the 'net only means that any errors he potentially makes may be widely replicated, and Wiki shouldn't become part of that. What is your foundation for the statement: No one has once questioned his reliability or quality, or raised any particular concern about the data within. ? No one? Ever? Anywhere? Can you prove that? There is nothing wrong with using self-published or 'net content when the author or the site meets the standards established by our policy at WP:SPS; changes to our policy should be taken up at WP:V. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Per some discussions at the village pump, where some editors have expressed concerns that the intricacies of the MOS are being given too much importance in the FA review process.
Struck sections removed, bolded sections added:
It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of It meets the following criteria for style and has:
I'm assuming that the (c) details on style are detailed elsewhere and don't require repetition here. The intent of the change is to remove the majority of MOS concerns from the FA review: they can be added later if and when necessary but should not be a substantial part of the FA process, especially because the MOS is not a static document and the majority of the elements in it are either logical extensions of criterion 1A or otherwise do not directly affect the substance of the article. SDY ( talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Stongly disagree, for the following reasons:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
←Rather than characterising debate at VP as babbling, we're pleased to talk about this anywhere, Yankee. The nexus between the MoS and FAC is the engineroom of cohesion and the maintenance and improvement of WP's standards of style and formatting. A recent external review praised the standards of the top ranks of WP articles (with a few detractions), and we should be pleased that the system works as well as it does. The proposal, BTW, is not moderate, but one that would have major negative consequences for those standards, I believe. Tony (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Although Wikipedia:Accessibility is already implicitly included as a criteria under the MOS criteria (2), I think it would be appropriate to highlight these accessibility guidelines with an explicit, additional, 2d along the lines of:
In the same vein, criteria 3 should explicitly require that images have either a caption or alternative text (3 out of the 5 most recently promoted FAs have at least one image without either a caption or alternative text). Any objections to this? -- Rick Block ( talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Accessibility; it would probably be better to follow up there, since that page has a larger audience. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues—After two weeks' debate, the new criteria have been implemented. This represents a reduction from 420 to 220 words, and from 15 to seven categories/subcategories. Food for thought WRT the FA criteria? Do I sniff repetition, over-complicated hierarchy, and the unnecessary inclusion of universal requirements? Tony (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Criterion_5_.28Stability.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
First, (replying to Maclean's comment above) the stability criterion does not predate me. I added it as an FA criteria in 2004 when someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis within a few hours of the school being stormed. At that point, the article was (as you can guess) in a rapid state of flux - the identities of the hostage takers were not known, the number of dead was not known, etc. I figured it would be a good idea to avoid articles that were in a high state of flux due to newsworthiness. I think most people can agree that that is a Good Thing.
I'm of two minds about the Obama article -- on the one hand, I think it's great that a major candidate has a featured article about him and I'd like to see Hilary and McCain also with featured articles; on the other hand, I can see how that would be a nightmare where the process and the stability criterion are concerned. I think Marksell and Joel feel much the same way I do. I do agree with MacClean that someone leading an unstable life should not presage an unstable article. I am very against FAC objections of the form "This person is too newsworthy -- this article could never be stable enough to be a featured article". For that matter, on principle I am very much against *any* FAC objections of the form "this article can never be a featured article" regardless of the reason given.
As for the good articles, they are free to adopt whatever criteria they like. If they think they can adequately review articles that are in a state of great flux, then more power to them. On the other hand, I know for a fact that FAC cannot handle them, so I think the criteria is very appropriate. Raul654 ( talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have suggestions for clarifying this? Raul654 ( talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish this conversation hadn't been started on five different pages; I'm responding here, since both Raul and I have directed it to here. Joel suggested a new catgory be created: [2] That means THREE archives for each of FAC and FAR, and re-programming GimmeBot, for what as of now may apply to only two FARs out of thousands. I can't quite agree with that idea, unless Gimmetrow has a suggestion for how to make it work (and he well may). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
When I asked for suggestions, I was actually thinking in terms of the bigger picture of tweaking the FA stability criteria to reflect some of the above discussion (sorry, my fault for being vague). I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of the Obama talk page, but while we are on the subject -- I definitely think that the FAR should be noted somewhere on the page. I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other on how it should appear - whatever you guys think would be easiest. Raul654 ( talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Marskell, Gimmetrow - what do you think about creating a FAR inconclusive result? Raul654 ( talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, Raul seems to want it recorded in AH (which for now would be as a default keep), and Marskell does as well (on my talk page); shall I go ahead and do that, and we can change the category later if needed ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In the first requirement element a states:
The phrase "even brilliant," as written, is not a part of a serial conjunction, but rather it is an Intensive which modifies "engaging." This means that "brilliant prose" is not a requirement of featured articles.
There are two courses of action here depending on what the community wants the requirement to be:
This is a subtly that has caused debate on an FA nomination. I ask that this be reviewed and one of the two options be chosen as a fix.
My personal opinion is that "brilliant prose" should not be an FA requirement. If it were, there would be very few FAs. Brilliant prose is hard to come by. Lwnf360 ( talk) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If "brilliant prose" is no longer a requirement, should reviewers maybe be a little more demanding for the article to be "engaging"? (As opposed to now where, like Tony1, most seem to be only checking only for professionalism) indopug ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the brilliant wording, but neither will I holler if it's removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we seem to have a community consensus on removing "brilliant" from 1a, which I am fine with. I do have an idea of how we can clarify what a "professional standard" of prose actually is. I note that, currently, Wikipedia:Prose redirects to the MOS, but the MOS does not seem to have a section on Prose/Writing quality itself. Maybe the words "professional standard" in 1a should link to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a or a new Wikipedia style guideline located at Wikipedia:Prose?. Writing "professional standard" prose does not come naturally to everyone, and so some guidelines would indeed help article writers at Wikipedia, especially when writing for FA standards. Thoughts? — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, let's not create another MoS page <eeeeeeek> ... and if we link to Tony's page, someone will want to move it to Wikispace, and then who knows what will be next ... I don't have a problem with brilliant, either. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the short answer is that professional prose is gauged by the FAC reviewers. To avoid being patronising or overly lengthy (or non-comprehensive) in the criterion, it could say something along the lines of "professional prose, as gauged by reviewers at [WP:FAC]]". (That probably needs wordsmithing - I'm in "ferinstance" mode here) We could wikilink one or two words of that clause (perhaps "gauged" in this example) to a new guideline page - a simple list of issues reviewers look for in professional prose. This guideline could include a link to Tony's userspace essay. I'll knock up an example in my userspace here -- Dweller ( talk) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've started to take a look at and comment on things on Dweller's page. I would ask that others do so as well. Lwnf360 ( talk) 09:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You begin: "It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
I know you mean well, but I don't like how you're worded. One could glean from you that an article needs to have an image where it is appropriate. I thought of you when I was re-reading this opposition to Peter Wall. I don't recall ever seeing an editor oppose an FAC for lack of an image before then, but there we have it. What if an article needs an image but an appropriately licensed image cannot be found?
I propose: "It has appropriately placed images and other media when they are available, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." -- Laser brain (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing discussions regarding how criteria 1b should be interpreted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Lack of sales figures and comprehensiveness. The discussion is videogame-centric, and has been based on actual sales figures for videogames, but does apply to 1b in general. The dispute is how accessibility of information affects an article's chances at FAC, based on the article then failing to meet criteria 1b. For example, if an article does not contain information about the game's commercial success, should it be opposed even though that information is simply not accessible? The main points are in the discussion linked above, so we would like some clarification on how the criteria should be applied in such instances. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Information accessibility and availability are not to be confused. If the information is published and can be obtained by someone with access to a news/journal database (through a library or school, for example), then the information can be expected in the article. If the primary editors don't have access to the information, they should find someone who does (I and many others fill requests for full-text articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange). Too many articles are researched using Google and then considered comprehensive because that method of search was exhausted. -- Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
To bring the explanatory text closer to what is being explained, I propose to change -
to -
Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 12:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the criteria are written as complete sentences, branched in many cases into list items. The punctuation and sentence structures reflect this. It's why the parentheses are used (to preserve the single-sentence structure); I know it's fussy, but looking at the criteria as a whole, don't you agree that it's more cohesive and logical that way, Butwhat? Tony (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that "even brilliant" has crept back into the FAC criteria, despite what seemed to me to be a consensus that "brilliant prose" can only be subjective.
Indeed it seems to me that the strict application of a Manual of Style together with a requirement for "brilliant prose" is inconsistent; one tends to pull against the other. I'm just wondering whether I'm singing in a choir of one? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
And in the little pink-eyed cottage next to the undertaker's, lie, alone, the seventeen snoring gentle stone of Mister Waldo, rabbitcatcher, barber, herbalist, catdoctor, quack, his fat pink hands, palms up, over the edge of the patchwork quilt, his black boots neat and tidy in the washing-basin, his bowler on a nail above the bed, a milk stout and a slice of cold bread pudding under the pillow; and, dripping in the dark, he dreams of ...
We could change it to:
The addition of "possibly" emphasizes the role that we wish the concept of "brilliant prose" to take, while clarifying the vague meaning. I say we compromise with that and stick a fork in this one. Lwnf360 ( talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think brilliant is useful, and don't suspect all editors make the distinctions that our esteemed wordnerds do. To me, it separates a dull and plodding but professionally-written technical manual from what we aspire to. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. The "keep" argument is: nostalgia?
I'm a bit frustrated at this point. The "remove" people have provided several substantial arguments as to why "brilliant" should go (not to mention severely outnumbering the "keepers"). Nostalgia is the best you got? Lwnf360 ( talk) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
To Tony and DK and MF, there's a difference that I don't see. That's why I keep them close. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
DK's back, Cool !! But, um ... it doesn't "require" [6] a References section, because some people call them Notes or Footnotes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been debated, but I believe that we can probably remove the footnote/harvard referencing examples; we do include the link to the citing sources guideline, after all. — Deckill er 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Basically, all I propose is changing:
to
It's just a minor thing. Perhaps I should waste my energy on actual articles :) — Deckill er 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
After discovering yet another TFA with malformed XHTML (luckily, it was easy to fix, unlike the previous accident), I propose to add a requirement for validity of page XHTML, unless it's caused by a MediaWiki bug. Why it's so important? Because there are lots of different browsers that may handle non-conformant pages quite differently. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The criterion currently is: "(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
This is unclear, and I would like to propose that it be clarified (it is written in the present tense, but apparently some people believe it applies to the future as well). I suggest three alternatives, of which the first is my favorite:
Uno: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process.
Dos: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are unlikely in the future.
Tres: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are very unlikely in the future.
The thing that is prompting this request for clarification is that I'm thinking about putting John McCain up as a FAC. However, regardless of what is prompting this request for clarification, 1(e) looks somewhat vague, and so a little bit of clarification would be helpful for the whole FA process.
Presumably, there is already precedent to support Uno, Dos, or Tres. If so, I'd be interested to hear what the precedent is. In any event, one reason for preferring Uno is that it is kind of crystal-ballish to be forecasting future edit wars or content changes. Moreover, if an article becomes unstable in the future, it can always be put through FAR and de-listed. Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I changed the 1(e) language today (my edit summary said "Using present tense for clarity. Feel free to revert if you disagree"), as follows:
Sandy reverted it back (with the edit summary "doesn't add clarity, keep same tense throughout the page, same meaning").
I am extremely confused now about what the 1(e) requirement means. The present language of 1(e) is extremely ambiguous. Present tense is used regarding edits wars, but present tense is not used regarding significant changes.
Does "does not change" in 1(e) mean "does not ever change now or in the future" or does it mean "does not change currently"? People are making 1(e) objections during the featured article process, and thereby killing featured article consensus, because they think there is a likelihood that a stable article will become unstable in the future, and they think 1(e) therefore applies. Is that really what 1(e) means, and why not clarify it as suggesteed (by merely replacing "does not change" with "is not changing")? Ferrylodge ( talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
On average, it is my experience that Featured Articles have short, not long, see also's sections. Whether WP:LAYOUT should contain a suggestion that see also's sections should be shorter (it currently doesn't) is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Length_of_See_Also. Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints.
I have just returned from holiday to see that the F-20 article was closed (which is fine). However there is a lingering issue that needs to be more fully explored.
I have been writing about aircraft for well over a decade. Two of my pre-wiki articles were released into the public domain and have seen some level of use. I have transcribed one of these into the wiki, with major editing, to become the basis of IAR-80. These articles were thoroughly researched, at least to the limits of my abilities as someone who cannot read the original German and Romanian sources.
Throughout this period I was constantly assisted by Joe Baugher. Joe is very well known in the aviation world, and widely quoted across the 'net. Like me, he chose to release all of his very-well-researched and amply referenced sources into the public domain on the 'web. In over a decade of reading his articles I have never found an error that does not also appear in the original source he quoted. (this is astonishingly common in the aviation world, most widely-used references are literally filled with errors) In general I consider Joe's articles to be of the highest quality.
The spirit of the law is that we want to weed out low-quality sources so we can safely remove content when someone wants to insert a dubious claim and then points to a dubious source to back it. As the V page states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." The point here is not whether or not they are published, but whether or not they are reliable. I couldn't agree more.
Yet Joe's excellent works have been declared unusable because they are self-published. No one has once questioned his reliability or quality, or raised any particular concern about the data within. From what I can tell of the limited history, this was done by fiat, following the letter of the law. So, can anyone offer any reason to suggest that Joe's body of work fails the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic" requirement? Joe is an "established expert on the topic".
Now a lot of readers will at this point be thinking "established by whom?", and that is the real issue here I think.
As time goes on I fully expect more and more content around the world to become self-published. Limitations imposed by traditional media outlets are causing all sorts of fields to move to self-publishing over time. One of the best examples are scientific papers, where there has been a major concern over the journal's reluctance to release information freely available on-line. Given my extensive writing in technology, this personally effects me, and I have paid groups like the IEEE and Nature hundreds of dollars in order to write articles for the Wiki. Music is another example. Changes in distribution have made self-publishing far simpler than it was in the past, and for smaller bands it becomes something of a no-brainer to avoid the traditional labels. And recently we have reports that open textbooks are becoming a real force in the university world, where both professors and students are trying to avoid the high costs of traditional textbook publishers.
So it seems we are moving to a world where more and more reliable content will exist solely in the internet. At that point it will not be possible to say "well it was published in AW&ST, so that's good enough". It's not going to be published, and yet will still be high quality. So what are we to do in these cases?
So it seems that it all hinges, given the current wording, on expertise. How do we know expertise? If I, someone with at least some claim to expertise in a field, vouches for the expertise of another source, is that good enough? What if five well-respected editors do it? A million? Do we need some other metric? Can anyone propose one?
Maury ( talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Baugher presents a specific, excellent working example of a self-published site which does not meet WP:SPS. Being widely quoted across the 'net only means that any errors he potentially makes may be widely replicated, and Wiki shouldn't become part of that. What is your foundation for the statement: No one has once questioned his reliability or quality, or raised any particular concern about the data within. ? No one? Ever? Anywhere? Can you prove that? There is nothing wrong with using self-published or 'net content when the author or the site meets the standards established by our policy at WP:SPS; changes to our policy should be taken up at WP:V. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Per some discussions at the village pump, where some editors have expressed concerns that the intricacies of the MOS are being given too much importance in the FA review process.
Struck sections removed, bolded sections added:
It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of It meets the following criteria for style and has:
I'm assuming that the (c) details on style are detailed elsewhere and don't require repetition here. The intent of the change is to remove the majority of MOS concerns from the FA review: they can be added later if and when necessary but should not be a substantial part of the FA process, especially because the MOS is not a static document and the majority of the elements in it are either logical extensions of criterion 1A or otherwise do not directly affect the substance of the article. SDY ( talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Stongly disagree, for the following reasons:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
←Rather than characterising debate at VP as babbling, we're pleased to talk about this anywhere, Yankee. The nexus between the MoS and FAC is the engineroom of cohesion and the maintenance and improvement of WP's standards of style and formatting. A recent external review praised the standards of the top ranks of WP articles (with a few detractions), and we should be pleased that the system works as well as it does. The proposal, BTW, is not moderate, but one that would have major negative consequences for those standards, I believe. Tony (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)