Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive1
Article fails to meet the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, namely it fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Encyclopedia articles are not on the different meanings of a term.
This article is a mixture of definitions:
- history
- geography
- demographics
- linguistics
- politics
- Ethnic
Encyclopedia articles only have a single definition, and are not on a term. The wiktionary is a project which is about terms, and the different meanings of terms.
It's not about how big the article is the article doesn't go 'beyond a dicdef', on the contrary it goes beyond an encyclopedia definition by being about the different usages of the term.
Thus this article fails this policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- hmmmm ... that nomination was quite extensively debated at FAC; are there any other issues of concern? Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to do the notifications with {{subst:FARMessage|Macedonia (terminology)}} and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact it's not actually an encyclopedia article, no. The issue doesn't seem to have been brought up at the time at all. A few people said it was listy, but that's about it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Close - I've seen encyclopedia articles on the history of terms, the origin of terms, and other such things. I know the term "Republic" shows up in many encyclopedias, along with "Democracy", "Feudalism", etc, and those are just political terms. This is clearly encyclopedic and not definitional. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- You have to justify that on policy grounds, this is a policy issue. You can't just say, other articles do this. That doesn't work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's no problem at all with an article that is on, or contains a history of a term. However, this article contains multiple mutually exclusive usages of the term. An encyclopedia article correctly consists of only one definition, but here it is differently defined in almost each and every section. While they are related in many ways, they are not related by the definition (except for the simple term, but that is explicitly excluded by policy.) They have to be related by one definition to be an encyclopedia article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a very good article indeed, but it's just not an encyclopedia article. It fails on what is the primary difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)