Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Siva1979 (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 9 August 2006 (→Outstanding Featured Article?: grammer correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)*/Archive 1[reply]


"Well written"

Featured articles are supposed to be well written. But I looked at a few of them, and they were all badly written. For example, in Starship Troopers,

Anecdotally, it appeared that a variety of audience responses occurred.

In The Office (US TV series):

Differing from many other mockumentaries, much of The Office is scripted.

Then I started looking at featured articles in alphabetical order. In Art competitions at the Olympic Games:

Generally, it was allowed for artists to enter multiple works, although this number was sometimes restricted.

"It was allowed for artists" is much worse than "artists were allowed". And what number was restricted - the number of artists, or the number of works? Next, in Felice Beato,

In an October 1866 fire that destroyed much of Yokohama, Beato lost his studio and negatives and he spent the next two years working vigorously to produce replacement material.

It sounds as though the fire lasted two years.

I don't see how anybody could come to that conclusion. The sentence is perfectly clear to me - he lost his studio in a fire, and then spent 2 years trying to replace it. You can't say it much more clearly than the sentence already does. Raul654 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's in the timing. The comma makes a pause, and then the rest of the sentence all comes as one block, with no pauses, so it seems as though it all happened during the fire. There should be another comma after "negatives", or change it to "... Beato lost his studio and negatives. He spent ...." Joe579 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think Wikipedia should give up any attempt to be well written, and just concentrate on its strengths, like having a huge amount of information. Just my opinion!

Joe579 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, so just because some articles have writing flaws we should give up trying to write well? That's really a terrible idea. There are mechanisms for addressing this: first of all, you can fix things yourself. If there's too much for you to fix, there's FA review. You could also take part in the reviewing yourself. Worldtraveller 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just some articles. Featured articles are supposed to be the best 0.1%, and they're still very badly written. It follows that probably virtually all articles are badly written. (So yes, there is too much for me to fix.)
You're right, obviously people should not give up trying to write well. But the "well written" criterion for featured articles is clearly not being met. If that criterion was removed, I think it might make the idea of featured articles more credible. Joe579 23:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem might simply be that Featured article continue to be edited. The Starship trooper sentence you quote was not even in the originally promoted article. There were ugly additions to Office Space since its being featured on April 22 (such as this big, useless "music" table). Well-Written is also subjective, and it is thecommunity agreement most of anything that makes article to be featured. Circeus 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's stop this spiral into mediocrity. Using the argument that "well-written is subjective" is the oldest trick to justify poor prose. FAC contributors have used it a number of times, and we simply ignore it. The reality is that much of good writing arises from patterns that have widespread agreement throughout the English-speaking world; there's a certain element of individual style, but in most cases it is distinguishable from the former aspect.

WP's authority will always rely significantly on how well its articles are written. Slapping information into a poorly organised, poorly written article will increasingly fail to have an impact in the highly competitive online environment.

My bet is that the antagonists in this section are not good writers/editors. Why not improve your skills? Tony 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony. Is there a real reason to not try to write articles that correspond to standard English conventions? If there's errors on other articles, feel welcome to fix them. Titoxd(?!?) 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image sources

Can I strongly suggest that a much more stringent checking of image sources start taking place. See my comment here: Talk:Iranian_peoples#Image_sources. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this page

Perhaps this is just being picky, but is there any reason this couldn't be at "featured article criteria" rather than "what is a featured article"? As it stands, this article doesn't really attempt to answer the question it poses. These are just criteria, and people generally call this page "featured article criteria" anyway... just a thought. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree; your proposed name says precisely what it is. Tony 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an article, I think I'd be comfortable being bold and moving it as a non-controversial move, but I since it's part of the FAC process, I'm nervous about making changes. I'm sure it doesn't hurt anything to have it here, so maybe people would prefer not tampering with it. Do you think it's worth straw-polling over, Tony? This isn't extremely important to me if it's likely to be controversial. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 13:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that the name is a problem at the moment: we already have a WP:FAC, and I'm not aware of there being much confusion about the role of this page. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ALoan (as usual). Raul654 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It really isn't that important, just a semantics thing. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About See also

I was told by Piotrus that according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. He said he saw this argument at various FAC/PRs and adopted it, as it sounds quite sound. My question is whether or not we should all follow this rule? --Loremaster 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus is right. If something is important enough to mention, it should be mentioned in proper context in the prose of the article, as opposed to a list at the end. And yes, this is probably worth mentioning in the criteria. Ditto for "trivia" sections too. Raul654 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is Citation signal and "See also" line or section of the Help:Section going to be edited to inform contributors of this rule of thumb? --Loremaster 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd come in late on this as I was directed to it from the manual of style. I'd like to register my objection to all three of the points that appear to be consensus. I'm very strongly opposed to this way of thinking as it impairs my wikipedia user experience. With user rather than editor hat one, it's frustrating to have to scan through an article to try and find the link that I want rather than just being able to scroll to the bottom to find the link. If I'm trying to find something out then chances are that I'm not exactly sure of the correct title so I'm going to be finding the closest thing that I know about and working my way there. I don't want to have to read each article on the way to get there. MLA 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Strictness on Historical Articles

Some articles, Hannibal for example, are really detailed but don't have sources for the actual events. Like, for example, did Hannibal really use this strategy? Did he really take this course etc. etc. For most of these, the answer is obvious, yes he did, but where do you need to source and where do you just let it go? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good question. I agree that all too many historical articles don't cite their sources. The accepted mode of writing seems to be that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles don't really need to cite sources (although there are numerous policies and guidelines providing citation standards).
In my opinion, since Wikipedia is always a work in progress with multiple editors, each editor should know the sources for the state of the article to date. Thus the traditional standard of citing a specific source, for example (Doe 1996, p. 27), for every fact that isn't common knowledge is especially important.
Given the concern to maintain a NPOV and avoid presentation of fringe arguments, we might even want to consider the standard of some newspapers by expecting citation of two Independent sources.
Since we're not trying to do original research, I'd argue against citing Primary sources extensively. Primary sources are hard to interpret and most important primary sources have developed a whole literature of expert interpretation that should be cited instead. --SteveMcCluskey 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyZ/Suggestions

i think this link contains too much useful information to remove from see also so i restored it. the date formatting issue is better addressed with edits to that page, rather than delinking here (cutting off hand to spite foot etc etc). cheers. Zzzzz 14:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I see no reason that it should have been removed, in particular without discussion here first. Tony 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who originally removed the link did in fact change AndyZ's page to reflect the MoSDATE guideline, and the change seems to be fine with Andy (it has stuck for three days). Another editor, presumably unaware of this change, removed the link a second time. I have reverted, since I assume this was a misunderstanding. If not, I will not revert again, but to anyone who wishes to remove the link again, please explain on this talk page. --RobthTalk 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No In-Universe Topics

I have a suggestion about a new rule for Featured Articles: Restricting featured articles that are about a fictional work to only the work of fiction itself, ie. an article about a James Bond movie, book, series of movies or series of books, but not an article about James Bond himself. If something in the work of fiction is important enough to be a featured article, there will most likely be significant information in the article about the work of fiction itself. I realize that this is not a perfect rule, and may end up being completely impractical, but I thought it was interesting enough to mention.

I was a bit surprised to see that today's featured article is Bulbasaur. To me, this is an article on something that is not notable, but I understand that the definition of a featured article does not include notability. Furthermore, I understand that the concept of notability is difficult to define and whether or not something is notable will vary greatly from person to person. Although this is certainly not a way of removing ALL Featured Articles based on cruft and is far from perfect, I thought it was interesting enough to toss out their and see if anyone was interested in discussing it. What do guys think? --Polkapunk 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does this have any point other than preventing Bulbasaur from being an FA? ;-)
(More seriously, this could be broader than you intend. For example, Superman would, strictly speaking, no longer qualify under this rule.) Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, Superman is also the name of the original comic strips and books Superman was in (but that's just me being insanely anal). Your point is taken.--Polkapunk 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite simple, really:
  • WP:AFD is the place where we test whether an article should exist (for notability, or other reasons).
  • If an article can pass AFD then it can, in principle, be a featured article, so long as it meets some quite general criteria that any good encyclopedia article should meet (well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, meeting relevant style criteria, with appropriate images, and of appropriate length).
Where is this stated? I've seen a lot of people say that anything that passes AFD can become featured, but there's many topics that are just too trivial or unsourcable to feature. An example of the former is Jordanhill railway station, which is probably as complete and well-written an article as you can get for something so minor in importance and scope; an example of the latter would be an article on some Renaissance nobleman about whom history records his name, title, and lineage but little else. Please note, this is not a statement of support for Polkapunk's blanket ban on in-universe FAs, rather an objection to a spurious principle that everyone seems to take for granted. Andrew Levine 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is FAC policy because I have decided we will do it this way and most everyone seems to think it's a good thing (in that it prevents FAC from becoming the new AFD). Raul654 13:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it another way, it is consensus, whether it is written down or not (and remember that our policy pages and guidelines are generally descriptive of the consensus way of doing things, rather that perscriptive of the way things must be done).
Jordanhill railway station had a FAC in March, when the consensus was that it was too new, and there were some suggestions for expansion. Who knows, it may be nominated again, and it may pass - why not give it a go? There is no minimum size for featured articles - AEJ Collins is very short, for example, but there is not much more that can be said of someone who died aged 29 after doing one remarkable thing. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought for a long time now we should replace that standard by one we already have: WP:V. Essentially a topic that has enough verifiable information to be featured can, one that doesn't can't. It neatly solves the issue because a topic having sources is an objective thing whereas AFD is mob rule and voting on emotions. As mentioned here AFD is more subject to project demographics. As to fictional articles, we just have to make sure they have enough out of universe information from reliable sources. No sources=not featurable, we don't even have to worry about AFD. - Taxman Talk 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an article becomes a featured article then it can, in principle, appear on the Main Page (with a few exceptions, such as Wikipedia, which is failing a FARC on WP:FAR as we speak anyway).
I can't for the life of me see why an article on James Bond or Gandalf or Jabba the Hutt or spoo or the TARDIS should not be capable of being featured, any more than articles on such arcane but factual matters as A. E. J. Collins, the Swedish allotment system and the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an overabundance of articles that, in my personal opinion, qualify for deletion (of which many, I'm embarrassed to say, have been edited by me), but many of them have such a force of emphatic fans behind them that they are often kept. Enforcing a stricter policy on Featured Articles could end up with a trickle down throughout wikipedia, but as you and Kirill Lokshin have pointed out, there would be an overabundance of characters in fiction that have had a significant impact in culture that would not be possible candidates. On a personal note, I don't consider spoo to be a notable :P--Polkapunk 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is an official wikiguideline : Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).Zzzzz 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we will not be instituting this criteria. Raul654 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has put up a link on this page to his user subpage User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. Criterion 2a is how to make sure an article consists of good, even "brilliant" writing.

I disagree with quite a bit of Tony's advice. Much of it is highly subjective, and will lead (in my opinion) to boring, stunted writing, quite the opposite of brilliant.

I'm concerned that people will read this and feel it's the only way to satisfy 2a. I would therefore like to (a) remove the link from the page; or (b) leave it on the page but copy it into project space so that anyone can edit it; or (c) move it to a title that makes clear it is Tony's opinion only. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that it is in Tony's userspace would suggest that it is his opinion. Tony is a professional editor and I think his clear suggestions on FAC do lead to the overall improvement in the quality of text. If it helps people then there is no issue.--Peta 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't always help, though, Peta; sometimes it causes problems. Other people editing Wikipedia are professional editors (and, indeed, not just editors, but writers), and they don't always agree with Tony. So the advice is subjective, and shouldn't be presented as though it were an agreed standard. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason this one is a problem is that Tony often comments or objects to articles, sometimes very aggressively, because he doesn't like the writing, and he cites 2a. However, 2a is not just about the writing, and it doesn't say anything about what good writing is, just that articles have to be, inter alia, "well written," whatever that means. For Tony then to post his own opinion about what "well written" means, but on his user subpage, and called "How to satisfy Criterion 2a," suggests it is an agreed standard. It would be like people posting on the RfA page their own opinions on what people have to do to become admins, but keeping the list in user subspace to discourage others from contributing to it. Try posting such a list, Peta, and count how many seconds it would survive.
I've made it clear now that the links represent personal views. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, "now" is the operative word. You mean, you decided to do that after I wouldn't go along with the thrust of your "guidelines". Was it originally just a device to try to win me over? Really, this is all too transparent. BTW, you may think that I encourage "boring, stunted writing"; to turn the other cheek, I must say that I think you're a good writer. Tony 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example of Tony's (as I see them) problematic views, he recently objected to an FA nomination on the grounds that the article failed 2a, offering by way of example that the following two sentences contained "serious flaws in language and logic." But he was unable to point to a single serious flaw in either, and nor am I.
[Hilary Putnam] is perhaps best known not for any particular view, but for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with the same degree of intense scrutiny, subjecting them to rigorous analysis until he exposes their flaws. As a result, he has acquired a reputation for frequently changing his own position."
I'm concerned that he's attempting to impose his own opinions about writing on the FA process as though they were matters of fact, or an agreed standard, or that they represent what most good writers would advocate. But they're not and they don't. They really are just his opinions, and that has to be made clear in some way. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The example you cite is obviously too complex, I needed to read it twice to understand what was going on, and it could easily be shortened to - Putman is known for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with intense scrutiny. - without losing any of the meaning. Tonys guide is useful for anyone who wants to improve their prose, you seem to be making an issue where there is none.--Peta 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a serious issue. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam, where Tony believed he knew better than, I believe, three professional philosophers, two professional editors and writers, and at one point, Hilary Putnam himself.
Peta, the example I cite is not at all complex. The two sentences mean what they say: no understanding of the background or context is necessary. And leaving out the second sentence would miss the point that he has a reputation for changing his own position, which is what he's chiefly known for. Please outline what you think might be the "serious flaws of language or logic." Or rather, don't waste your time. There are certainly tweaks that could be made to the writing, though there's nothing seriously wrong with it. But a serious flaw, or any kind of flaw, in logic? And yet that was the basis of Tony's objection to a featured article, one that Hilary Putnam himself has said he likes. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just suggesting shortening the sentence I mentioned, which is too long and complicated, not chopping out the whole bit. You seem to be entirely ignoring the audience in your criticisms of Tony. Of course academics are going to be ok with multi-part complex sentences, however the general reader isn't. Anthing that makes this kind of writing more accessible and understandable to a general audience is a good thing.--Peta 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In editing the sentence, you changed the meaning, which is what editing must avoid. It is not simply that he is known for scrutinizing etc and changing his mind a lot. It is also that he is known for doing that more than he is known for holding any particular position, which is unusual in a professional philosopher.
I agree to some extent that we have to write for a general audience, but no general reader is going to understand the Putnam article anyway, so in reality we're writing it for other philosophers, philosophy students, and people in related disciplines. We have to write with them in mind, so not everything can be spelled out in words of one syllable. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"... no general reader is going to understand the Putnam article anyway". It's this elitism that we don't need. The challenge in an encyclopedic register is to write in a way that is accessible to the general reader. The scientists manage to do this, and so should philosophers. That is why Alain de Boton has done philosophy a great service, by making it accessible to us non-specialists, by making us think where formerly we wouldn't have. I don't care if the purists pooh-pooh him: he's made us think more deeply about some aspects of life. This can be done in almost any topic without damaging the intellectual/technical aspect, although there may be parts of an article that general readers have difficulty with. That's where the skilful use of sections and subsections can play a valuable role. Tony 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be possible to write a good article about Putnam that a general reader could understand; if it were, there would be no need for people to spend years studying it. In what sense has Alain de Botton done philosophy a "great service"?! He is not a philosopher (did a BA in history and an MA in phil) and didn't make anything that academic philosophers study "accessible to the general reader." Sadly, philosophy is a subject that people think they can have a view on without having studied it. But it is not about "aspects of life." It is a rigorous, demanding, almost impenetrable academic discipline, one of the most difficult. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg's edit was a good compromise, Zzzzz. Please don't revert again. My preference would be to remove it entirely, so if I can accept this compromise, I hope you can too. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niz, if you want to restore it to the pre-dispute version, then please go back to before Tony added it, the day before yesterday. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal views are just that, personal views. If people want to move their advice out of personal space and into the Wikipedia space, so they can be voted on as guidelines, then they can become guidlines. Until then, we shouldn't give editors the false impression that these are anything more than the personal views of the authors. Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

hi, i suggest you try 3 things: (1) stop spreading the angry "flame war" you are having across multiple pages - please keep it focused in ONE PLACE if you must have it at all. it makes the shouting and screaming difficult to follow otherwise. (2) follow and understand the FA process a while longer before trying to change the world - I understand you have just 1 FA and are basing all your opinions and judgements on the one unhappy experience. the FA regulars (including me) OTOH have had many successful and unsuccessful noms, and generally understand these issues a little better thru experience. (3) stop being so hypersensitive about criticism - its what editing wikipedia is about! ;-) cheers. Zzzzz 12:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about me "having" just one FA, and I'm not basing my opinions on one incident. I've been watching FAs for close to two years. And this is not a flame war. I posted on this page about the link on the project page. Where else do you suggest I post such a query? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have never seen or heard of you before, are you sure you're an FA regular? if its not correct that you have achieved only 1 successful FA nomintaion, i apologise and ask you to please indicate how many FAs you have achieved, and how many were unsuccessful. (for balance, I have 5 successful, 3 unsuccessful - and i found all the links to personal essays here extremely useful). as i see the same angry accusations made on almost every FA-related page, all seemingly instigated by one user, SLimVirgin, you can see why I would call the discussion a flame war. i suggest the talk page of WP:FA, where it seems this angry exchange has been going on the longest, is the place to vent your spleen. Zzzzz 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being so aggressive. You obviously haven't been following this. I am not the only person involved, and certainly not the one who started what you're calling a "flame war." I have three successful FAs, and two failed, though I can't see what difference that makes. Finally, I didn't say I was an FA regular; I said I've been watching them for close to two years. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guide currently says "The following guides focus on the most common problems in nominated articles:". I am happy with tihs for the time being, and I suggest we leave it as that for now. Raul654 13:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, I would like to add that the links represent personal views. Tony's views on writing are not shared by everyone, and the only alternative to adding that it's his personal view is for others to write up theirs, which would involve a lot of work. We don't allow users to post their personal views on adminship on the main RfA page, or to post to the RfAr page their personal views on how the Arbitration Committee should work. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you are of that opinion, why did you include a prominent link to it at the bottom of your draft guidelines??? Tony 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by a "prominent" link; it's no more prominent than anything else. And I added that it is a personal view. That's all that has to happen here: that it be made clear that it's your opinion. I'm curious as to why you're resisting that. Do you want people for some reason to believe that your view of good writing is shared by everyone? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're putting words into my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. I'm too busy with more important things to get into a frenzy about something so trivial. Tony 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kinds of "important things", Tony? Writing Featured Articles? If so, which ones? Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really, is this necessary? --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreso than this, I would imagine. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's that supposed to mean? I asked the question in good faith, expecting an honest response. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue this on your Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thought about 2a

I know this will immediately seem redundant to most of you, but I thought I'd just throw it out there anyway. I know it wouldn't solve all the concerns about this particular section of the criteria, but what if article 2a was stated something like" "(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant, and has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free of typos and errors in spelling and grammar.  ? I realize this should be implied without stating directly, but through observation of the FAC process, I've noticed that a lot of people are quite touchy about objections of this kind. Obviously, this would not change the fact that objectors are encouraged to fix small problems where they can, nor would it need to apply to points of style which are equally accepted in Wikipedia, such as UK vs. US spelling. But as a small concession to potential civility concerns, I think it might be appropriate to emphasize in advance -- even if it should be obvious -- the fact that's it's completely fair to object over lack of proofreading, which may be a completely separate issue from the quality of the article's prose otherwise. Maybe? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your proposal, Lee. One problem it may raise it that explicitly citing one of the main means for achieving "compelling, even brilliant" prose (i.e., proofreading) may detract from the larger, simpler statement (of those three words in quotes here). Yes, I think it is redundant here, but might be useful somewhere else. Tony 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Lee, that it would be helpful to add that. Nominated articles do sometimes arrive with obvious spelling and punctuation errors, and if people are asked to concentrate on fixing those, they'll probably spot other errors too, so it's all to the good. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a counter suggestion, that I hope is in the broad spirit of Bailey's suggestion. Let's leave "well-written" as it is so that it continues to imply compelling rather than merely polished prose, but add as a new requirement: "Well-edited" and we can specify it to include notions like proof-reading, copy-editing, careful adherence to style manual, etc. "Polished to a brilliant sheen" is my sense here. I think this would also help to diffentiate the standards for FA and GA. See also the discussion at the talk page for wikipedia talk: How_to_review_a_featured_article_candidate. Bmorton3 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely in the spirit of my previous suggestion, and I think it's a good improvement upon it. There's still a bit of redundancy, but as a separate item proofreading concerns would distract less from the statement about "compelling, even brilliant" prose. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could alter clause 2 to "It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, well edited and stable" and then make a new 2e (moving the old to 2f) "(e) "Well edited" means that it has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free from typos and errors in spelling and grammar, well copy-edited, and polished to a sparkling sheen." I think it is important that we seperate the notion of being well edited from the notion of being well written. I have articles that I believe are well written in the sense required here, but they are not yet well edited (or if they are I can't tell because I'm too close and I'm not a good editor). If they were nominated for FA and then attacked for poor writing I would be pissed off, and less likely to contribute valuable writing to WP in the future (especially when I could be spending the time doing OR instead). But if they were attacked as not yet well-edited, I would be greatful for the help in improving them. I think this dynamic is at work in other places to. I don't want to dwell on last week, but think about next week; and my best guess for how to prevent bad scenes from reoccuring is to seperate the requirements for being well-written and well-edited so that the expectations are clear, and you can cite the expectations in a way that isn't counter-productive. WP needs to value both writers and editors, both people who contribute material for free, and people who polish material for free. Bmorton3 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Padmé Amidala

Does anyone know why this was removed? There's a note at the top of the page from Zzzz that people should only submit one at a time. Did that become a hard and fast rule? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per the FAC instructions, Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Zzzzz 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are second nominations normally removed as "failed" after people have started to review them? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it - it should not have been removed. Raul654 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is the only nomination I currently have at FAC. Dmoon1 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New guidelines

I'm not participating in an edit war over my original title. It was: "New guidelines should alarm every reviewer here". SlimVirgin has now reverted it twice, and Yomangani and I have each reinstated the original title once. I think that changing my title is improper; SlimVirgin was quite at liberty to start her own subsection under another title; but this was the title I chose, with good reason, IMV. Tony 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Headings_on_talk_pages:
"Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please refrain from being critical and negative in headings on talk pages. Keep in mind that you may think you are being critical about details of the article, but those details were written by individual editors, and thus you are criticizing their edits and them." SlimVirgin (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dear colleagues

I'm sorry to appear adversarial after Slim's previous notification of these guidelines, but I want to warn all reviewers, here and at WP:FAR, that this proposal appears to be going in the direction of regulating what we may and may not say, and how we may say it, in the FAC and FARC rooms.

The push is coming from several contributors to the Hilary Putnam nomination—still current—who weren't expecting to encounter objections to what was a premature nomination, and who, I believe, reacted poorly when challenged. The evidence is there for you to inspect overleaf. Nevertheless, with a lot of work and unnecessary grief, the article has improved dramatically, and I think that all reviewers, including me, have switched to "Support".

Now, it looks as though steam is being let off in the development of unnecessary and inappropriate rules. I hope that this little project remains in draft form and never sees the light of day: otherwise, I feel that the hard work that you all do here may be significantly compromised.

You can have your say on the talk page. Tony 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you said just a couple of hours ago that you supported it. What happened to change your mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that the majority of people cooking up this policy regulating WP:FAC behavior are users I have never seen on WP:FAC until a few days ago. If this is going to get any credibility at all, we're going to need input from people like Taxman, Titoxd, Nichalp, Mav, Raul, Worldtraveller, ALoan, Tsavage, Petaholmes, and others whose names currently escape me but are long-time FAC contributors. I'll try to participate in the discussion, but at this point I'm not optimistic about the end result. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. SV, I can't speak for Tony, but you launched what looked like a good idea to help improve the FA process, but your idea was overrun by people with an apparent ax to grind over bruised egos. The last time I checked, it was headed the wrong direction, so I hope that train can get back on the right track with more balanced input from reviewers who have longer involvement on FAC and FAR. Sandy 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, as I said before, you and the other reviewers are the ones with the hands-on experience, and so your input is vital for the page to work. I think it can work and that some good will come of it, but it'll take time to write it well. It was only put up a few hours ago, so it's still just a draft of a draft of an idea. Please add your own knowledge and experience to the page when you have time. I can assure you that I am not trying to lower standards. My aim in this is only to try to lay out a set of consistent, transparent, and explicit standards, so that reviewers and nominators know what's expected of them, and nominators will know not to submit candidates until those standards are reached. It seems to me that that's in everyone's interests.
Tony, I hope you don't mind, but I've changed your header, because I feel it's premature and unfair. It's too early to reach any conclusions, because the proposal hasn't been written. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look at it now: WP:REVIEW. I've switched the focus away from reviewers, and the advice is now for reviewers and nominators. I'll also do my best to keep Putnam-related criticism off the talk page so individual reviewers won't feel they're being attacked. The page isn't finished yet, of course, and people should feel free to add to it as they see fit. I hope the switch of focus helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, SlimVirgin, I do mind if you change my title to your own purpose, and have reverted it. I'm getting the line "Oh, wait, it's only under development, it's unfair and premature to criticise". No, I can see exacty where this is going. First, I'll point out a few of the draft guidelines and their ramifications.
    • "Reviewers should ... have good writing and research skills ...". Why? The FA Criteria are wide-ranging, and draw on a similarly wide range of reviewers: identifying NPOV, and lack of comprehensiveness or stability, and problems in image and sound copyright doesn't require these skills—many WPs are adept at these matters, but would not claim to be good writers or researchers. Many WPs are good at pointing out instances of poor prose, an inadequate lead, lack of summary style, and a poorly organised ToC, but would not claim to be good writers or researchers. This restrictive assumption about who should be a reviewer is reinforced later, in "Unless you are sure of your own mastery of the subject, try to ...". One of the best things about WP is its inclusiveness. Anyone should be able to perform just about any function if s/he wants to; the process sorts out those who have nothing to offer. We need more, not fewer people in FAC and FAR/C.
    • [Reviewers should:] "aim to be rigorous without being unnecessarily discouraging." "[be] tactful and respectful". "be sensitive and tactful when they offer criticism." And "contributors may be upset if told that their grammar or spelling is wrong". WP already has rules about civility that apply everywhere, including the FAC and FARC rooms. We have a well-oiled mediation process, if it comes to that. More specific proscriptions here will prompt (1) constant debate over how to define these epithets, and (2) a practice by the "smart" nominators of quoting them back at reviewers to rebuff the critical process. I can see this significantly weakening the process. Nominators are well aware that submitting their work to the FAC process may be tough; there's no other way of maintaining a two-tiered system. Sometimes, the process may result in discouragement, because not everyone on WP has sufficient support to prepare a nomination. Reviewers should not be aggressive or rude (as everywhere on WP), but cannot be held responsible for the most intimate feelings of those who have willing exposed their work to structured criticism.
    • The guidelines endorse the practice evident in the behaviour of most of its authors (see the current FAC for Hilary Putnam) of aggressively rebutting critical comments: "Be ready to use additional sources to defend your edits if you feel the material is being criticized unfairly. Keep a standard style book to hand so you can support any vocabulary or use of grammar that is challenged, if you feel you have to (though note the advice above not to do so neurotically). Become familiar with the sources you've used, and keep some in reserve in case you have to develop particular points for the reviewer."
    • [To reviewers:] "... if you maintain your objection in the face of a challenge, make sure the issue is important enough to block the nomination over". This hearks back to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Hilary Putnam, where the first and continuing line of offence was "your objections are trivial". It will be a sad day on WP when no one cares about fixing little glitches in language. Who would want to watch a film sprinkled with little editing glitches? It raises the bar to exclude all but make-or-break issues. Why?
    • "[If unsure of their mastery,... reviewers should] try to check any contentious points of grammar in a standard reference work". "If a contributor can cite a precedent in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it." "(e.g. "Fowler says ...")" I frankly don't want to have Fowler quoted at me all the time—written in the early 20th century (even though updated), it's a partial account that can be a little dogmatic at times. These statements seem to be an invitation to have reference-book wars in the FAC room. But it's in everyone's interests to minimise combativenes in these processes.
    • "Be helpful. If you see an uncontroversial way to improve the article, and you have time to make the edit yourself, the nominator might appreciate it." This plays to a continual refrain from some nominators "Why not do it yourself?". This provides a license for nominators to make this claim. Reviewers are under no obligation to edit what they review, and are thinly spread just critiqueing at the moment. It assumes that reviewers are interested in every topic they review, which is certainly not the case (more likely, they're interested in maintaining standards across the board).

I don't really see a problem to be fixed. Nominators and reviewers become frustrated, even angry, from time to time. It's part of the process, as long as it's kept in proportion. But in the now-huge FAC for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Hilary Putnam, many of us feel that a sense of proportion was lost by the nominators, not the reviewers. These same people are now the authors of these guidelines.

To illustrate why some of us find it galling that incantations to nominators to "Be unemotional", "Don't be neurotic" and "Be civil" are trotted out in these guidelines, I'll selectively quote below some of the text from this FAC, involving most of the authors of the guidelines: Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias, Sam Clark and Dbuckner—but not, I must add, SlimVirgin. The text I've quoted suggests variously bullying, self-congratulatory, and simply offensive behaviour. There's much more that I haven't included. The first glimmer of the problem was when Sandy said "Nice work so far" and was rebuffed with "Yeah, I'm sure you really beleive that." Then it snowballed, despite reviewers' demeanour that varied from helpful to deadpan—take a look yourself. The FAC text would make an interesting study in group dynamics.

"Here they come, ladies and gentlemen!! They FA clique.... Toni's lapdogs will now weigh in with similar nonsense and sink the nomination, of cousre. The goal is to control the FA process and ensure that only the same three or four people with the exact same linguistic prefernces will be allowed to have Featured Articles in Wikipedia. Are you going to let them take over control of the magic tower by a virtual coup d'etat, ladies and gentlement."//"Who on god's earth are YOU to imply that you know more about the quality of prose than Hilary Putnam!!!"//"Maddening!! What the devil?? You see: what [Tony] does is mix in two or three genuine errors with fifty subjective calls about commas and "later stills anf then throws out "ALL the sentences suck!! You are an idiot. Rewrite the whole thing from top to bottom."// "After that, three or four people jumo on board with their object 2a, object 2a, object 2a, Peackock words thrughout..."//I just don't understand why WP is doing its best to discourage the one person [Franko] who is capable of improving the overall poor standard of articles in this area."//"the constant attacks and harassment from trolls (philosophy being the one subject area where everyone fancies themselves an expert). Franco is the one person who has persevered. Why is WP doing their best to discourage him. This article is FINE PIECE OF WRITING.... So give the guy a break."//The following ironic text from Lacatosias: "Self-incrimination: "the same writer who wrote the "compelling and briklklaintly written philosophy of mind FA, now writes god-aweful prose that comes no where near metting FA standards!!"//"Toni and his collaborators (Sandy and the others above who refuse to remoive their irrelevant objections!!)are hell-bent on getting me off the Wikipedia for reasons I cannot even beging to fathom (and do not want to). I will leave you all to your nonsensical dispute..."//"Your views on prose style are dogmatic and prescriptive, and the fact that others have pointed this out before is not a refutation of that point. Perhaps you should have listened? As a final point: I have made no contribution to this article beyond correcting a few typos in passing. You should check the edit history before making this kind of accusation of bias.... high-handed and patronising treatment ... of FF, or of others here."//"Do you have any substantive points to make, by the way, other than the punctuation trivia you mentioned. Your criticism consisted of no more than the pedantic comments above, then the sweeping assertion that the writing was poor. Could you explain what you mean by 'bad writing'? If you mean mis-punctuation, or your idea of mispunctuation, then you are wrong. I checked on Fowler this evening, and he is relatively relaxed about the whole thing."//"... the patronising tone of your remarks. Your initial objections to the article ... were made in an unnecessarily aggressive tone."//"himself, Sandy, AmbujSaxena and two or three others who have taken control of the FA process behind the scenes ..."//"So,where are the legendary copyeditors anyway?? I just put the cleanup tag on and they're not coming around. I doubt they will ever come around. Don't you agree, Toni??"//"Do not edit the article if you have "supported" it. He's trying to manipulate you you into editing it, so he can then try to make the case that your vote is invalid."//"[Spangineer's objections are] vague generalities".//"I already had an FA (I don't give a *** if the standars were lower). Your missing MY point compltely. I wasn't even satified with that. People came back on shit on the FA with ridiculous and irresponsible comments ... The usual nonsesne, incomprehension, lack of respect." Apparent self-congratulation among the contributors: "Franko, you have NO NEED to defend your good writing style and your mastery of the subject matter."//"I'm finished with criticisms, balance and refercnces."//"Why haven't you fixed the Fodor article, Tony"//"EVERYTHING IS PERSONAL. AND LISTEN TO HIS SARCASTIC TONE though."//"your tone is inappropriately sarcastic, dogmatic and patronising. It would be inappropriate in pretty much any context.... Take a step back from your self-certainty and egotism for a second, please,..."//"Why are this people spending such an effort on opposing based on the prose and finding this minor examples day after day? Wouldnt it be simple to fix it yourself and support?"//"Many of the objections, as I have repeatedly pointed out, are groundless, and the article is the worse for it."

I suggest that these guidelines are not helpful, and worse, that they have the potential to significantly damage the FAC and FAR/C process that we work so hard to maintain. They should be dismissed by serious WPians. Tony 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Tony, there's no question that people were very rude to you on that Putnam FA page. In your shoes, I'd have walked away from it, so credit must go to you for persevering.
But can you also see that some of the statements you made were provocative? For example, you wrote about two sentences of mine that they contained "serious flaws in language and logic." Here are the sentences, discussing Hilary Putnam, the philosopher:
"He is perhaps best known not for any particular view, but for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with the same degree of intense scrutiny, subjecting them to rigorous analysis until he exposes their flaws. As a result, he has acquired a reputation for frequently changing his own position."
You wrote up a long critique of these two sentences, but at no point said what any of the "serious flaws in language or logic" were. I don't care for myself, because I have nothing invested in this article, and I wrote those sentences only to help with the copy editing because you'd complained about the writing. But if I had written the article, I'd have been stunned, in part because of the rudeness, but mostly because the criticism makes no sense. Those sentences aren't going to attract a Nobel Prize for Literature. Nevertheless, they're perfectly clear.
Then when you were told that Hilary Putnam had seen the article and liked it, you wrote (apparently seriously): "But these serious flaws in language and logic are nothing compared with the fact that the man "has praised this article", as you asserted here. If that is so, he's hardly qualified to rigorously analyse the language and logic of his fellow philosophers. There's a kind of awkward circularity about that, isn't there."
Are you able to see why your approach is causing problems? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't see any point in responding to this with further argument. People can just read it themselves and draw their own conclusions. I stand by what I wrote. Tony 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who started the aggressive posting, so please answer the question. Are you able to see why your approach is causing problems? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first clause: (1) To find the one who started the aggressive posting, go to the Putnam FAC. (2) What you regard as aggressive may simply be an opinion that takes issue with yours.
Your question answered: no.
Further comment: I'm getting sick of this discourse, when there are so many other worthwhile things to do here and in real life. Tony

Question for Tony for the third time: please answer

You seem to feel you have a right to be rude and aggressive, but when people ask you to explain, you declare yourself bored and wander off. Well, of course, you do have that right, but you undermine your credibility when you do it; and if you do it as part of the FA process, you undermine that too, which you have no right to do.

I am therefore going to ask you this again. You objected to an article because of its writing. You offered as an example of the poor writing that the following contained "serious flaws in language and logic."

[Hilary Putnam] is perhaps best known not for any particular view, but for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with the same degree of intense scrutiny, subjecting them to rigorous analysis until he exposes their flaws. As a result, he has acquired a reputation for frequently changing his own position."

I am asking you to point out one example of a "serious flaw" in language, and one example of a "serious flaw" in logic. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Tony, obviously, but I do see several serious problems. The first sentence is overly wordy and convoluted, and a number of shorter phrasings would be preferable. "Putnam is perhaps best known for intensely scrutinizing all philosophical positions, including his own, analyzing them until he exposes their flaws", for example, gets the same point across in fewer and clearer words. That strikes me as a "serious flaw in language". Second, "As a result" implies that this is a result of the fact stated in the previous sentence. In fact, one would presume that Putnam changes his position not because he is known for scrutinizing all opinions, but because he scrutinizes them. One possible better phrasing would be "His constant reexamination of his own positions has led him to change them frequently." I assume that this was the "serious logical flaw" in question. And I agree with Tony that those sentences were (are?) in need of work. --RobthTalk 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can argue with a straight face that this is a "serious flaw in logic." The "as a result" applies to "his willingness to approach ..." not what he is known for, and it's very clear from the sentence. Yes, by all means, copy edit it to make it clearer, but to base an objection on it is beyond absurd.
  • Tony went on to argue that, as Hilary Putnam himself liked the article, and given that it contained such serious logical flaws, Putnam (one of the best known philosophers of logic in the world) was not in a position to judge it, nor indeed to judge any of the philosophical positions he is so fond of tearing apart. I'd have laughed if anyone else had written that, but I don't think Tony was joking. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly clear what the sentence means, but the wording is, strictly speaking, wrong; what I meant by "serious flaw in logic" was a serious flaw in the logic laid out by the phrasing. Although there is sound logic behind what the author meant, what the words actually say is something different, and, well, logically flawed (it may be that I'm out in left field on making this distinction; if so, chalk it up as a side effect of too many years of Latin, where this stuff really matters). Looking now at the FAC in question (which I should have done before first commenting; my apologies), I see that Tony was getting at a different though related issue, and though it may seem pedantic, it is important to look at the strict, literal meaning of sentences; it's a critical element of good writing. More to the point, although this particular passage became the locus of the argument, I don't think Tony is objecting on the basis of this one sentence being wrong; he's objecting because the prose of the article is at such a level that you encounter sentences that are this wrong very quickly upon starting to read it, which presumably indicates similar problems throughout; sort of a rough statistical sampling thing. It's a fairly standard practice (pardon me if I'm telling you something you already know; I don't know how closely you follow FAC), although in this case the rationale was less overtly stated than is usual. So, all that said, Tony's critique looks valid to me, although the joke about Putnam was unnecessary. The objection was not based on matters of personal taste; those sentences do not say what the writer intended them to say. --RobthTalk 05:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SV, Please see the FAC page for this discussion, where it would be better to carry on this dialogue. There, I went to great lengths to explain my view, and everyone can peruse it. As I've said before, it appears that I'm "rude and aggressive" because I've taken issue with you. Please try to take out the personal and the emotional from the discourse. I can understand that you're upset, but hey, you're a good writer, so we need you out in the articles. Calm down and move on. Tony 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that won't do. I don't believe you're rude and aggressive because you took issue with me; feel free to take issue whenever you want. It's the aggression and the certainty that you're right that is causing problems. Sometimes you're right; sometimes you're not. Most of the time, it boils down to preference. So by all means comment on how you would write something, but you can't base objections on issues that are matters of taste. Not everyone shares your views. You seem to prefer dry, clipped prose: short sentences, few commas. I don't. I like to hear the writer's voice. You appear to be trying to impose your voice on other people's writing, and that's what's creating a problem.
I fully support efforts to improve the writing in Wikipedia, which Jimbo once memorably and rightly called "horrific crap." But the bad stuff is out there among the one million plus non-FA candidates, so if you're really serious about helping to improve it, please get out there and do some copy editing. Trying to undermine people's FA work to the point where they consider not contributing anymore, which you did to the main author of Hilary Putnam, is not on. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I was hanging around FAC, trying to make a decent contribution, because it was such a nice place. Sandy 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion from Aksi

I am not a regular at FAC. My only interaction with FAC has been due to some Indian articles regularly coming here. But I can see some serious flaws with WP:REVIEW too. Firstly, I don't see any need of the guideline. There is no need "to set out a clear checklist for both parties, to ensure a consistency of review criteria across the board". Whatever is needed for the nominators is already stated in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. And the only skill needed to review an article is the ability to read it. Some people spot errors on reading the article even if they are not good reviewers. If someone finds out some problems with the article, is it really that important whether he puts it under the heading Comment or the heading Object? The first point Be sensitive made me laugh. Put the positive points first... followed by the negative points. What is the need for things like that? Be realistic then contradicts your first point. What could be less sensitive and tactful than hearing that your article has no chance of making it to FA? I could go on like this for all the points. Your guideline could be summed up as "Please don't upset the contributors as they have put in a lot of effort". Surely Tony, Sandy, Spangineer and others never wanted to hurt anyone. I don't think there is any need to turn FAC into a place where you are afraid to voice your opinion because any time the nominators could challenge you citing one of the seven standards set out in WP:REVIEW. Lastly - aren't we forgetting the important role that Raul is playing here? After all it is he who decides whether there was consensus to promote the article. Surely he can see if there are some trivial objections which could be ignored. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the skill of reviewing the article requires knowledge of grammar, style, punctuation, difference between US and English use &c. A lot of the criticisms were just silly and baseless, and were upsetting the main contributor. I don't excuse for a minute the way he reacted, but if a reasonable approach had been taken, this would never have happened. There is no contradiction between 'being tactful' and being realistic. One of the standard interview questions I give is 'how do you deliver bad news?'. Slim, GREAT piece of work. Dbuckner 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What is the need for things like that? " Every course on dealing with difficult situations has a bit on that. It really helps in dealing with difficult people. Dbuckner 07:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO, the skill of reviewing the article requires knowledge of grammar, style, punctuation, difference between US and English use &c. A lot of the criticisms were just silly and baseless, and were upsetting the main contributor. I'm sorry, you are simply mistaken. Several editors have indicated my review was fair and helpful. I don't focus on grammar or prose, because those areas are not a strength for me. On the one hand, you say reviewers have to have certain skills (which I don't have), so how do you reconcile that with the fact that apparently my input was helpful? Do you want me to stop reviewing because I acknowledge a relative weakness in the areas of grammar, style, and US/British use? Your proposals are *weakening* FA. WE *all* need to work together to make it work. I am not an expert on Fair Use: when there is a question on images, I make sure JKelly has had a look. I am not a great writer: if I feel the prose is tortured, I make sure one of the good copy editors have weighed in. If there is a content problem, I make sure someone knowledgeable in the area has commented. You are suggesting that only good copyeditors or writers should do ALL of the work, and we are already dealing with the problem of not enough good copy editors, with Tony expected to fix the 70-80 FACs and FARs that are up at any one time. Your proposals show a serious lack of understanding of the entire process, and you are basing your conclusions on one flawed FAC. And, from where I was sitting, you were the one who made things so hard on Francesco, and continually fanned flames, making it harder for him to do work he was capable of doing. Sandy 13:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy. Your work was consistently fair and helpful. Apart from one point of grammar which you made, which was flawed, I did not make any objections to your comments. Franco's work benefited enormously from your work. The points you make above bear out the need for the guidelines we have suggested. You are not an expert on Fair Use or whatever, so don't make any comments. You are clearly an expert in the area of referencing & so forth. Please don't take my comments to heart in this way.
But also, please (see below) stop this North Korean reference to 'understanding the process'. There is no such process as you describe. Dbuckner 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from one point of grammar which you made, which was flawed, I made one point of grammar which was correct (an incomplete sentence). Besides that, I asked for a rework on a complex sentence, which was done, and the result was better. Had one sentence not changed, that would not have held up an FA unless a lot of editors had the same problem. You do not understand the process here: whether I'm right or wrong on my subjective call of a sentence that could be reworked, the nominator makes a good faith effort to address my concern, we talk, we resolve it, end of story. That's how a typical FAC works; they aren't adversarial as you made the only one you have any experience with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The process wasn't broken: the nominators were unreasonable and don't understand FAC. Sandy 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandy here. The entire flaw (IMO) is that this proposal has come up due to one FAC. Everything was working fine till this and Ambuj's RfA came up. I am not trying to bring that RfA here. Sandy is right - the process of reviewing should not fall on one person who is a jack of all and master of none. If I develop skills in reviewing references, then it should be my right and duty to comment on them (and even oppose) if they are not correct. Again I stress that you are giving too much importance to the words oppose and comment here. This is not an RfA. This is one of the processes which actually works on consensus, feedback and improvement through that feedback. And this is not about Slim too. It is really great that SV actually thought of doing something. I just don't agree with the way she has taken. IMO it is the nominators who need to be trained to identify the proper comments made on an FAC and act upon them. I am not going to reply any more here because I too have my FAC to take care of among other things. And please don't take this personally. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was, in fact, the Hilary Putnam FAC that brought this to a head, but there have been many others in which inconsistent review standards, rudely expressed, have caused problems. It's time to get them fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be fixed. Please stop the drama and get back to building the encyclopedia. Or better yet let's try to solve the pathetic review process (Peer review, good articles, assessment, feedback, etc.). Joelito (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REVIEW is trying to make a start in that direction by coming up with an explicit standard for reviewers and nominators. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There aleady are standards, they are working well, the page is repeating them, adding instruction creep, and not oriented towards addressing the real issues (for example, the ones raised by Joelito). Sandy 04:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion from Dinosaurs

I am not a FAC reviewer, but I have submitted Featured Article Candidates as part of my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. I will say that each FAC we've had (4 in the past four months) has been difficult, with various objections that we sometimes felt weren't fair or even correct. For example, on our most recent FAC nomination, Tyrannosaurus, we were told by a very experienced FAC reviewer to "fix" the article so that it read "Tyrannosaurus" or "T. rex" in each instance in the article-- despite these two names being quite separate (Tyrannosaurus is a genus-level name; T. rex refers to the species; despite the genus being monotypic, one cannot simply substitute words; if you're talking about the genus as a whole, you cannot always just stick in the species name). We've experienced difficult objections with most of our dinosaur FACs, often for similar reasons. Despite our frustrations, all of our FACs did eventually pass, as we (I feel) hammered out some compromises with the reviewers. I don't feel restricting the FAC review team with a set of proposed rules like this will help. Already there are too few reviewers who are qualified to review on so many diverse subjects. Hampering the team with further restrictions will only lead to more wear and tear on their numbers, and we'll be left with even fewer ideas of how to improve our articles, less feedback, and, in the end, an article that isn't nearly as good. In this case, Tony is absolutely right: the new proposed guidelines should alarm every reviewer here, and should alarm every FAC nominator here, as I feel they will lead to lower-quality articles. Reviewers need to be able to feel they can really voice their opinions, objections and ideas, as long as they adhere to the usual Wikipedia guidelines concerning civility and whatnot. --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines will make the process easier. Why spend futile hours arguing over whether the first person "we" can be used in a philosophy article. If the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does it, why not Wikipedia? The guideline on precedent will sort that out. Note the onus is on the nominator to find the precedent, so there will be no extra work for reviewers, and the argument time will be nil. Dbuckner 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why spend futile hours arguing over whether the first person "we" can be used in a philosophy article. Yes, why did you? It was disruptive and unproductive, showing you don't understand the process. If a minor point is holding up a review, the admin (Raul) closing the FA makes that call. You simply do not understand FAC, and you are making judgments based on no experience with this process. Sandy 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's v. North Korean to say someone doesn't understand the process. Why is an admin calling on some minor point? I thought WP was all about consensus. The proposals that SV and I have suggested will allow issues like these to be resolved in a consensual way. Dbuckner 15:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the point that there are too few reviewers: 1. There are too few good quality contributors to philosophy, I'm afraid the Putnam stuff has already scared even those ones off 2. There is now a small group of professional philosophers who have agreed to weed out and filter poor quality nominations so there will be even less work for reviewers. We have made every effort to make things easier for everyone all round, please support these guidelines. Dbuckner 11:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that this misses the point: reviewing should be open to anyone, not restricted by professional background. Often, those with strategic distance from the topic can immediately see problems that the experts can't. It happens often to me, when people correct my prose. Tony 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see problems where there aren't any. You impose your own opinions about the writing as though they were matters of fact. You impose them rudely and aggressively, and yet sometimes your opinions are very odd, not what most good writers would do at all. This attitude is where at least some of the FA problems are stemming from. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that in this case there were reviewers seeing problems that simply weren't there. Dbuckner 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why DBuckner thinks Wiki is *all* about Philosophy. That violin isn't playing well with me, since in my area of interest, I am the SOLE editor on Wiki, I have been trying to drum up someone to help me with my articles for six months, and there is not a single editor on Wiki who knows my area. That's life. The fact that there aren't enough philosophers is just no news: there aren't enough good editors or writers or knowledgeable people in many areas. And these proposals will only chase away editors when we need to attract more. Sandy 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO, quite the opposite. These proposals will give us an easy life. Dbuckner 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "us"? How many articles do you plan to review? Sandy 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He might be more inclined to get involved if there weren't so much unpleasantness, Sandy. I know I would. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the guidelines, but it doesnt say how to layout a review or where, nor does it explain when to use comment, support or oppose. For a set of instructions on How to review a Featured Article Candidate, it is not unreasonable for this to be included. The guidelines dont explain how to review a scientific article whats expected in them or a mathematical article. Its appears to be solely about Biographical articles, does that mean that FA will be only available to this group. Gnangarra 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnagarra, the guidelines aren't finished yet. By all means add to them.
Sandy, can you give an example of the kind of reviewer who might be put off reviewing by these guidelines; and can you point to the specific part of the guideline that you feel could have this effect? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given you an example: me. When I came to Wiki, I had to use the helpme template a gazillion times. User:CommanderKeane might as well have set up a cot in my study. My UserPage says "Who wrote the instruction manual for this thing, anyway?" I wrote a few computer manuals in my day, and I *hate* the instruction creep on Wiki, the lack of clarity, and the number of places where the same version of some information is repeated. There is nothing new covered in this proposal, and it is not addressing the problems that come up in FAC. Editors are using FAC in place of PR and thinking GA prepares them for FAC: they're going to continue to do that unless the rest of the review process is fixed, and they aren't going to read another set of instructions if they haven't read what we've already got, and no amount of instruction is going to prevent the kind of abuse that reviewers received on Putnam, which was simply based on a lack of understanding of Wiki, the FAC process, and one person fanning the flames. Sandy 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the *real* problem for DBuckner

DBuckner, your proposals are heading in the direction of excluding me from review because I acknowledge I'm not a great writer. Now, I want you to carefully look at this example, and comment on it. I want you to see the real problem we should be addressing. PLEASE tell me if my analysis of the prose problems here is incorrect, and if you really believe this reviewer read the article before voting support. Please tell me exactly where you believe I am unqualified to point out prose problems in this article.

  • In the lead: Aspergers in children and adults assistance can consists of contraversial therapies that address the core symptoms of the disorder:
  • Research: Some research is to seek information about symptoms to aid in the diagnostic process. Other research is to identify a cause, although much of this research is still done on isolated symptoms. A lot of research have exposed base differences in things such as brain structure. To what end is currently unknown; however, research is on-going. FAR AS

Do I *really* need to detail the 2a) prose problems in that case? Do you really want to discourage me from reviewing? No one here, who works hard to improve FAs in Wiki, needs to take this kind of abuse. Sandy 13:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, who said I did? The example you gave is peppered with very obvious grammatical errors. I followed the link, and you seemed to have resolved it well. What's the problem? Dbuckner 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS none of this is meant to be abusive. Dbuckner 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's example, with five supports already (why don't I see Dbuckner, SamClark and Lacotosias in there voting and helping copy edit, reference, and clean up the article? After all the time we gave to your article, it would be kind of you to reciprocate and help out with other articles here.)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green and Golden Bell Frog

More importantly, why should I bother to object if the end result of an object is abuse of the objector? These are the problems that need to be addressed.

Sandy 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"DBuckner, your proposals are heading in the direction of excluding me from review because I acknowledge I'm not a great writer."
Sandy, where does WP:REVIEW state or imply this? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said, his proposals. Read up, to his comments on the requirements for reviewers. He seems to think we all have to be professional writers and copyeditors: who does the tedious work of checking images, references, links, WP:MOS, WP:GTL, WP:FN, everything else that matters? Who reads the talk page to check for POV or lack of comprehensiveness or unresolved issues? Who Googles when there are questions of article comprehensiveness and POV? (For example, there's a tax FAC up now: I'll be checking for liberal-conservative POV.) Who comes back to an FAC three, four, five times because the good-faith nominators keep working, and asking you to check again? He doesn't understand the collaborative spirit of FAC, the amount of work it takes to really filter the best, he fueled an extraordinarily adversarial FAC, and now wants to write policy based on a bad example and experience with not a single other FAC. Your proposal is feeding the misconception he has of FAC, and heading in a direction of further pitting reviewers against nominators, by adding instruction creep and lowering the give-and-take that is working just fine. We don't need more instructions: we need to prepare nominators for the big gap between GA/PR and FAC. And we need MORE reviewers, who actually *read* the articles, to take the burden off of the few that already do so much work here and on FAR. And we sure don't need to tell Tony and the other good copyeditors we have to do more copyediting, considering the amount they already do here, on FAR, and for other articles. Sandy 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:REVIEW, I don't think it states or implies that writing skills are the only thing that's needed. If it does, please tell me where and I'll fix it. I hope you'll move away from the misconception that it was only Hilary Putnam that caused this. That triggered this situation, yes, but bear in mind that this has been going on for years. Why should we have guidelines for nominators, and none for reviewers? Don't you want to see some consistency in review standards so that nominators know what to expect? Wouldn't telling nominators — "here are what the reviewers will be looking for, and here are the issues they will base objections on" — help nominators not to submit articles too soon, as they currently often do? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"here are what the reviewers will be looking for, and here are the issues they will base objections on" ... Right here, is what the reviewers are looking for. Adding another page to say what that already says is instruction creep. (You asked on the other talk page for an example: read up, it's in this section.) I can explain all the things I do to check that each point is met, but others work differently, or focus on different areas. The strength is in the collaboration: Fair Use just can't find its way into my brain, so I ask JKelly to check when I'm not sure. Reviewer standards will fuel adversarial discussions between noms and reviewers, disturbing the give-and-take collaborative environment. Again, the problem is NOT FAs that aren't getting promoted when they should: the bigger problems is ones that end up on FAR only months after promotion. I've asked you to show me an FAC that didn't get through when it should have; you haven't done that. Sandy 14:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I answered your question, I think twice already, on the other page. I can't keep posting to multiple pages about this, so I suggest we confine it to the proposal's talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul

Now I have not been following these things closely (I've been at Wikimania and I have all kinds of great things to talk about when I get back - please ask!). As a precept, I'm not enthusiastic about yet-another-featured-article related page (we have too many already). I skimmed over Wikipedia:How to review a featured article candidate (as it exists at this moment) and I didn't see anything particularly objectionable. Raul654 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - about the cool announcements - after I posted that comment, I sat down and wrote all hte things I'm trying to remember. I'll be posting them in more comprehensible form soon (probably to the signpost). Raul654 14:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RyanGerbil10

I was once a regular at FAC, but have become less so in the past month, and especially since I have become an administrator. However, I agree that the reason I moved away from FAC is that I felt nominations had become contentious and petty. Although it is good to have high standards, I have thought in the past that some objectors have been a bit harsh. Don't get me wrong, Tony is excellent to have around and we should all thank him profusely for ensuring that only truly remarkable articles make it to the Main Page, but he could use a bit more tact in objecting to some nominations. After so much time at FAC. he should know that nominators are often attached to their articles, perhaps a closer author/article attachment than exists anywhere else on Wikipedia. These people should be approached carefully, not because they are deranged maniacs, but because they are attached to their articles in an emotional way that sometimes prevents them from being as objective as we would want. This behavior cannot be excused, because it runs contrary to policy, but we should recognize that it happens and will continue to happen, and we as reviewers should act in such a way to reduce inevitable over-emotional reactions. However, the rules page is something else. I agree with Raul that nothing on the rules page is objectionable, but I oppose us having it, as it is instruction creep, and should be avoided. We should all act in the way the rules page lays out, whether the page exists or not. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's not only a question of Tony being tactless. It's that he believes his opinions about writing are somehow matters of fact. But they are only his opinions, and many good writers would disagree with them. It's fine for him to leave comments giving his views, because the nominators might agree with him and edit the article accordingly. However, objecting to an article on the basis of a minor difference of opinion over comma placement is inappropriate, and when it's pursued aggressively, then obviously highly inappropriate. It is bound to drive good editors away from the FA process. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's rubbish. The issue here is someone responding really badly to criticism of their article. Encyclopedia writing should be clear and concise - which is usually the thrust of Tonys objections. If people sought a second opinion and got some help getting copyediting their noms, then most FACs would be far less problematic.--Peta 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which part of the above you're saying is "rubbish." Francesco did respond badly, it's true. But Tony's objections were baseless. Please think carefully about what you're saying, Peta. You are saying that Tony (who is not a professional writer or a professional philosopher, and who has no academic qualifications in philosophy, or in writing or in editing) knows more about writing and philosophy than the three professional philosophers who were on the Putnam FAC page; the two professional editors and writers; the others who each had at least one degree in philosophy; and Hilary Putnam himself, who likes the article. That cannot seriously be your position. I realize that experts have no special status on Wikipedia, and I support that position, but nor should we assume they know nothing about their area of expertise. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has a problem with someone's objection they should comment and explain the issues with it. FAC is not a vote. Slims comments are getting AWFULLY personal and she really should back off. RN 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was appalled by the exchanges I witnessed on the Putnam FAC, and they're mirrored (although with much less drama) on other FA pages, so something has to change. I should add that I tried to respond with a non-personal, constructive suggestion by creating WP:REVIEW, as a good-faith effort at dispute resolution, but Tony's aggressive and patronizing response (calling it my "little project") certainly didn't help to oil the wheels of collaborative editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Tony's objections were baseless. I was appalled by the exchanges I witnessed on the Putnam FAC. I agree with RN: it's time to back off of this. Do you think any one of us will want to work in this room seeing these kinds of comments, implying that the appalling behavior was from Tony? What has to change is that the next time nominators abuse of reviewers as they did in Putnam, we should pull the nom and tell them to resubmit after they cool off. If you launched that proposal because you had an ax to grind over differences with Tony or Saxena, it might have been better to wait until there was some distance. This is becoming much too personal, and I sure don't want to review an article on FAC in this kind of environment. Sandy 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been loosely following this conversation, but I hope people won't mind me butting in. Frankly, we don't need a flurry of featured articles. If we have less featured articles because people are too strict, it won't be a loss. A featured article is meant to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work." As long as the objections are valid, there should be no issue with having them. There may be cases where people oppose based on their own preferences - however, if the style guide says the current way in the article is okay, then that's fine - just ignore the oppose vote. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Raul is a grad student. He can figure out where commas should go and which objections, whether concerning commas or not, are valid. I just don't think we need a page on how to tell me to tell someone that they need more references, or that their prose needs (fill in the blank). RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times, I don't believe there's a problem with articles being rejected on the basis of flawed objections, because Raul wouldn't let that happen. But I do believe there's a danger of discouraging people from getting their articles up to FA status again because of the experience they go through as FACs, or watch others go through. If you want to attract decent writers, professionals, and academics to write or review FAs, you can't address them as though they know nothing about their areas of expertise. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, I think you're being over-sensitive to my critiqueing. Perhaps my hard-hitting, no-nonsense style gives you the impression that I'm tactless, or worse that I think my opinions are the only ones that count. But if you look carefully at what I say, you'll find no explicity evidence of that belief. Let me say that I'm delighted when people improve my prose, as I point out on my user page. It happens quite often. I'm learning too. And as for tactless, well, I think that's in the eye of the beholder. I could sprinkle my comments with please, sorry, maybe, might, may, possibly, you're a good writer, but. However, I believe what I say, and I don't have time to insert "softness" tags throughout my text. Nor do I want to bother the readers with any more text than is necessary to get the point across.
However, occasionally I do make misjudgements in my tone, so you're right in that respect—see the top of BAE systems (silly on my part), but we're friends now. I usually apologise in those cases. However, I don't think I misjudged my tone in the Putnam debacle. I'd love to stop bickering with you, Slim. Tony 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's stop bickering. But in that case, please work with me to try to create a set of standards for reviewers. I'm not hugely bothered what they are, and I have no interest in trying to impose particular standards on people that they don't want. But I've been editing for close to two years, and there have been problems with inconsistent review standards throughout that entire period, so it's time to fix them. There's no reason there should be guidelines for nominators, but none for reviewers. The nominators have to know what's expected of them (roughly); and the reviewers have to know when to lodge an objection and when simply to make a comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend to have read every last word in this discussion (that would take an entire day if I had absolutely nothing else to do that day), but I would like to point out that we've already got standards for reviewers at the top of the FAC page under "Supporting and objecting". What is this argument supposed to accomplish that hasn't already been established? o.O It's just a bunch of people getting sick of each other over things that have been set in stone for a while now. It really does need to just. STOP. Besides, Jimbo Wales has been pretty clear that there will be no elitism here among members, so reviewers don't have to bring a degree in a subject with them before they respond about it. As long as people follow the very simple rules outlined under "Supporting and objecting" (which already demands that an objection involve a specific actionable rationale, or that it be dismissed), there's no problem. Everybody just needs to get back to building the encyclopedia and forget all this nonsense. It's not improving anything, and is only sowing seeds of disdian. Ryu Kaze 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

It's things like this that sidetrack Wikipedia from its true goal of building an encyclopedia. Let's drop this, or, at the very least, achieve strategic distance from the debate :) — Deckiller 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good advice: I've just trashed my reply to SV in the hope that we might all take a breather for a few days and return in a conciliatory frame. Tony 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And to repeat a note I've just inserted on the talk page for the FA Criteria: I'm withdrawing from discussions here until things settle down. I wish everyone good-will—that's the essence of WP. Tony 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Personal guidelines on FA writing

Personal views regarding the best way to write a Featured Article are just that, personal views. If people want to move their advice out of personal space and into the Wikipedia space, so they can be voted on as guidelines, then they can become guidlines. Until then, we shouldn't give editors the false impression that these are anything more than the personal views of the authors. And please don't personalize this discussion with edit comments like "slimvirgin is on a personal attack campaign". I made the edit, I am not SlimVirgin, and I am not attacking anyone. On the contrary, I am simply properly labelling these guides, unless someone here is claiming they have official status. Jayjg (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please leave the article as per raul's decision:

The guide currently says "The following guides focus on the most common problems in nominated articles:". I am happy with tihs for the time being, and I suggest we leave it as that for now.

while nobody can claim to have official status, raul is featured article director so his opinion should be at least noted and not ignored. i see the flame war is continuing to spread above (i wish people would just air their greavances at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates to keep the discussion centralized) so lets keep it amiable shall we? cheers. Zzzzz 19:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my own guide, I made an effort to collate the most common problems and only discuss solutions that represented consensus accross a wide number of editors over a significant time at FAC. I've seen no one claim that my guideline represents anything different than a clarification of consensus on what the featured article criteria mean. However, no offense to Tony, it's clear that a number of people disagree with his recommendations. That being the case, I don't believe it should be linked from this page until there is substantial consensus around the recommendations it makes. If anyone does have objections about my guidline or believes they see ways it does not represent consensus please let me know. - Taxman Talk 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked :-))
15-20 such citations for an article would not be out of bounds, and would generally clearly demonstrate the quality of research that a featured article needs was done. That seems like a low number given current citation standards. Maybe you can say it's common to see well-referenced articles with over 50 in-line citations?
Spend some time looking through the other featured articles on related topics to get an idea of their basic quality, and the choices they have made in coverage and style. Nominators point out featured articles which have deteriorated, or don't meet current referencing requirements, and want to know why they are held to a higher standard. Maybe you can point that out? Specifically, they often say, well so-and-so only has six inline citations, and it's an FA. <grrrr ...> Sandy 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. 15-20 was from when we were building consensus for adding inline citations to the criteria and there was still some resistance. 15-20 is a number that any well researched article could hit. Not sure that putting a number in there is a good idea at all come to think of it. Any ideas for a solution on that would be good. Your second one is spot on, I should fix that. More specific comments are welcome on my advice page's talk page. That seems the better place. - Taxman Talk 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On another talk page ... <ugh> ... the discussion about FAs is already on about five different talk pages :-) My conclusion from reading all of those pages is that Tony's page has broad support, and that objection is coming from limited sources. I don't know how to fix the 15-20 wording: I only know that 15-20 isn't working anymore :-)) Sandy 00:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think just leave it vague, but make it clear what sort of things need an inline cite. The focus should be on the types of claims that need it, not on the number in the article. Rebecca 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one real way to find out if something has broad support; put it in the Wiki space, propose it as a guideline, and see what happens. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just waiting for people to state that's what was wanted, so I've done that now. Sandy, after re-reading, it already states that you can't compare to lower quality FAs as reasons why yours should be featured. Is there some way it's unclear that can be made better? - Taxman Talk 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement: I'm withdrawing from this and other discussions that have become poisonous. I wish SV and others good-will: after all, that's what WP is all about. I'll return when it's all back to normal—so many fascinating things to do in the meantime. Tony 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most compelling objection to linking those "personal guides" is that they are in someone's personal namespace, and thus other people will not feel comfortable about editing them. This is supposed to be a collaborative project, so any and all guides intended for mass consumption should be in the Wikipedia namespace. --Yath 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. The material is in Tony's user subspace, and some editors strongly disagree with it, yet we're unable to change it, and still he posts it to this page. My own opinion is that his advice on writing leads to a lifeless form of prose that not everyone wants to copy. (But that's just my opinion, as his is just his.) In addition, he imposes these views on nominators in what I feel is a very damaging way. See his comments here in response to a nomination, where he corrects the nominator's post introducing the FA candidate:
"I'm going to start by being a little brash—sorry, but I hope there are not as many redundancies and grammatical glitches in the article as there are in your short nomination text:
'The aArticle has already gone through peer review and the suggested improvements have been made. I believe it now meets the requirements for FAC status in my opinion, and; I would also welcome any other further suggestions'." (Tonys colors) [1]
Here's the original: "Article already gone through peer review and the suggested improvements have been made. I believe it now meets FAC status in my opinion, and I would also welcome any other suggestions." [2]
The nominator, Mark83, responds: "I would not describe your attitude as 'brash', rather incredibly pompous and confrontational. Perhaps wrongly I did not believe FAC requirements applied to nomination text!" [3]
The problem is that, with Tony's text on this page, and not even identified as a personal viewpoint, inexperienced nominators may believe that Tony's views on writing have a special status and are agreed upon, and may therefore feel they have to do as he says. The link should therefore be removed from the page, or we have to make clear that these are his personal opinions. Perhaps as Tony finds this discussion very trivial, he would agree to remove the link as a gesture of good faith, as it was only added on August 5. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to further classify articles on Wikipedia called Outstanding Featured Article? For example, these articles would represent the elite form of featured article in terms of content, style and prose. It would represent the stratrosphere of encyclopedic writing. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be a good idea. Raul654 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it would be worth the extra effort in process an time to do so, but it could help highlight the ones that we really are recommending that people emulate. - Taxman Talk 22:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to an "unofficial" example (like already found at {{Grading scheme}}), but having a blown-out process for this does seem a bad idea. Titoxd(?!?) 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I wish to thank you for your feedback on this. But may I know the reason why this will be a bad idea? Perhaps this will motivate editors to create articles of outstanding quality, like for example, those found in Britannica and other established paper encyclopedias. These articles could have two stars instead of one at the top of their respective pages. The reason why I propose such a measure is because there have been criticizms about the quality of even some of the featured articles on Wikipedia by those opposed to Wikipedia and its philosophy. This idea would no doubt dispel these concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria&oldid=68545578"