Wikipedia talk:One featured article per quarter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 I don't know 2 Article title 3 Why I don't write featured articles 4 Since we're all here for the same reason... 5 disagree 6 Help requested 7 Status update 8 Peer review needed 9 Medieval cuisine up for peer review 10 Userbox 11 Bored, so here we go

[edit] I don't know

I don't know if 3 months is a reasonable timeframe. When I first read this I thought, "What a good idea". I had just stumbled across Toy yesterday and saw that it needed major re-structuring and a lot of work and started working on it with the thought that maybe I could improve it to good or even featured status; so when I saw this page I almost signed up. However, three months really is not very long at all. Using Toy as an example, compare the article when I found it to the article after I'd spent the better part of a day working on it. I consider that a significant improvement; but I haven't really done anything to it other than re-arrange what was already there. It still has a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced statements; whole areas that are not covered at all; stubby sections that need expansion; and some areas with poor grammer and spelling that I haven't gotten to cleaning up yet. In order to fix some of this stuff I'll need to find time to do real research in a real library or bookstore with real books. My personal library is not extensive enough, and the net is not reliable enough. It takes time to read books; and most Wikipedians have lives.

I'm not saying that I don't want to put the time or effort into it that it needs; on the contrary I'm saying that I don't want to limit myself to 3 months in which to do it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Broad topics generally take longer than narrow ones, I think. For fairly narrow ones, it's quite possible to produce a roughly FA-level article in under a month, leaving two months for copyediting/illustrating/etc.

(In any case, it's no big deal if it takes longer than three months; I think that's just a reasonable estimate to use for the general case.) Kirill Lokshin 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I just posted my to-do list, with two articles I'm working on in the near-term and two in the medium-term. Perhaps too ambitious? I think I can get one or both the near-term ones to FA status in three months, as the topics are overlapping. But, if it takes longer than three months to do the job well, then so be it. One of my medium-term articles is the FBI which is a more complex topic, with NPOV issues and all, many related subarticles, and there are countless reference materials that one can consult. I don't know if the time frame is realistic for reaching FA status, but put it there anyway. --Aude (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, per above, three months was only meant to be suggestive and a means of keeping FA work on the front burner. If you feel it'll take longer, bump it up to the next quarter. Glad people have signed on anyhow. Marskell 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If the 3 month period seems too short to write something from scratch or sort out a poorly written article, Wikipedia:Former featured articles has a whole host of pages that could easily be brought up to FA standard again with a lot less work - a lot of them were delisted simply because nobody worked on them to keep them in line with current standards. Yomangani^talk 10:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Small question: does this title need capitals? Is it too clunky? Marskell 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go for Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter; spelling out the number might be neater, but I don't think that capitals are needed (as "featured article" is usually lowercase). Kirill Lokshin 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill's suggestion sounds good. Other shortcuts (e.g. WP:ANI, WP:FAC) lead to pages that don't use all CAPS. So, I say no CAPS here. --Aude (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. I had thought of Wikipedia:Featured article drive as a title, but it didn't seem right of me to decide on that name without consultation. Fingers crossed this gets a critical mass of people and some add-on ideas—perhaps we can consider that more obvious title then, and place it in the FA content box. Marskell 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I don't write featured articles

<getting off chest>I don't write featured articles because of the effective prohibition on any serious quantity of equals signs. (Yes, I know there are some with equals signs. No, they are not serious equals signs.) Not to blow my own trumpet, but I know from my knowledge of the field that at least several of the technical articles I have written are of reference quality. There is however no possibility that they would ever be featured: to be able to appreciate more than the mere outline of the topic requires degree-level study or higher. This isn't academic arrogance, it's just the fact that the topics are technical and, whilst they admit the hand-waving explanations that I dutifully put in the lead section, to do the topic any kind of justice on its own terms requires getting down and dirty with it. Effectively, FAs have to be intelligible to bright teenagers (no insult, but they have much to learn, as do we all) and writing the article at that level would render it basically useless to those who will otherwise derive some genuine benefit from reading it. </chestyness>-Splash - tk 22:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Great to have a comment from you Splash. "Bright teenagers", yes—and sometimes bright retirees, bright working age people with an arts rather than a science degree (I have myself in mind there), bright professionals outside their discipline, bright grad students, etc. It's supposed to be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists (WP:NC). The technical v lay writing problem is not particular to FAs (though it often crops in regards to them) and leaning toward the technical does not rule out one's creating an FA in lay language. I think it's often sub-articles that demand the equals sign; large topical pages are actually over-burdened by them. I have two Sci & Space FAs (one's a little better than the other...) and there isn't a single equals sign in either... I think they both do justice to their topic. Re "Basically useless"—no professional should turn to Wikipedia to be, let's say, fundamentally enlighted. They shouldn't turn to Brittanica, Encarta, or the Web in general. They should turn to discipline specific primary and secondary sources—I think most professionals already do that. Wikipedia is meant for others: those who want a way into a topic that may be difficult for them. Marskell 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So I remembered this finally. You kind of make my point: the articles with equals signs would never be able to get featured. This is eminently disappointing: make your article really thorough, and no, we don't like it. But I'm off topic for this page, so I'll stop and go back to writing notfeatured articles. -Splash - tk 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely there is a wiki somewhere that accepts highly-technical writing? Carcharoth 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

simple:? -Splash - tk 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since we're all here for the same reason...

...would anyone be opposed to my setting up an "I need help" subpage that those of us committed to this could monitor? I know that I could use some help in copyediting or possible source/credit help, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. I spend a lot of time on my FA currently, but not all my wiki time, and even if I can do some proofreading for someone for a few minutes while I'm doing other things, it could be useful. Perhaps just a page with headers about what needs help in what article, or a "public" to-do list that others could pitch in for? It might have the added benefit of getting some outside help from people who want to help get an article per quarter featured, but don't feel they can do it. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't want to co-opt Peer review with this--or perhaps we do if this winds up catching on more than that sadly little trafficked page. Unless we definitely decide to do that, though, a specific review/help me section would be a duplicate here. Ideally this talk itself will be a help me section: "can some pass along this PDF..." etc.

What I would like to do is list here, or on a sub-page, a series of links and resources for various topic areas. Basically a list you could browse for where to start with any given topic. Would that work as an add-on? Marskell 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, and this may only be my perception, but I see Peer Review as a general reviewing tool, while what I'm picturing is a little place where I can say "I'm working on Foo, and I was hoping someone could check my spelling and if anyone knew where I could find information on Foo" from people who have been doing the same thing with their articles. Maybe just posting them to this talk would be just as useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand that. I suppose the question would be whether a subpage diverts attention; the list itself and this talk may be sufficient. For instance, I made the teeniest edit to your listing yesterday just by noticing it on the list. Marskell 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a link to the talk page of the article from this list? That way it stays as a record with the article and doesn't dilute the potential pool of "assistants". (I agree with Marskell though, the list itself can lead to other people trying to help out - spending hours fruitlessly looking for an image of Barnard's Star for instance) Yomangani^talk 00:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, added. Now we just need f**ing sign-ups. And thx for your hours on Barnard's star, BTW. I sent an e-mail off to some guy at NASA today, without reply. Perhaps no pictures are to be found. Marskell 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I found one from the Lawrence Berkely Labs here. They may have restrictions, but maybe not. NASA may not be the best place to ask. You probably want to write to the actual observatory where the pics are being taken. Of course, an actual pic of a star is never going to be that exciting. I'd stick with the illustration that is already in the article. You could also try and find a free picture of E. E. Barnard if you want the article to have more pics. You might be able to find a free pic of him in this lot. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I, for one, am willing to contribute copy-editing (IANAPC-E), but right now, I don't really know how to contribute that in a way that will be of benefit (that is, there's no use copy-editing while people are still overhauling an article; and I prefer not to do it, unrequested, for existing FACs). Nor is Peer Review a request to copy-edit, in itself. I'd also be willing to try acquiring subscriber-only source documents for others. And in case this page is the extent of it, then: I am offering the above services to you FAC writers. :) –Outriggr § 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a section to the project page to this effect. I admit, it's the inverse of what badlydrawnjeff has suggested, and probably doesn't replace what he wants: but anyway, it's just an idea I had. Revert at will! –Outriggr § 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disagree

I disagree with some of the text on this project. I'm quite happy for the proportion to drop, and would be happier still if the pass rate at FAC dropped. There are too many FAs that, IMV, are not good enough under the terms of the criteria.

If this project results in a significant increase in nominations that require considerable work while in the FAC room to meet the criteria, that will degrade the process. There are simply not enough reviewers and good writers/editors to go around as it is. Tony 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea behind this is to better the quality overall, and to achieve that the only way to do it is by telling each other what article we are working on and helping each other to review them.

The people that have registered to make 1FAPQ have already created FA articles and they know they will bring these articles to a better format. It is better to bring more articles from Stub/Start/B to A-class than to bring a tenth as much to FA quality or even to better only a few already FA. Lincher 02:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm right behind attempts to improve articles, but I worry about the standard of writing overall on WP. FAs are now required to be written to "professional" standard (Criterion 1a). Tony 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see this as a way of avoiding dumping articles into FAC and then sorting them out during that process. Collecting them here in advance will allow others to point out the weaknesses and make improvements. On that that topic: perhaps we should have some way of indicating how close we think the articles we've nominated are to FA? While improvements are always welcome, it is particularly important just before listing as a candidate to avoid the problem of "fix-up in FAC". Yomangani^talk 09:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re first, if this brings editors into FAC who are moving about elsewhere it will improve the project. The best signee on this list would be the person who's never written one but would like to try. Per Yomangi, the list means more eyes and ideally, through this talk, a specific place to query for things. I want to draw up a resource list of discipline specific sites for various topics as an add-on.

Re second, most of our core topics are already well beyond stub/start. They need to be grabbed hold of and given the FA treatment. I add Mars-geo stubs from time to time, and would like to expand a few of the notable landmarks, but getting the Mars page itself to FA is far more important. I think we need to start viewing articles that way.

Re "perhaps we should have some way of indicating how close we think the articles we've nominated are..." It seems to me that people are already doing that when they sign. I was thinking of a "status" column for "at PR" or "at FAC" etc.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant if people don't actually sign-up. It's hard to get a new drive rolling... Marskell 10:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

Hello again! So I'm on the last leg on my FA, I was hoping a few people with a critical eye and a straightforward attitude would take a look at Kroger Babb for me. I'm worried about three things:

1. The lead, which I'm never comfortable writing.
2. The "Post exploitation" section, which feels stilted to me, but may be a lack of confidence on my end.
3. Images. Are my fair use rationales up to snuff?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 3, I think the pic of Babb himself qualifies as fair use but not the movie posters toward the bottom. I know it can be pain, as the page will be largely just text if you remove them, but because the subject is Babb and not the movies themselves the fair use rationale is weak. You are providing analysis of the films but not of the posters themselves.

I'll try and read the body more fully before commenting more. Marskell 12:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. I find the whole fair use situation here extremely confusing, which is why I brought it up. Luckily, both posters are in use in other articles, so it'll be easy to keep around if someone else thinks that they qualify for use here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you could use the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" image if you move it up to the previous section where you talk about the promotional techniques, since it quite clearly represents that topic. The lead looks fine to me (although that is one of my weak areas too)and the "Post exploitation" section is, as you say, a little stilted, although I find it hard to see how you can make it flow better unless you break the chronology or add more detail. I found the number of quotes a bit offputting, but obviously most are essential to illustrate his character and his effect on the people around him. Yomangani^talk 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status update

Since I'm not sure how many people check this page regularly:

• Barnard's Star was promoted to FA!
• Battle of Ceresole was promoted to FA!
• Platypus is a current candidate, and looks likely to pass. was promoted to FA!
• Kroger Babb is a current candidate, but has yet to receive and comments.
• Ryan Leaf is a current candidate, and could use some more input as well as some copyediting help.
• Józef Piłsudski continues to be at good article status, and is very close to a FAC, judging by its first nomination.
• Music of Italy failed FA a month ago, is still a GA, and doesn't need too too much work for promotion at this point.
• Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has reached good article status.
• Medieval cuisine has reached good article status.
• Music of the Lesser Antilles is a good article.
• DuMont Television Network is a good article candidate as of 28 October, and, from what I'm seeing, should likely pass.
• Mount Tambora is a good article candidate and should pass (needs some copyediting). was promoted to FA!

Fairly impressive rollcall as it stands. Please comment on FA nominees if you're able to (yes, I'm actively begging for any commentary at this point, conflict of interest yadda yadda), but most importantly, keep up the good work. Of the roughly 20 articles listed for this quarter, 12 of them (60%) are GA nominees or better, and we still have two months to go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review needed

Aside from the articles I listed here, I am also working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. --Aude 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval cuisine up for peer review

I'm starting the push towards a successful FAC and I'm hoping I can make it before the informal deadline about a month from now. Any and all input is much appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Possible userbox, for those so inclined:

Addhoc 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, you substed the userbox when you put it here. Where is its main location? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, {{User 1FAPQ}}... Addhoc 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bored, so here we go

Well, I was bored of fixing up my article, and figured that it would be interesting to see how this new group was going. So, I compiled Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter/List/2006 IV. Thoughts/comments appreciated :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could make fancy graphs like that. If you make one for Q1-2007, perhaps a line item for a link to the FAC page would be helpful, too. Other than that, it looks nice, and it looks like we've done pretty well as a group for the first run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it in the morning, Australian time, and I'll add a column that can facilitate FAC/PR's etc. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, dude! The only thing I could think of is maybe the addition date, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. Good work! I'll have to learn how to do that, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by $yD! (talk • contribs).

You missed Platypus <sob>. Very pretty though. Yomangani^talk 13:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I did too :O Sorry about that. I was thinking about addition date, but it seemed kinda redundant (and I wanted to keep the table as clean as possible). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 14:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)