Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting to change the name of this page

SUPPORT

  • Support, because the new title would more accurately reflect what the page is. Particularly useful for newbies. Tony 08:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The same reasons Tony mentioned. It more accurately reflects what the page is. As it stands, the title doesn't mesh with the content all that well. It, at first, sounds like something you'd see in the FAQ, but then it's suddenly giving extensive details on what an FA should consist of. As it stands, instead of just answering "What is a featured article?" as the title would suggest, it's the page where featured article criteria are listed. It only makes sense to make this more accurate, especially given all the recent changes made to the page so as to help it more effectively serve its purpose. By the way, any links that would need to be repaired as a result of the move, I would take responsibility for. Ryu Kaze 14:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)



NEUTRAL

  • In light of what Titoxd and Raul have pointed out would follow if the change were made (the fact that the Wikipedia shortcut WP:FAC would become ambiguous), it is probably best that the matter be left as it is. While it was a good idea to give the article a more accurate name while making all the other changes, given that doing this would introduce an actual problem (whereas the current issue is more one of what seems most sensible in assigning page names), it's best to just defer to what's most simple. I'll withdraw my support and simply remain neutral. While I'd like to see the article title changed to something more to the point, I don't think it's for the best to impose a real problem that would need to be addressed since the page's name isn't currently a matter of imposition of some kind. Ryu Kaze 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


OPPOSE

  • I don't really see how this would harm anything, but neither how it would benefit anybody. The redirect already solves that issue, and the page move would cause some confusion about WP:FAC - is it Featured Article Criteria or Featured Article Candidates? Also, it would require to update links all over the place, to bypass the redirect. Titoxd(?!?) 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This poll is silly and should never have been started. Titoxd hit the nail on the head - this is a very bad idea because FAC will suddenly be ambigious. Raul654 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Raul, rather than weighing in and calling other people's ideas "silly", a substantive argument is required at the right time and not after the event. That would have included pointing out the problem with the abbreviated link and redirects before the sign was posted at the top of this page. The sign contains the phrase "Discussion and voting to support or oppose the move should appear somewhere on this talk page"; I acted accordingly. Please be aware of WP's rules on civility. And while on this topic, I find your announcements in edit comments that you're the FA Director quite unnecessary. It's supposed to be about building consensus among equals. Tony 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't it better to call a poll "silly" than to call it "evil"?  :-/ Personally, I find the name of this page informative enough; fussing over it now amounts to agonizing over a non-problem. I second third the concerns about bypassing redirects and making FAC pointlessly ambiguous. If I were truly desperate to make this page's name parallel that of FAC and FAR, I might go with "Featured Article Expectations" or something like that ("Requirements" is no good, because of the initial). I still can't imagine the name change solving any problems. Anville 05:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Who posted the misleading sign at the top, and who didn't explain the problems in the first place? And in answer to you, Anville, I find "silly" offensive, no matter what you choose to compare it against. Tony 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the sign was my fault. The instructions on Wikipedia:Requested moves says to put it up there when you list a page for a move. I wasn't aware that there was anyone actually opposed to the move on a basis such as these, nor did I realize at the time that such a problem would follow. Based on the last time it was brought up, it just seemed like no one thought it was a pressing matter, but no one actually seemed to oppose the concept for what it was. Then, after no one opposed in the discussion above, I assumed it was all clear, so I went ahead with listing it for a move and placing the sign. I guess apologies to everybody if I jumped the gun, but I thought that was where the consensus mindset had gone. Ryu Kaze 12:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Criticism sections

Do the featured article criteria include any guidelines about whether to include separate criticism sections? I see the issue raised often. My own view is that, wherever possible, criticism should be woven into the narrative. I know that Jimbo expressed a preference for this, saying "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Even so, editors seem to like criticism sections because they're easy to write and easy to keep adding to, which indeed is part of the problem. Do regular FA reviewers have a view on this? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect, but with no evidence to back me up, that articles that acquire "Criticism" sections tend to be controversial articles, and that we don't see very many controversial articles here because they tend to fail the stability requirement. Incidentally, I wonder how many articles have a section labelled "Praise"... Jkelly 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. It's precisely the controversial ones where it presents a difficulty, because every new editor adds whatever latest criticism he's read in his local newspaper, and suddenly the article has a list of claims as long as your arm, with no context. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Former FA Hugo Chávez had/has a criticism fork because the majority of the regular editors there will not cut the size, employ Summary Style, and allow criticism to be woven into the narrative, briefly summarizing and merging the two articles. It attained FA with unrecognized POV last December, and then lost it within about six months due to POV and instability, but still has a criticism fork, with the main article being mostly "praise" based on non-reliable sources funded by pro-Chavez groups. As a regular FA reviewer, I would not vote to FA such an article. As expressed in your quote from Jimbo, articles should be balanced, and employ Summary Style across the board, not relegating criticism to a separate article or section. The most recent example I recall here that didn't have any criticism when it came up on FAC was Hilary Putnam; because reviewers asked that criticism be included, it was written as a separate section, but looking at that content with hindsight, it appears that the criticism could have been woven into the narrative in each appropriate section. Sandy 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy, that's very helpful. Another editor pointed out Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example of an FA with a separate criticism section. I think the criticism there probably could have been incorporated, though it can be harder than it looks to keep the narrative flowing and weave the criticism into it, so this isn't intended as a criticism of anyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It is hard, unless editors are really committed to working together to present balance. I peeked at Encyclopedia Britannica, and found that in the case of Chavez, they did it just fine ... recognized the controversy and criticism, since it is a huge part of that particular personna, giving the criticism due weight. Another issue that occurs here on Wiki is that some editors insist that any criticism say exactly what the source says (BLP), with very little room for paraphrasing and summarizing concepts from several sources, making it hard to succintly summarize a simple idea, supported by several sources, into one sentence and resulting in a hodgepodge footnote war. Sandy 22:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a hodgepodge footnote war and a section that's just a list of quotes. I find that's one area lots of editors have difficulty with — paraphrasing accurately or recognizing when someone else has. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Not that I am a regular FA reviewer (anymore) but... I think science articles are interesting to look at wrt criticism sections. The consensus view on featured science articles such as Evolution, Global Warming and Big Bang (though there is an edit war at the last about exactly this issue) is that there shouldn't be a crit section nor much by the way of interwoven criticism if there is strong consensus in the scientific community about the issue covered by the article. Evolution, for example, doesn't have a crit section but has a section on Social and religious controversies (which says explicitly the scientific consensus is in favour of evolution but deals with the philosophical, religious etc. perceptions of evolution). It then also links to Creation-evolution controversy and Evidence for evolution, which deals with the issues in detail. Similarly, Global Warming has an "Alternative theories" sub-section but, again, it says explicitly the scientific community strongly favour the anthropocentric explanation. And, I agree completely with the comments above about troll management - I am more or less a 'regular' at Evolution and have had to deal with my share of pov ips, but I can hardly imagine the problems we'd have if there were a crit section people could just add to. Mikker (...) 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the general idea that crit sections are POV magnets (particularly when in list form, as it's just so easy to throw something else on the pile). We've seen, with the ongoing death of trivia sections (at least on our better articles), that types of sections can be denigrated to the point that having them is a block at FAC. Perhaps we need something like Wikipedia:Trivia (which is actually rather rambling) for crit sections.
However, from WP:NPOV: "a topic...can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization--for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section". This appears to be actually advocating a separate section. Note this is in the "Fairness of tone" section on NPOV, which I for one would like to see scrapped or reworked. Marskell 06:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A separate criticism can be used to structure an article to reflect bias/POV. If a controversial subject receives massive criticism from multiple sectors and reliable sources, relegating any/all critical content to a small, short section at the bottom of the article, or a separate article, does not allow for due weight and does not reflect the fact that they are more than "opinions of opponents", rather content from most reliable sources across a broad spectrum that should be woven into context. Due weight should be applied and criticism should be interwoven, not relegated as an after-thought or a very small part of a large "praise" article. Systemic bias on Wiki doesn't always allow for balance: criticism with due weight can't be interwoven when majority editors won't allow it, in spite of a preponderance of reliable sources. Perhaps the confusion over where/how to place criticism comes in because on some *uncontroversial* topics (think literature, film), criticism of the subject matter is often a separate section? At least that was how I read the (now inactive) article I cited below for SV. Sandy 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
When I first started editing, there was something in one of the policy pages or guidelines about not having criticism sections, but I can't remember where. That sentence certainly appears to recommend them, though I think all they really mean is don't write things like: "X said that Bush was unpopular, but X is a newspaper with a small circulation ..." i.e. don't outline criticism only to pounce on it immediately. When I have time, I'll check through a few policy histories to see if I can find the previous advice, and perhaps we could try to add it to NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, the page is now "inactive" Wikipedia:Criticism. Sandy 08:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
How sad that I edited it as recently as August 10 but have virtually no memory of it. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL - join the club (looking for my sticky notes :-) Sandy 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of criticism sections for the same reasons pointed out by Marskell and Mikker Raul654 07:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be worth reviving the page Sandy found. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be, but we do not need another long proposed policy essay. Let's come up with a few specific points that address trying not to use it, while still allowing for it if appropriate. As Sandy suggests, it is appropriate to have a section called "criticism" on a literature page, as "literary criticism" is an understood designation (that differs greatly from a rant about GWB's policies, say). Marskell 10:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Do that where, on the Criticism page, or here? Sandy 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There, methinks. I'll add it to my watchlist. (Funny, you found it too: I searched Wikipedia:Criticisms and Wikipedia:Criticisms sections but not Wikipedia:Criticism). Marskell 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I had a head start with the failing memory - I had it bookmarked: I've been doing the battle of trying to get rid of the POV Criticism fork for literally months, but since I'm outnumbered, POV prevails, the fork remains. Even if we write tighter guidelines, we can't force people to follow those that are not policy (in the case of the articles I work on, guidelines will be ignored by majority rule anyway, just as WP:RS is ignored [1]), but I'm game to help. Sandy 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Today's feture article the history of erotic depictions I felt was too "touchy" a topic for the main page, some people comming here for honest research may not want to see such subject material on the front page, it also gives the site a bad name in the oponion of others.68.37.229.165 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) John68.37.229.165 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of pages being linked to

Didn't it used to be the case that articles that a FA linked to were supposed to be of some reasonable quality? Obviously not all links need to be checked, but the very first link from today's FA, Preemption (computing), has three big, ugly tags at the top, which just make it look messy. Can't things like this be sorted out before five thousand people click on the article (as they do for anything reachable from the front page)? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Didn't it used to be the case that articles that a FA linked to were supposed to be of some reasonable quality?" - No, this has never been the case, either for featured articles as a whole or the ones that go on the main page. Raul654 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filmographies

Over at WP:WPBIO we were thinking of writing up guidelines on how to present filmographies for articles on people that would have this kind of info. What is the consensus here on best practices for that? Should they be in a table or in prose form, if in table, from earliest to latest?, etc. What do people here look for on a filmography when reviewing articles on actors, etc.? I'd like to have a guideline that will help the editor be able to have at least that part conform to FA criteria... Thanks! --plange 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Its not really and issue for the FAC; format doesn't matter as long as an article makes sense - unless there are some wikiproject guidelines an article should consider (even then, each article has its quirks). But my personal preference is to have important films discussed chronologically in the text and to have a table of some kind at the end that lists all the films and any awards and nominations.--Peta 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity in guideline 3 (images)

Something has to be done about guideline #3; I have read it and re-read it and I find it to be ambiguous. The criterion as now written reads:

It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.

Now, it is clear that the need for images is different depending on the subject. For example, Psychosis is not an easy subject to illustrate with images, and so the fact that the article does not include them should obviously not be a reason to remove its FA status (or to oppose its re-nomination should its status be revoked for other reasons). On the other hand, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a subject that does warrant illustration by images, as the article would not be able to present the topic completely without them. As I see it, then, there are two contradictory ways that criterion #3 can be interpreted:

  1. No featured article, no matter what the subject, requires images in the article. If this is the case, the criterion should be reworded to say "Any images in the article must be used appropriately, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
  2. The article must have images if including them is appropriate, but if they are not appropriate, it does not require them. This means deciding on a case-by-case basis whether images are needed to illustrate the subject. If this is the correct interpretation, the criterios should be reworded to "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." Andrew Levine 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel its the latter. It used to be that way sometime back when someone changed it. I feel we should revert back to the original one as the current one is confusing. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, then there can be discussion about whether images are appropriate for the topic instead of an innacurate inference that articles don't need images, which the current wording could make it seem. - Taxman Talk 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Verifiability' vs 'Verified'

I was reading up on the German Wikipedia article tagging system (aka 'stable versions', see info here) and noticed that they are talking about having a 'non-vandalized' tag and a 'higher tier tag' in which, unless I'm just translating it wrong, all of the references have been verified. It occurs to me that this latter is a significant difference between Wikipedia (English anyway) and traditional encyclopedias like Brittanica. Our 'featured articles' are generally considered 'good enough for publication', but our standard is that there are references listed which a reader could verify... as opposed to references listed which we have verified. Is this something we should consider transitioning to as a requirement for featured articles? If/when this tagging system is implemented here are we going to have 'featured articles' which don't qualify for any 'closely examined versions' (my translation of 'geprüfte versionen') because the references have never actually been checked by some 'qualified reviewer'? That'd probably be almost all of them currently... as there isn't even currently a way to specify that such a review has been done. As envisioned/described on the German Wikipedia this 'closely examined' status could be applied to a stub with poor grammar so long as all the information in the article were verified against the listed references... so 'featured' and 'closely examined' could be entirely separate statuses, but I'd think we would want our 'featured' articles to conform to the highest standards in every regard. It might even make sense to have a 'featured version' tag like those above which indicated a version that conformed to all standards. --CBD 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that would be the next level, actually verified citations, and really the only thing left that I can think of to raise the FA criteria. There is a project called m:Wikicite with essentially working code as I understand it to help facilitate that process. As far as I can tell, the only reason it's not getting instituted is not enough awareness. While the benefits of verified citations are clear for information quality purposes, I'm not sure it makes sense to put that in the criteria now. We only have just over 1000 articles out of 1.4 million that meet the FA criteria now, I'm not sure there would be an immediate benefit to instituting a criteria that only a handful could meet in a short period of time. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No, we probably aren't ready for this now, but the featured article requirements have continually become stricter over time (causing some articles to lose their status without actually having 'deteriorated' at all) and I think it makes sense to allow that to continue 'naturally'. As you note in the next section, we have standards now that some of the featured articles don't meet and have had such for a long time. For a long time just having a general references section was considered enough, but in the past year or so it has transitioned to requiring dozens of specific references... eventually that may reach the point of needing a specific reference for every fact stated. You're saying that we need to be stricter about making sure those references are reliable. Yet none of that transition was due to change in the standards themselves... it was in their all along, but not as strictly enforced/interpreted. Thus, I'd be inclined to add 'references have been verified' to the standards if (when according to Jimbo) the article tagging system goes live (or 'Wikicite' takes off)... with the understanding that it would be a 'suggestion' at first which we will become more strict about as time goes by. --CBD 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WT:FAC#Articles with no reliable sources

I started a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that people may be interested in. Please keep discussion in one place, this is only for notification, as the discussion involves how the criteria are applied. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a commonsense rule on subject matter

Right now, there is absolutely no restriction on Featured Article subject matter. The appearance of either 1987 (which contains an obscenity in its title) or Jimmy Wales on the Main Page would be a public relations disaster. Would anyone support a pornographic photo for Featured Picture? Would anyone support an article on the F-word or the N-word for Featured Article?? I wouldn't think so.

I would suggest that featured articles should not "contain obscenities" or "reflect favorably on Wiki" or "show proper decorum" on Wikipedia. I am open to suggestions. Madman 19:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length, so I'll simply summarize the conclusions we have come to. First, you need to make a distinction between the featured articles as a whole and the ones that appear on the main page. Any AFD-survivable article can become a featured article, but not necessarily any featured article can go on the main page. There are a very few featured articles that I personally have reservations about putting on the main page, and so those are the ones that are not going to appear anytime soon. Raul654 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not obvious to me that any given FA article could never appear on the Main Page. For example, the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests is not linked from any Feature Article page (at least none that I can find). Moreover, when I look over the articles listed there, not one is Opposed by anyone.
I think that some editors are so caught up in their own works and their own environment that it's difficult for them to see how Wikipedia is perceived by the general public. Madman 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. Go complain to Jimbo Wales if you think that results in a bad perception of Wikipedia amongst the general public. I doubt he'd agree with you since as an adult he doesn't want to be insulted by nanny-state censorship. --kingboyk 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the title you're looking for is 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) :) "Fuck the Millennium" is already a Featured Article, and a very worthy one if I say so myself.
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. We may write about any topic here, and use profane language if it's entirely necessary. In this case it's necessary. I have no objections to "Fuck the Millennium" being denied a place on the front page - although I know from that FAC at least one editor considered it front page material - but to deny an FA star to a brilliant article because it justifiably includes a swear word is a fallacy. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors implies that whilst we may not all be adults we're treated like adults.
As I tried to point out on the 1987 FAC, the nomination is for an FA star, editorial approval, not for front page placement. These are - rightly - entirely seperate processes. 1987 already has a GA badge and I'm not sure it's placement on WP:GOOD has corrupted anybody :)
I agree with you that Jimmy Wales should not be on the front page, though. --kingboyk 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I rather hope that our featured articles do "reflect favorably on Wiki".
As for "contain obscenities" or "show proper decorum", would you care to compile a list of "obscenities" and a guide to "proper decorum" with consensus support. Would you objecy to the surprisingly good phallus, or Pederasty in ancient Greece, or Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay A Modest Proposal (an essay encouraging the eating of Irish children to avoid famine) or Thomas Carlyle's 1849 essay, An Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question (his contrversial essay arguing for the reintroduction of slavery in the West Indies, sadly redlinked)? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think our ability to come up with a rule that (a) covers all the required cases, (b) is acceptable to all and (c) is of reasonable length/complexity is extremely limited. I think Raul's (implicit) approach of 'I know it when I see it' is better in this case. But, erm, to ALoan: let me just point out Swift's essay is satire, he doesn't really encourage the eating of children. Just being pedantic :).... Mikker (...) 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
For the front page, maybe so: but Madman was objecting to an FAC because the article contains the F-word! Front page placement is an entirely different matter. Maybe the front page is censored; FAC isn't and should never be. --kingboyk 21:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm... The way I read it, Madmad is saying FAs that are controversial shouldn't be on the main page, which, of course, I agree with for pragmatic reasons (even if I think, in an ideal world people would just grow up & not be insulted by swear words or controversy). In any case, I agree with you - as long as an article would survive afd, it should be allowed to be a FAC if it meets the criteria. Mikker (...) 21:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that might be what he's saying now, but if so he doesn't believe me that having an FA star and being on the front page are not one and the same thing :) Where this came from - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) --kingboyk 22:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Quotes

I have a question/doubt: in FAs, is it WP:NPOV to have a third-party quotation about the subject? For example, Albert Einstein saying of Mahatma Gandhi: "Generations will..." Shouldn't all quotes (especially in FAs) be left to Wikiquote? Is placing Einstein's quote in the biography of Gandhi somewhat of POV-pushing? Rama's arrow 14:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is, in a sense, a derivative of the "what constitutes trivia?" question, as much as a POV issue. Is it trivial to include a quote of that sort (poignant as the quote may be)? IMO, there's no bar to third-party quotes, and the question would be whether it's appropriate to the section in question. If it's tacked on to a list (or a list in prose form, which you'll find on articles) it may serve no real function other than to prove how "great" the subject was. In the context of, say, Gandhi's "Influences on the sciences" it would make sense. Or, in a paragraph describing "Death and memorial," you might say "amongst various praise, Einstein observed that 'generations will...'"
Sorry if this a non-answer, but I'd just try to view it commonsensically in the context under consideration. I don't think quotes of this sort should be opposed as a hard rule. Marskell 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOC

What does "substantial" mean in "a substantial...table of contents"? Hyacinth 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a subjective thing, but I'd say substantive means having at least 4 sections. Raul654 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

I've put forward a proposal for a new content policy, currently called Wikipedia:Attribution, with a view to merging and replacing Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Another aim is to get rid of Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a guideline, and reduce it to a page of advice about how to find good sources called Wikipedia:How to find reliable sources. Similarly, WP:CITE would become Wikipedia:How to cite sources, a page about how to format citations with no extraneous advice.

The reason for the proposal is that some good editors were finding V and NOR confusing, too restrictive in some areas, and bloated; and RS had become a bit of a mess. As V and NOR are closely linked, it makes sense to have them on one page.

The primary aim of the proposal is to produce a well-written, streamlined policy that picks up the most important points of V and NOR but ditches anything we don't need. The second aim is to try to find a way to accommodate editors who work on popular culture articles, where good secondary sources are hard to find. These editors complain that NOR and V are too restrictive (with their insistence on reliable, secondary sources; not using Usenet and bulletin boards; not allowing much self-published material etc). It would be good to find a way to accommodate the sourcing concerns of those editors without opening the floodgates to poorly sourced material. It's going to be tricky to balance those two needs, and it will depend on some clear and tight writing.

It would be great if the FA reviewers could get involved in helping to draft the proposal. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please check this out and comment. Particularly the pop culture clause, since this is a big change to existing policy and needs to be made the best it can be (or killed if necessary). — BrianSmithson 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factually accurate

How many and how wide a variety of sources are required by "factually accurate"? Hyacinth 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

However many it takes to convince reviewers that the article is comprehensive, neutral, and factually accurate: depends on the quality of the sources used. Sandy 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And the topic of the article! ;-) (As a general rule, the more controversial a topic, the greater the variety of sources needed to convince reviewers of neutrality and comprehensiveness.) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not much more specific than the project page. Is one reference ever enough? Is one high quality source equal to two poor quality sources? If sources indicate a topic is controversial, that means that even more sources are needed? Hyacinth 07:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
See WP:SENSE. "Is one reference ever enough?" Yes, sometimes. "Is one high quality source equal to two poor quality sources?" Avoid poor quality sources. "If sources indicate a topic is controversial, that means that even more sources are needed?". Unquestionably. Marskell 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
And if the additional sources also indicate the topic is controversial, are even more sources needed?

How does one determine how controversial a topic is in the first place? How could one source be enough? (if it described other sources?) Hyacinth 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See Zeno's paradox and reductio ad absurdum. C'mon! Marskell 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older FA's

Has there been discussion about how to handle older FA's that don't have in-line citations? I don't see this documented anywhere or previous discussion. -- Stbalbach 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many times - including twice in this very talk page's archives (Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article?/Archive_1#References, Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article?/Archive_3#Inline_citations) The answer is that yes, we hold older featured articles up to the same standards as new featured articles. Raul654 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I take it the current consensus was made de-facto to hold older articles to the new standard, the above links are some general commentaries. There are some very good older FA's created before in-line citation were available (a problematic template system optional). Currently it sounds like articles have 1-month to shape up or ship out. Many of these articles were written by people who are no longer around, and getting the sources to re-write it, or the attention of editors to re-work it, is problematic. Yet, they are good articles. They have Reference sections (the old gold standard) which is the same as published Encyclopedia's - the level of footnoting now required far exceeds all but the most rigorous academic standards. The victims are some excellent articles that get de-featured and no longer receive the readership attention they should. -- Stbalbach 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
No, they aren't necessarily problematic. Many articles (particularly those that don't have extensive other problems) have been salvaged at WP:FAR, which is the main goal of many editors working there. In fact, several articles written by the editor you are concerned about (no longer on Wiki) have been referenced by other editors during FAR, and have had their featured status maintained. That's the idea: you're welcome to dig in and help us preserve the status of FAs. I have a lot of respect for the editors who are saving old stars, rather than promoting new ones without fixing their old ones. Sandy (Talk) 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. As to one month to "shape up or ship out", extra time has always been granted to any article that is actively being worked on and improved. Sandy (Talk) 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Which ones? Basically what I'm seeing is User:Lord Emsworth's articles being de-featured mainly on the basis of no in-line footnotes. I looked back through the record and did not see any that were fixed, as you say. Some of them had other problems, which is fine. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You need to look closer. This discussion is going in circles: I'll step out now. Sandy (Talk) 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to add to this discussion that FAR/C appears to be doing a good job of revamping old FAs. Often, other problems are picked up and worked on in addition to the citations issue. We do go to some trouble to alert projects and contributors to the process, in the hope that they'll display the loyalty that many of these FAs deserve. Tony 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Per Tony and Sandy. FARC is the best existing way to revamp old FAs.--Yannismarou 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A contradiction

I had operated under the assumption that FA's required inline citations, including nominating FA's for FAR and objecting to FAC's on that basis. However, at the bottom of WP:CITE, I recently noticed this: "The arbiters of the criteria for being a "Good Article" have declared the use of inline citations mandatory, and articles relying on other forms of citation are being delisted as Good Articles. The status of "Featured Article", on the other hand, carries no such requirements on the form of citations." Should that be updated? I would also like to see the inline citation requirement stated more clearly in WIAFA, which would involve the rewording of "and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations". Thoughts? Gzkn 09:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated how? As a practical matter, FAC and FAR reviewers all agree that inline citations are required, where they are appropriate, but without specifying the form of the citations (most use footnote in the <ref> style, but many perfer Harvard citations). Are you proposing that featured articles must have inline citations in a particular format? Which one? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh crap. I should learn to read closer :) Somehow, I glossed over "the form of". Sorry! And nope, I'm not proposing that the inline citations should be in a particular format. Although reading WP:CITE over again, it's still a little unclear to me. "The arbiters of the criteria for being a "Good Article" have declared the use of inline citations mandatory, and articles relying on other forms of citation are being delisted as Good Articles." Does that mean either footnotes or Harvard is OK? If so, how is that different from FA rules, as suggested in the next sentence? Gzkn 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Harvard is acceptable, as it is inline. It's in the text (Smith, 78). As for the sentence you're citing on WP:CITE, I have just removed the second clause relating to FA. No idea what was trying to be said there. Marskell 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah much better, thanks! Gzkn 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User advice

Just stumbled upon User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA - worth adding? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not too bad. Could use some cleaning up though (seems to ramble in places, and a copyedit would be helpful). --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Needs serious copy-editing; then I'll be pleased to cross-reference from mine. Tony 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EWhat_is_a_featured_article__fad4.html"