Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Refactored to archives on 19:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

No red links?

I wonder, shouldn't there be a (informal) criterion that featured article should contain no red links? I haven't noticed that some would have, until Caesar cipher, which has red link to pattern word. Samohyl Jan 18:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an informal policy that they shouldn't have an excessive number. As far as prohibiting it entirely, that would be a terrible idea - the whole idea of red links is to advertise articles we are lacking -- prohibiting red links would simply encourage people not to link the terms. →Raul654 18:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I concur strongly with Raul. Red links are what ultimately ecourage growth of the wiki (although I go to some length to eliminate them on the articles I work on - but by the expedient of creating content, rather than declining to link). That said, it is also true that too many red links tells me that an article exists in something of a vacuum, which is problematic for a featured article... A featured article should be sufficiently well linked to put it in an appropriate context. Fawcett5 19:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<newbie>Me too!</newbie>. I don't think red links should be eliminated from FACs; rather, we should encourage editors to create articles (or at least good stubs) that fill in the necessary background information for articles. I've tried to follow this practice on articles that I create or edit (like the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad page to eliminate a red link on my Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad FAC). The presence of red links should not be a deterrent to featured status. slambo 19:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think this would be a bad idea since it would discourage writing in topic areas that are now on the fringe of our coverage. A recent article I wrote is on the history of the Grand Canyon area. Other than not having a lead section, I’d say that it is a pretty darn good article. Yet it has many red links due to the fact that this article covers an area of history that is very poorly-covered in Wikipedia right now. Why should this article be denied FA status due to a lack of related articles? --mav 17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Same story with USS Missouri: Me and B have been overhauling the article alot in the past eight or so weeks, but the net result of that has been a sharp increase in red links; mostly their locations that I have never been to. The discussion on the 1980s modernization has also led to red links because of obsolete weaponry, yet in both cases I see no need to penalize the author for this. TomStar81 08:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with you guys. It would be silly to not give something FA status just because linked articles don't exist. It would only promote people not linking to them, or linking, but writing substubs. Now if such a link is a subpage of an FA that summarizes something in a section, it's another thing... Mgm|(talk) 11:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Something else to consider about featured articles and red ink: Since the featured article is right out on the main page people who generally wouldn't look for the article have accsess to it, and may have knowlage of the red inked link, which leads to an increase in the number of pages and a reduction in the red ink links. TomStar81 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References

What is the appropriate way to deal with references to other wikipedia content? Wikipedia:Cite sources suggests not including them in a references section. Fair enough; the original references will be in other wikipedia articles, which we can follow links to see. But this raises the possibility of an article with no references section at all that is actually soundly referenced. The easiest way for that to happen is to write a monster article, full of detailed references, then have it split according to Wikipedia:Summary style so that everything in the article is then a summary of some other wikipedia article, which contains all the references.

This hasn't happened yet, exactly, but I was editing carbon and removed the only entry under "References" because replaced the only place it was used with information from material properties of diamond. (Of course, carbon should have loads of references, but that's beside the point for now...) --Andrew 04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty big deal, and one I also ran into (consequently, while working on diamond and its sub-articles) without knowing what to do. If material properties of diamond is well referenced, as it is, and I use a fact from that article in the main article diamond, do I need to duplicate the reference? I've come to think that maybe we can use other Wikipedia articles as formal references, but only so long as those articles are well referenced themselves. (Does that mean we should list subarticles in the ==References== section?) The obvious danger is that we create huge circular references where we only back things up with our own articles, which of course defeats the whole purpose of referencing in the first place. - Bryan is Bantman 17:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
That's a tricky point. There is precedent and instruction for referencing foreign language wikis (which I've followed on some of the xxxx in Rail Transport pages), but other than mentioning related articles in a See also section, I haven't seen any other guidelines on referencing existing articles. My thought is that if an article is used as a reference, it should be listed in the References section. We have a mechanism to link to specific versions of articles through the page history, so why not use it? Perhaps list wiki articles in a subsection of the References like === Wikipedia references === or somesuch, and list the article name as a link to the specific version that was referenced. slambo 18:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Surely the 'right' answer is that the copied fact should be checked again in the reference cited in the original article, just to make sure, and then the original reference is repeated in the article where the fact is copied. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think ALoan is right. But it's true that (especially for print references) we should be more willing to trust well-referenced Wikipedia articles than random unsupported claims. What I mean is, I think it's okay, although not ideal, to simply plunder another wikipedia article for facts; ideally, one would go check the references. Only if this is done should the refs be added to the article's refs section. This will be more easily done if one records which wikipedia article the refs come from. What I've been doing with all my refs is putting an abbreviated specific reference in comments (like <!--[[Material properties of diamond]]--> or <!--http://www.scuba-doc.com/HPNS.html-->) and then (if it's not a Wikipedia article) listing the detailed ref in the References section. --~~~~

Other language Wikipedias

Should it be a guideline that a Featured Article should attempt to include as many links as possible to other languages? I've been using aka's marvellous search tool to add these to as many Featured Article Candidates as possible, and if I have time I might start on some existing FAs. It only really works for proper names, so we couldn't make this a hard and fast rule - people can't be expected to translate an article title into 93 different languages - but where it's easy to check what exists, I think this should be encouraged. --194.73.130.132 15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to do this as far as possible. See the India page ~80 links. Its shouldn't be expected that the authors waste their effort in translating the pages. Having a simple english page on the other hand would help the SE cause and also those who may not understand the jargon on the FA page, but would like to read a good article.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 20:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

US music

I am hoping on nominating music of the United States soon. Having recently used the Titan (moon) system of referencing, I'd like to get some input from the FAC crowd (since PR is inappropriate for this case). See the References section, with quotes from the sources. I think this is very useful and interesting, but is making the references section very long. If the entire article is done like this, it will be way over 32k. Should I remove the quotes but otherwise keep the referencing the way it is? Or does page size not matter in this case? Do you like the sound sample download format (e.g. at Music of the United States#Native American music)? Or does that seem to obtrusive? Tuf-Kat 17:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is going to ding the article on length if what is pushing it above 32K is extensive referencing. --mav 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fictional Articles and Featured Article Status

Is their a general rule for the status of fictional articles with regards to their eligability (or lack there of) of becoming featured articles? I cannot seem to find anything regarding the subject. TomStar81 08:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, define what you mean by 'Fictional Articles'. If you mean 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', then that article will be treated the same as any other. If you mean 'a fake article that is pulling the reader's leg', then that will be treated just like any other vandalism and be deleted. --mav 17:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I think he means fictional in the good (e.g., literay) sense, like with Foundation Series or Superman or whatnot. And yes, those articles are treated no differently. →Raul654 20:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', like the kinds of examples Raul654 named. The reason I brought I up is because some of the articles related to the Gundam Universe (which is an entirely fictional universe) have been refined enough to meet the needed criteria for featured article status, but the only featured articles I see are those that come from the actual real world. I know that fair use images do not qualify for featured picture status, but I was unclear on whether or not fictional articles were similarly disqualified. TomStar81 23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent condensing of the criteria

I for one think the changes are great, and make the criteria simpler and more concise. However, now the section on images is gone and the only leftover part says you don't really need images. I think that is misleading since in practice every article that does not have an image is objected to multiple times. The only ones that make it through without one are conceptual articles where an actual image is difficult or impossible. I think the criteria should reflct some clarity around this issue. - [ this was User:Taxman ] 12:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would even suggest that, as it's worded now, the paragraph on images should be bullet point 5. The lead for the list is "A featured article should", and the first four words of the images paragraph starts the same way. slambo 12:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - a good rewrite; I changed "may" to "should" contain images where appropriate, as it used to say, incidentally. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I came across two conflicting sentences while editing:

  1. A featured article should have images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate.
  2. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.

I left things as they were to avoid controversy, and assumed that images were not a prerequsite for FA status. I would be happy to re-word the paragraph to reflect your comments.

If pictures were required, would it be okay if I removed the following sentence: "however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the Main Page (it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful."

=mrcleanup= 13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really conflicting, as "should" and "must" are not quite the same thing. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Where I come from, "should" has a meaning closer to "must". I remember reading somewhere on the internet that in the U.S., "should" has a meaning closer to "may" (if my memory serves me well). Your comment has made this clearer. =mrcleanup= 13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm Irish, and my sense of it here is that "should" allows for the possiblilty of a "however" while "must" does not. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. :) --mav 01:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoa - this series of edits almost slipped by me. I only checked the diff for the last one, not realizing there were a bunch more. Anyway, from what I can see, it looks good. →Raul654 01:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Inline citations

At the danger of getting the wrong answer, I think we need to discuss whether inline citations are simply desirable in a featured article, or mandatory. The absence of inline citations has been coming up as an objection on WP:FAC very frequently in recent weeks, principally by mav. I know he has the highest of motives, but, to my mind, at least, that objection is not supported by the current criteria: Wikipedia:What is a featured article currently says that a featured article should be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations".

There seems to be a slippery slope - the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required, see above - that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article. I am not objecting to the requirement to provide sources to justify the broad content of an article, nor indeed to provide specific inline citations (whether using {{inote}} or otherwise) to support an specific surprising, contentious or debateable point, but I think requiring inline citations as a matter of course is simply overkill. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

While I personally prefer the idea of inline citations, I don't think it should be a requirement (nor do I think historically there has been support to require them). →Raul654 20:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Appropriate use of inline citations is a requirement. I originally opposed this but was over-ruled. Using invisible cites will not make the article look like an academic treatise. You come from a FAC on a topic that many people think is in large part original research. Use of inline citations behind weasel terms like "some publications" is certainly appropriate in such a case. --mav 22:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
A couple of points. There is now quite a tradition for FA standards to rise over time, and I am comfortable with this general trend - calling this a "slippery slope" is too negative an attitude. Now the flavour of the month is inline cites. These are generally useful - most articles will contain at least some specific facts where it is beneficial to the reader to know precisely where they came from. However I would much prefer to see "Facts A,B,C,D should have a specific citation" rather than "This article only has two specific citations. Please add more". The former is actionable, the latter is not. Pcb21| Pete 12:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You keep using that word... (Well not just you, lots of people do that, but I've got to keep the quote straight :) Actionable means able to be acted upon. "Please add more" is actionable because the editor can add them, an action. While it is more helpful to ask for specific facts to be cited, that is not required to be actionable. It is fairly straightforward to prioritize the facts in the article from the two standpoints of most potentially contentious and most important and to cite those. 'Any featured quality article should have used good sources, so citing the top facts in the article should be no big deal. While I'm against a numerical requirement, certainly 20+ facts would not be unreasonable to cite in an article the length of even the shortest FA's, and certainly 10 would not be an unbearable task for any editor that has done good research. I'll repeat for emphasis, if you've done good research, citing a reasonable number of facts should be no big deal. If you don't feel like formatting them, just at least give a listing of which source and maybe a page number in a comment. If we promote this as just another step in the process when adding material and people get in the habit of it, it is really not very hard at all. - Taxman 13:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Very good points. At first I was really annoyed by this new requirement since it was something I was not doing before. But now that I know the requirement exists, I add inline cites as I write. It is very easy and second nature now. What still is a bugger is having to go back to an article I wrote without cites to add them. That takes hours but is worth it since it makes the article much more verifiable. Arguments that say that having such cites is not standard for an encyclopedia need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a standard encyclopedia; that letting anybody edit any time and having multiple authors carries an extra burden of proof that what the reader is reading was not simply made up. --mav
It is a shame I said actionable and that you concentrated on that. I should've said that the former objection is more useful than the latter. You say "Please add some inline cites to this article; you get to pick" and indeed I can carry out an action passed on that just to shut you up, as it were, and get my article featured. But if I cite ten facts that could be verified in five seconds by using Google then I've added nothing to the article. It's just creating a false impression of verfiability. Specific requests for cites on facts you feel needed backing up however, definitely add something to the article. Pcb21| Pete 16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Good points also. It is apparent from the tone of your response that my comments must have come accross much more abrasively than they were meant to. I apologize, as that was not my intention. Basically, avoiding that pitfall you point out is not much different that any other factor in writing a great article. If the guideline is to cite the most contentious and the most important facts in an article, and instead what you referred to is done, the guideline has certainly not been met. Where would be the most appropriate place to have that guideline, this article or Wikipedia:Cite sources? And is my proposed guideline a good one? As a side note, I would say that even if what you outlined actually occurred, I would still argue the article is improved, even if only slightly. I'm not sure how many would agree with me on that, but I think verifiability is simply that important. It's Wikipedia's biggest weakness. - Taxman 18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I was over-reacting. Inline references are good, and FAC comments should encourage them. If those FAC comments are particularly detailed and specific, so much the better. But even if not, the writer should implicitly understand where citations are most appropriate. This is different from the vague objections like "not comprehensive, but don't know how" that don't help the reader at all. Pcb21| Pete 10:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that due to the amount of work required to add inline cites retroactively, I very strongly oppose this requirement to be retroactive on FAs that were nominated before this was a requirement. I do, however, think that a lack of a populated ==References== section is a reasonable thing to add to a FARC nomination (but that should not be the only reason). Adding such a section to an older article is not nearly as difficult as adding inline cites to such an article. --mav 14:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have to say I reluctantly agree with inline cites not being applied retroactively for the very reason you mention. Especially since it is just now getting formalized as a requirement. In a minimum of a year, I would consider revisiting that though. I would also like to emphasize what you know but did not include in your comment above, that simply listing a book (or other resource) about a subject in a References section is innapropriate, instead the book has to have actually been read and to actually confirm the material in the article. Finally, as many may well know, I would of course disagree with you that a lack of references alone is not sufficient for listing on FARC. It has been a long time now that references have been a requirement, and also a long time now a list was produced of all FA's without references to illuminate the problem, and a month now that every FA without references has had a request made to add references to it. I'm an eventualist too, and believe that Wikipedia will continue to improve, but I also believe that we can be ok with breaking some eggs to make an omlette. And I believe that omlette would feed the hungry of the world better and sooner if we break the eggs now (or soon). If it was made widely clear that at a given date, say a month from now, the references requirement would be retroactive to all FA's, I think we would all be amazed at how much success there would be in referencing them all. Given that advance warning, I think there would be nothing but good as a result of making the switch to retroactive. I'm not anticipating that many will suddenly agree with me, but I decided to restate what I believe anyway. Feel free to move this to a new section if anyone wants to reply to this instead of the inline cites issue. Thanks for reading. - Taxman 18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) I'd like to get some more back-up re objecting to FACs that don't have adequate inline cites. As is, I'm a bit of the poster child for objecting based on this (which is odd considering I did not agree to this addition to the referencing requirement at first). --mav 02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Somehow the term "inline citation" has been made synonymous with "footnote", which doesn't seem very logical to me. An inline citation is actually writing a sentence into an article paragraph along the lines of "According to 'Book Y' by 'John Doe', 75% of all cats are brown" or something like it. A footnote may be considered an inline citation, but is not in the least bit synonymous. And considering how a lot of recent article have clearly overused footnotes, I think we should try to explain either in the criteria or on nomination pages that footnotes aren't actually required and that they are not the least bit helpful if used in excess. In any subject that isn't particularly controversial, I would prefer a short and concise "References"-section over 20+ footnotes any day of the week. And any reference that has been inserted only on the account of meta-debates over pointless minutiae at the talkpage should be removed on sight. At least when it comes to FA(C)s.
Peter Isotalo 14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I wrote Yom Kippur War (which was promoted recently) and it uses the academic citation style quite a bit more than footnotes. →Raul654 14:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Question mark

Following the move of Wikipedia:What is a featured list to Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, should this also move to Wikipedia:What is a featured article? (that is, shouldn't the article's name end in a question mark?) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What is a featured article" can be a statement can't it? It's just a different way of saying: [This is] what a featured article is. Unless the alternative is much better, I'd like to keep it where it is at. - Taxman Talk 13:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Grammatically, it's a question. Maybe Wikipedia:What a featured article is would do the trick, but I'd favour the "?" option. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm struggling to think of any context in which you would use "What is a featured article" as a statement rather than as a question (per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list?, I think "who" and "what" are used in somewhat different situations). Wikipedia:What a featured article is is rather less elegant, IMHO. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is an alternative, I suppose. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, if we're going to move, I'd be happy with Wikipedia:Featured article criteria since that's what is written most of the time when linking to this page anyway. We always write criteria or featured article criteria, so why wouldn't the page be named that instead? - Taxman Talk 16:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I would recommend against adding a question mark to the page name for reasons stated on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) slambo 14:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Not really relevant as the ? would be at the end of the title. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

No no, I don't like this idea one bit. Not only does it strike me as pedantic, but (a) tons of pages already link here and (b) it makes the article harder to find. →Raul654 14:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree it would be practically difficult; however, I cannot agree that asking for correct punctuation in a title is pedantic. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm - I'm undecided whether "pedantic" is a personal attack or a compliment (looking at our article, decidedly the former!). But anyway, whether it is pedantic or not is really beside the point: Wikipedia:What is a featured article just looks wrong. It would not be at all difficult - searching would still work, the "?" is at the end of the name so links would work too, and there would be a redirect, which would also solve the "lots of links" point too. But I am not going to die in a ditch over a question mark. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would favour the use of the question mark, or rephrasing as a non-question ("What a featured article is").
James F. (talk) 14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As was suggested above, if we were going to move it (and I'm still not fond of the idea) Wikipedia:featured article criteria would be the place to put it. →Raul654 16:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

FAC and Peer Review

I know that it is listed as a step in "The Path to a Featured Article" infobox, but I have been noticing more and more often that articles seem to be nominated for FA without even bothering to go through the peer review process. Or they get impatient after about a week of PR and jump it over to FAC. Perhaps there should be a rule that any article is firmly required, without exception, to go through peer review for the full month period that PR remains active before being allowed to be a FAC. Should that apply also to repeat bids? (I think so - I can't see how it can hurt to give an article more time and outside help.) Even if there are good articles that get through to FA without PR, I find it hard to believe that the process can be a significant impediment to any article. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? Not to say that's a bad thing at all, but clearly there is a backlog, so should anyone object that a new rule of this sort would lower the number of promoted articles, the answer seems to be that that doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad thing in the short term - some of those older promoted ones waiting in the wings and getting dusty can finally see the Main Page! Anyway, just my musings... What do you all think? --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Requirng peer review for FACs has been proposed before and has been roundly shot down every time. It is understood that peer review is an optional part of the Featured article process. Requiring it is instruction creep, and it serves little value becaus people have no incentive to make it work. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? - No. The standards - what we expect of a featured article - have gone up (A LOT) over the past year, and this has artificially depressed the rate at which featured articles are being generated. I believe today is the 183rd day of 2005 and (to date) we have had a net increase of 181 featured articles this year (which is in fact below the 1 article/day minimum we must sustain in order to prevent any repeats). →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:39 (UTC)
Fair enough. I withdraw the proposal. (Shoulda checked the archives, I guess! Oops.) --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:42 (UTC)
Nah, in the future, don't bother checking archives - it's a waste of your time. It's probably buried deep in the archives of the featured article candidates talk page, and there are people here who can tell you off the top of their heads that an idea is not new. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:47 (UTC)

If you recommend an article should be sent to Peer Review, you should be active on Peer Review --PopUpPirate 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit

Please take a look. --MarSch 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights, again

Raul, can we list the acceptable image copyrights on here for Requirement Five, for future reference? There is still a problem about fair use images at FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the link to go to the license section of the Copyright FAQ, which lists more-or-less all of the common licenses and whether or not they are acceptable. Is that suitable to you? →Raul654 02:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Raising the bar

I'd like to change

Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.

to

Be the best article about the topic available in any encyclopedia or information resource, on or off-line.

Is there any reason to set the bar lower? - Fredrik | talk 12:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

We would have to start rejecting a lot more FACs :). I think we could reword to make the statement stronger and that would be a good thing.. but your statement is a little too strong for my tastes. Pcb21| Pete 13:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Why too strong? I think many of our present featured articles would hold up to it. Fredrik | talk 11:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Many books have been written about topics we wish to cover with FAs. We cannot, and should not aspire to, cover any topic with the same breadth and depth as a lengthy scholarly work. Besides, the "best article available" varies by who is looking; the best article to a scholarly researcher is much different than the best article for a curious but casual reader. We must serve all audiences, so it is doubtful we can be the best to everyone on everything. But I like your ambitions! :) - Bantman 18:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Bantam - an 40 kilobyte-or-less article on some given subject cannot ever hope to be more informative than a 400 page book on the same. →Raul654 20:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of articles on Wikipedia is to provide the most essential information in as condensed a format as possible, and we can easily do that better than most 400 page books. If we need more information, we move the details to specific articles and get those featured as well. What about scholars vs casual readers? Indeed, we need to serve all audiences, and therefore we can state that our articles should be the best at making the tradeoff required to serve all audiences. Seems clear enough to me. Note that the qualification of "representing what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet" is equally hard to reach since many of our FA topics are covered on lots of other sites. It is really a guideline more than a rule, and that's why I think making it more ambitious is justified. Fredrik | talk 21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

References

Perhaps we might want to explicitly put the "...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." part of Wikipedia:The perfect article here; I see that this is a criticism that often arises in candidacies, and I reckon that it isn't obvious for people who are not accustomed to scientific article,s for instance. Rama 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the phrase "reputable sources" could become a needless point of contention. Sometimes a source is not viewed as "reputable" by everyone, and yet it represents a notable view (where no others exist). 119 19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I actually like this. If there is no other source for a view, then any source is fine - as long as it is noted, the reader can judge the validity of the source himself. But for most facts or viewpoints, I feel much more confident in believing them when they are referenced to, say, New England Journal of Medicine rather than about.com. Even for contentious views, a reference from a known source, even if biased, is better than one where the reader cannot judge the potential bias of an item because the source is unknown to him. - Bantman 21:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
That's easy to solve with "the most reputable source available". Then people can't use garbage sites if much better is available, but don't get frustrated when there is only one source has the info. It is important to discourage shoddy resources as references just to get by the requirement. - Taxman Talk 16:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
"Most reputable" is very difficult - for example, Fox News Channel and National Public Radio are both held as credible and unbiased by many, but also accused (justly or unjustly, it doesn't matter) by many as substantially biased. Regardless, as long as sources are well known, the reader can judge for himself. If a fact is referenced with Fox News as a source, the reader can say to himself "I trust Fox News, so I trust this is true" or "Fox News is biased; therefore this fact may also be biased." Reputation in this case is not a problem; it is recognition of the source. In other cases, "most reputable" is appropriate, for example when a scholarly peer-reviewed journal (especially in the hard sciences) can supply the same facts as some blog. Accessibility is another issue; if we have two reputable sources, we would rather reference the more accessible one to facilitate fact checking. Example: I'd rather reference a Smithsonian web article on most unspecialized knowledge than an offline scholarly journal, because 1) Smitsonian is trustworthy, 2) the subject matter is not controversial enough to need the gravitas of a journal, and 3) accessibility facilitates fact checking, which reinforces our reputability. To summarize, it looks like I've come up with two more criteria for references, plus Taxman's:
  • Reputable
  • Recognizable
  • Accessible
We need to encourage the maximization of all three of these aspects for references: the perfect reference would be an online article from an unimpeachable source with a household name. While this is almost never possible, we need to strive for that, and favor references that achieve the best balance among the three criteria listed above. - Bantman 17:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think is a solution in search of a problem. We have not, to my knowledge, had problems with people citing crappy sources in articles because I believe it's pretty obvious that you are expected to use good ones. Until it becomes problem, I don't see a need to add this. →Raul654 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree. One recent example is cat, which had a successful FAC nomination despite using as references such websites as "cats.about.com", "hgtv.com" (a home improvement cable channel), "cozycatfurniture.com", "fabcats.org", "demented-pixie.com" (my personal favorite), "messybeast.com", and personal webpages. While these references are all accessible, they are neither reputable nor recognizable. This makes the article weaker than it should be, considering that there must be a wide variety of excellent references available for most of the facts cited. Clearly, using superior references strengthens the article, and I firmly believe we should encourage this. - Bantman 20:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree. I see this all the time, people citing Joe's website in support of their claims, and lacking even a hint of understanding of the difference in quality of sources as Brian has outlined above. See Talk:Battery electric vehicle. Or at least they feign to in order to not have to look for better sources. I like Brian's criteria. I do suppose what I am mentioning is not as much of a problem for FA's but it does still happen for FAC's and certainly happens all over Wikipedia. To respond directly to Brian though I don't find Fox nor NPR as remotely high quality references for a fact. I would take a well regarded textbook over either one of them any day, because of the editing and review process those go through. For material that is new, and is not in journals or textbooks, we may have to accept that news organizations are the best sources we have, but lets not kid ourselves that they are as high quality as other choices. Is cite sources the best place to educate people on how to research facts and what sources are best, or do people have ideas on where that best can be done? - Taxman Talk 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Of course you're right re: news orgs vs. textbooks; for some reason I had contemporary politics in my head, which is more dependent on news for sources. Even then, I'd generally prefer newspapers and magazines, for precisely the reasons you mention. - Bantman 21:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, My point was mostly emphasised like this: "...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." I worry much more about people not giving any source, than people ginving sources of questionable value. Rama 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I worry much more about people not giving any source - this is generally not a problem now - the references requirement is a well-accepted one. →Raul654 20:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
At least for FA's, but we still have a long way to go to make sure editors reallize it is important for every article, and even that all editors will see guidelines that recommend it. That said, we have come a long way in a year on this front and all progress should be considered encouraging. - Taxman Talk 21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I've been using reference sections for all new articles I create (even stubs), and some editors (including well-known and respected ones) have tried changing them to "external links". I think awareness is high in the FAC community, but we still need to spread the good word to others. - Bantman 18:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Inline citations"

There's obviously a clash of opinions when it comes to the following sentence:

[A featured article...] Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources).

For one thing, the widespread notion that "inline citation" means "footnote" is a problem. That this sentence is cited by those who feel that inline citations should be mandatory is an even bigger problem. Most FAC subjects should be comprehensive and general enough to require inline citations, but that does not mean it applies to all candidates equally. Personally, I feel the current wording is ambiguous for a reason and should stay that way. Just like too many images or a bad sub-section hierarchy will spoil an article, so will a pointless sprinkling of cosmetic footnotes. A very good example of this is names of the Greeks.

I believe it is fairly established that there is not a consensus style for inline citations, so footnotes or Harvard referencing or whatever else is considered fine. Maybe that should be in the criteria specifically, but it has not been in order to simplify the criteria as much as possible. - Taxman Talk 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think all objections that call for more referencing without proper justification should be disregarded, especially when made with nonsense claims that, for example, all historical facts need specific references. Blanket statements like this is about as merited as "it's not interesting enough". And it should be very obvious that any article that has multiple notes in single paragraphs or even sentences are either grossly over-referenced or need to be rewritten. Peter Isotalo 18:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And I think you should show more respect to your fellow wikipedians, and try more to understand their thesis, or should I say their answers to your objections all these days. Thanks. MATIA 18:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
But take a look through the archive on this talk page about footnotes. It's not as cut-and-dried as some of the other requirements and has proven to be a little controversial here. I know I brought up similar concerns in (I think) March, and we've been discussing it off an on since then. No real consensus has been reached, but we've so far agreed that better referencing on articles is a Good Thing (tm). slambo 18:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
And again, please read the archives, where the consensus for this was achieved. Also spend some time at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If after really reading those, you can tell me some actual advantages (that outweigh the costs) to reducing inline citation then I am all ears. I will specifically repeat that it has been established that appropriate does not mean none. I believe there is no subject that would benefit from not having inline citations. - Taxman Talk 22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
What kind of response is that? Slambo claims he can't find the consensus you insist is there and you tell him to read it again? You're no longer discussing this. You've just dug in and now you're doing your best to blatantly trivialize objections or to warp whatever criticism that might be voiced into some sort of general assault on the foundations of verifiability. No one's even calling for a rewrite of policy, yet you're rock solid in your opinion that only your interpretation is valid and that whatever you've perceived as consensus in past discussions supports you. It's disheartening to say the least.
Peter Isotalo 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Well hmm, misunderstandings all around, because that response wasn't to Slambo, it was to you, but I can see the confusion, because I didn't place it very well, sorry. So was MATIA's comment, [here's the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article&diff=22267407&oldid=22267012]. I think the indenting is finally right for who was responding to who. You do need to read the archives, because, while there were opinions both ways, what we ended up changing the criteria to is the citations are needed, and that appropriate doesn't mean none. I'm not telling you that's my interpretating, that was the interpretation of many, and I can pull out specific diffs from various nominations after we made that change if you like, specifically discussing the difference between appropriate and none. But ignore all that if you want to, and just respond to the most important part, italicized above. Given that, I do feel this is very important to the core issues of building an encyclopedia, so I will defend it strongly, but I certainly don't mean to piss people off, and I'm sorry, because clearly I have. - Taxman Talk 02:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I've never liked breaking up threads, but it's your response, so it's your call.
Previous discussions do not count as policy unless they've resulted in actual policy change, and it's very obvious that even if the unanimous consensus you talk about existed, there's clearly enough criticism to consider it rather shaky. Just the fact that it's not immidiately obvious to someone like slambo is a very good sign that you're exaggerating its importance. Your highlighted sentence is really nothing more than a repetition of what I've already criticized, so I don't see what there is to add. For some reason you're trying very hard to polarize and overly simplify the attempts of others to nuance policy and making them out as being generally "anti-reference". The policies and ideas that articles should be verifiable are not in any kind of jeapordy even with the somewhat conservative interpretations about footnote usage offered by myself, bish and geogre.
Peter Isotalo 09:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, forget previous discussions. Pretend they never occurred if it's easier. But you've sidestepped the very core of the issue by saying it would just be repetitive. Well it wouldn't be, because this is all you've said (from the most representative quotes I can find besides what is on this page) is: "Just remove those 18 footnotes", "...and those who don't aren't going to demand specific page references.", "There's no value in keeping them", "Referencing things like ... effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose", "what I'm saying is no different from complaining that there are too many images or sub-sections in an FAC", " If a note clearly serves little or no purpose in referencing an article '...enhanced by appropriate usage...' might just as well be interpreted as 'none' (though not in this particular case)". So you haven't stated any actual positive value for Wikipedia or its articles to reduced inline citation. You've just repeatedly stated you don't think they're needed. What I'm asking you for is the why behind your stance. What is the value to removing them? Again, if anyone can answer that, and that value is greater that the cost of reduced verifiability, I'm at least listening. If what you really think is that they are just being misused, then lets work on how to best use them correctly,a nd make great, reliable articles, which is of course what we're all after, no matter what differences of opinion we have. - Taxman Talk 14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I can help clear up what I meant to convey... The citations requirement as it stands now is that references must be cited in the article. As a minimum, the references used must be listed in a == References == section which is normally at the end of the article. This should (not must) be enhanced with the appropriate use of inline citations. The lack of consensus is over whether the inline citations should be in the form of footnotes, journal style notes that refer to items in the References section, or even numbered links to external online references. It is up to the articles' editors to determine the appropriate amount and use of inline citations for each article. We have not come to an agreement on one specific type of inline citations (personally, I don't much like footnotes, but I don't use a lack of inlines or their presence as an objection), and the way things are going with nominations, I don't see that happening for a while yet. What we have all agreed is that aiding the verifiability of an article's facts is necessary. slambo 11:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Both have its merits and demerits. I have a few suggestions: What if we combine the merits of both systems? Use inotes so that it doesn't break up the flow of the text, but at the same time Taxman can view the references. How this is done? By CSS: class="inote" for Peter and all of us it will be inote{display:none} and for Taxman it will be *inote{display:all}. So while we'll see nothing in normal mode, Taxman who'll have to modify monoboox.css, will see the following:

  • {{inote|Milton-Ch2-pg3}} rendered as: text text text 103Milton-Ch2-pg3 – for books
  • {{inote|http://www.google.com|4}} rendered as: text text text 1034 – for URL's

what the rest of us will see:

  • text text text 103

User:Nichalp/sg 12:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

That's awesome, thanks. We've been clamoring for an option for those that don't want to see them don't have to, and that is almost perfect. The only thing better would be to have that be an account preferences option instead of having to change the css style sheet. I don't mind personally, but it would be easier for everyone. - Taxman Talk 14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
You'd need to contact a developer to set the class in the HTML code first. I was also wondering if we could have a "verify" button in addition to "article" "edit" "discussion" etc., so that the actual modification of the css file by a user is not done; instead the server dishes up the correct css file. We already have a "print" version, so a "verify" version is the next logical step. User:Nichalp/sg 14:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting a compromise, Nichalp, but I like the fact the footnotes link straight to the reference section. It is a hellofalot better than footnotes in books and both inline citation and footnotes have their merits and both can be used in the same article, so simply turning off footnotes for most people doesn't really seem like a practical solution. And as for print-outs, the current system would work fine even on paper.
I'm also not quie comfortable being described as a proponent of "a system". I'm trying to influence people to stop overusing footnotes, not to get rid of them altogether. I think slambo's post summarizes my own view of this very nicely. It should be determined from case to case and the article editors should preferably decide. But I still think it's very reasonable to object to either too few or too many footnotes as long as the objection is at least generally specified. "There isn't enough/too many references" or "all historical facts require/don't require notes" isn't actionable, and I try my best to specify what I feel to be overusage whenever I object even if I don't address each individual note.
Peter Isotalo 18:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm one of those who likes footnotes, but dislikes the clutter and distractions of footnote overuse. I prefer to use a style I've seen in recent publications which limits footnotes to one per paragraph. In this style, the footnote number is placed at the end of the paragraph, where it is least distracting. In the footnote text, all of the relevant reference information for the paragraph is briefly described. See Population history of American indigenous peoples for an example of my usage of this style. I hope others like it and use it. --Kevin Myers 04:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

FAs and Conflicts of Interest

I don't know if any of you are keeping track of the fun and games with regards to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo, but I thought we might try to come to some consensus before the article returns for another FA vote. In a nutshell, here is my major issue with the article: One of the people actively involved in the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon Watts (User:GordonWattsDotCom and here's his personal webpage) is actively involved in the creation of the article and even nominated it for FAC last time. I am aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest standards, and that a conflict of interest doesn't necesarily keep someone from contributing to an article. However, I feel uneasy about articles with such blatent conflict of interest becoming a FA, especially when the editor promoting the article for FAC is the one with the conflict. Does anyone else have concerns about this? Could the Wikipedia:What is a featured article be adjusted to reflect this, or is that going too far?--Alabamaboy 02:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, one way to look at this is that someone who is very familiar with the details is contributing to the article, so it's more likely that accurate (and hopefully well-referenced) information would be included. However, we could also see it as a veiled attempt to push a particular POV. Personally, I would rather have someone who has done a lot of research in a field be a contributor to articles in that field (which is why, for example, all of my own edits have something to do with railroad history and rail transport technology). As long as we do everything we can to ensure a neutral POV, and work to make the articles as readable as possible, even to the point of "brilliant prose", then there is less to worry about. slambo 17:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Further criteria added to what is a FA

I have added the following criteria, because the GNAA article failed solely on this issue:

Additionally, an article which exists on Wikipedia, though it may not be deleted because it is considered notable, may not become a featured article unless the group has been referenced in a published book, newspaper, magazine or Academic journal. (cf Gay Nigger Association of America). This is a controversial FA criteria because it cannot be actioned (we cannot effect external publications and we cannot publish original research.

If we are going to fail an FA solely on this criteria, then we should at least update this as a reason why an article may not make FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

FA instructions and criteria

Dialogue between Bishonen and me pasted in as relevant to this page. Tony 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I could cope with the removal of the expansion to point 6 (what not to write at the top of a nomination), but I will argue strongly that the additional signpost in point 1, concerning the need to have nominations copy edited thoroughly beforehand, should stay. Substandard prose was becoming a serious problem in the nominations, and I think (although I'm not certain) that the problem has lessened since the recent expansion of point 1. Clearly, nominators either had a distorted sense of the standards that apply ('compelling, even brilliant' prose) or weren't reading the criteria.

As a contributor who has put a lot of time and effort into trying to raise the standards of prose in the nominations, I thought that something needed to be done. When I comment on poor prose in nominations, I feel I need either to roll my sleeves up and fix it myself, or quote several examples and pull them apart; it's a lot of work. That is why I acted, and no one has since complained. I wouldn't mind if the italic highlighting in point 1 were softened to roman. Tony 00:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

(Bishonen, thanks for your message; I've interpolated my responses into it:)

Tony, I appreciate your good intentions and the urgency that made you expand the instructions. But I do think it's bloat to add specifics on one aspect of one of the (many) criteria, right next to the link to the criteria themselves. Nominators need to either make very sure to click on that link, or else several other specially important points need to be mentioned up front (which I'm against, as creating more bloat). I'm pretty sure lack of references, for instance, is as frequent a problem as lack of copyediting.

I've since pruned some of the additions in response to your comments, but your objection, I suspect, still applies to what remains. Lack of references, image copyright issues, and poor prose appear to the be most common complaints of reviewers. However, fixing poor prose, in my view, usually takes considerably more time, effort and skill than fixing the first two problems (not always, but usually). Poor prose is a more consistent problem, and is what will stick out when Wikipedia parades featured articles to the world. That's why I'm arguing that it be emphasised, and singled out for extra mention in the instructions.

Perhaps you might edit the criteria page further instead (I see you already did), to emphasize the need for copyediting?

I've already significantly simplified the wording and formatting of the criteria, and shifted greater emphasis onto prose by moving it into first position (that was one of the few substantive changes in meaning that I made). I don't know what more you can say in the one place than 'compelling, even brilliant' prose. That's why I thought another signpost elsewhere was called for.

Though I also stand by my remark about it looking condescending to tell everybody to go get somebody else to copyedit before nominating. Wouldn't you agree that there are articles that are good to go directly from the hands of the author/s/..?

I'm not sure that I agree; I'm a professional editor, yet on occasions I've hired someone else to edit my text when it really matters. It's the 'fresh pair of eyes' that just about all text needs, even text that has been produced by good writers. Perhaps we could soften the wording ('strongly recommended'?).

My overriding concern is that the instructions be kept simple and practical. Following Bishonen's Law, they will naturally tend to be always growing, as people add their own special concerns over time, while hardly anybody ever removes anything. I know Raul654 agrees with me in general, in fact it's Raul's ruthless pruning that has kept the FAC instructions so nice and simple compared to those of Peer Review. It wasn't very long since you made the additions, so it's possible that no one complained because no one noticed yet; the longer the instructions are, the more cursorily they'll probably be read, that's the problem.

I agree with all of these points, but I'd like to see the additional clause in point 1 retained.

Tony 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Example FAs by type

Over at Wikipedia:Featured article review, I've begun a list of article types (e.g. albums, architectural styles, orders of chivalry) and their featured articles. The goal is to encourage the standardization of layout and formatting between articles on similar subjects. There's a lot of variation in featured articles, some of it for good reason, but a lot of it would be better off standardized. Is anybody here interested in working on this? Tuf-Kat 18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Font size in references/notes sections

In many of "Today's featured articles", (e.g. Planetary habitability) the font size in the notes and references is reduced. I generally consider featured articles as "best practices" and therefore would go along with the reduced font size in notes and references. But, is this practice specified somewhere in the Manual of style or in some other guideline? Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's specified anywhere - it's just something that developed as a result of articles with very long references sections (a common trait of featured articles). Using small font means that the article text isn't dominated by the references section. Raul654 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
What does dominated mean in an environment where you are scrolling through a document of arbitrary length and there are good guidelines for the ordering of the material? patsw 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It means that for reasons of style the referenes section shouldn't be longer than the article itself, or even similiar in length. Raul654 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Succinct?

I replaced one of the succinct words with concise, just because I found it odd to have such an unusual, but clever, word used twice. Deckiller 04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional requirement for articles dealing with a historical subject to be featured

Under 2b we learn that a featured article must be ""comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details." However, many articles on historical subjects have been passed without having a historiography section. Given that disciplinary history demands a historiographical consciousness, yet does not resolve to distinct "empirical" demonstrations as the sciences claim, an encyclopedic entry on a historical subject must discuss historiography in order to be featured. For an example of a pro-forma of what a historiography section should look like see History of the world or Katyn massacre. I would appreciate others comments on whether this should be considered a requirement for articles on historical subjects to be featured. Fifelfoo 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate for all historical subjects. Consider that, per WP:NOR, any discussion of historiography must itself be cited from appropriate sources. For contentious or heavily studied periods, this may be possible; but for subjects where the material about the subject is itself fairly limited, finding material about the material about the subject will be next to impossible, and quite unenlightening to boot. —Kirill Lokshin 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Its still possible to indicate the seminal text, "Prior to Johansen (1974) no scholarly historical investigations were conducted into Boot Making in the Upper Hunter Valley. Johansen and subsequent scholars have followed principles developed in the fields of history of the firm and local history." Now some subjects in the past, Henry Miller for example, aren't historical in this sense. But articles claiming to be a "History of X" or dealing with a subject of central importance to history ("Causes of the First World War" for example) really should include this to qualify under 2b.Fifelfoo 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Then we can object on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, objecting because an article lacks historiographical discussion and the subject is such that this discussion would be meaningful is fine; objecting to all historical articles that lack such discussion (or in which the discussion is present in separate articles about the individual works cited) is excessive. —Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what a historiography is and I read that article, so I need no need, not a reason anyways, and on my article on FA that was opposed for it is rather hard to make one. Thank you --Jaranda wat's sup 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Krill and Aranda - I don't see any purpose to this requirement. Articles are required to have (good) sources; I don't think a seperate section discussing the sources should be required for all (or even most) articles. Raul654 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree again with objections above against the historiographical section. The thing is that in analyzing sources (which again, I'm not too understanding of the subject like Jaranda), but by looking at the article for historiography such a topic seems completely digressive. You're analyzing a source(s), which is completely off the direct topic of writing about the history of x. That can be included in a sub-page, but otherwise is unnecessary for being comprehensive. The other thing you have to realize is that the history of x includes the entire history of x, not just a single event (like those above), so that it is difficult to actually find one source to analyze using historiographical techniques. Plus, such a change would require every single article under the history section of the WP:FA page to be removed and redone, which is certainly not practial. Unless your sources are very likely to be POV, like the one in Katyn massacre is (note all of the citation neededs), there is no real point to including historiography. AndyZ 01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
History isn't the (alleged) instances of the past, but the systematic recording and storytelling of the past as done by people. All claims in history are dependent upon the quality of the work produced by historians, see for example the almost continuous series of fallacies produced by journalists attempting to write history from their recollection. Any attempt to state that an article is encyclopedic must then be in line with either the seminal texts produced in a disciplinary context of history, or the primary disputes developed by historians in their analysis of the past. This means that to be complete and "cite sources" an article on a "history of x" must demonstrate that it lies within the disciplinary discourse of "x": it must demonstrate the historiography which produced the article. This can be as simple as "The seminal work produced by E.P. Thompson has dictated the study of the emergence of a working class in England." or as complex as "Initial studies of the causes of the first world war denoted primarily diplomatic causes(Foo, Bar); this was followed by a tendency to analyse the causes in terms of economics(Baz, Bok); but in recent years attention has turned to the role of popular sentiment(Bik, Bang)."
Failure to do this is like allowing pseudo-science into the wiki without a criticism of it as pseudo-science. Due to the failrue to have a historiography section most articles claiming to be a "history of x" are actually folk- or media- pseudo-histories. A pseudo-history certainly doesn't meet my criteria of comprehensiveness under 2b. And if this is the case for currently featured articles, then our currently featured articles are more an indicator of our status as bad editors: especially when we use the example of a mass of past errors to defend a current error.
That's why articles on a historical topic should have a historiography section to be featured.Fifelfoo 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll remind you that we're writing encyclopedia articles, not dissertations. While in some isolated cases (generally for broad or contentious topics) a discussion of sources is appropriate, this is not the case for most historical articles, which tend to focus on fairly narrow (and rather obscure) topics. We are explicitly forbidden to declare something the "seminal work" unless we can cite said opinion to an outside source; given that such limitations make a proper analysis of documents (which is all you'll have if there are no major disputes over the topic) all but impossible, I see no reason to require a historiography section as a mere formality. —Kirill Lokshin 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A historiography section would be a POV section and would be a section of Original thought. By considering the quality of the historians themselves, you either must have bad and unreliable sources, which means that those sources should not have been used and that there would be no necessity for the historiography section. User:Raul654 removed the historiography section in Katyn massacre, deeming it quite unnecessary. Look at all of the {{fact}} in the section before it was removed; there are so many because all of it is unsubstantiable and is original thought. By judging the ability of the historian, you are making POV comments in the article directly, and such should instead be discussed on the talk page (like it was for Katyn massacre. Again, a historiographical section would also be digressive, but it does not directly pertain to the subject of history of x, but instead is a discussion of the sources for history of x, which can then be covered in a subpage.
By using words like "which claims…", you are making direct inferences about the credibility of the author of the source(s), which is digressive and shouldn't appear on the article anyway. If it was used as a source, great, discuss it on the talk page (which is why it is there) or create a subpage. Besides, by including a historiography section, you are claiming directly that the articles' contents are not infallable/dependable, which then fails it for FA critera 2(c). 2(b) requires that the article be sufficiently comprehensive such that it doesn't miss any major parts of the article... by my comments above, a historiographical section is not a major section of the article by being digressive and superflous. AndyZ 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A historiography section is not necessarily original research - many areas of history have had information on their historiographies published even if just as part of a more general work. We could quite safely cite these. I think these sections are more applicable to very specific articles, though, dealing with one incident. I don't think we should have a featured article on (say) the February Revolution that didn't make some reference to the different theories about what caused it, for example. I was pointed to this discussion from WP:FAC/History of Portugal (1777-1834), though, and I think that is too broad a topic for a historiography section - it would have to be several sections. If there was a future article on The independence of Brazil, for example, then I can see the value of a historiography section there.--Cherry blossom tree 21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem with citing historiographies to write such a section is that it creates a circular situation. Which historiographer(s) should we choose? How do we know that the historiographers cited don't have their own biases? Do we need to cite historiographer-ographers as well? I realize this situation is absurd, but without violating WP:NOR, I see no other way a historiography section would work. The Catfish 23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We'd presumably go about it the same way as we would citing historians, no? I can't see how it would be any different to writing the rest of the article.--Cherry blossom tree 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but if we need to cite historiographers to verify the historians, wouldn't we therefore need to cite historiographer-ographers to verify the historiographers? I can see the value of a historiography section in an article which is forced to depend on only semi-reliable sources, but in the absence of a significant sourcing dispute, I see little value from a blanket historiography requirement. The Catfish 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
We're not citing them to verify the historians, though. Maybe we're using the word to mean different things; historiography (in the sense I'm using it) simply means summarising the writings of various historians for its own ends. In an article on secularisation in western Europe, for example, we could say that the orthodox view was that it was a gradual process beginning with the industrial revolution but that Callum Brown challenged this view by suggesting that it was a rapid process that started in the sixties when women moved away from religion and so on. Obviously there shouldn't be a blanket requirement, but I can see how it'd be useful in some articles.--Cherry blossom tree 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to raise this issue, along with the more general issues of what we should expect in a History article, on Manual Of Style's talk page. [1], can I sugest moving this conversation there to centralise efforts. --Barberio 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project

I'd like to announce the opening of the Featured Music Project, an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands. You can help by evaluating articles, or by working on the articles that are already close to being ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Should not contain copyright violations?"

University of Arkansas, in the version nominated for FA, contained a "History and Founding" section consisting entirely of three paragraphs copied almost verbatim from this page on the University of Arkansas website.

Should What is a featured article say explicitly that featured articles ought not to contain copyright violations?

I'm not sure whether or not I'm joking. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You are. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
Oh, OK. Thanks for helping me decide. Well, in that case, nothing needs to be done. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be kind of like saying "Featured Articles should not contain Libel." Some things fall under common-sense. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Bish and Bunchofgrapes took the words right out of my mouth. Raul654 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Lists of common problems

Matt Yeager removed the links to User:Taxman/Featured article advice and User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them, saying "userspace links are inappropriate from Wikipedia articles". Clearly links to userspace from actual articles would be inappropriate, but surely we can have links to useful information in userspace in wikispace, no? Quite a few things in wikispace started off in userspace... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ALoan on this point. However, I implore the main contributors to both of those pages to have them edited. They should be written in nothing less than excellent prose, and bloopers such as "editors that aren't aware" should be fixed promptly. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of the whole idea of FAs. Both pages require a careful run through by a good editor. Tony 12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's still userified in my case, though I suppose I should get off my assets and go fix it. But Matt's reasoning for removing them is specious, there's no policy against user pages on Wikipedia pages, and common sense would say to leave links to useful ones. Further, repeatedly removing them without discussion when people have added them back is innapropriate. But I'll finally go fix mine and move it to Wikipedia space if it's that big a deal. We could also have a discussion about creating a single article with expanded explanation of the criteria. For those editors that aren't familiar with how they are applied, the concise criteria probably aren't enough to know how to meet them. - Taxman Talk 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, sorry to have been silent; I'll have a go at that text early March, when I'm freer from work obligations. Tony 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, when you can. :) - Taxman Talk 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
My point of view is this: I wouldn't want someone to make edits to pages in my userpage (other than to my talk page or maybe a copyedit of my user page). If people are going to link to them from a Wikipedia article, then they had better be editable like anything else. Right? I'm going to ask the two of them if they mind letting everyone else take a crack at editing them mercilessly. If they do mind, then the links need to be removed. Right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent point added to the criteria

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but perhaps there should be discussion here before a substantive change is made to the criteria. (The wording is not entirely clear, either.) Tony 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The addition was mine. That reason (which fits perfectly within the MoS, AFAICT) is invoked so frequently in the FAC page it ought to be listed there, I think. Circeus 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
To me that's just part of good writing, so it's already said. There's lots of things the criteria in concise form can't expound on, so they don't. You can't fit every detail in them and still be concise. That's why I wrote my advice and Jengod wrote his, to expand in more detail how the criteria are applied. But I'm also not against having that in there, because it is one of the most common problems I see. What would become a serious instruction creep problem is if every objection at FAC were added as a line item to the criteria. - Taxman Talk 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously. That'd be ridiculous. It's just an explicitation attempted to reduce the amount of times we have to repeat it. After all, we can't make an objection that is not covered anywhere in the FA criteria. (e.g. the reference style) Circeus 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxman's right: of course the stubby para problem is irritating to reviewers, but so are other aspects of poor prose that occur just as frequently. Criterion 2a says it all and says nothing at the same time, which is the most practical solution. Spin-off pages are a good idea, given that the official criteria need to ration detail severely to retain their impact and simplicity.

A related issue is that greater levels of detail are likely to be less universally agreed on than the basics. Tony 07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations

We should require use of the new cite format. It solves the problem of citations gravitating from their refrence point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering previous discussions about references, I think "strongly encourage" would be a better choice of words than "require". In some articles, a list at the end of common references where many facts for the article were sourced is sufficient. Slambo (Speak) 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"In the event where refrences or footnotes are used, the cite format is required" work? I'm not looking to require footnotes (I know, drama), rather require that any footnotes be in the new-cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If there's really that much of a encouraged/required problem, that's fine. ref-note is a terrible, terrible system, which is prone to making previously featured articles have bad references sections (because they have so many of them, keeping them in place is hard). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with that, but there is no official preference between Harvard, inotes, ref/note, cite, or indeed any other system, so long as references are there. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As usual, Aloan steals the words right out of my mouth. Raul654 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh - Raul654 is my sock-puppet and claim my £5. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Done - I've withdrawn the lot of my objections, but please let me note, for the record, strongly, that if there's no a compelling reason NOT to use the ref tags (example - currently broken for harvard refrences) as opposed to the ref-note templates, they are just better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Saffron uses an interesting combination of the <ref> style and the {{Harv}} style. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project

I'd like to invite everyone to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project. The Featured Music Project is an attempt to improve a large number of articles on musicians to make them ready to be a featured article. To sign up, put your name under one (or more) of the eight categories on the status page, such as the discography, format and style or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in the section you signed up for (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or on the FMP talk page. Tuf-Kat 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EFeatured_article_criteria_Archive_3_e06d.html"