Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 "Vanity" FAs and Fandom 2 History Articles 3 Proposed change to WIAFA criteria 3.1 Comments and Suggestions 3.1.1 Notability 3.1.2 Reliable vs. Reputable 3.1.3 FAC Process 3.1.4 Best of Best 3.1.5 Misc 3.1.6 Reputable vs. Reliable (in re pop culture articles) 3.1.6.1 1 3.1.6.2 2 3.1.7 Citations 3.1.7.1 Template vs. Cite.php 4 Hidden source citations 5 More on fictional FACs 6 New requirement: inline citations 7 Content Restriction 8 direct quotation versus paraphrasing 9 Stability 10 Policy debate: FACs and Good Articles 11 Status 12 Q 13 recent substantial changes to the layout/formatting 14 Weak process? 15 "Great writing" and "The perfect article" 16 Writing about fiction 17 new critiria: tell something interesting?

"Vanity" FAs and Fandom

It appears that there is no content restriction placed on what can be a "Featured Article", and this is perhaps deliberate. However, many current candidates (Red vs Blue, Donkey Kong (arcade game), Rush (Aly & AJ song), Xenomorph, Bulbasaur, Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation, New Radicals, Lord Voldemort) appear to be the work of fans who are dedicated to a particular video game, song, movie, band, etc.

I would argue that fandom-originating articles:

1. Often lack a historical perspective with regard to their notabilty in the overall culture;
2. Lack a sufficiently large potential audience to justify being "featured";
3. Lack a sufficiently large contributor/reviewer pool to ensure completeness, correctness, and erudition; and
4. Are examples of what might be called Meta-Undue weight and as such do not show Wikipedia in the best possible light;

The featured article criteria do not state a motivation for the existence of "featured articles". If the purpose is to reward the editors of conforming articles, within the context of WP, then imposing content standards is likely not appropriate. But if being a "featured article" on WP is meant as a stamp of additional authority to an average outside reader, I wonder whether stamping an article about a Pokemon card, a third-rate film, or a second-rate rock band as "featured" does WP any credit. -- Gnetwerker 23:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There are, I think, two interesting points here:

1. Article availability: for the current system to work, we would like to promote articles at the rate of around one per day; otherwise, we'd be forced to repeat them on the Main Page. While we do, occasionaly, see nominees like Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618) or Restoration spectacular, the majority of Wikipedia editors do not, I suspect, work on such topics. It is questionable, therefore, if we could maintain the needed rate of promotion without delving into less traditional subject areas.
2. FAs as the "best of Wikipedia": quite frankly, our coverage of many areas to which encyclopedias traditionally devote attention is rather poor; with few exceptions, we are still outdone by Britannica and its ilk in such topics. Our coverage of video games, on the other hand, is second to none. It would seem counterintuitive, therefore, to call attention to the areas where our performance is weakest. —Kirill Lokshin 23:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I too lament the massive amount of time people spend on pop culture topics. I think a big part of the motivation is the extra bit of respectability having a Wikipedia article gives them. You mean I can write about my favorite comic/pokemon/etc on one of the most popular pages on the internet and people will read it? The only decent argument I've heard for having them is they give the whole project more exposure. But I'm not sure it's the kind of exposure we want. There simply isn't enough verifiable information about many of these subjects and writing 32kb on them with very low quality references unfortunately makes them look more important and reliable than they are. To speak to Kirill's points, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we repeated main page featured articles, and if we restricted FA's to a no pop culture rule, perhaps more people would divert some of the massive effort that currently goes into those topics into more important topics. And for your last point, we wouldn't be calling attention to areas where we are the weakest because FA's that we pick would still be excellent ones. However, given the current demographics of Wikipedia I'm quite sure we'd never be able to enact any policy discouraging pop culture additions. The best we can do is scrutinize them more heavily and insist on reliable references. If there aren't reliable references the material simply can't be covered. - Taxman ^Talk 23:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean, incidentally, that FAs themselves would be of poor quality. Consider, however, a visitor clicking on a random link in the day's FA. If it's a video game article, we're likely to see extensive (many would argue far too extensive) coverage of every detail of related subjects. If it's a history article, however, we're likely to encounter seas of stubs and redlinks even a single step away. —Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to be the case that there is a dearth of candidates on serious topics: Joan of Arc, Che Guevara, United States Bill of Rights, Ronald Reagan, Antarctica (mind you, I am not saying any of those rise to the standard). I doubt that WP policy is likely to change, but maybe two levels of scrutiny are needed: 1) "Good articles" -- that are examples (within their domain) of how WP would like articles to look; and 2) "Featured articles" -- the best and most serious articles from across WP (or maybe they are "Featured" as now and "Super-Featured"). WP lacks tools for complex voting, but it would be interesting to choose among 5-10 articles for this week/month/quarter's best in each of several sections: History, Biography, Pop Culture, Society, etc. I should say that I don't object to featuring an article on (e.g.) Harry Potter or Pokemon, I just don't think "Random Pokemon Character" or "Random Harry Potter character" deserves one. -- Gnetwerker 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, let me ask a practical question: would it be uncool in some way to oppose a Featured article candidate based solely on its content? -- Gnetwerker 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The top of the FAC page clearly says that all objections have to be actionable. Objecting to its content is, by definition, inactionable. Raul654 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with, say, Bulbasaur being an FA. HOWEVER, I think we have to draw the line with the main page, since it is viewed by the masses. I do think that Pokemon, being a general topic, would be a good candidate for the main page. If we are too narrow with our main page FA selections, we may end up losing interest in the practice. Deckiller 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am accutely aware of the danger of featuring artilces that are "too crufy" on the main page too often, which is why when choosing them, I intentionally throttle the rate I put them up. But I am uncomfortable saying that could not ever be put on the main page -- the only articles I have no plans on ever putting up are Wikipedia (because putting it would be an obscenely gratitious self reference) and Caufield grammar school (because I don't feel like throwing gasoline on the high school inclusionism/deletionism debate). Raul654 01:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We have plenty of featured articles on heavyweight topics, and plenty on lightweight topics. It is one of our strengths - not weaknesses - that we have excellent articles (well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, illustrated, referenced, concise) on topics that a typical encyclopedia would not stoop to cover. People write about what they are interested in - you can't force people to write about something that you think deserves to be a featured article.

So what if a frivolous topic appears on the Main Page now and again, and some people find it off-putting. You can't satisfy everyone's taste, and the Main Page featured article is there for only one day: something more to their taste may be back the next day, or have been there the day before. In any event, some people will not find the most recent Main Page featured articles (Zion National Park, Paul Kane, Washington gubernatorial election, 2004) very interesting either, but that is no reason not to put them on the Main Page. There is no problem. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So, as one of the elitists, let me try to outline my position. Yes, indeed, pop culture topics are inherently objectionable, but not because academics sneer at them or other encyclopedias don't cover them.

1. The best subjects for an FA have cultural activity in many contexts. The subject has a place in history, in literature, in future developments, in a controversy, in religion. Pop culture topics that are merely pop culture will lack these contexts; there is no history to them (or the fans are unaware of it), and it has not had enough time to show effects outside of itself.
2. References are required, and yet references to the lighter subjects are going to be to reactive and valuative sources, rather than to actual secondary sources (secondary sources view primary sources and comment). Citations from fan sites, from game guides, from People Magazine and US Weekly and Weekly Mirror are not scholarly, of course, but they are often not true secondary sources, either.
3. To get to sufficient length, the subject is often discussed within its own world, and sometimes twice or more. I.e. the minor character is discussed within the world of fictions about Star Wars and fan-generated or hack-written fictions to explain the character's grandfather's role in a war that never happened on film or in the books but is presumed. The difficulty here is not sneering at fans, but rather that it amounts to the same thing as writing an article on, say, Pip instead of Great Expectations, and then getting it to length by speculating on how he's like other Dickens characters, reading in suspected back stories, etc. It amounts to OR, on the one hand, and filler, on the other.

The worst offenders, to me, are not even the toys, cards, and games, but individual songs by contemporary pop tarts. However, the same problems apply to other fan-intense topics. The presence of a Wikipedia article does not make something good, and the lack of one does not make it bad, so there is no judgment implied by saying that things that are contemporary events (and songs and games are contemporary events) are inappropriate targets for an FA. When a person attempted to write an FA on the Asgard characters on "Star Gate: SG-1," there simply wasn't enough to say, and there can't be enough to say, because there are insufficient contexts and there has been insufficient time to say anything. Geogre 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about -cruft: This isn't exactly pertinent to the FA vs. non-FA discussion, but the problem that I have with "fancruft" is not that anyone has an interest in something that doesn't interest me. After all, the difference between my Augustan England interest and someone else's Tolkein obsession is that mine is real people only. No, the thing that bothers me is that I have a sense that my own research turns up plenty of things that are important for fellow scholars of the era but that I'd not write an article about. Alexander Pope's dog(s) were named Bounce. I would not wish to see Bounce (dog) turned blue. To be interested in Tolkein's elven language, you have to first have an interest in Tolkein. I.e. all interest in the topic is licensed by another interest first. To have an interest in the Northern Elvish of the Gray Elves, you have to first have an interest in Tolkein's world and then have an interest in his Elvish. In other words, each is an order of interest away from a general reader; each is a subset of interests. Thus, the Asgard from "SG-1" require an interest in SG-1, which requires an interest in Science Fiction and access to the TV series (which isn't showing in most of the world). Similarly, I've been writing a lot of articles about the people who are satirized by Alexander Pope in The Dunciad. Unless those people have some effect on the world outside of the poem, have some historical role otherwise, I would never consider an FAC, because you'd have to be interested in literature, interested in Pope, interested in The Dunciad to be interested in, say, Leonard Welsted. On the other hand, Charlotte Charke is interesting straight out because of LGBT issues, contemporary feminism, a key to the 18th c. culture, the role of women, economic history, and literature people. Geogre 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that my intent in bringing Donkey Kong (arcade game) to featured status was not to stoke my own vanity or fandom, and I think it's funny that Gnetwerker has lumped the article in with others that "appear to be the work of fans who are dedicated to a particular video game, song, movie, band, etc." My intent with Donkey Kong was to show what I think video game articles should look like. You'll notice that no strategy guides, game manuals, or press releases are quoted or used as references. Some very good and scholarly work is going on in the fields of history, cultural studies, and new media that analyzes video games and their role in modern society. I chose a venerable, well-known subject, I did my research, and I think the results speak for themselves.

What might be more helpful is if FAC voters made it a habit of voting against any popular-culture nominee that did not treat its subject as a cultural artifact in our own universe. One can write an article on James T. Kirk or Rei Ayanami that appears to meet the Featured Article requirements. However, if that article fails to discuss the topic's genesis as an idea by real-life people, its development as a fictional concept, its changes over time, and its overall influence on (popular) culture, the article fails criterion 2(b). It is not comprehensive. For many topics (individual Pokémon, minor video game characters), this information likely doesn't exist. That doesn't change the fact that this is information necessary to comprehensively cover the topic. If this prevents certain topics from becoming featured, so be it. Over time, this information has a greater and greater chance of becoming available. Historians are interviewing the creators of Donkey Kong 20 years after the game debuted. Over time, Pokémon may have the same attention.

However, I will concede that the lack of attention to more traditionally academic subjects is annoying. Donkey Kong got a good peer review, but an article I have recently nominated—on a facet of American popular culture, to be sure, but one that is 150 years old—earned a single comment on Peer Review and may just scrape up enough votes to pass FAC. — BrianSmithson 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. The most important points have been brought up here. Articles that fail to do good research should be objected to. If a topic comes in with 133 low quality references it is still not featured quality. Lack of verifiable material is a valid objection as is use of low quality sources. We exclude articles from the project that don't have verifiable importance and verifiable facts. We should do the same for FACs that lack high quality sources and good research. The only thing we've missed the mark on is letting articles through with low quality sources, under the reasoning that there are no high quality sources so it's ok. Topics with only low quality sources shouldn't be featured because they are not the best of Wikipedia. That keeps the distinction that topic does not matter, but quality does. - Taxman ^Talk 20:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how an article can be required to contain information that does not exist before it is "comprehensive". TMBSSNMOTW"comprehensive"OWIWNPA.

I'm not sure how an article can contain information that does not exist without infringing WP:NOR. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We exclude articles from being in the project every day for lack of verifiability. Why should we allow a topic to be featured if it fails the same standard? - Taxman ^Talk 20:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There's the rub. The information does exist, it just may not have been written about in a mainstream, English-language source yet. I don't see why this is a problem, though. There's probably enough information out there to make a comprehensive Featured Article on Mario or James T. Kirk, an article that discusses Mario or Kirk as a fictional character in the real world, with flesh-and-blood creators who did such-and-such a thing in such-and-such an episode. There isn't enough to do the same for King Jingaling or Spearow. If that means that editors have to learn Japanese to research Spearow, or maybe wait 20 years for mainstream scholars to research and write about it before it can be featured, ça va. — BrianSmithson 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Geogre and ALoan hit the nail on the head. Many fan-generated pieces are exactly original research. They may be very good original research, and many of them probably belong somewhere, but I would argue that place is not in an encyclopedia, and if they must be in this, the most inclusive of all encyclopedae, then they should not be "featured" as the best work in the place. I made my stand at the top: they lack a historical perspective with regard to their notabilty in the overall culture; they lack a sufficiently large potential audience (in many cases); and they lack a sufficiently large contributor/reviewer pool to ensure completeness, correctness, and erudition. Raul654 says "objections have to be actionable" -- is it "actionable" to hold these fan-generated articles to the same level of independent source material (WP:CITE) as we would an article on the US Constitution, Ronald Reagan, or Tuberculosis? -- Gnetwerker 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have made my point very well. Are we deliberately setting up a Morton's fork / Catch-22? (Featured articles must comprehensive, which means that they must include information even if it cannot be verified; but an article cannot be featured if it contains unverified information; but leaving out the unverified information would mean that it was not comprehensive...)

"Comprehensive" does not mean that an article has to include every single piece of information that is any way relevant to an article - it means that no major facts or details are neglected.

I still don't see how we can require a featured article to include "information [that] likely doesn't exist" (as BrianSmithson says above). That surely includes information that is not verifiable from any source (I am not asking for mainstream English language - obscure Japanese sources will be fine). There is no (or, at least, very little, and/or not verifiable) historical perspective for an item of popoular culture that is only a few years old. The absence of such (non-existent or unverifable) information does not, to my mind, does not stop an article being comprehensive enough to be featured.

The size of the potential audience and contributor pool is, with respect, entirely irrelevant (for example, hardly anyone gives a tinker's damn about an obscure historical architect like Matthew Brettingham, and only Giano has bothered to contribute much to our article on him...) But, yes, the "popular culture" article should be as verifiable as they can be. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, we need to be eagle-eyed about requiring good and verifiable information in our articles. Our Featured Article on StarCraft, for example, includes much of what reeks of original research (what is the source of the "Influences" section, for example?) But isn't cultural relevance and development of a fictional concept part of "no major facts or details are neglected"? Should articles like Wario and Lakitu be Featured Articles? They contain verifiable information, and they describe game characters as artifacts of real-world culture. But are they comprehensive without a discussion of how the characters were created, who the artists were, etc.? The information in both of those articles is available to any fan who simply sits down and plays the games. "Oh, so Lakitu can move up and down in this game. Hey, look: Wario got a new weapon." Shouldn't it be a requirement that more can be said than simply describing the source material? — BrianSmithson 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with ALoan. I would be in favor of merging articles that have no or very little cultural relevance, but if we have an article on say Bulbasaur, it needs to be feature-able. It's fine to say that Japanese-only sources will be required, to give it all the cultural relevance that topic may have, but we shouldn't be requiring sources that don't exist, as that makes the article inherently unfeaturable. Tuf-Kat 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but, as one of the major contributors to the Red vs Blue article, I'd like to weigh in here, since that article was mentioned at the start of this discussion. Yes, I love the series and all, but I'd like to think that the article serves as an example that ardent fans of something are nonetheless capable of writing a well-researched, NPOV article on it. I completely agree that, insofar as such information is available, details on the genesis/development/impact of anything fictional should be an integral part of a featured article. Plot summary / character desciption should only be a part of the total package. I do think that "comprehensive" is a bit relative with regards to comparing an article about a full series versus that of an individual major character, but I would expect to see at least something about genesis/development decisions on the part of the real-life creators in almost all cases.

Many months ago, before I joined Wikipedia, the Red vs Blue used to be a huge 64 KB monolith devoted mostly to discussion of the plot summary and characters (with over six hours of video, there is a lot to cover there). The plot and character summaries were eventually heavily condensed for the main article and the extra details spun off to auxiliary articles, in the spirit of summary style. I'm a firm subscriber to the whole "Wikipedia is not paper" ideology, and such detailed information is fine to have around, but a featured article on fiction should indeed cover a breadth of aspects of that topic.

Now, in terms of pop culture, the thing is that most people will naturally write the "obvious" details first, as was done with the Red vs Blue article, possibly to the level of minutiae. I don't see this as a systemically "bad" thing, as long as that information is correct and verifiable. Rather, I think it's part of the development process of an article. At some point, though, people need to take a step back, do some research, and cover information that isn't readily available from simple familiarity with the topic in question. Many articles have yet to get past that point. See The Strangerhood (another series done by the creators of Red vs Blue) and its failed FAC nomination for an article that has not yet gotten past the plot summary / character description stage, and should never have been nominated, especially as there are several articles discussing its development. — TKD::Talk 05:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a suggestion on the talk page for FAC [1], and I think I'll make it here, too, as it might solve some of the problems. I should preface that my only FA contribution was on Phil Collins, which the author of this thread might consider part of the fan-craft he's against. However, I should note that my goal for the article, like the Donkey Kong author above, is to show a template for musician articles which aren't covered with "XXX is God" comments. In fact, I'm currently in a debate with an editor now as he wants to eliminate all the negative references to Collins in the article.

I think the reason why many FAC reviewers are against pop culture articles are that they are often nominated by people who want their favorite band on the main page because they're the best, and not because the article is the best. There are current nominations on the page now (for Black Sabbath and Queen (band)) where the nominator either did little or no work on the article itself, and possibly nominated just because they're fans of the group. As such, FAC reviewers get tired of reviewing pop culture articles because there are too many vanity pieces. Worse, the changes we suggest are not implimented because the nominators weren't contributors to the page anyway.

I suggested on the talk page [2] that we add hidden text at the top of the FAC page to remind editors, before adding, that it meets basic FAC requirements. Currently, the hidden text just says, "Add new nominations at the top of the list immediately below." However, it we added one or two more lines which said something along the lines of, "Before adding your nomination, please ensure that the article has references, incline citations, and has been given a proper copyedit for grammar and point of view. Also, you might wish to consider Peer Review as an option before listing an article below".

Yes, we regulars in the FAC forums know the rules, but I think someone who's just a "This singer is God" fan doesn't read this, skips the instructions, and adds a nomination for their favorite band. The Collins article was actually nominated a month previously by a new editor to Wiki for these reasons, which is why I had fixed the article to FA status.

Sorry for the long winded suggestion. I try to contribute to all pop musician nominations on FAC, so I don't want to see pop culture articles go because I feel these are an important contribution to modern history. However, I can easily see why some FAC editors are against pop culture due to the constant vanity nominations, and I believe my suggestion regarding hidden text might cut back on this. Thanks for reading. --Ataricodfish 19:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, your Phil Collins article, while well-written and organized, suffers, IMO, from an over-reliance on a single secondary source (Coleman's biography of Mr. Collins). So in this case my argument would be that it is a good article, a valuable article on Wikipedia, the result of work worthy of recognition, but (and this is not a slam) not (yet) entirely encyclopedic, not through any fault of yours, but through a lack of secondary sources. The interviews, popular articles, and "official" bio are valuable, but mostly primary sources. Britannica.com, interestingly, does not have an article on Collins -- he is mentioned in the Genesis article there. This is an area where Wikipedia is probably superior -- a good article is present. I am not arguing that we should not have articles on popular culture subjects, nor that they should not be recognized in some way, but only that we hold all articles to a high standard of scholarship, and that if the (outside) scholarship is not present, they not be featured. I think Wikipedia, contrary to WP:NOR is making too much "scholarship"/original research in these areas, rather than reporting on it. -- Gnetwerker 22:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair critique, and I appreciate the comment. Honestly, I wish my FAC process was more critical than it was, but I'm off topic now. My concern was that the recent addition of what can be seen as vanity articles might put a bad taste in the mouth of FAC contributors of genuine attempts at pop culture FA's. I fully agree that some recent additions have relied too heavily on primary sources, perhaps my own unwittingly, and understand your suggestion regarding my own article.--Ataricodfish 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I had seen your comment, I think most others did too. The issue isn't with those that aren't close to FA quality that are the problem. I agree with Gnetworker it's those that appear there on the surface, but the quality of the referencing is low. - Taxman ^Talk 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Didn't know there's a discussion here until a few days ago. Anyways, I think without specific revisions or changes to FAC rules, any arguments that we (the people who oppose fancruft) make will get torn down, as the opposing side will always say the rules don't limit the subject matter. And it seems that subjects relating to pop culture are the most troublesome. So here are some suggestion (synthesized from my page):

1. Subject matter. For any pop culture subject under FAC, if there's another subject that's above it, use that as FAC. For instance, instead of Bulbasaur, use Pokemon; Intead of Spoo, use Babylon 5; instead of particular song, use the music genre or the musician.

2. Length. Add a minimum length requirement to FAC. My rationale is that for any good subject that is researchable and with sources of quality, you should be write a lot (but be concise) about it. If a subject is worthwhile to write about and promote to FA, you should be able to find good sources, no matter how obscure the subject is. Obscurity is not equivalent to barreness (consider Sino-German cooperation, an obscure yet rich subject). Too many popular culture articles now are like extended stubs with padded language, and too many primary sources, and I don't think these are worth FA at all.

3. Objection actionability. Oftentimes I see that when an objection is made, people usually say that the objection is unactionable and therefore is invalid and will be ignored. Personally I think this is irresponsible. The article may just be unfixable for whatever reason, and therefore the objection should be taken into account and not ignored even if it's unactionable. Manytimes a pop culture article will lack cultural significance just because it's recent, and any objections regarding this issue is overlooked. But for any good (best of the best of a million) FA about pop culture stuff, cultural significance is important and shouldn't be ignored.

Anyways, feel free to bloviate. Temporary account 02:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and again I think the main point here is the issue of NOTABILITY. There are simply too many "worthless" subjects being padded by fancruft to barely meet the FA criteria. Bulbasaur is worthless as an encyclopedia article to represent wiki's "best of the best", but Pokemon can be improved to FA status. This has been said here already. I think we are basically calling for FA amendments or reform. BlueShirts 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree on most counts. I opposed Bulbasaur for various actionable reasons (I admit, I wasn't interested and never followed up on the reply to my objection), but I think it's important to allow for that article to become featured with proper scholarship. If we're going to have an article on Bulbasaur, it should be the best article on that topic it could be, and I don't see any reason why FA shouldn't recognize that. I'm opposed to fancruft too. It ought to be easy to get all the Pokemon to FA if you have access to a couple of good references, since there's so little truly notable information to put in there. That might mean that we very quickly get a whole bunch of featured Pokemon... weird, but so's Wikipedia, and we'd be beginning to live up to the promise of being the world's most thorough encyclopedia, one subject matter at a time. It might be disappointing that Pokemon will be more comprehensive than the history of Chinese foreign relations for a long time to come, but it's hardly surprising. In short: Fancrufty stuff should be featureable, and should be as long as required for the topic to be comprehensively inform the reader about whatever information exists in reputable sources. That means some articles will be shorter and maybe easier to work on than others, and I don't see what the downside of that is. Tuf-Kat 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you got the point so let me reiterate. The reason that we are having so many problems on FAC discussions regarding fancruft articles is that these articles have little to no room of improvement simply of the nature of fancruft. For example, it is so difficult for the editors of Bulbasaur to come up with substantiated content because the subject matter itself calls for little serious research and discussion, and therefore, forces the editors to resort to debating about whether the article has met the minimum requirement rather than inquiring about ways to acquire and add well-referenced content. This is the reason that its takes so much argument back and forth in the fancruft FACs we have encountered. You just don't see that kind of stuff going on on non fancruft articles like kerotenous, turkish literature, starship troopers, and F-15. Even though all of them have been criticized in differing degrees, you don't see their editors arguing with objectors about how their article has met criteria 2a, 2b, etc, etc. This is because the subject matter itself is not fancruft, and the editors of these articles strive to improve the "content," rather than arguing about minimum requirements. A FA must represent the "best of the best" of wikipedia, and a FA must have legitimate sources and references. And by the nature of fancruft, fancruft articles simply do not have these legitimate sources and references and more often than not the editors have to resort to original research and shoddy referencing to "pad" up the article to seemingly meet the minimum FA criteria. Therefore, fancruft articles should not be FAs simply because of the nature of fancruft. BlueShirts 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did get the point and I disagree. We should not require more references than exist for any article; every article should be required to have an appropriate array of appropriately scholarly sources. Of course that means something different for Bulbasaur vs Sino-German cooperation. I don't see what's wrong with that. Tuf-Kat 12:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has brought up some interesting issues. Here, I compare Bulbasaur and Battle of Warsaw (1920), both FAs:

• Have I, personally, heard of the topic?

  B ulbasaur: Yes

  BOW: No

• How many people can we estimate know a reasonable amount about of the topic?

  Bulbasaur: Nearly all of the people born between 1985 and 1995 in Western countries and many of their parents

  BOW: Historians, the Polish

• How many people can we estimate have heard of the topic?

  Bulbasaur: Most people younger than 40

  BOW: Historians, the Polish

• Ah but Bulbasaur is just one of 395 Pokémon creatures...

  Ah, but the BOW is one of hundreds of thousands of Wars that have taken place worldwide.

• How well covered is the topic in relation to other presentations of it in other media or places?

  Bulbasaur: Probably one of the most NPOV, factual accounts of it in publication

  BOW: There have been multiple published books about it and hundreds of websites giving very detailed information about the topic.

Now, clearly referencing is an issue that needs resolution of the subject of pop culture articles but please lets stop bickering over notability. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But wars are, well, wars; even the small ones tend to be Encyclopedic(tm) in ways that, say, your average Cambridge professor wouldn't consider Pokémon to be ;-)

(Incidentally, this one would have given you more point on the obscurity scale.) Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I regret that all that User:Celestianpower has proven with the analysis above is that he (and many Wikipedians) don't know what an encyclopedia is. It is a compendium of knowledge. The distinction between knowledge and information is left here as an exercise for the reader. The Bulbasaur article brings to mind Roman liturgical scholars debating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. They were seeminly erudite arguments that ultimately signified nothing. However, the issue here, as made clear in much of the preceeding discussion, is that most fan articles are original research, and (IMO) their elevation to Featured status serves primarily the vanity of the authors rather than the reputation of Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 18:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I totally disagree with Cel and he is totally wrong and mistaken, but since he's wallowing in Pokemon world... Neverthelss, think:

• First, notability is not equivalent to popularity.
• Second, barreness is not equivalent to obscurity.
• Explanation1: In twenty years, will there still be research done on the War? Yes. Well there still be research thesis written on the war? Yes. Alright, how about Bulbasaur? The answer is a totally deafening no, of course. I'll give you another analogy if you still don't get it: classical music are with us for two or three hundred years, but will contemporary rap and others have that longevity? No. These music may be popular with the younger generation, same as Bulbasaur, but they are not notable, and I think you'll have to agree that they will disappear over time. Thus Bulbasaur is popular (although not much as you think, unless if you are wallowing in Pokemon world...), but it is NOT notable.
• Explanation2: Barreness is not obscurity. Something obscure might be researched well. As you probably can tell, the War was obscure, as not much people know about it, but it's Notable because it helped shaping history, and it's rich because lots of scholarly work is being done on it. So even if you don't know it, that doesn't mean it's barren. Now move onto Bulbasaur, it is not obscure (but it is more than you think, unless...), but it is BARREN. See how much padding is done to the article, and how little we learn about the subject. Nothing, since nothing good can be researched about it.
• Here is a new idea: In NO WAY should a FA article be the best article on the subject in the world. Why? Because if it's the best, that means it's actually better than its sources. How can a two-five page wiki article be the "best" on the subject, anywhere? Unless the subject matter is barren. For example, Sino-German article is probably one of the "best" on wiki. It acts as an introduction, a general summary of the field, and also a door to other researches on the subject. And the references cited are hundreds of times more deep and longer than the wiki article, and of better qualities in terms of comprehensiveness...etc as well. Now, when you look at these controversial (pop culture) articles, oftentimes tne nominators will say this is the "best" article on the subject not only on wiki, but anywhere. How can this be? Unless the subject matter is barren and not notable, and numerous inferior sources are put together to create the article, which is longer than the sources themselves. So if I hear "this article is the best on the subject, anywhere," I think something's terribly wrong. Temporary account 19:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"In NO WAY should a FA article be the best article on the subject in the world." Nonsense; what's the point of Wikipedia, then? It shouldn't necessarily be the best source—full-length scholarly books will generally beat us out—but we should certainly aim to create the best article of its length in the world. Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should consciously make the article subpar, and if you think that's what I am pointing in the quote, you are mistaken. The point of wikipedia is NOT to make the best article on the subject in the world, or else the articles themselves will be like thesis works or books. The point of wikipedia and any other encyclopedia is to provide a overview of the subject and to provide a gateway to other pertinent information. I think this is very clear, and if the point is to create the best article, then it's absurd. But if someone states that the article is best in the world on the subject matter (and not "of its length" BTW), then that means the subject matter is barren and somehow cheated through the FA criteria. It's clear isn't it. Temporary account 19:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was very clear: by "of its length" I meant "of a length appropriate to an encyclopedia article". My point still stands; we should have the best encyclopedia article in the world on any subject (for whatever definition of "encyclopedia article" you want to use). Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lousy or totally unimportant subjects just don't have the research, breadth, and background to be promoted to FA. You can write a nice biography for just about any politician in the world, but you can't even squeeze crap out without padding if you're writing one for some random bum on the street. It's that simple. A subject's notability and importance dictate how much legitimate information is available and how much legitimate information available determines if a wiki editor has enough information to promote something to FA status without padding up and original research. It can't be any simpler than that. BlueShirts 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And you're missing the point. Temp Account is clearly addressing the issue of FAs, instead of any article. You can churn out crappy articles all the time and that's why we have millions of articles here in wiki, but the FAs better be the best of the best of what wikipedia has to offer. BlueShirts 20:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See, if I am not mistaken, your (Kirll) point is that a FA should be the best as "encyclopedia article" or "entry." This one I agree. But what I am seeing is that nominators claim that their article is the best, not in terms of encyclopedia article, but in terms of everything. Then because of such, that article is not encyclopdic by definition. My point is that a wiki entry shouldn't be the best or most comprehensive source of information. For instance, let's say I want to know about a specific jet fighter from wiki (note, from wiki), do you think it is appropriate for wiki to put up ALL the design notes in excruciating detail, even mention names of every workers in the factory who contributed to making this jet fighter? Similarly, I want to know about a particular show or subject in a show, do you think it's appropriate to "list" every appearances and detailed plot summary, and call it a FA? I think the answer should be no. Or else the article is just a collection of trivia and unimportant details, which is unencyclopedic. Do you see BlueShirts claiming his FA is the best source of information ever? No. But do you see Bulba or Spoo claiming that their pages are the best (not in terms of encyclo article) ever? Yes you do. Temporary account 21:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

TA, for pop culture subjects, I'm inclined to agree, but what about Laal language? Check the FAC page for that article—the author claims that "this is the most detailed treatment of Laal in the English language anywhere". Personally, I have no problem with that (and neither do the numerous supporters), even though the language is only spoken by 749 people. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to notability. It is secondary that the author of the Laal FA claims that it is the best because Laal language is a real language with real research being done on it. Similarly I can claim that my take on Sino-German cooperation is the best available on the net, but that does not diminish the quality of the articles since they are derived from legitimate sources and research. Even pop culture subjects can have lots of good sources. For example, the band U2 has many books and news articles that any editor can use to make the U2 article a FA. What is not acceptable here is that some subjects simply lacks notability, legitimate sources and references, and the authors of these articles use questionable sources or length-padding so they can say that their article meets the minimum FA requirements or is the best article about such a subject on the net. Thus, regarding the issue of the "best source of information ever," there is a very big difference between, I'd say, an editor's sense of accomplishment of writing a compelling article based on real research and sources, and another editor's ploy in saying his article is the best on the subject simply to meet FA requirements. BlueShirts 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I sorta disagree with you on Explanation 1, in that (as much as I hate it) contemporary rap might have longevity and we don't know it yet. There have been countless books and even college classes on Tupac, for an example, so perhaps it would be like dismissing Frank Sinatra had Wikipedia been available in 1945, or saying no one will be talking about The Beatles in the 1965 edition. That having been said, I see your point, and have often wondered if there was a way to get some sort of time parimeter into the FA. i.e., a song shouldn't be nominated if it came out in the last five years (or still on the Billboard charts!), a movie shouldn't be nominated if it's still in theaters, an artist shouldn't be nominated if he's only had one album, etc., as notability hasn't been demonstrated yet and expert sources haven't been written on the topic. I don't know how to add such a time parameter into the process, though, because then events like the Iraq War would be considered non-notable under my logic.--Ataricodfish 20:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the comment (I knew something would come up with my analogies). Anyways, a better example would be contemporary anime such as Pokemon and Disney's classic Snow White or even Steamboat Willie. Pokemon is very popular right now, and those Disney pictures were two or three (possibly four) generations earlier than the current young generation. But regardless, if there's a good FAC about Tupac that uses superior secondary sources put into context, then I am in support of it. However, if there's subpar article about 50cent's single that's just out, then I am opposed to it. Also, another problem (comment) that I brought up is that instead of nominating individual characters or songs, why don't they just nominate the more inclusive subject; Pokemon, not Bulba, Beatles, not Yellow Submarine...etc, since barreness and source padding are an issue here.... Temporary account 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize in advance for having repeated anything, I've only read a few comments. Being one of those Wikipedians you are discussing, as I mainly contribute to music-related topics i.e. I created the rock portal, I'd have to say anything that affects our culture deserves to be in Wikipedia. Anything that anyone would care about should be in Wikipedia, even if it's only one person who cares about that topic. Also, regarding the fact that there are more video game FA's then historical FA's, I think that's mainly due to the fact that Wikipedia is an online community. You won't find the real studious historians spending too much time on the web, whereas that's where you'll find the video game freaks. Osbus 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

History Articles

I'd like a little clarification on what constitutes a good 'History of...' featured article. Particularly if a History Article should also address current events? --Barberio 12:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pinging this topic again. Can someone please point me to some guidelines on what is expected of a 'History of...' article on Wikipedia. I'd like to see some kind of consistant guideline on what is and is not part of a history article on Wikipedia. Particularly an answer to the question 'Should current, and unresolved events be part of a history page'. Lack of clear guidence on this isnt a good thing. --Barberio 14:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

When in doubt, consulting existing featured articles. As you can see from

• History_of_Alaska#Alaska_Today
• History_of_Arizona#Recent_events
• History_of_the_Australian_Capital_Territory#Recent_history
• History_of_Miami,_Florida#1990s_and_today

Almost all 'history of' FAs include a section talking about current/recent events, but it tends to be short and include only the most historic events. Raul654 18:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd then. The two major complaints over History of the Internet's FAC were lack of P2P app information. Something that's definatly not *yet* as significant as the Web or Email. Should I assume I was right to keep it out untill it does become of major historical significance? --Barberio 15:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of factual correction here, what you say is certainly arguable if not actually untrue. "In terms of traffic it has been noted... that p2p applications may generate the prevalent part of traffic in current commercial IP networks carrying traffic generated by resitential customers." http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/guillemin/PDFfiles/paper20.pdf

Certainly many conference presentations I attend assume that P2P is now more than web -- the proportion from email is usually assessed as tiny by comparison. But I guess this is not the place for such a debate. --Richard Clegg 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to raise it on Talk:History of the Internet. --Barberio 18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pinging this discussion again.

It's been decided that articles involving current events can not, due to defacto stability issues, be featured articles. Does this imply that featured article candidate History articles should not include current events?

There seems to be an odd conflict here. Either featured articles should include current events, or they should not? I'm tempted to raise the History articles that do include current events on WP:FARC if there is no clarity on the issue. (But won't, because of WP:DISRUPT) --Barberio 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the stability requirement is incorrect. Being a current event does not, by itself, make an article unstable. An article that gets a lot of edits, and changes a lot from day to day, is unstable; if there were a current-events article that wasn't getting tons of edits, I suppose that could be a featured article (provided it didn't omit any significant details, like the Beslan School Massacre did when it was nominated). Raul654 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not really what I got from you'r statement below of "Recent events articles are (almost by defintion) unstable which is why I added the requirement in the first place.", and the discussion on H5N1's FAC.

I think this is a result of '"stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day' being too subjective a phrase. All Wikipedia articles are inherently unstable, and many of the best examples of wikipedia are edited day to day, but this is mostly the good kind of unstablity. Maybe you should rewrite this to make sure it's totaly clear what kind of unstability is bad. --Barberio 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My 'recent events articles are almost by definition unstable' comment was (in the light of your point here) badly phrased. Current events articles are almost always unstable because I have yet to see a current events article that didn't get tons of edits from day to day. I've avoided specifying a specific number value for the instability because I have a severe aversion to arbitrary, bean-counting-esque standards on wikipedia. Raul654 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the way it's currently phrased certanly seems to imply that being regularly updated is inherently bad. Can you think of any other way to explain what you mean? --Barberio 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Being updated regularly is good; changing significantly from day to day is bad. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to WIAFA criteria

Per the discussion above, I propose the following clarifications to the Featured Article policy. In reality, it isn't a change, but clarifies, IMO, an aspect of the policy which is often ignored. Secondarily, it sorts out style issues from content issues more clearly.

Here is the page with the proposed changes:

---

A featured article has the following attributes:

1. It exemplifies our very best work, and shows Wikipedia in a positive light in comparison with other encyclopedia.
2. It is well written, comprehensive, neutral, factually accurate, verifiable in reputablereliable secondary sources, and stable. Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
   • (a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
   • (b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect major facts or details;
   • (c) "factually accurate" and "verifiable" include the supporting of facts with specific evidence sourced from reputablereliable secondary sources, and noted with citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) to these sources;
   • (d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
   • (e) "stable" means that an article has not changed significantly for at least seven days and is not the subject of recent, unresolved edit wars.
3. It is not original research, which includes information resulting from the direct analysis of source material, if that information has not been covered in reputablereliable secondary sources;
4. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
   • (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
   • (b) a proper system of hierarchical headings;
   • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section); and
   • (d) a "References" section in which references are set out, complemented by inline citations as appropriate (see Wikipedia:Citing sources—the use of the meta:cite format for footnotes and endnotes is strongly encouraged).
5. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and [Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
6. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles.

---

Proposed by Gnetwerker 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions

Support:

• Gnetwerker 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Weak Oppose. I'd prefer the prose section to be reworded from "compelling, even brilliant" to "that the prose covers everything in a concise manner with proper spelling, grammar, and wording" or something along those lines. Afterall, brilliant is in the eye of the beholder. Also, I think the "stability" section should clarify that "edits relating to the FAC do not count". Just my two cents, sorry if I stir up a hive. — Deckiller 19:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Neutral.

• OK, but note that this is unchanged from the current version. -- Gnetwerker 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good point; I think I shouldn't object to this to prove my point, so I'm withdrawing my oppose :) — Deckiller 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

Notability

• Comment Is it possible to specifically mention "notability" as a criteria? Adding requirements of secondary sources and the like skip around the real issue, which is, is this topic even notable?--Ataricodfish 20:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, notability is a big issue here. Notability determines how much legtimate references we have to write a FA without resorting to padding up using original research and dubious sources. If we're changing the FA rules then it only makes sense that notability is to be factored in. BlueShirts 21:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would love to have a "notability" requirement, but: 1) From the discussion above (that I started), I don't believe there is a consensus about notability -- many WPians are very fond of their "fancruft"; and 2) I could not think of a way of measuring notability that I thought would pass with a consensus. If someone can propose a method for determining notability, I'd love to hear it. -- Gnetwerker 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've already answered it yourself. Any notable subject must have legitimate secondary sources and the lack of these is a sure sign that the subject is non-notable. BlueShirts 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but then we don't need a per se notability requirement, just a strictly-enforced sourcing requirement. People would suspect that a notability requirement was the evil work of of old-fogey over-40-something actual adults such as myself. So why try to get two things passed instead of one? -- Gnetwerker 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

How are we defining "reputable secondary sources" for fictional subjects, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 22:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is still better to have a notability requirement and then point out what makes a subject noteworthy. The more explainations the better. As for fictional subjects, there are still tons of "reputable secondary sources." For example, if you want to write a FA on the X-Wing, you'll find there are myriads of star wars technical journals and sourcebooks that are just waiting to be perused. BlueShirts 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but do they necessarily qualify as "secondary" (they were published, at least indirectly, by the same people who created the X-Wing; what distinguishes them from, say, game manuals?) and "reputable" (there hasn't, to my knowledge, been any significant study into the various sources on the topic, so there's no real basis for evaluating them)? -- Kirill Lokshin circa 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: defining "reputable" and "secondary" -- "Secondary" is easy (IMO), it's defined by Secondary sources, i.e. not primary sources. "Reputable" is defined by WP:RS, and if sources are not widely-accepted as reputable, it is up to the nominator of the FA to establish its reputation. This doesn't have to airtight, just an improvement. -- Gnetwerker 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:RS only mentions "reputable" in the context of scientific journals; I'm assuming you don't mean that anything reliable is automatically reputable? Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole FA process needs to move beyond the often stated "Any article can become a FA" mentality, which is why I'm for a "notability" requirement. Leaving the sole requirement of "secondary sources" won't always be enough, as there are unofficial "fan books" for current music artists, third party strategy guides for video games, etc. which would qualify as secondary sources and yet introduce nothing but fancruft. That's why I think notability should be mentioned somehow, even if to say that "Secondary sources must demonstrate why this is notable".--Ataricodfish 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

But we haven't defined notability; in fact, forming consensus on what is and isn't notable has been one of the main problems plaguing AFD. Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" is a bit of distraction the way it's usually argued, a red herring. The core issue, and a much more difficult one to tackle in the WP structure, is ARTCLE LENGTH. In any sort of "traditional" editorial planning — journalistic, encyclopedia, whatever — the amount of space devoted per subject is a main criterion. There is a practical reason for this (and the "not paper" argument is often misused in service of ignoring this). Some articles "deserve" 500 words, others 5,000. When that consideration is in play, "notability" discussions become much more manageable, questions like, "What are the chances the general reader will want to another 1,000 words on every season in X TV series?" are given a practical context (and it's equally useful on non-pop culture topics as well). Useless padding is (more) easily pinpointed. Arguing notability as an absolute is largely futile, it will only "work" in the most extremely obvious cases, like for a bio of someone abolutely no-one has heard of. In FAC, if not in WP at large, appropriate length can and should be dealt with. (And, it's already there, just not given "actionable" weight: "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". An article that is simply too long, filled with extraneous stuff (whether unverifiable, poorly written, or simply...unnecessary to the general reader) should not be an FA. I think a lot of "notabliity" issues would vanish if we stuck to that. --Tsavage 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reliable vs. Reputable

• Comment: Why the change from "reliable" to "reputable" and the insistence on secondary sources? Would not reputable primary sources be acceptable instead? And "shows Wikipedia in a positive light" is horribly weasel-worded. Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here is my reasoning: reliable is a value judgement, while reputable means "has a (good) reputation". The Drudge Report may be "reliable", but its not reputable. Indeed, Weekly World News is reliable (reliably wrong :-)), but not reputable. It's a finesse, I'm not wedded to it. Regarding showing WP in best light, it could perhaps be better worded -- take a stab. What I really mean is that we should be able to look at Britannica, Encarta, and Wikipedia side-by-side and not be embarrassed. -- Gnetwerker 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern here is that people may be embarrassed by different things, and that this will be quickly used against any articles whose topics are unimportant, nonexistent, or just plain silly. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would gladly chuck it overboard to get agreement on the central point about WP:NOR. -- Gnetwerker 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

FAC Process

• Comment: I think we also need to amend to FAC process as well. Here are some of my points (taken from my page)

1). Obscurity does not equate barreness. The former means that the topic is relatively unknown, yet researchable. The latter denotes that nothing much is researchable about the topic, and sources that turn up are likely to be of poor quality.

2). Unactionability of the objection does not necessary entail that the objection is invalid. If an article has a shortcoming that is simply unfixable for whatever reason, but the objection is reasoned and supported by proof elsewhere and within the article and conforms to general rules of FA criteria, then the article itself simply is not of FA caliber. Thus under this condition, even though the objection is unactionable at this point, it is still valid and should be taken into serious consideration.

3). FA should be the best of the best of wiki "as an encyclopedia article." An article should be a summary or general overview of a body of knowledge, and also a gateway to more information. It shouldn't be a collection of facts, lists, plot summary, TV guide, manual...etc. As such, a FA shouldn't contain more information than the sum of its sources, unless the subject matter is barren and therefore the article becomes the sum of its sources (as many pop culture articles have done). Temporary account 00:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with #2. I am surprised at the number of nominators who, after someone makes an objection, immediately enter in bold letters, Objection not actionable and doesn't count. It's upsetting to take the time to make a suggestion, only to be told that the opinion doesn't count. I noticed this a lot in the Bulbasaur process, and this shouting match by its supporters kept me away from voting, as I didn't want to be "yelled" at by strangers. I regret not speaking up now -- I was surprised it made it through FA.--Ataricodfish 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Best of Best

• Comment: Also we need to focus and bring attention the rule #1: Best of the best of wikipedia. Rule #2 to Rule #5 are "wigglable," in that many articles can claim that they meet the "minimum" requirements and therefore deserve a star. However, the first one is definitely the most important rule, and I think we need to establish a list of "good" FAs by category as a gold standard for other FACs to compare to. For instance, Donkey Kong (arcade) IMO is a very good FA about a video game character in that almost all the article is about its development, impact on society... rather than plot summary and game appearances. Plus, it's got good primary and secondary sources (supreme court docs are reputable and reliable btw). So for FACs related to games, we should compare them to this article. This principle should apply to all categories of FAs as well. Similarly, should we make a bad FA list?.... Temporary account 00:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, making a bad FA list may stir up controversy. — Deckiller 00:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite my opening comment about "Fandom" (way) above, I will stipulate that Donkey Kong (arcade game) is an exemplary use of secondary sources in a popular-culture article. It is a good counter-argument to the one that states that we are reserving FA for crusty academic stuff. -- Gnetwerker 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a "bad" list, but we should also have something along the lines of "What FA is not". That way, if someone nominates "XXX because it's a great show!", we can point to that page and state "Articles about a television series must be more than a list of characters and an episode guide". Something like;

• "FAC should not be a series of lists".
• "FAC should not be mistaken as a fan site".
• "FAC should not be unsourced and unreferenced.", and so on. --Ataricodfish 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Misc

• Comment: Do any of the commentators either Support or Oppose the proposal? Not to be churlish, but we have 44kb or more of commentary. If we don't have enough consensus to even have a straw poll, I guess I will slink back into my corner. -- Gnetwerker 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the proposed criteria need a light copy-edit. Tony 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Only if it garners support :-) (But seriously, feel free, and I tried, while maintaining some compatibility with the original). -- Gnetwerker 01:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Well, we all support the proposal, but before making strong supports, we all should formulate, criticize, and discuss about it first. This is not like fandom where we give "one-liner strong supports," and this sort of proves our point about being critical don't you think :) Anyways, do you want to change "comment" section to "suggestions" or "proposals?" Temporary account 02:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Not to be churlish, but is there any general agreement that it's time for a straw poll anyway? I propose we have some more discussion instead. If alternatives suitable for voting on emerge from that discussion, let's have a straw poll then. Bishonen | ノート 03:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Easy answer - no. This poll should not have been started. Raul654 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reputable vs. Reliable (in re pop culture articles)

1

Comment Overall, I think the above is a useful modification of the criteria. IMO, it doesn't add new requirements, simply highlights and clarifies a couple of areas, things that perhaps weren't considered as important earlier.

• The new secondary sources point (new #3) I take as a refined expression of No original research core policy. I think the wording could be improved, such that it is flexible but still made clear that articles relying primarily on primary sources are a form of OR (using a primary source to create an article that consists mainly of observational description, whether it's describing birds in flight by describing the contents of a documentary film showing birds in flight, or describing a video game character or TV show from observing game play, episodes, etc). I guess there is nuance and interpretation in the primary/secondary source area, but something like "... not relying mainly on primary sources..." would sound better. Right now, it seems like maybe a restrictiion on all primary source material.
• Breaking out the mechanics of References, from the somewhat dense current 2(c) to the new 4(d) also seems useful: it provides flexible, straightforward guidance that puts more emphasis on References as a standard section of an FA.
• The reliable->reputable I don't think is necessary at this point, simply because it is more restrictive without having a clear way to determine "reputability". It also makes the criteria a little less clear, particularly in the intro to #2: "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable" seems to sum up the identical principles as "well written, comprehensive, neutral, factually accurate, verifiable in reputable secondary sources, and stable" in...less words. And the same debates will occur over what is "reliable" as for what is "reputable". If and when there is a quite comprehensive list of "reputable" news outlests, journals, and so forth, the difference seems moot, at least, in FA. And, while I suppose "factually accurate" in the summary encompasses NOR, the secondary stuff is made clear later, in the same way "verifiability" is.

So, in general, it seems to me a good amendment (with finetuning), it makes clearer certain troublesome editorial areas without restricting anything or changing anything radically. Of course, the criteria are only as effective as how they are interpreted in practice. --Tsavage 19:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I am not wedded to "reputable" versus "reliable". Thanks for your support and for highlighting the intention -- that this is a clarification, not a major change. Curiously, many of the comments here go to unchanged aspects of the current policy. -- Gnetwerker 16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So the proposal is to add (i) two references to "reputable secondary sources" and (ii) a reference to WP:NOR? Firstly, what is "reputable"; secondly, what about primary sources; thirdly, I think the latter is taken into account already. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reputable is defined by WP:RS -- Gnetwerker 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reputation" is very much in the eye of the beholder, as the rather woolly nature of that guideline - which is actually about reliability rather than reputation - makes clear. It only talks about "reputable" sources when talking about other encyclopedia, new media, scientific journals, and false claims of authority. They key has to be the citation of sources. The reader can make up their own mind on the weight they should attach to any one source. Finally, I don't see the concern with primary sources - in some cases, they are all you have. For example, I would rather have a photo of an event, rather than a photo of a newpaper report of an event. Similarly, eye-witness testimony van give crucial insights that a newspaper report cannot (while being aware that one person's point of view may not be neutral). I don't see what this proposal adds to what is already there. What is it intended to achieve? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• But why the insistence on secondary sources? There are certainly cases where working from primary sources (reputable primary sources, no less!) is appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• WP:RS says "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication". However, elsewhere it makes clear that primary sources are usually acceptable only as sources for opinions, not for facts that might be disputed. We also have editors here claiming that websites (e.g. dedicated videogaming sites) fulfill this requirement. As I have said elsewhere, I don't think a Featured article should meet only the minimum requirements of Wikipedia. I think that, while primary sources can certainly be used in articles, very few articles should be sourced with nothing but primary sources, and certainly no featured article should. -- Gnetwerker 17:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but "we may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication" isn't meant to limit the use of primary sources that have been published by a credible publication (to give a concrete example, these are, strictly speaking, primary sources; but they're published and quite reputable ones). This might just be a quibble with the wording, but I think that if we want to eliminate the use of unreliable sources, we ought to do so directly, rather than trying to consider it as a primary/secondary source issue. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I suspect we are in violent agreement. As a principle, however, I am not trying to create a new definition of WP:RS just for FACs, even if I think that WP:RS should be tightened up, that is a different fight. So I am trying to walk the line of holding FACs to a higher standard while not duplicating the work of other WP policies. I understanding your criticisms, though, and would welcome adjustments to address them. Finally, while there are good examples of appropriate use of primary sources, most articles on WP use them inappropriately, IMO. BTW, your example would seem to be the use of a 'tertiary source -- the 1911 Britannica, rather than primary sources. If you consider the list itself to be from primary sources, lists are something somewhat special, being largely devoid of dispute, and when lists are disputed, secondary sources are called for. -- Gnetwerker 17:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. (My example, incidentally, was a somewhat amateurish attempt to list the books themselves, not the article in which they're contained. We don't seem to have a separate article on Guicciardini's History of Italy, unfortunately; perhaps I ought to write one at some point.) Kirill Lokshin 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• "We also have editors here claiming that websites (e.g. dedicated videogaming sites) fulfill this requirement." I think some of this stems from the discussion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IV. And, yes, I was one of the ones who argued that GameSpy, GameSpot, IGN, and the like are credible (secondary) sources for video games, and particularly for critical reception of video games. (Note that I haven't worked extensively on the article in question and don't have a real attachment to the nomination; all I've done is to clean up a few minor things.) Basically, independent critical reception of video games, from the perspective of gamers, will come from one of two sources: Gaming magazines, or gaming websites. Those websites are generally recognized as some of the most established and credible gaming sites in existence (one is owned by CNet; I forget which off the top of my head). Of course, I completely agree that a featured article should have appropriate primary and secondary sources. For articles based on fictional subjects, I believe that this generally includes the fiction itself, ancillary distribution materials, and interviews with its creators as primary sources; and credible critical reviews, press coverage, and any reliable third-party analysis of that work as secondary sources. Of course, these have to be used properly; the creator of the fiction will usually be its most authoritative and credible source as to background, development rationale, and intended interpretation. Even though it is a primary source, it is credible in this context because the creator controls the content of the fictional universe. At the same time, one must rely on secondary sources for a NPOV treatment of the reception or popularity of that work. (In fact, I find it suspect when an article on fiction cites only primary sources; it usually means that the article does not cover the external, real-life implications or reception of that fiction well.) In short, I agree that there is no shortage of articles that do use sources inappropriately, but both primary and secondary sources are subject to conceivable abuse in the wrong context. What is reliable or appropriate for one type of information may not be for another. FAs should indeed represent the best of Wikipedia, and this generally means using reliable primary and secondary sources appropriately. — TKD::Talk 13:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree. I think that fictional and pop-culture subjects need to have been treated to more serious academic and journalistic treatment before being encyclopedic. I don't think game reviews, authors' statements, interviews, and the like are secondary sources, and I don't think they are reliable. I think a look at the treatment of these topic in extant encyclopedia will back up this position. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Donkey Kong (arcade game) is a model of serious citation for a game, and such fictional works as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lord of the Rings have been subjected to enough appraisal for serious encyclopedic treatment, but most fictional works are simply not sufficiently notable outside their fan base to support this, and therefore do not represent "our best work" if they are present here. -- Gnetwerker 16:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• So you are saying, in essence, that Wikipedia should not have articles - let alone featured articles - on topics unless they would either be covered in any other "reputable" encyclopedia (Exploding whale? Holy prepuce? I wonder what Temporary account would suggest as the "non-barren" parent topics for these "barren" subtopics - exploding animals? holy relics?), or they have shown themselves to be sufficiently long-lived as cultural phenomena to have built up a body of secondary sources (like Donkey Kong (arcade game))? So, in essence, we should only cover topics that Encyclopedia Britannica would cover? If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree: Spoo is, to my mind, virtually the perfect FA on these ephemeral topics: the secondary sources just don't exist, it has next to no cultural impact, but it does cite cast iron primary sources. I can't imagine EB having an article on it (or even Babylon 5, come to that, and yes, we should have an excellent article on that too). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, that is not what I am saying, and if you were to read the things I have said elsewhere on this page, you would realize that. I do think that Wikipedia has way too much "fancruft", however. I think it is, in fact, a strength of Wikipedia that it has a broad array of topics, as it is not constrained to a paper format. However, I think some of WP's articles tend to bring it as a whole into disrepute. FAs should be the most rigorously vetted articles here, and I don't think that is possible with a mere checklist of form and format issues -- it goes to scholarship, and fancruft articles often lack that. P.s. - Yes, I think that Spoo as a Featured article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• And thus we come to the core of the proposal. It's my opinion, frankly, that the minimal gains in reputation that would result from any moves to relegate the articles you consider to be "an embarrassement" to second-class status are not worth the significant cost to the community. Do you have any idea how high a proportion of Wikipedia editors are here to work on popular culture topics, most of which haven't the slightest chance of attracting proper secondary analysis; and what the effects would be if they were no longer to feel welcome here? Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

2

• 1) I hardly think that not being featured is "second-class status"! That applies to most WP articles; 2) There are many examples of popular-culture articles that can be written with appropriate use of secondary sources (and I have provided some); 3) There is no suggestion that WP should prohibit primary-sourced articles in general -- this is a discussion about Featured articles -- the best of the best; 4) The number of editors working on fancruft is not relevant to this discussion of what should be featured; and 5) If a policy change led to fewer articles like Spoo being featured, more's the better. This is about standards, and the fancruft articles avoid being held to the high standards of more academic articles by simply declaring "there are no sources!" That, I think, is a double-standard, and not one that WP should encourage. -- Gnetwerker 06:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1. For the time being, yes; but we've so far avoided a system where certain types of articles have been declared inherently unfeaturable based on the topic, which is basically what the result of this proposal would be.
2. The vast majority, however, cannot; particularly if the "reputable" qualification remains in the final language. (I don't think fansite reviews and such are particularly reputable; but most works of fiction simply don't get the kind of attention that would carry with it such a weight.)
3. A somewhat irrelevant distinction; see point 1.
4. FA shouldn't be run in ways counter to the interests of Wikipedia as a whole, in my opinion; this sort of approach, in particular, encourages unnecessary forking. (On a side note, this change will disproportionately affect those of the "editors working on fancruft" who actually care about encyclopedic writing.)
5. Why? There doesn't seem to be any consensus that Spoo is actually deficient as a featured article? Kirill Lokshin 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, to paraphrase, now we come to the core of the counter-argument (#4), perhaps? Is there an "anti-elitism" concern here? Excuse me (please correct me) if I'm being dense, I've run into various bits and pieces of "anti-elitism" discussion around WP, but have yet to encounter it myself first-hand. I honestly never for a moment considered raising practical FAC standards to move closer to a lofty, clearly-stated goal (at its simplest, "to be a credible encyclopedia") as elitist. My arguments in FAC are based on absolute inclusiveness. It's one thing, and IMO "elitist" and not-good, to establish "certification gangs" and boards of post-doc experts as a means to quality. Any encylopedia is a lot more than factual information, it is solid, contextually balanced summary and highly readable writing, something that, say, a graduate degree far from guarantees. (That's my eample of "elitism".) However, having solid standards, as opposed to making "exceptions" for really poor quality, is just fundamentally counterproductive. It doesn't "pull people up", it ensures an increasingly muddled, bureaucratic, unfun environment, with different standards for all. This may be the current case, but it shouldn't be the goal to institutionalize any form of mediocrity. How can that help anyone? Striving for high standards is IMO always a good thing, with positive payoffs. --Tsavage 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not "anti-elitism" so much as "anti-Britannicaism", in my opinion ;-)

I think that improving standards are a good thing, provided that articles can actually attain them. What I object to is the demand that all articles include—or even focus on—material that simply doesn't exist; particularly when the change in the criteria is quite transparently intended to be used against a certain type of article. In other words, we have not gradually arrived at some higher standard and then decided that, unfortunately, Article X no longer meets it, and can no longer be featured; instead, some people have determined a priori to remove Article X, and have then proposed a change to the standards whose chief benefit is that it would justify doing so. Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, coming up with "rules" after the fact to fix (or gain advantage through eliminating) perceived problems is terrible. That's how much of our messy world is constructed. I think in this case, looking too hard past the stated amendments to try to uncover other motives can help one miss the point. This "secondary source"/NOR clarification affects all types of articles (the "universe" editorial guideline below more squarely addresses poor form in all fictional topics). For example, look at Nicolas Sarkozy (just removed in FARC), or Deus Caritas Est (currently in FA). The latter I find to be in good part OR. It provides in parts a seemingly neutral description of the encyclical, but is in fact an interpretation of a very current document. Statements like "Paragraph 39 appears to be inspired by" or The first half of the encyclical is more philosophical — who is coming to these conclusions? The entire section, "Some key passages", makes up over half of the article, and is entirely quotes, with italics added - whose emphasis is that, who designated these "key" passages? The sources are all press articles, a press release, versions of the Bible, and the document itself. Even with "secondary sources", at two months from publication, how credible, thorough and balanced can the analysis be? For me, religion is a topic I'm wary of, and as a reader, this article fills me with no confidence, because it makes choices, and then I can see from the references that the choices are largely those of the anonymous author(s). Here, the line between journalism and encyclopedia vanishes for me, except it is not written in a peppy media style. So, the secondary issue does apply to more than "fancruft", and perhaps at this point, enough WP editors are available to comment along these lines and improve the standard. (The three supports for Deus Caritas Est are a bit alarming, I don't really have the time to follow up, but I should post my objection...) --Tsavage 17:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue there has more to do with the inappropriate inclusion of original research rather than a primary/secondary source distinction. To follow with you example, were we to have a statement from the Pope to the effect of "Paragraph 39 was inspired by...", would we disqualify it as coming from a primary source? (It may not be entirely unbiased, but that's an issue adequately handled by the existing NPOV policy.)

And articles on fictional subjects are not the only ones affected by this obviously. However, because of the amount of material considered to be primary sources—potentially everything originating with the author (even though we might expect such material to be the most reliable source at hand)—and the scarcity of "reputable" secondary sources, such articles would be disproportionately affected by the proposed change. Kirill Lokshin 17:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Dante point in Deus Caritas Est is supported by quotations from Benedict, cited in "reputable" secondary sources in the press; and the "more philosphical" part is also quoted from a press source. But I look forward to Tsavage's objection :) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify my position, I never said that author's statements/interviews are secondary sources. Those are primary sources. I do contend that independent, third-party reviews and analysis are secondary sources in the context of fiction. I won't belabor my argument for that interpretation, but I just wanted to clarify what I wrote. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 02:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:Kirill Lokshin continues to be torqued about "reputable" vs. "reliable", despite the fact that I removed it from the proposal long ago. The issue here is use of reliable secondary sources, not the distinction between reputable and reliable. I do think that sources should be "reputable" (vs. disreputable), but that is rightly another issue. Krill seems to view that improvement of Featured status will have some kind of "chilling effect" on editors of fancruft -- this seems doubtful. I think that refusing to improve Featured article status will encourage forking, and indeed the forks have begun: WP:Pushing to 1.0, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and WP:Stable versions. Krill also fails to make the distinction that Wikipedia might be stronger (e.g. than Britannica) by having articles like Spoo, but weaker by featuring them as "the best of the best". -- Gnetwerker 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing up the "reputable" issue again; I didn't notice you had removed that word. The remainder of my point still stands, however. Since we are so fond of WP:RS:

Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication.

In light of this point, I don't agree with your insistence on inserting the demand for secondary sources into the criteria. For certain topics—particularly the ones that you consider fancruft—the primary sources happen to be the most complete and reliable reference available.

As for Spoo, I happen to disagree with the distinction you make. Either it is an article of sufficient quality to be featured, in which case it should be; or it is not, in which case it should be removed (but there seems to be no consensus for this view). Beyond that, your argument seems to boil down to not labeling the article as featured because we don't think the topic is "serious enough". Kirill Lokshin 19:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your key charge, the last one, is the one tha tis least true. I have repeatedly cited example of frivolous, unimportant, or fictional articles that nonetheless meet a high standard of scholarship. My view is that you are defending a low standard of scholarship, in order to protect the legions of under-educated teeny-boppers on WP who revel in the minutia of (e.g.) Pokemon and Care Bears. -- Gnetwerker 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But why the concern with Spoo, then?

• Is it not comprehensive?
• Is it not neutral?
• Is it not accurate?
• Is the source of the information not reliable?
• Is it not well-written?

Asking editors to use sources that don't exist and then complaining of a low standard of scholarship is rather strange, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring up Spoo, you did. I have much bigger problems with articles like Stargate (device) and Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation. The former is largely original research, formed from speculation about a fictional device justified by intense scrutiny of a TV series. We might as well post the genotype of tribbles. The latter contains as the entirety of its sources a bunch of website locations containing box-office results for the film, and is otherwise a vehicle for fan synopsis of its so-called "plot", and an entirely WP:NOR synthetic (unsourced) comparison with the first film.

But if you want me to talk about Spoo, I will. One paragraph starts with the sentence: '"As a food product, spoo is very versatile. It can be made into everything from soups to sandwiches, served cooked or cold." This is presented without apparent irony, and of course is completely unsourced. What is the reliable source for this information? The preponderance of the "sources" are Compuserve posts by the creator of the "concept". The page is nothing more or less than a fan-homage piece to an obscure aspect of a television show. As I am obviously of a generation distinct from most Wikipedians, should I start a series of articles based in my 1960s popular culture? Where, I wonder, is the page about Coconut Radio equipment from Gilligan's Island? I want to see rampant speculation on the electromagnetic properties of bamboo and coconut milk! What about Hogan's Heros? Surely Wikipedia would benefit from a detailed examination of the structural aspects of all those tunnels?

Seriously, of course Wikipedia should ask editors to use and supply sources, and if the sources don't exist, the content does not belong here. -- Gnetwerker 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you brought up Spoo before I did ;-) But that's quite beside the point.

As far as your specific concern, I would suspect that the material contained in the "Additional references" section would be the source you're looking for. It may very well be that the statement is inaccurate, of course; if you believe that to be the case, slap {{fact}} on it, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to provide the requisite episode titles, scene times, and quoted dialogue. If you don't think it's inaccurate, on the other hand, there's no reason to complain; we've (thankfully) not reached the point where we demand exhaustive footnotes for every sentence in an article.

I would suspect that somebody has examined the electromagnetic properties of bamboo and coconut milk; if you can dig up the requisite information, you could write a great article on the subject. Kirill Lokshin 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To ensure that anal-retentive correctness accompanies pointlessness, User:ALoan brought up Spoo[3], neither Krill nor me. -- Gnetwerker 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To the more specific comment, the issue is not correctness, but verifiability, and the issue is not so much that I suspect the correctness of the statement regarding the taste of Spoo, but that it is fundamentally not knowable. -- Gnetwerker 00:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That would get us down to whether a fictional work (the TV series itself, in this case) is an appropriate source for fictional items/events/concepts that occur within said work; it's not as though the series is unpublished. I would argue that, while the sum total of our knowledge of Spoo may be limited by what's presented in the show, it is also directly verifiable from it. Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this (and many other detailed "FA criteria" debates) comes down to one fundamental issue: Is WP essentially "scholarly" or "journalistic"? The practical WP problem is how to produce "quality" articles without alienating editors who could be "anyone". WP policies and principles aim to ensure "quality" through conventional academic-style editorial guidelines, however, in practice, WP functions much more along journalistic lines. For convenience, I'm referring to, say, the daily news style of popular journalism, where everything is in principle "verifiable" (factual info is attributed to presumably reputable sources or reported on first-hand by the trusted reporter) AND a certain amount of opinion/conclusion (OR) and bias (POV) are an accepted part of the mix. News usually avoids the appearance of blatant OR and POV by giving "both sides of the story", but this is a matter of writing style, a POV is always inherent, there is always an angle. And this is in fact how much of WP has been and continues to be written. Articles in contention on the normal editing level, (IME) usually involves negotiation between editors to create a "balanced tone" ("OK, so add what the opponents say to balance this bit out"). This isn't balanced editorial decisionmaking or "objective" coverage, where context is carefully weighed, it is an approximation of news reporting made to sound "encyclopedic". So when it comes to Featured Articles, the question is, what standards are we pushing, and to what end? Are we trying to literally advance the ideal of the WP policies, which requires a very high level of referencing and disciplined writing, or are we attempting to come to some new definition of "encyclopedia" that redefines conventional academic writing? Without being clear on what purpose FAs are really intended to serve, debates about the fine points of the FA criteria don't seem likely to truly resolve in a way that actually better channels the collective energy... If you don't know where you're going, anywhere is good enough... --Tsavage 15:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

• Comment -- I have a problem with the proposal: the use of the meta:cite format for footnotes and endnotes is strongly encouraged. This is a matter of personal preference. The footnote style may be useful but it does have disadvantages, and I refuse to use it blindly for articles I've authored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is unchanged from the current policy -- Gnetwerker 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, I find {{ref}} much superior to the cite format, but I presume that an article would not be failed for using a different citation scheme. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But with {{ref}}, you have to manually ensure that the footnote numbers match up with the numbered list, which introduces a rather large potential for error when the article is updated. Using <ref>, the numbering is automatically synchronized for you, greatly simplifying editing. For this reason I personally prefer <ref>. Slambo (Speak) 15:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: there seems to be a contradiction in the new proposal. 2c says ""factually accurate" and "verifiable" include the supporting of facts with specific evidence sourced from reputable secondary sources, and noted with citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) to these sources" (which seems to require specific inline citations) whilst 4d says ""References" section in which references are set out, complemented by inline citations as appropriate" (i.e. inlines are optional). Which is it going to be? (I'm for a requirement that page specific inline citations are required, but many people here disagree...) Mikker ^... 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• 4d is from the current policy. 2c doesn't take a position on how the references are provided or cited, just that they are. -- Gnetwerker 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Template vs. Cite.php

I'll put this for comparison purposes:

Templates:

• Require distinct names for all pairs refs and notes
  • If several notes call for the same ref, backlinking is broken, unless a different, muchmore complex template is used.
• Require careful track of note/ref pairs
• Require careful track of notes ordering
• May break when used inside templates, such as {{cquote}}
• Adding a note requires the editing of several sections/the entire article.
• Frequently conflicts with numbering of external links

Cite.php:

• Does not require any tracking or the pairs or ordering
• Adding a note is simpler
• Combining notes is automatic with the "name" attribute
• Doesn't break templates (Used to break when used in picture captions, but that bug is now fixed)
• Does not conflicts with external links
• Main disadvantage: altering a note requires tracking it back into the text, which can be difficult.

Circeus 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hidden source citations

As an FA is supposed to exemplify WP's best work, should the average reader be able to read, see or link to sources simply by reading the text, not by clicking on edit and then scanning for the sentence and then to see if there is a reference. This is the current case with the use of the template inote. It is in current use on some FA such as India. In this case, we have references listed as {{inote|tongues}} or {{inote|languages}}. However, I am sure that the average reader will have no idea what this means. As stated so aptly on the citing sources talk page: the purpose of citations is to assure our readers (those funny people who don't click on the edit link) that the information in the article is accurate; hidden citations fail miserably at this, for fairly obvious reasons. Therefore, I propose that inote be withdrawn as acceptable policy for FA, as it is clearly not an example of best work, it should be replaced with something easily verifiable such as cite.php or other visible templates. This is, of course, if Wikipedia is supposed to be easily accessible to all, and not just to those who edit it. --Bob 17:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Outlawing inotes, and other hidden source citations such as HTML comments, would actually reduce the level of verifiability possible for an article instead of causing an increase. This is because visible footnoting systems tend to overload the text when used at the level of one or more citations per sentence (the level of citation that complete verifiability requires). Adding this many citations with a format that does not jumble the displayed text with a lot of notes saying things such as (Author 12, p 267-271). Hidden citations are not encumbered by the limitations of rendering technology. The fact that most FAs lack the level of citation detail called for by m:Wikicite is due to software limitations of our footnoting systems and not due to a lack of need for complete verifiability.

Ideally an article would use a balanced combination of both hidden and visible citations. This way items that clearly need to be footnoted for the average reader may be visibly footnoted, while hidden citations provide backup and redundancy to the visible citations and also provide citations for information that would otherwise be uncited. --Allen3 ^talk 20:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's true, certainly, with parenthetical references, but I don't really think a text looks overloaded when heavily referenced using footnoted references at all. That is, although parenthetical references are highly distracting, especially when the reader is not trained to read academic texts (where they often appear), footnotes are easy to overlook, easy to add using the REF tag, and it is easy to make the font in a footnoted references section smaller in the event that it gets very large. I'd never seen an inote before I looked at India, but its really not a very workable idea: Its hard to find them, difficult to read markup text in the event someone actually wants to look one up, and makes it more difficult on editors because the list of references isn't displayed. A 'much better solution would be just to use footnotes. -Seth Mahoney 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Inote was only a temporary referencing solution that was created for people like me who hated the inflexibility and complexity of the template-based referencing hacks. We were waiting for something like <ref></ref> to come along and the plan was to mass convert inote articles when that happened. But then people started to use inote for referencing every single fact in articles ; a bit excessive IMO and the reason why there was never a mass conversion. I think the rule for future FACs should be to prefer the standard ref system but to allow inote and HTML comments in the same article where appropriate. They are VERY useful for asking editorial questions to editors. Use of inote in old FAs SHOULD NOT be a reason to delist (just as the lack of inline cites is not a reason to delist articles that have ==References== sections but were FAd before inline cites became a hard FAC requirement). --mav 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

More on fictional FACs

I've written an essay that describes my own view of what Featured Articles on fiction and fictional elements should look like: User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction. It borrows some from a similar essay by Uncle G, but I've taking a different angle and tried to keep from making any judgements for or against fan material. Basically, the essay argues the articles on things that might be considered fancruft are okay so long as they are written from the right perspective, avoid original research, and are not overly reliant on primary sources. I would really appreciate any feedback and comments — feel free to edit the essay outright, if you feel so inclined. I'd particularly like to strengthen the discussion of what constitutes a good source for an article on a fictional character, weapon, species, etc. — BrianSmithson 17:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether there isn't a WP:SIGN story waiting to be written about the recent debates over Bulbasaur and other recent FACs and FARCs... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I'd been planning something like this for a long time. That wave of FACs and FARCs simply prompted me to finally get my butt in gear and put fingers to keyboard. — BrianSmithson 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, your essay is quite good; I'm just wondering if there is not something to be written about the on-going debate... Perhaps I should hint in the Signpost... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your essay is excellent, Brian. Grounding it all on the in-universe/out-of-universe approach clarifies a lot of issues brilliantly. In my opinion, it should be moved toward guideline or policy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That was well-put! Focussing on editorial style, rather than trying to identify particular topics or pin down "notability" is an excellent approach to dealing with certain "current event" subject areas. The editorial aspect also seems far more important to overall article quality, at this point, than some of the mechanical specifics of referencing and source quality. Still, this remains largely a "source" issue, in that, were great secondary sources quite readily available, I would imagine editors would (also) use them (at least, in the mad drive to get an FA star). The secondary source "problem" also extends to other areas than so-called "fancruft", for example, use of newspaper accounts, web-based "information sites" of various organizations, blogs, and the like as primary material for a variety of biographical and other current topics (including things like, for example, environmental issues). However, trying to tackle all of that in one sweeping policy or guideline that attempts to pound home "source rules" seems impractical. This proposal could improve quality, generally, and in FAC if actively administered, and it is more clarification than...more rules or restrictions. I've read it only once, but I'm pretty sure I'd support it! --Tsavage 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed. I would strongly support its adoption as a guideline. I would also note that long "trivia" lists should be highly discouraged. In reality, "trivia" is usually something of a euphemism for "unorganized, random bits of information and possible original research". If something in "trivia" is worth mentioning, put it in the relevant prose section; otherwise, just drop it. The reader is not helped by a loose collection of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TKD (talk • contribs).

I think BrianSmithson's essay is valuable, and a good statement regarding a portion of the overall problem of what has come to be called "fancruft". However, detailed descriptions of fantasy universes are only a portion of the problem. Other examples include the tedious and vasty overweighted descriptions of individual pop songs (e.g. I Believe in You (Kylie Minogue song))), of second- and third-rate films (Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation), of follow-ons to popular videogames (Final Fantasy IV), and of individual high schools (Stuyvesant High School), to name but a few. Your proposal would address such things as Lord Voldemort, but might not clarify the situation with (e.g.) Stargate (device). So I would fully support development of clarifying policies on fictional universes, and I think you have an excellent start, but I continue to feel that the larger problem of articles sourced in origina source material, and lacking adequate independent (i.e. non-Wikipedia) appraisal needs to be addressed. -- Gnetwerker 06:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing issue remains central (as I hopefully made clear in my comment on this proposal, above). And (if anyone's reading every comment with interest :), I don't think out-of-universe style alone addresses the need for the general WP:NOR FA clarification, as addressed by the FA criteria amendment above. Both guidelines are complementary (and "universe" is good general editorial guidance, while the NOR stuff is for now specific to FAs). Both IMO attempt to speak plainly to an eclectic group of editors on, dare I say, "common sense" and in-the-spirit applications of the existing core WP policies and FA criteria. Put to a "consensus procedure" (vote), I believe I'd support both. --Tsavage 13:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. It was never my intention to create a magic bullet, just to address something that I kept (and keep) encountering in articles up for Peer Review and Featured Article Candidacy. As for Stargate (device), I think my proposal would help that article—about 2/3 of the current piece takes an in-universe perspective. I plan to add a bit more about primary vs. secondary sources; I hope you all won't mind if I swipe some of your comments from the debates above and insert them into the essay! :) The listcruft and trivia problems that TKD mentions are, unfortunately, bigger issues and affect more than just fancrufty articles. It's very common, for example, to see "Trivia" (or its alias, "In popular culture") sections on articles on everything from small towns to Japanese gods. I would whole-heartedly support any proposal nixing these kinds of things (perhaps a rewrite of Wikipedia:Trivia, which is currently trying to tackle the same problems as Wikipedia:Notability). — BrianSmithson 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with BrianSmithson's essay. I think it is a step in the right direction for both FAC and just general fiction articles on wikipedia. --Polkapunk 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

New requirement: inline citations

Inline citations are a common requirement in the recent FAs - to my knowledge every article promoted to featured status recently had them. Isn't it time to make this requirement official and add it to this page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I predicted that inline citations would become a mandatory requirement about a year ago, when the predecessor of the current wording ("complemented where appropriate by inline citations") was added. What is wrong with the current formulation? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Some people think "where appropriate" can mean none. I don't see how that could meet the verifiability policy's goals, but that's what some people have thought. Luckily I think that view is in the strong minority now. I believe all FA candidates should have the top 10-15 most important or controversial points cited to the most reliable reference available. Removing the "where appropriate" out would be the only thing new about requiring inline citations. - Taxman ^Talk 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By removing "where appropriate" you actually weaken the guideline; we do not merely require the presence of inline citations, we require them everywhere it is necessary to explicitly attribute a fact. Depending on the article, this may be in virtually no places or virtually everywhere; but certainly it includes all controversial or questionable statements, as well as anything that has been challenged by other editors or reviewers. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, specific inline citations should be a requirement. Mikker ^... 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How specific? Every paragraph? Every sentence? Every fact? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Every statement that can be doubtful, at least, although the general guideline of one by paragraph already informally followed by several editors seems appropriate. Circeus 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

By specific I mean (Kissinger, 1974:423) instead of (Kissnger, 1974). I.e. inline citations should be page specific where possible in order to facilitate verification and thereby ensure WP's reputation for accuracy. (We have no central editor. Nobody "owns" an article. Therefore, to help both other editors & the reader, specific inline citations are required). As for the quantity of inline citations needed; that depends on how controversial the topic is. Something like Intelligent design needs plenty of refs, something like, I donnu, Puddle probably needs less. Mikker ^(...) 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that you're attached to that format, but since you used it here: I'm not sure parenthetical references are best for a resource like Wikipedia. It tends to disrupt the text, and especially if there are a lot of them it can be bad news for readability. Why not use the ref and references tags instead? That's what they're there for, and they make nice automatically ordered footnotes at the end, too. -Seth Mahoney 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Eventually every fact should be referenced, but this would probably be too much for most FACs (although it is what I tried with my latest, the Katyn massacre). 1 citation per paragraph may be a good rule of thumb (and would encourage people to merge short paras into larger).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a euphoric moment when I saw this topic come up. I'd like to add one place where citations should always be used: Quotes. There are far too many unreferenced quotations or paraphrases on Wikipedia, and all featured articles should have all quotes or paraphrases referenced to some appropriate source. Maybe it would be useful for editors, if this requirement becomes more firm, to start a page that explains what should be references and different ways to reference them. -Seth Mahoney 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Content Restriction

I know I'm going to offend some people, esp. the editors who have toiled over the kinds of articles I'm talking about, but I'm going to say it. Can we stop having ridiculous topics nominated for FA? Although I support 100% their being on Wikipedia, I do not support their being FA. For example, a school-nominated article should not be FA unless the article shows in what way this school has affected our society, maybe producing notable graduates. Otherwise, who the hell cares? So, what I propose is a new requirement for FA:Must Show How Topic Affects Society -- Osbus 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, isn't that that essentially the same as requiring the article to be notable, or encyclopedic? If it is not, it would be deleted. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. As above noted, matters of suitably Noteable and Encylopedic are reasons to delete an article. If the article has not been deleted, and has been activly worked on, then we should assume people found it to be Noteable and Encylopedic. FA is intended to highlight quality of writing and adherance to the standards and editorial policy of Wikipedia, so long as the content meets these requirments it should be a featured article.

I do not think we should be going down the road of judging on content unless it fails the well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable test, espcialy not to discount mundane topics. In fact, I think we need to get more articles on mundane topics up to featured standard. We need more articles like Octopus card and Warren County Canal, and even more mundane and suposedly 'unintresting' topics. --Barberio 13:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that a featured article is an example of Wikipedia's best work. That is why I'm saying that a topic has to be appealing to more than just the people who already know about the topic. For example, if an FA is about the Warren County Canal, I don't think many people would read, unless it showed some appeal outside of it's being a canal in Warren County. A recent FA I voted for, Simon Bryne, would be a good FA, because not only does it meet Wikipedi'a standards, but it is appealing to even those who are not interested in boxing. And in response to ALoan's comment, some articles are only notable to some people. But an FA, in my opinion, is notable for many factors. -Osbus 15:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to know about the Warren County Canal, I would be extremely happy that there was a featured article about it. The subject is clearly notable enough to have an article: why shouldn't that article be capable of being made sufficiently good to become a featured article? Less than one in a thousand articles are featured: why would we want to stop excellent articles achieving "featured" status? I can't see why the number of people who "care" about a topic should be a criterion: who cares about Simon Byrne, but it is an excellent article and should be featured (I didn't write it, I hasten to add, even though I nominated it). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the idea of any such content restriction. Some of my favorite books are nonfiction books by John McPhee on subjects which, in themselves, have very little interest for me (e.g. Oranges, The Pine Barrens). A well-done article on an obscure topic can be fascinating. I love to dip into my print copy of the Britannica 11th Edition at random, and many of the topics I encounter are quite obscure, but they are nevertheless interesting articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nvm, forget what I said. Wikipedians are persuasive indeed... Osbus 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Osbus: There seems to be no practical way within the WP consensus set-up to create a list or filter for "worthy" FA subjects ("consensus" would not likely be found), but there are certainly ample grounds for individual articles to be critiqued within the FA criteria. If uniformly exceptional articles were promoted to FA status, I think concern over over subject matter would be lessened (and a great article on any topic is usually a good thing). However, the range of FAs being promoted is IMO quite wide, quality is uneven, and this is subject matter often seems involved. And there is concern amongst editors over FA subject matter as well as quality, as a glance at the archives here, and in WP:WIAFA and WP:FARC clearly indicated. This is to be expected given the widely acknowledged and apparently real "rising FA standards". In short, if you see a clear path to change, it probably can't hurt to involve yourself on the individual FAC review level! Of course, that can be time-consuming and frustrating as, as you've seen if you're against a majority; Wikipedians of all pursuasions can and do argue for their views... --Tsavage 16:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

direct quotation versus paraphrasing

I note that Criterion 2c is silent on the issue of distinguishing text that is directly lifted from other sources rather than paraphrased. I suspect that some contributors think that an inline reference will cover them in both respects. This is not the case, and involves issues of copyright.

I wonder whether anyone thinks that it would be judicious to explicitly require the use of quote marks for directly quoted material as opposed to paraphrased material in FAs? Tony 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Such copyright violations are a problem for Wikipedia in any article -- so why would we single out any treatment of them for FACs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting (which is recognized in virtually every country as an acceptable exception to Copyright), even extensive quoting, is generally not a problem unless it becomes so extensive that it becames an abridgement of the originaly text. As far as 'lifting text' (not necessarily copyvios, but copying of ideas without attribution, e.g plaguriusm in the academic sense) - I don't think we need to single that out in particular - WP:BEANS. Raul654 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bunchofgrapes, I suppose FA criteria set the standard for the whole of WP, don't they? I'm concerned that some articles comprise large slabs of 'borrowed' text. Referencing with an inline citation implies that the original text is paraphrased, or that the line of reasoning or basic idea comes from that source. Without quotes, I assume that the text is not a direct quotation. Raul, I have no problem with extensive quoting; I just think that readers should know that it comes from somewhere else, at least in an article that's put up as 'among our best'. Tony 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Stability

Some people seem to be raising defacto 'Stability' objections for current event articles, or articles that had recent effort to improve them. I think this is a misreading of the stability requirement that may need clarification. --Barberio 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent events articles are (almost by defintion) unstable which is why I added the requirement in the first place. Someone nominated Beslan School Massacre before the number of terrorists (or who they were) was known. I didn't think that was proper.

It should not, however, exclude articles that have had recent improvement drives. It was never intended for that. It should not be used to exclude, a-priori, articles that get a lot of traffic because of their high visibility (Michael Jackson, for example). Raul654 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all Current Events are as inherently instable as each other. For instance, current nomination, H5N1 is a 'Current Event', however it's unlikely to have 'day-to-day' changes. --Barberio 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the diff for the last 3 days. It's been massively changed. How is that not unstable? Raul654 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Er... Check that diff carefully. The content has not changed. The way the page was organised was changed. To me, changing the order the sections were in is not 'massive change'. I think you've fallen for the old mistake of using an artificial metric without checking that the results mean what you think they mean. Looking at a diff makes it look like masive content edits were made, because of the way diff works. --Barberio 17:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The FAC nom of Beslan school hostage crisis was me, and it was in February 2005, about 6 months after the event. The main objection was references rather than anything else. But I still think it looks pretty good, although not as good as 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which should be given another FAC run after its too-early FAC nom on 31 December 2005.

Articles dealing with current events are often expand and become quite good very quickly, but they almost always need some time to mature and become excellent. But there is no rush. Take some time; get the article right. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy debate: FACs and Good Articles

Should all FACs be required to pass certification as Wikipedia:Good articles before they can be listed as FACs? --M@rēino 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll start out with a no, and predict that that will be the consensus you will hear. We've consistently held that there should be minimal if not no hard restrictions on editors ability to produce FA's directly. Some editors already know how to write FA's and putting another bit of red tape would not help. So GA's are a good source to look for articles that can be polished up to pass FAC, but as a requirement that's not a good idea. - Taxman ^Talk 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary instruction creep, at best; in most cases, a proper peer review would be far more beneficial to a potential FA nominee than a GA listing. I'll also point out that the GA requirements are minimal; meeting them is an indication that the article isn't total garbage, but doesn't really imply it'll be any more successful at FAC than one that was never listed. Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Raul654 08:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No. FAC has already had too many hoops and beucratic hurdles added to it. --Barberio 14:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Status

Is this a guidline, policy or just unofficial? Borisblue 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the criteria by which we judge all featured articles. (So I guess they are "official" in that sense). They are also used besides judging FAs as a way of communicating what we would like all articles to be. Beyond that, your question doesn't make much sense to me. Raul654 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, it's comparable with WP:GRFA where anyone can just plop their own advice in?

No, it's a list of criteria that featured articles are evaluated by. These criteria have been established, and are changed, by consensus. Random people inserting their own advice would be doing so without consensus, and would be reverted quickly. Tuf-Kat 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So why doesn't it have template:Guideline on it? Borisblue 11:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not a guideline. People should not "feel free" to update it without prior consensus. It does not "illustrate standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle" -- it's criteria that you have to followed to make a featured article, irregardless of your principles. Tuf-Kat 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In which case the page should be defined as Policy. At the moment it is not, and thus is purely a essay. I think, sadly, people have been treating this as policy, when it has not been through the process other policy documents have been. If you think it should be policy, I refer you to Wikipedia:How to create policy.

I think the Wiki might need a 'This has not been declared Policy or a Standards Guideline' template for pages like this which might mislead you into thinking they have been. --Barberio 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be defined as policy. A "not-policy not-guideline" template would seem unuseful -- do we really need a template to say that two other templates are not used herein? Who has been treating it as policy? Tuf-Kat 14:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you say, and I quote "it's criteria that you have to followed to make a featured article, irregardless of your principles", then aren't you treating it as policy?Borisblue 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because not everyone wants to make featured articles. And, like WP:GA, you could create a different list of articles that meet a different set of criteria. People can choose which criteria they wish to apply. Policies are stuff like NPOV -- I can't decide to come up with different rules for bias and choose to apply them to the articles I work on. If you want to make a featured article, you have to use the featured article criteria. You have to follow NPOV and other policies as a basic condition of using this site. Tuf-Kat 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole concept of policy is orthogonal to the purpose of this page. It makes no sense to label it as either guideline or policy. Raul654 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in FAC people have been quoting standards from it, e.g. oppose article doesn't follow such-and-such paragraph in WP:WIAFA. So it is becoming (or has become) de facto policy. I'm not saying that's a bad thing- but some clarification on the official weight of stuff on this page might be useful. Borisblue 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Borisblue, I think that you're confused about something. This is how we define what a Featured Article is. There is not some other abstract essential definition of a Featured Article that someone has written this page in an attempt to represent. I cannot see how we are missing any templates on this page. Jkelly 17:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(via edit conflict with Jkelly) Of course people quote from the FAC criteria on FAC. That's the whole purpose of having FAC criteria. It doesn't make them policy -- or else writing an article without images or with prose that isn't brilliant would be in violation of policy. Writing an article with lackluster prose or no images will make it impossible to make it featured, because it won't meet the criteria for being featured. People will oppose featuring it because it doesn't meet those criteria. If you don't want the article to be featured, you don't have to follow the criteria, and thus the article won't have to have pictures or brilliant prose. Thus, it's not policy. Some people use it as a guideline for every article they edit, but that's not the primary purpose, so it isn't a guideline. Tuf-Kat 17:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument seems to be 'This is not a policy defining what is and is not a featured article, but it is a requirment of what is and is not a featured article.'. Too me, that seems like quibling over the definition of 'is' and trying to have your cake and eat it. If this document represents consensus, then that should be demonstrated, and then it would meet the requriments for a proposed guideline. If the document doesnt represent consensus then that seriously raises problems with the requirments. I'm not happy with the 'have your cake and eat it' argument that you don't need to demonstrate consensus to make this a policy document, but that it does represent consensus on what a featured article is. I've tagged this with the Essay template to make it's current status obvious. I think that this probably does need a debate. --Barberio 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the argument is "These are the rules according to which Raul654 promotes featured articles". Whether they are formally "policy" or not is completely irrelevant, as he's the person responsible for making all of the promotions in any case; and that point does have consensus! Kirill Lokshin 19:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with Raul being in charge of the process. I'm not entirly sure there would be consensus for Raul having autocracy over how the process works and what the criteria are. --Barberio 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are people suddenly looking at this very long-established description of what an FA is, and demanding that it be labelled 'policy' or 'essay' or something? What's the object here? I removed the essay tag because it was completely inappropriate. Worldtraveller 19:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's inappropriate? The essay tag is for pages which are not policy or guideline but are refered to. Since this is not policy or a guideline, then it is an essay. Unless you're ready to run it through the policy creation process, it should be marked as such. Inertia does not create policy. --Barberio 19:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(via edit conflict with several people) It does not "express the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians but may not have wide support" -- it is a list of the criteria by which featured article candidates are judged by, and that's all. There are no opinions because these flat-out are the criteria for FAC, not someone's opinion of what the criteria are. These are not someone's ideas of what FAC criteria are, they are the criteria for FAC. The wideness of support for these criteria are irrelevant, as the vast majority of people don't participate in FAC; those that do, use these criteria because these are the criteria for FAC. These are the FAC criteria because this page, as clearly documented by the title, is the page that holds FAC criteria. This doesn't even meet the normal English definition for essay. Why does it need a template at the top? The page's purpose is spelled out in the title. This is the page that defines what a featured article is. Who has been confused about this? Tuf-Kat

If the page has no concensus support, then why is it being used? If it does have concensus support, why isnt it policy? Why does FA get to run in a special way contrary to the rest of Wikipedia? I think these are some questions that this discussion has raised, and that have not been sufficently answered. --Barberio 19:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it the first time: because we have the FA czar, who handles all FA promotions. Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. The FA criteria define what kinds of articles are appropriate to post on WP:FAC. They're a description of, or instructions for, the function of the FAC page. This does not by any means amount to running "a special way contrary to the rest of Wikipedia." All our board-type pages and many others in the Wikipedia namespace have such instruction at the tops of the pages. See for instance WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:PR, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR, WP:RFA, etc, etc. Posts which ignore the instructions are sometimes summarily removed, sometimes tolerated. The instructions are not policies or guidelines. Yet they don't have an essay template on them either. Are you saying all page instructions in the Wikipedia namespace need to be defined as essays, and are you on your way to planting an essay template on them? Are you familiar with the policy (yes, a real policy) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

FAC *is* a bureaucracy. By your own admition, these are rules, and strict procedures. It's just that they've ignored the way wikipedia has handled setting up rules in every other situation. --Barberio 19:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just not correct at all. No-one has ignored anything, and there is not any one fixed and immutable way of proceeding on Wikipedia in any case. I really don't see what problem you think you're addressing here. What actually is wrong with this page as it is now and as it operates, and has been operating for some time? Worldtraveller 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way is FAC a bureaucracy? The hierarchy consists of one director and a million other people who come and go as they please and largely do whatever they wish. The only strict rule is that Raul decides what to promote, and that he does so according to the criteria on this page. Tuf-Kat 19:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Raul may be the cheif beuraucrat, that does not diminish the operation as a rules based bureaucracy. This is, again, the 'have your cake and eat it' argument of wanting policy requirments without being a policy. --Barberio 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Barberio: "Every other situation"? Did you read my post all the way through? Wiki namespace page instructions have generally been set up by adhockery. Several of them I've written myself, and the way they were subsequently "set up" was that nobody reverted them. Then after a time, when practice has evolved, somebody else has rewritten them, and nobody has reverted them. I'm sorry to say this, but all these pages and their maintainers, not just FAC, have ignored what you mistakenly take to be "the way wikipedia has handled setting up rules in every other situation". Bishonen | talk 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC).

However, none of these are used as policy documents, while WIAFA clearly is being used as if it were one. Not every page in the wikipedia: namespace is a policy or a guideline, or those template tags would be much more common. Again, I don't understand the rejection of using an essay tag for this page since it is clearly not yet policy or guideline. --Barberio 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to be an essay, policy or guideline? Why can't it just be the answer to the question "What is a featured article?" And who cites this page as policy in a way that the rules for AfD or RfA aren't? Tuf-Kat 20:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Barberio - it seems to me from reading this thread that you do not quite grasp the nature of the FA process, and (in more general terms) how policy on Wikipedia works. I'm not saying this to be mean or spiteful, but it complicates any attempt to make you understand why this page is as it is.

Policy on Wikipedia is almost always descriptive, not normative. That is to say, policy follows practice; we do something, realize it's a good way of doing it, and then say "hrm, this should be policy"; not vice versa (which is how, for example, the legal system works). The insistence that this page somehow go through a vetting procedure to become policy is flawed in every respect.

As my very first message in this thread said, this page is "official" in the sense that it is the one and only set of criteria used by the featured article process (and everyone who participates in it), and as it has turned out, this list also makes good criteria for all articles on Wikipedia, even outside the FAC. Your attempts to label this as an essay are neither correct nor welcome.

Thus, it follows that if this page were to be pigeonholed, it would be policy. However, that still isn't a particularly useful designation. It doesn't mean anything. These are the accepted criteria by which Wikipedia featured article candidates (and all pages in general) are judged. This point is made very clear from the context of the article. I don't see what the purpose of slapping a policy label on it is, except to confuse the issue (or the purpose of the policy tag). Raul654 00:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is confusion over how these requirments are set. Are they just a straight dictat from you, are they a set of policies generated by general concensus, or are they just appropriate guidelines. This needs to be stated. The problem is we have these criteria, but don't say how they came about, or how they can be changed if needed. This is what the various policy template tags are intended to solve, so people can know these things imediatly. --Barberio 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, the 'vetting process' is the same one everything else gets on wikipedia, 'Peer review' and concensus decision making. --Barberio 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, most other editors do not seem very confused over how these requirements are set: as the discussion above shows, they are determined by consensus, and have evolved over time to reflect the evolving practice on FAC. Anyone can edit them, like anyone can edit virtually any policy or guideline, but they will be reverted if their edit does not make the criteria reflect the accepted consensus more succinctly, accurately or elegantly.

If you have to apply a label to it (although I am not sure how helpful that is to anyone), it is certainly not an "essay". I would say it is it both a "policy" and a "guideline": it is policy for FAC (in the same sense that the instructions on RFA are "policy" for RFA nominations) and a "guideline" outside FAC (some people find the criteria useful for writing a "good" article, particularly if they are aiming to nominate it as a FAC in due course). But, other than collecting them together, it does not really add much to the really important policies/guidlines, the ones that are referred to in the criteria: WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, etc.

Looking at the list on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - and noting that there is no clear boundary between many of the listed types of page (for example, "A policy is similar to a guideline...") - perhaps the most appropriate classification would be as a "process" - a central and organized way of doing things, generally following certain policies or guidelines. Are the {{FAC-instructions}} a policy, a guideline or something else? Do you think they have to be labelled as such, and if so why? -- ALoan 11:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misconception here: Polices are rules that govern the behavior of editors. If you consistently do not follow policy, then you can be sanctioned. FAC criteria are nothing like that ; nobody will ever be sanctioned for not following those criteria while writing an article. The article will simply not pass a FAC if nominated. If anything, FAC criteria define the parameters of a process. That is all. No need for a tag. -- mav 02:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What ALoan and mav said. - Taxman ^Talk 13:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Q

So can a gallery of images be used (instead of having images separately stacked) in a "featured country" project? The WP rules or guidelines mention nothing for or against having a gallery.--Zereshk 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think galleries should be avoided, in almost all (if not all) articles. Tuf-Kat 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Why not link to a gallery of free images on Commons? — Matt Crypto 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. I can imagine circumstances where a galllery would be useful, but I can also see potential for abuse (e.g - wikipedia is not a picture book). Raul654 14:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

recent substantial changes to the layout/formatting

The changes introduce serious category problems: for example, the style manual is highly relevant to the technique of great writing, and having neutrality and accuracy in very separate categories from the other two is awkward.

If you don't have your preferences set to number the subsections (which I don't, because I usually find the numbers redundant/intrusive), the highest level of classification is invisible. This is a problem if you're reviewing FACs and FARCs and want to cite an individual criterion.

There's a problem, in any case, in that we go from a to e, then start again from a.

It looks more complex on the page than the previous version.

What was wrong with the previous version, anyway?

Tony 05:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was wrong with it, it was simpler and cleaner. I regard the new version as an experiment, and have reverted it. Sorry, Kaisershatner, yes, me again... please don't be offended. Bishonen | talk 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the reversion. That version was much more difficult to understand. Tuf-Kat 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I prefer the old version too. Sorry. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Raul654 15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The old version is much, much better. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I appreciate your feedback. I had much better success trimming the instructions for AfD and elaborating on some of the related pages - these instructions weren't really so bad to start with, and I apologize if I made them worse. Kaisershatner 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Weak process?

I noticed that today's featured article got through the FA process with only 2 support votes. This is not to say the article does not deserve FA status, just that the process seems weak. I also don't understand who closes off the discussion as "consensus" , if anyone? Rich Farmbrough 10:23 26 May 2006 (UTC).

"Great writing" and "The perfect article"

I'm not thrilled with the standard of prose in these resources; I think that they should be moved from the actual criteria below to the See also section, alongside the other articles that focus on particular aspects of the FA criteria. Sorry if I'm treading on toes, but there it is. Tony 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing about fiction

Per the discussions above from March (most directly Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#More on fictional FACs), an essay on fictional subjects on Wikipedia has now been proposed at the village pump as an addition to the Manual of Style. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The essay was written to address some of the more common problems with featured article candidacies, although if adopted, it would of course have wider implications. So far, the reaction has been very positive, but changes and tweaks are more than welcome. In particular, a Tony-style copy edit might be a good idea. — BrianSmithson 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot. Raul654 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Where have you been Brian?, this has been sorely needed for a long time. - Taxman ^Talk 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been in development since that discussion this past March. Luckily Ragesoss took the ball and ran with it as far as making the move from userspace essay to proposal. I'm very happy with the reception thus far, though keep an eye on the talk page, as there are some detractors. :) — BrianSmithson 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it too. Tuf-Kat 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

new critiria: tell something interesting?

Today's FA on the main page is boring. It is about an politician who spend a few years on Capitol Hill, lost his office and run so far two times again, without success. Of course the article is well researched and has all the cites needed for a FA, but there isn't a single interesting point in the article, making it a disgrace for the main page in my opinion. --h-stt !? 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; our intention is to inform, not to titillate. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but if an article is so boring that people take the time to actively complain after reading it, it may be failing to be "brilliant prose". Jkelly 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How does an encyclopedia determine what is interesting or boring? Using the fact that a community with over a million registered members and untold numbers of anonymous visitors is able to generate a handful of people complaining about a topic is hardly a meaningful measurement criteria. Given the size of the community and Wikipedia's visibility it is likely that every article has at least one person who is uninterested in the article's subject. Adding such a criteria to eliminate "boring articles" based on complaints would just cause more people to complain. A much better way to handle boring articles is to accept that you will not always get your first choice and to go on from there. --Allen3 ^talk 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. The whole idea of requiring an article to be "interesting" is stupid - it's inherently subjective, and will cause endless debates to which there simply is no good solution. A bad decision is (by definition) one that leaves you with no good options, and this one fits that description perfectly. Raul654 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It all depends whether FA is about identifying the very best of Wikipedia - as criterion 1 claims - or if it's just about identifying any article that meets the standards to which all articles should aspire. I questioned this before and people seemed to strongly favour the latter. I always thought that picking articles fit to appear on the main page would be about identifying the articles that are the most exciting, interesting, enjoyable and informative. I objected to the FA nomination of Hurricane Irene (2005) because although it's well written, illustrated, referenced, etc, and certainly meets the standards all articles should meet, it's not in any way about something exciting or interesting. If it appeared on the main page I really don't think it would be showing off the best that Wikipedia can produce. Of course this is subjective and not readily definable, but then so is picking featured pictures. If, on the other hand, FA is just about identifying articles that meet the standards we expect of all articles, then clearly any subject is fine, but criterion 1 looks a bit redundant. It also is a matter for major concern if after 5 years we don't even have 1000 articles that have met the standards required of all articles. I actually think there needs to be some serious thinking done about how to produce quality articles at a vastly greater rate than FA can manage. The small number of extremely detailed, long and thorough articles we have is good, but there is little incentive for all articles to be brought up to high quality, even if they're very short. Worldtraveller 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We're nine off. Are you suggesting something between WP:GA and WP:FA? The main problem is, we can't agree on a bar. An article on one subject will have to be of a higher quality than the last one promoted, see Torchic and Bulbasaur, Torchic was equal to Bulbasaur during the first FAC, but that wasn't good enough. Generally, demand has gone up; look at Wario, Bulbasaur and then Torchic. Guess which one was promoted first? And guess which is the least referenced? Exactly, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, I find myself agreeing with everything here. Perhaps the solution is a balance. Criterion 1 should certainly come into the decision to run a FA on the front page. Although ultimately subjective, many institutions, including public broadcasters, manage to make calls on the "interest" of their material. Tony

PS WikiNews seems to determine the interest factor successfully; there's so much boring stuff that they could put on the front page. Tony 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering "interesting" as part of the FA criteria is extremely subjective, and discourages article writers from writing factual pieces, which is what Wikipedia should be worried about. Trivia is actively discouraged at FAC, and asking for an article to have "something interesting" seems like a euphemism for that. When students look at a reference work, they're not looking for trivia, they're looking for comprehensive facts, accuracy and clarity. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is not interesting. What makes a less notable subject interesting is the context, the references to other more notable articles. -- Petri Krohn 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Today's Featured Article should attract readers, not bore them to death. This particular FA is not attractive, therefore I believe it is unsuitable for main page and FA. Relevancy could be reflected in the lenth of an article, in an encyclopedia on paper this person would not get more than two lines. If cut to the relevant parts, this article would never have become featured. --h-stt !? 06:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)