User:BQZip01/FA Tips

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of what "Ignore all rules" does NOT mean

Everyone who wants to have a Featured Article (FA) is a bonus for Wikipedia...if they want to follow the rules within the FA process. I'll admit it is a bit bureaucratic and technical, but it isn't supposed to be easy. For those interested in getting my support, here is what I look for in an FA.

[edit] Must represent the best work of Wikipedia

"A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes."

This means that this article should not only comply with the following issues, but should look good as well. If it appears sloppy or rambling, I will oppose. It should look like a professionally written article.

[edit] The Big Five

To quote the FA meanings:

(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.

(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.

(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.

(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.

(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; reversions of vandalism and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

I expect most FA Candidates (FACs) to meet these most basic requirements. I expect to see full sentences (no sentence fragments), no run-on sentences, and proper/consistent punctuation (the most common problem is improper/inconsistent comma usage). For comprehensiveness and factual accuracy, I expect material to be appropriately backed up and no major details omitted. If you claim ANYTHING, I expect it to be referenced. For example, if you claim a building is on 4th Street and Pine Avenue, I expect a simple reference, even a map, showing the location. As for neutrality, make sure your article doesn't reek of POV. Perspective is fine (i.e. terms used, attitudes, etc.), but it must be appropriately used & referenced. I personally am not too interested in stability since it seems to be a nebulous concept, but don't submit something if it is the subject of an edit war (this includes many semi-protected or protected pages). Resolve such differences before submitting even if you need arbitration. The FAC process will not help these kinds of issues and will likely make them worse.

[edit] Passive voice

Passive voice is the bane of Wikipedia. Creativity in word usage is fine, but usually passivity is done subconsciously and makes for poor/awkward reading.

"The ball is being thrown by the Undersecretary of State..." should be

"The Undersecretary of State threw the ball..."

While there certainly are exceptions (no other way to phrase it with the given information, a quote, etc.), this is one instance where your writing skills should be put to the test.

[edit] ...but my personal preferences are...

I personally hate to see red links and citations in the lead, though neither are required for my support. I believe making sure all of your links work is important (though this should explicitly be avoided in non-FAs). I also think that citations in the lead only clutter up the beginning of an article. By definition, everything in the lead should be repeated in the text. I understand that quotes require a citation and are the exception to my "rule."

[edit] Follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style

An FA, by definition, must follow WP:MoS I will not waiver on this. I understand there are exceptions to the rules, but if you cannot convince me, I will not support.

The most common problems are:

[edit] Improper length for the lead

The biggest problem with the lead section is that it isn't long enough or is too long IAW with the given guidelines. Make sure you have the appropriate number of paragraphs.

[edit] Missing references

If you claim something (anything), I expect it to be backed up in some way. "If something is likely to be challenged..." I'm challenging it.

[edit] Improperly formatted images

Images must be sized IAW WP:MoS#Images, that is to say they must not be sized by pixels unless there is a specific reason for which an exception is given in the MoS. I will put my foot down on this one and will not support if you choose not to comply.

HOW TO FIND IT Do a text search in the code for "px|" and eliminate all of these except the first image in the upper right corner of the article.

In addition, captions should either be sentence fragments with no end-sentence-punctuation (like periods, exclamation marks, or question marks) or full sentences with complete punctuation. A mix of captions from picture to picture is perfectly acceptable as long as it remains similar; you shouldn't have a one-word caption on one picture and a small paragraph on another...especially in the same section.

[edit] Improper images

Cool pictures are really neat in an article, but make sure they do not violate usage in Wikipedia and they have [Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Licenses|acceptable copyright status]]. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

[edit] Appropriate length

To borrow from my 7th grade English teacher, "It is like a woman's dress. It must be long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep in interesting." Your article must be comprehensive. Using links and "see also" is perfectly acceptable to cover this (see summary style).

[edit] Missing no break spaces

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 174 cm, use 174 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 174 cm.

HOW TO FIND IT Do a text search for all single digit numbers and a space after it ("1 ", "2 ", "3 ", etc). Check each usage to ensure compliance with WP:MoS.

[edit] Missing conversions to metric

Use of measurements must comply with WP:UNITS and must contain conversion to English/metric units unless an exception is made otherwise.

[edit] Inappropriate number usage

IAW WP:MOSNUM, spell out numbers smaller than 11. Do not spell out numbers longer than 2 syllables. Do not mix numerals and spelled out numbers ("...two sheep, three cows, 14 fourteen chickens, ..." just be consistent).

[edit] Ordinals

Ordinal suffixes should not be superscripted.
When used, they should not be used with a date

10th Mountain Division Ok

10^th Mountain Division Not ok

10 January 2007 Ok

the 10th of January Not Ok

HOW TO FIND IT Do a text search for "th ", "nd ", "st ", and "<sup>" within the code.

[edit] Headings

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.

HOW TO FIND IT Do a text search for "=the ", "=a ", and "=an "

[edit] Table of Contents

Make sure the the table of contents isn't too long or too short IAW WP:WIAFA. If too long, consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. If it is too short, add more material or pull information from other summarized sections. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]

HOW TO FIND IT Do a text search for " ["

[edit] Citations

Citations bring with them some interesting problems. Realize that your references need to comply with WP:CITE and include all pertinent information. I have no problem whatsoever with footnotes being used to expand and clarify phrases. However, the rest of your citation needs to be done correctly.

Each citation needs to have all available information: author, title, pages used, publisher, date of publishing, date accessed online, etc.
All of the aforementioned information should be properly italicized, put in quotes, wikilinked, dates wikified, etc.

[edit] Your nomination, you do the work

I have no objection with assistance, but if I take the time to explain what is wrong, I expect you to fix it, not me. I do this not because I don't care about the article (though I might not care at all), but because I want you to learn what to look for and how to look for it. Consider this an application of teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish. Wikipedia needs more good editors. It isn't personal, so don't take it as such.

[edit] Featured Article on the Main Page

First of all, my heartfelt ~~congratulations~~ condolensces. This is the highest honor (I believe) Wikipedia can bestow upon any editor. Personally, I have had two articles (#1 & #2) featured on the main page...both within 100 days. That said, it can be a blessing and a curse.

These articles are on the main page for two reasons:

They are among the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
They are there to show what Wikipedia is about.

Number 1 isn't a big deal. There are thousands of FAs out there. This is simply the big show for one of them...okay, so it is a big deal for you, but not as Wikipedia is concerned. This is standard procedure for them.

Number 2 is a real kick in the teeth since it shows everything Wikipedia is about, good and bad. As the 8th most visited site on the web, Wikipedia attracts a lot of readers. Approximately 40% of those users read "Today's Featured Article" (TFA). Mathematically, it means about 10 million unique people will read at least a portion of TFA every day. A lot of them will be new to Wikipedia and will make test edits

[edit] How to deal with...

[edit] Anyone

Know your policies & guidelines (know the difference too!)

WP:3RR

WP:Vandalism

WP:MoS (note that this is a requirement for FAs and is a de facto policy)

WP:PROTECT - Realize that because of #2 (see above), admins are exteremely hesitant to block pages

WP:DR

WP:BITE

[edit] Newbies

"You can really make any changes you want to this site? Neat! I'll try replacing the whole page with 'poop poop poop'. WOW! It worked!"

Make a correction and put a nice (or at least neutrally-worded) note on their talk page. Perhaps recommend getting an account and note that not even an e-mail address is necessary. Encourage using the talk page and follow WP:DR

Be on the lookout for sockpuppets. These accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

[edit] New IP vandals & new user vandals

Those who continue to make unwarranted/disruptive edits move into this category and will likely try to make subtle changes. "The Duke of Yorkshire was deemed the best ~~archer~~ pooper in the 18th century..." Continue to put appropriate warnings on their user talk page. If there is no stop to it, report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, or other Notice board as appropriate. Be aware of WP:SOCK and consider the possibility if someone new suddenly shows up with the same old arguments.

[edit] Old IP vandals

These guys are those who have been around a while and continue to make vandalous/disruptive edits all around; the main page article is simply their next target. As long as they have been given warnings in the past, give them a final warning, then request a block.

[edit] Old users

Be wary of established users. Give their opinions a reasonable chance and step back before starting to revert. Those who have been around a while tend to understand the system more and may simply have a different take on Wikipedia. In such a case, using the talk page is a must. If you are simply trying to get someone to stop and you need a little bit of a delay, do not attempt to resolve/respond to arguments very quickly. Wait, calm down, type your response, but don't submit it, wait a little more, review, then post.

[edit] Admins and up

Slow down and think before you type anything. These guys know Wikipedia pretty decently and don't need to prove much before blocking you. Consider the fact that you might be wrong before you go in against these folks. Then reconsider if you might still be wrong.

[edit] Conclusion

Don't let it stress you out too much and do what you think is right morally. Don't be vindictive; be impartial as much as possible.

That's my