User:David Fuchs/Guide to featured writing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Future historians will wonder why a bunch of motley wannabes wrote brilliant encyclopaedic articles all for a bronze star.

This is David Fuchs' guide to writing a featured article. Featured Articles are a magic item which confer status, prestige, bragging rights, and diplomatic immunity in Latveria or the country of your choice.^[1] This is but one of many articles addressing the subject (somewhere, an editors is rolling his eyes and saying "Another one?" My response can only be, "Neener.")^[2] I'm not the master of featured writing, but I'm putting this down in the hope someone might find it useful. Take my advice with a grain of salt and stick to the path. We're in for a ride.

Not everyone can write a featured article, but if you're actually reading this, we're going to assume you're a somewhat active Wikipedian, so you prolly can write an excellent article. Good show. Be advised, however, that it's not as simple as throwing your work at WP:FAC and expecting the bronze star to follow. You might be knocking on that door for quite a bit befores your poor 'widdle article gets all shiny and noted. But with perserverance and the proper mindset, you're well on your way to producing the best of Wikipedia!

Disclaimer: There be sarcasm and witticisms aplenty in the text ahead. If you agree with this essay, turn back now. While it's always good to be a little light-hearted, I'm not going to insult any groups of Wikipedians, so don't worry. We're all in this together. Further disclaimer: This essay has lots of WP:-type abbreviations, so it's not necessarily newbie-friendly. The upside is it makes the reading quicker.^[3]

[edit] Getting started

There are several ways of getting an article, any article, to featured status. These include:^[4]

• Starting an article from a draft, taking it to peer review, good article status and then to featured article status.
• Nursing a forgotten stub which no editor loved before you into a comprehensive article.
• Stealing some one else's good work by nominating an article that meets FA criteria but which you never worked on.

The moral of the story is that you don't have to start an article by yourself and bring it up all the way to featured article status by yourself. If the "fly solo" method works for you, more power to you; I've written such articles before.^[5] Or, you can single-handedly bring up a forgotten, crufty, or badly written article to FA through force of will. But just as often, depending on your area of interest, you'll be aided by other editors. Knowing that you don't own the article, even if you created it, is key; most of the time the editors are there to help you, and if a disagreement arises you must deal with them in the usual manner.^[6] More importantly, even if you are basically the only person who edits an article up to the featured article candidates page, outside editors are critical for pointing out mistakes in prose you haven't seen, fixing those mistakes, and offering a fresh pair of opinions regarding the article's quality and format. Even if their ideas are stupid, don't bite them for their two cents.^[7]

[edit] Motivation

There are good reasons and bad reasons for deciding to bring an article to featured status. Good reasons include a personal sense of pride in having your work featured, increasing the quality and reliability of Wikipedia on the subject, and a desire for Wiki-fame. No one's saying you should be a hermit who writes articles and scourges himself for liking what he's written and that little bronze star; after all, if you didn't come to Wikipedia to write and get noticed in a small way, why did you come?^[8] However, there are some reasons not to write articles; maybe the ends will justify your motivations, but in general, disappointment is inevitable.

• It's a race - There are no prizes, even for topping the List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. There are no special considerations, either, unless someone hits you with a barnstar. And while that's certainly recognition, it's not money. It's a free encyclopedia with no author's name on the page; treating it as something more can lead to bad occurrences.
• FA=Admin - Actually, I won't lie. Perhaps the largest reason I was successful in my Request for Adminship was due to my mainspace contributions (which at that time totaled 2 FAs, 5 GAs.) But looking at other RfAs, it seems that such good writing will only help your RfA in conjunction with admin-related menial tasks; in addition to writing I helped out at Candidates for Speedy Deletion and WP:AIV before I was nominated. So don't think "Oh, I've written a lot of stuff, I'll get adminship" will work- I've seen editors with many thousands of edits get denied adminship for demonstrating no need of the tools, civility issues and more.
• Kickbacks - If you succeed in promoting an FA, the almighty Jimmy Wales will not descend from the Great Foundation and promise you great rewards in the wiki-afterlife. May others admire your work, and may your "status" in the culture of Wikipedia grow? Maybe. But there are very few physical benefits. Jesus Himself would probably not come down from Heaven to congratulate you for making His article featured.^[9]

[edit] Pick an article

To get an article featured, you must begin with an article. Here are some tips:

• Pick something that interests you- What's the point of writing about Napoleon if you think he was a bore and slept through the history professor's lecture on the guy? If you have enthusiasm or interest in the subject, the writing is bound to be easier for you. You might also have prior knowledge which will help with sourcing (we'll get to that later).
• Search around- Finding an article which is interesting to you and needs work is also a great way of finding FA fodder. Check a wikiproject's cleanup lists and adopt one of the articles there to work on. Once again, your interest is key in getting an article beyond an average work.
• Temper your enthusiasm- you may well find in the course of revamping an article that its subject matter just won't work in fitting the FA criteria, be it due to a limited scope or other reason. Sometimes that's the best time to realize a merge or other editing solution is the best policy.^[10]

Here's some things to not write about:

• You, your friend or your family- This is general advice for the creation of articles, as well as promotion. Chances are, if it wasn't there before you got to writing about your dad, he's not notable. It's sad by true.
• A fictional weapon used by a fictional character in a video game- fiction is generally harder to get to FA standard, since the guidelines and policies such as WP:FICT are in effect. That's not to say you can't improve a crufty fictional article; just be warned it'll be a tough slog (I'll address fiction later on).

[edit] The writing

You can draft your article in userspace or right there on the wikipedia page. Drafting in userspace allows you to tinker in a manner which might end up an unseemly mess on mainspace, but a downside is it's not as easy to find and edit by others. Generally, I prefer writing a section at a time in the articlespace, adding references (get to that later) in commented fields (put the text, et al in <!-- and --> to hide it from normal view.) A major exception to this rule is if you're rewriting an article that was deleted due to notability concerns; unless you want the article speedily deleted, draft it in userspace first, making sure it conforms to the notability guidelines.

[edit] The criteria

From WP:FA?, my comments on the feautured article criteria (yeah, you're going to have to go there and read it yourself...)

1. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
   • (a) This is perhaps the hardest criteria to fulfill. Unfortunately, even I cannot write perfect English and interesting prose at the same time. I suggest reading this article as an aside. Basically, it says to promptly fix issues at FAC (get to that later), network (ask someone to do it for you)^[11] and to ask for assistance. Get someone, online or off, to read it. Even if someone isn't a good writer, they can tell when a sentence doesn't make sense. Print out a copy and work on it like a draft of a term paper.
   • (b) The best way to tell what an article needs to be comprehensive is to look at similar featured articles. For Doctor Doom, I modeled the article's structure after Batman. For video games, I use FAs like Halo 3. You might not have all the same headings, et al (and probably won't) but copying a style and then adapting and tailoring it for the chosen article is always a sure start. Check out the Manual of Style for both the encyclopedia as a whole and for wikiproject-specific suggestions. WikiProject Comics, for example, has a recommended format. A good way to check your scope is to get someone who knows little about the article's subject, have them sit down and read the article, and then ask if they had any questions or felt like something was missing.
   • (c) Read Wikipedia:When to cite. Basically, if something isn't common knowledge, source it. Internet sources are great when you know what you're looking for (for example, I know that Halo: Combat Evolved was released in 2001, so all i need to do is find some reliable sources that confirm it) but looking for scientific papers (when appropriate for subject) and books are often the best way to go when you know little about a subject or need to freshen your memory. Books also often contain more nuggets of information that are useful to your article as well, so don't knock print! (It should be pointed out some articles, such as Halo 3, use almost entirely online sources, but this is due to the fact that no one is going to write a book in any sort of useful time frame on the subject. Historical subjects are entirely different.) For articles such as TV episodes, don't forget DVD commentaries (vital for Production and other information.) When in doubt, cite it! For a good primer on what will constitute a reliable source, see User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You.
   • (d) I worked on Halo 3 because I liked the game. But no sooner had a reception section been made than some editors were insisting I was a paid Microsoft fanboy who was trying to remove all criticism from the article's Reception section. Such POV concerns are to be regarded, but remember, NPOV does not mean undue weight. If only one reviewer had something bad to say about a game, include the comment by all means, but remember that one comment does not warrant as much text as the positive comments (and vice versa, if the game was god-awful.)
   • (e) In other words, don't edit war. Pretty simple, just know when a war is starting and keep cool, boy. Real cool.^[12]
2. It follows the style guidelines, including:
   • (a) and
   • (b) and
   • (c) Actually, I lied. The Manual of Style is a bitch who will break you and your featured article nominations. To save yourself grief, read it. It's annoying and long, occasionally stupid and very annoying, but it's the law! And streamlined and standardized article styles are a must. However, it's not (or shouldn't be) the end of all things - see this thought about the MoS
3. It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject... (yada yada) - Not much more to be said on this one. In Amendment 1 below I'll deal with fictional subjects and their reliance on nonfree images, and what to do about it.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). - Don't ramble. Especially with fictional subjects, one has a tendency to go into minute detail out of enthusiasm, but remember we are an encyclopedia. Evolution may be so dense a subject the article size will be massive even with subtopics- but Madison County, Arkansas probably doesn't need a blow-by-blow account of school bus routes.

[edit] Content review

So you've worked on your chosen article, and now want to either gather feedback on the quality or put it to the test in the arena of Good Articles or the red-hot broiler that is Featured Article Candidates. Good luck, FA tenderfoot, your challenges are just beginning, but the rewards are within site.

[edit] Peer Review, or if another bot suggests changes I'll go mad

Unfortunately, Peer Review, while good in theory, has not really worked well in practice.^[13] You drop an article by to get third-party feedback, but often all you get back are automated grammar and MoS suggestions. Those are helpful, to be sure, but you want human interaction and smart comments. The way to beat the failed system is as follows:

• Get a fellow article to review by posting a note on their talk page, something like "I know you're experienced in <type of article>, so could you take a look at <article> if you have time? Thanks." Canvassing to draw attention to article improvement is not a problem (I don't think).
• Try a WikiProject-spefic peer review process, or solicit reviews from a wikiproject. WikiProject Video Games has its own peer review system, which garners more comments for a more specialized topic. Even if a Wikiproject doesn't have a peer review, asking for help from more knowledgeable chaps on the project talk page is always a good place to start. Just be courteous.^[14]

My final piece of advice: peer review another article! Scratch someone's back and they might scratch yours, and as long as the back-scratching is for the improvement of the encyclopedia no one will have issues with it. Other editors are plain discouraged when all they get is automated feedback, so brighten their day and give them a piece of your mind. Even if your comments aren't the greatest, it's still free feedback.

[edit] Good Article Nominations, or "The Big Backlog"

A.K.A. The House of Representatives to the FA's Senate,^[15] Good Article Nominations (GAN) is where you nominate an article for Good article status. The Good article criteria are less stringent than FA, so you might have an easier time getting an article to GA than FA. But GAN is also a chance for improvements to be made to the article before trying to FA-status. You post a template on the article talk page and the article on a list, and at some point a reviewer will come by and either pass it, fail it, or bring up issues that need to be fixed before listing; this "on hold" measure gives you a few days to fix issues. The problem with GA is that only one reviewer takes a look at your work in most circumstances, meaning that the quality of the review depends on the quality of the reviewer. If your article is failed at GAN, you can essentially appeal at Good Article Reassessment, which is also where editors bring forth GAs they believe do not meet the criteria, and input from a collection of editors is gathered. If your previous GA is delisted, don't despair- standards for GA have slowly been creeping up, much like how featured standards are likewise more stringent now than in 2004 or 2005. If you don't get to GA-class on the first go, pay attention to the rationale behind the reviewer's actions- if he doesn't leave enough to work on, politely ask him to clarify what he or she^[16] failed the article for and what improvements they think you should make. To some articles, GA is a stepping stone to FA; for others, its the end of the road for an article which may not ever meet FA standards.

[edit] Featured Article Candidates, or "On Bribing Wikipedians"

Raul, the general benevolent dictator of FAC. He has his agents who help him. Your mission, should you chose to accept it,—and you will—is to show him that your article is the epitome of greatness. Failure is not an option.^[17]

When you feel that you've got all the kinks out of your article and it can stand up to the Featured criteria, then it may be time to take the plunge to try for FA. Articles are promoted to FA at Featured Article Candidates. The process, detailed on the page, is simply pasting a template onto the talk page of your nominee, following links, saving a page, and listing that candidates page on the FAC page. That's the easiest part of FAC. Now comes the ugly awakening to first-time FAC nominators. Here's a plain laying-down of facts:

• Editors may eat you^[18] - Don't freak out if "oppose" litters your FAC page. Reviewers are testing your article against stringent criteria, and you and other editors are bound to slip up. Better to have harsh, constructive comments than weak ones with no substance (which may get discounted.) Remember, a bash against your article isn't a bash against you; they're just trying to help.
• Your article may fail - See below about what to do about it, but my first FAC ended in failure, and so do lots of others. I'll give you tips on minimizing this occurence, but if you're a newbie all I can say is learn from the process so you'll be ready for next time.
• Your article may fail again - It happens. And even if your first FA passes with flying colors, the next article you put up at FAC may be shot down.

I'm not going to go into the process, because others have written about it better than me.^[19] Your assignment is to read FAC according to Giano, 8.1:4.

[edit] Dealing with opposes

FAC works by determining if there is Consensus to promote an article. People who agree the article should be listed put "support"; those who have issues with the article put "oppose". If someone changes their mind, they can go from support to oppose and vice versa. Your big task when you put an article up to FAC is to deal with the opposer's comments.

Note that sometimes the opposers will be asses, along the lines of "Why the hell did you nominate this, X, Y, and Z are wrong with the article, to start. Strong oppose." Deal with it, be courteous if at all possible; I know from experience it never helps to get pissed. Just work on fixing their issues, put a note on the FAC page you think you've addressed their concerns, and then leave a note on their talk page. This is key on getting people to refactor their opinions. They may never come back to look at the article after opposing unless you bug them (nicely). If the editors still don't respond after a poke or so^[20] note that "So and so did not respond, but I believe I have addressed their comments." Then you've done all you can do. The FAC show-runners drop by and determine consensus, and your article is then either promoted or failed. Some handy advice in general:

• Gather up reviewers - they don't just drop from trees. Leave messages at relevant Wikiprojects that article X is up for FAC, leave comments. Don't ask individual users (see below).

[edit] On bribing and other most treacherous villainy

Logrolling is often good in the wiki-world, but not for FAC. While general solicitation from a body of editors is fine, don't message a sympathetic editor and say "Yeah, he really pisses me off too. By the way, Article X is up for FAC..." Similarly, don't try and drown an opposer's vote by soliciting supports from that editor's enemies or other backhanded tactics.

[edit] You failed. What now?

Sometimes the article fails. It's inevitable. Sometimes its for crappy reasons, like the opposers never returned to refactor their comments. This is also common. But don't just renominate it. Go through a peer review, polish it up, and pay attention to what opposers said. In other words, make it better. Sometimes I ask all the reviewers who reviewed my failed FAC to check out the new page, but some editors might frown on it. Just don't message only the supporters, okay? It's bad form.

[edit] What next

Wait? You've done it? You've got your first/another shiny star? Ok, so once the feeling of smugness goes away, what next? Read on, featured article veteran!

[edit] Main page, or The Ugly Truth

Getting an article on the main page as "Today's Featured Article" is detailed at WP:TFA. Just be aware that if your article does make it on the front page, the 24 hours of warm glow will be eclipsed by constantly having to revert vandalism every freakin' minute. Hope the glory was all worthwhile.

[edit] Public accounting, or "Your article sucks... and so do you!"

FA standards have risen over the past years. They may well continue to rise. So it's possible your FA, while judged good enough at FAC, may not meet the FA criteria and will get called to WP:FAR, or "Featured Article Review". The bad news: this collection of editors will discuss wether to demote your FA. Good news: the atmosphere is much more chill, giving you more time to deal with issues; in general, most people will want to see the article kept as FA over just simply delisting. Listen, edit, discuss, and follow up, and you'll be able to keep up and maintain your FA. That goes for any FA, even those not at FAR- make sure to keep information current and grammar correct. Generally, an article at FA won't be changing much, but make sure you don't leave it too long. Remove vandalism and tweak it to make sure it always meets FA criteria, and you'll have happy readers (and that star) for times to come.^[21]

[edit] Amendments

[edit] Article 1: On fiction

See also: WP:WAF

Fiction, a realm I deal with quite often, is a tricky beast. For some historical article or a biography, you just tell the facts as clearly and as straight as you can. Video games or novels, to some extent, have similar concerns, but you must also avoid delving too deeply into plot. For fictional subjects within these works, however, you're in for an even tougher slog, as everything within the articles scope is grounded in fiction, but justification for its existence must come from the real world. How do we deal with this? Here's some pointers on a featured article about a fictional facet of a universe (say, a character from a video game or comic book, etc.):

• Style and Layout - video game characters and comic book characters, and characters and factions in between, have styles pioneered by braver FAs in the past. Try to use these as a template for what you should include in your articles.
• Secondary sources - these prove the notability of the element of fiction, so don't skimp! Search for critical commentary in reviews of the game, for example, if looking for how your subject was received by critics. Look in features or interviews for information on how the designers came up with the element, what influenced the design, or such. Generally, to qualify as a good fiction article by itself, articles need both reception and development.
• Don't hesitate to merge - Ok, maybe an article reaches the threshold for notability, but after exhausting all notable sources you only have 3KB prose. It may be time to bite the bullet and merge the article in somewhere else; for example, a fan adaptation which gained critical interest into the main series article, or a character from the second game of the series into the main characters list.
• Images: Don't go overboard - Read WP:NFCC, and let it be your bible when it comes to images. Sure, the tendency is to have big resolutions shots of every character from the game, but we legally can't do that. It's that simple.
• We are not the gaming wiki of the world.

[edit] Other readings

• User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them
• User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
• User:Yomangan/A bastard's guide to writing a featured article

[edit] Notes