Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
FACs needing feedback
edit
Brian Horrocks Review it now
Strapping Young Lad Review it now
SummerSlam (1988) Review it now
SummerSlam (2007) Review it now
American Airlines Flight 11 Review it now
Rongorongo Review it now
Germany Schulz Review it now
1926 World Series Review it now
LSWR N15 class Review it now
Halo (series) Review it now

Contents

[edit] Proposed accessibility criteria

Although Wikipedia:Accessibility is already implicitly included as a criteria under the MOS criteria (2), I think it would be appropriate to highlight these accessibility guidelines with an explicit, additional, 2d along the lines of:

(d) accessibility guidelines

In the same vein, criteria 3 should explicitly require that images have either a caption or alternative text (3 out of the 5 most recently promoted FAs have at least one image without either a caption or alternative text). Any objections to this? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ah. Lot to learn there. I'm not sure we need to add it to the instructions, since it's already part of MoS. Perhaps we just need to call it to the attention of reviewers at WT:FAC? It's the first time I've read that page, and now I'll add it to the list of MoS things to check for; I'm sure others will if they become aware. I worry about increasing WIAFA to include too many MoS points, and I think the issue here is we just need to be more aware of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Accessibility; it would probably be better to follow up there, since that page has a larger audience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanking new featured-list criteria—food for thought?

Dear colleagues—After two weeks' debate, the new criteria have been implemented. This represents a reduction from 420 to 220 words, and from 15 to seven categories/subcategories. Food for thought WRT the FA criteria? Do I sniff repetition, over-complicated hierarchy, and the unnecessary inclusion of universal requirements? TONY (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! If we were to overhaul FACR in this way, I would envision that 1c, 1d, and 3 could go... BuddingJournalist 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"... a minimal proportion of red links" seems content-free. The minimum is, of course, always going to be zero. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:FAC. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freshened up criteria

  • Changes: I've done the bare minimum by removing the frightful repetitions and bolding the themes of each criterion/sub-criterion. The "means that" mantra has gone. The substantive meanings are untouched. The hierarchical structure and numbering/lettering are untouched. It has shrunk by about 11%. THE OLD JUNGLE; THE FRESHENED UP VERSION; THE DIFF TONY (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We are going to have to implement Marksell's recommendation to redirect these talk pages, because following discussions fragmented across many pages is not good. Discussion moved to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stability criterion

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Obama FAR and User:Raul654/archive16#Obama_FAR

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Criterion_5_.28Stability.29.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the GA stability criteria is interpreted differently than the FA version (See Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Stability. Second, can we do away with this criteria? The Criteria are supposed to be a guide to measure the quality of the article. And this stability criteria is supposed to prevent FAC from being used to decide which version (mine or yours) is the right one - left over from an era when FAC didn't have a director and didn't take 2-4 weeks. Now, it's interpretation has been drifting to being applied to the stability of the subject in real life, not the article. Our WP grading scheme should not be influenced by John Doe leading an unstable life. This unpredictable real life may cause the article to not be comprehensive in the future but that is a different criteria. FAC has hawks now that can end (or intuitively not promote)nominations that are just edit wars. maclean 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with most of what you wrote, Maclean. Also, it may be more productive to discuss GA stability criteria at GA (GA has nothing to do with FA), and FA stability criteria at WT:FAC, which has a wider audience than this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Maclean, I don't think you will find broad support for removing this FA criterion. We don't actually want to review FACs that are in the middle of edit wars or whose subjects are rapidly dynamic. It's impossible to maintain quality in those circumstances. Agree with Sandy that GA and FA don't really have anything to do with each other. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First, (replying to Maclean's comment above) the stability criterion does not predate me. I added it as an FA criteria in 2004 when someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis within a few hours of the school being stormed. At that point, the article was (as you can guess) in a rapid state of flux - the identities of the hostage takers were not known, the number of dead was not known, etc. I figured it would be a good idea to avoid articles that were in a high state of flux due to newsworthiness. I think most people can agree that that is a Good Thing.

I'm of two minds about the Obama article -- on the one hand, I think it's great that a major candidate has a featured article about him and I'd like to see Hilary and McCain also with featured articles; on the other hand, I can see how that would be a nightmare where the process and the stability criterion are concerned. I think Marksell and Joel feel much the same way I do. I do agree with MacClean that someone leading an unstable life should not presage an unstable article. I am very against FAC objections of the form "This person is too newsworthy -- this article could never be stable enough to be a featured article". For that matter, on principle I am very much against *any* FAC objections of the form "this article can never be a featured article" regardless of the reason given.

As for the good articles, they are free to adopt whatever criteria they like. If they think they can adequately review articles that are in a state of great flux, then more power to them. On the other hand, I know for a fact that FAC cannot handle them, so I think the criteria is very appropriate. Raul654 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there may be shades of gray with the stability critiria between GA and FA that I do not understand. What I had hoped was that both WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA would be revised so that it is clear that objections like so and so is a current candidate for election or this building is under construction are not valid. It would lessen a lot of debate. As I have stated on WT:WIAGA, I think we should refine the criterion for clarity. A statement like Excepting cases where the subject of the article is an current breaking news story, completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today. Crystal balling of potential future content is not relevant. might be feasible. Some clarity should be added saying that although a current candidate's article might be considered stable, his campaign article might not might provide a good example.
My personal agenda is the prospect of a WP:FAC for Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), which is a building under construction. Depending on the timing of WP:GA promotions for items at WP:CHIFTD, I may nominate this article next at WP:FAC. Although, this clarification is now moot at WP:WIAGA because the article has now passed, it is in the long-run best intersts of both FAC and GAC to clarify the criterion. In the short run, I am hoping to diminish the sure objections based on the fact that it is under construction. Personally, I think it would be very interesting to see a building under construction at WP:TFA. Has there ever been one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A partial answer to your question is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Building of the World Trade Center and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/7 World Trade Center. You can find any others by searching the Art and architecture or Engineering and technology sections at WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I gather that in terms of skyscraper construction there is little value in the building being undersconstruction. Well then the pool of articles is much larger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have suggestions for clarifying this? Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Our options include:
  • Botify it into AH as a keep (not what Joelr31 intended)
  • Create a new category in ah, neither keep nor remove, just review (a TON of work for Gimmetrow, and not likely to be used again, the only other semi-similar situation was the ID FAR which never really got on track to review minor issues)
  • Restart the FAR and "police" it to keep commentary on track (something I've been spectacularly unsuccessful at doing on another FAC)
  • Do nothing; leave it out of AH. Wouldn't bother me at all.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish this conversation hadn't been started on five different pages; I'm responding here, since both Raul and I have directed it to here. Joel suggested a new catgory be created: [2] That means THREE archives for each of FAC and FAR, and re-programming GimmeBot, for what as of now may apply to only two FARs out of thousands. I can't quite agree with that idea, unless Gimmetrow has a suggestion for how to make it work (and he well may). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On the specific issue of handling FARs like that one, it would be easy enough to add a third option to the AH template, but I'm not going to program the bot to deal with the paperwork. I would treat a FAR which isn't a remove as a keep by default, and a FAC which is archived (for restart) is a non-promote by default. Then add a note to the top of archived page to explain any unusual circumstances. Gimmetrow 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To make sure we all understand (you have a habit of extreme brevity :-) On a FAR no-decision, we would:
  1. Move the FAR to the Keep archive, where
  2. GimmeBot would botify it into articlehistory as a keep, but
  3. A different message would be added to the top of the archived page, indicating something like no decision.
Is that correct? On the restarts at FAC, I don't think I'll use that method again (move to archive instead of permalink). First, it didn't achieve what it was supposed to achieve, since the reviewers were still furious that it was restarted and they had to retype the same opposes, and second, if we ever want a bot/script to tally FAC declarations, we'd then have the FAC split into two different files. I agreed to try it once, and I don't see the benefit; reviewers still had to retype their opposes and were still furious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I had in mind, with your step 3 done by hand. [Keeping it brief] Gimmetrow 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
But, also, if any one of the four of us does a "no decision" archive on a FAC or a FAR, we'd have to drop you a note so you'd know that it's an exception (to be handled partially manually) even though it's moved to archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You can move it to the archive, then come back later (after the bot's done) and fix up the AH template however you want it to look. That should discourage exceptions ;) Gimmetrow 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Confused, we can't change the AH template, which only has two choices? I thought we change the message on the archived FAR? So, if everyone agrees to this, it means that 1) you botify the third Obama FAR into AH as a Keep, and then 2) Joelr31 edits the archived FAR to change the closing message at the top, specifying it as whatever he wants to call it. Is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Or Joel31 removes the Obama FAR from Talk:Obama, if that's what he wants to do. Gimmetrow 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

When I asked for suggestions, I was actually thinking in terms of the bigger picture of tweaking the FA stability criteria to reflect some of the above discussion (sorry, my fault for being vague). I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of the Obama talk page, but while we are on the subject -- I definitely think that the FAR should be noted somewhere on the page. I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other on how it should appear - whatever you guys think would be easiest. Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the creation of an Inconclusive category. It is more appropriate in this case than keep. Joelito (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think an analogue to the XFD no consensus would be good. I do now see FAR3 is in a sidebar a bit down from the AH where people who are looking for the AH might not be looking. I looked at the page several times without seeing it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, Gimmetrow - what do you think about creating a FAR inconclusive result? Raul654 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If that means "inconclusive" stays FA, I think that would create a dangerous precendent. TONY (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How is different from "No Consensus" at WP:XFD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a dangerous precedent and can lead to abuse but take for example the Obama FAR and more recently the Final Fantasy IV FAR. Neither of the articles went through the normal review process so they should not be closed as "keep". Closing as keep could be used by people to imply that X version was reviewed and deemed to comply with the FA criteria.
In the majority of instances restarting the FAR would be better than closing as inconclusive but I believe that the category has its uses. Joelito (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The idea of a new category makes me uncomfortable for two reasons: 1) creating a new category requires reprogramming GimmeBot and articlehistory, and creating three archives x 2 (FAC, FAR) for rare exceptions; and 2) an article is or isn't featured, we shouldn't have grey territory. I'd rather see a restart and closer policing of the FAR to keep discussion on track (the Obama FAR was disrupted by a now blocked user). Clinton failed FAC and Obama is less stable than Clinton, so I don't see the compelling reason to create an exception. I also think our criteria are fine; we just need to police the FAC or FAR to apply them. The other option is what Gimmetrow suggested (default Keep, record in AH as keep, but record a different manual message at the top of the FAR indicating no consensus ... which only means it would be back to FAR soon anyway, so restart is better). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD has fairly complicated results; article may not only be "kept" or "deleted", but merged, redirected, salted, and so forth. FAR has simple results - either the article remains "featured", or it doesn't. As far as the bot is concerned, tertium non datur. If you really want a "no consensus" result in the AH template, that can be arranged, but it's functionally a "keep" if it stays listed at WP:FA. Gimmetrow 02:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, Raul seems to want it recorded in AH (which for now would be as a default keep), and Marskell does as well (on my talk page); shall I go ahead and do that, and we can change the category later if needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is "AH"? TONY (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And the same thing should be done at [3] Gimmetrow 03:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that my reasons for visiting a discussion page hardly ever involve the information at the top, so I guess I'm out of the loop there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
But that's where you can find convenient links to old peer reviews and FACs, find out what faults people found in the article six months ago, and how the article was edited since then. Gimmetrow 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm dealing with electrician again tomorrow, still trying to get my house back after storm; Gimmetrow, if everyone concurs, you may get to it tomorrow before I do (I'm not planning to use that restart method again, btw, will continue to use permalinks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Gee, I gave you the diff so it only took an undo. Gimmetrow 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant Obama; on the other one, does Raul want a trial method restart recorded as an archived FAC? (If so, I also have to move it to archive, so it's more than one step.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Gimmetrow: yes, but I review only what I see currently, and usually don't even look at who the nominator is. Perhaps that's unusual, but I don't want to be influenced by the history of the article and its critiqueing—the present state is all that matters. It would also take time I'd rather spend reviewing another FAC or FAR/C. I don't want to undermine the view of your considerable technical achievements, though: they're entirely necessary and a significant advance for the project. I speak only from the perspective of my usage patterns. TONY (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand, especially if you're only checking prose, the current state is what you want to review. Gimmetrow 04:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am satisfied that the discussion has been moved to the AH. In terms of future policy, I kind of think a third type should exist. However, archiving as kept with a clear explanation at the top of the archived discussion is also O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Brilliant" prose

In the first requirement element a states:

"(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"

The phrase "even brilliant," as written, is not a part of a serial conjunction, but rather it is an Intensive which modifies "engaging." This means that "brilliant prose" is not a requirement of featured articles.

There are two courses of action here depending on what the community wants the requirement to be:

(1) if "brilliant prose" is to be an FA requirement, then the line should read:
(a) "well-written: its prose is engaging, brilliant, and of a professional standard;"
(2) if "brilliant prose" is not to be an FA requirement, then the phrase should be eliminated entirely for clarity. The line would read:
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;"

This is a subtly that has caused debate on an FA nomination. I ask that this be reviewed and one of the two options be chosen as a fix.

My personal opinion is that "brilliant prose" should not be an FA requirement. If it were, there would be very few FAs. Brilliant prose is hard to come by. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Featured articles are meant to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, so why shouldn't their prose be brilliant? I currently view 1a like so: engaging/professional standard is the first step, and then brilliant is the step where you polish the prose. If working on, or nominating an FA, your duty should be to ensure not only that the article meets the FA criteria to its absolute fullest, but that in doing so, you are giving your absolute 100% to Wikipedia readers. This is especially important when in regard to articles which receive higher amounts of traffic. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that FAs should represent Wikipedia's best work. However, "brilliant" prose is a subjective standard which is beyond the scope of what would be considered normal language use. Brilliant prose wins prizes and contests, becomes celebrated works of literature, and often influences its representative culture. E.g. the prose found in sections of Shakespeare's plays is brilliant. I feel that "engaging and professional" is an acceptable standard for the language of featured articles. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I usually find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Wackymacs, but not on this occasion. While I'm unsure that Lwnf's opening grammatical analysis is valid, I agree with everything else s/he says, including the second suggestion: "... engaging and of a professional standard". "Brilliant" used to be there, was removed (for about a year, was it?), and found its way back into 1a perhaps six to 12 months ago. I didn't object to its removal or reinstatement, but was very happy to rely solely on the "professional standard" bit in my FAC reviews. I'd like to formally propose that Lwnf's second example be implemented. TONY (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that "even brilliant" should be removed, as I advocated last year. — Deckiller 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tony in preferring Lwnf's second example. "Brilliant" is far more than just a bit of polishing, as Lwnf quite properly says. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a "me toothree" from over here. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur that Lwnf's second example should be implemented. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, my opinion has certainly been outvoted here! :) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur with removing "brilliant" and substituting "professional". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If "brilliant prose" is no longer a requirement, should reviewers maybe be a little more demanding for the article to be "engaging"? (As opposed to now where, like Tony1, most seem to be only checking only for professionalism) indopug (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Lwnf's intial analysis is quite right: the adverb renders "brilliant" an intensifier and nothing more. But people miss this. A few times on GA talk, for example, I've heard it suggested that FAs must have brilliant prose. As phrased, the criterion doesn't say that. Given the potential confusion, I agree with the second option. ("Brilliant" does have a long pedigree around here, however; it will be strange to see it go.) Marskell (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've always liked "even brilliant," as a standard for people to aspire to, hard as it is. "Professional" sounds deadly dull. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
True. After all, it was called Brilliant Prose once upon a time. And there's nothing wrong with adverbial phrases used for emphasis. Perhaps we should reflect on this a little more. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that more reflection is good. Including "brilliant" is a nice call back to the early "Brilliant Prose" days and should be kept as a nod to Wikipedia's earliest contributors. Sure, it's not much more than a nice gesture, but what harm does it cause? — Dulcem (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot say that I am a "brilliant" writer, but I agree that it gives people a standard to work towards. The majority of people can make prose "professional" or near professional, so I think keeping the criteria for Wikipedia's best work far higher than, say, GA is necessary. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you believe "brilliant" to be a quantifiable standard, then I invite you to define it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
To me, "professional" prose is sufficient for an encyclopedia. No typos, correct grammar, proper wording, etc. "Brilliant" is prose that is perfect or nearly so; it draws a reader in and makes them want to read the entirety of the article. Good articles must be "well-written", so be removing "brilliant" from the criteria waters down the name of featured articles. I don't think it is a big deal, but I think it distances Wikipedia's best work from the rest of Wikipedia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that professional prose is sufficient for an encyclopedia, but only brilliant prose is good enough for wikipedia? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a work of art? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I was being confusing, I was using encyclopedia and Wikipedia interchangeably. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get it, I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
My main reasoning for wanting "brilliant" to remain in the criteria is that I think it keeps the FA standards high, and thus can still be considered "Wikipedia's best work". I am open to change, however. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the brilliant wording, but neither will I holler if it's removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't entirely agree with the distinctions being made above between "professional-standard" and "brilliant" prose. To me, prose of a professional standard is more than correct: it's well expressed, free of redundant wording, and logically cohesive and focused—it's an easy read without any of the bumps that characterise subprofessional prose. Our epithet "engaging" requires it to be a good read as well. Brilliant prose, in turn, is more than these two things: it implies beauty and unusual cleverness in the writing. That is too high a benchmark in all but a few, exalted contexts—a novel, a prize-winning essay, or the best journalism might have elements of beauty and cleverness in the writing; but here, a good, well-written piece free of technical glitches is what we're after. Such is within reach of collaborative partnerships between content writers and copy-editors. Occasionally, it's within reach of a single author. TONY (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree SlimVirgin.[4] Also somewhat agree Tony: "a good read" sure featurable. But how enjoy reading without "elements of beauty and cleverness" in writing? Not possible! Make language brilliant and beautiful. You too can be fluent, articulate, limpid, well-spoken, persuasive, eloquent, silver-tongued like Bishzilla! Use wordsmyth.net, free resource, indispensable, essential, helpful, convenient. 'Zilla use all the time. Therefore voluble. ("Redundant wording"? Say again, little Tony?) P.S., fewer verbs, please. bishzilla ROARR!! 07:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
  • Completely agree. Some people seem to think that "professional" doesn't go far enough, but you can take "professional" a long way. Truly professional prose is, as TONY has rightly said, expressive, free of redundancy, cohesive, and focused. Most prose isn't professional. Its sad but true--even edited news articles are often lacking something. Professional is the highest standard of excellence that can be properly objectified by criteria and achieved by the average writer. "Brilliance" a much more subjective standard, that is typically reserved for literature--particularly good literature at that. I would go as far to say that brilliant prose is (or should be) a constituent requirement for a piece to be considered literature. Wikipedia is not meant to be a literature mill. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should be held to high standards, but not to standards so lofty that they are unattainable. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining 1a further for clarification and to aid FA article writers

OK, so we seem to have a community consensus on removing "brilliant" from 1a, which I am fine with. I do have an idea of how we can clarify what a "professional standard" of prose actually is. I note that, currently, Wikipedia:Prose redirects to the MOS, but the MOS does not seem to have a section on Prose/Writing quality itself. Maybe the words "professional standard" in 1a should link to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a or a new Wikipedia style guideline located at Wikipedia:Prose?. Writing "professional standard" prose does not come naturally to everyone, and so some guidelines would indeed help article writers at Wikipedia, especially when writing for FA standards. Thoughts? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Giving more substance to Criterion 1a is an excellent idea; it is probably the most challenging criterion to meet, and the area where editors tend to have greatest difficulty. Tony's guide is an excellent suggestion (I refer people to it all the time), although I wouldn't be opposed to something directly linked to the MOS either. Risker (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that there be a section on the MOS page regarding prose, or a Wikipedia:Prose with expanded and detailed criteria describing what constitutes "professional prose." I lean toward having the redirect to MOS, as prose is very much an MOS issue. TONY's guide may be a good starting place for establishing such a standard. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not create another MoS page <eeeeeeek> ... and if we link to Tony's page, someone will want to move it to Wikispace, and then who knows what will be next ... I don't have a problem with brilliant, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny the fact that, on almost every FAC, prose becomes an issue. Its something which a lot of editors have trouble with, and thus why many articles actually fail the FAC process. There's no harm in aiding those who want to write featured articles. Most published Manuals of Style discuss prose or writing, if not minimally, but the WP MOS does not at all. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Then we certainly need to leave the "briliant" wording, so writers understand the standard. I don't want to see Tony's essay moved to MoS space, where it will be destroyed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the current wording is vague, is often misinterpreted, and is an unreasonably high standard. TONY's essay can be left intact, but its points can form a basis for an MOS section. (As an aside, I've never heard of TONY's essay before this discussion, but I've damn sure heard of, and referenced, the MOS. Including the content of his essay in the MOS will: establish a firm objective standard; and disseminate that standard across the community.) Lwnf360 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't find the current wording vague (whether the prose on a given FAC is engaging and brilliant is determined by consensus), don't agree it's often misterpreted, and think another MoS page would degenerate to the usual MoS nightmare (of the kind those who hang around WT:MOS will recognize). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You have just misinterpreted the meaning of the current wording by saying that, "the prose on a given FAC is engaging and brilliant." As I said above "even brilliant" is being used as an intensive to modify "engaging." This makes the logical structure of the sentence (in somewhat of a hybrid of the notation used in discrete mathematics and philosophy see: predicate logic):
A) the set of language that is prose
Φ) "is engaging, even brilliant,"
Ψ) "[is] of a professional standard"
∃(x)є(A) [Φ(x) & Ψ(x)]
Which reads: "There exists an x, which is an element of the set of language that is prose, such that x is: 'engaging, even brilliant' AND 'of a professional standard'"
Your construction would be:
A) the set of language that is prose
Φ) "is engaging"
θ) "[is] brilliant"
Ψ) "[is] of a professional standard"
∃(x)є(A) [Φ(x) & θ(x) & Ψ(x)]
Which means: "There exists an x, which is an element of the set of language that is prose, such that x is: 'engaging' AND 'brilliant' AND 'of a professional standard'"
The difference between the two versions is subtle but important. The first example is what the standard currently states viz. brilliant prose is not a requirement. The second example is what many people, erroneously, believe it to say viz. that brilliant prose is a requirement. My point in bringing this up is that the community can decide either way on this issue, but the wording should be made clearer by one of my two suggestions above. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank God someone here understands basic set theory. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with "brilliant" as an intensifier? I don't follow a lick of the stuff you wrote above, but I see the criterion as saying, "The prose is engaging and of a professional standard. And, hey, why don't you try to make it brilliant too? That'd be swell." What is the problem? — Dulcem (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No way ... Tony is one editor and his 'prose preferences' should not be codified into the FA criteria. Don't you know there are already enough concerns about this editors 'preferences' being forced into every fac, within the broader wikipedia community. 75.127.78.190 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to appear churlish, and I thank those who might approve of the 1a page, but it's too individual in its angle and approach to move into mainspace or to link from an actual criterion (heavens, enough that personal pages are linked to from the bottom of the criteria page). The 1a page also contains OR. Hoary, who copy-edited it, takes issue with what he sees as overprescription in a few places. While I might recommend it to some people, it's about time it was overhauled (to start with, the listing technique stuff goes on a bit, and might be better on its own); I might have time to do so in the next month or two. TONY (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Then someone needs to write an official MOS page, based upon Tony's User guide. As Lwnf has rightly said, most editors do not know of Tony's page. If it was in the MOS, it would be highlighted more. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Professional prose" is not defined by TONY's opinion. There is a universally accepted set of standards which are codified in style manuals and writing guides. These standards, though they sometimes quibble about whether it is "modem" or "MODEM" (its totally the latter), are generally uniform in their principles. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
75.127.78.190, the anon above: is that you, Lwnf? It shows the same casual indifference to apostrophes as you do. If it's not you, I wonder whether it's another of the RCC cabal whose nose is out of joint ... TONY (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

I think that the short answer is that professional prose is gauged by the FAC reviewers. To avoid being patronising or overly lengthy (or non-comprehensive) in the criterion, it could say something along the lines of "professional prose, as gauged by reviewers at [WP:FAC]]". (That probably needs wordsmithing - I'm in "ferinstance" mode here) We could wikilink one or two words of that clause (perhaps "gauged" in this example) to a new guideline page - a simple list of issues reviewers look for in professional prose. This guideline could include a link to Tony's userspace essay. I'll knock up an example in my userspace here --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's up and running. Ignore the fact it's in userspace - I warmly invite you all to mercilessly bash it into shape. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An open letter to Criterion 3

You begin: "It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."

I know you mean well, but I don't like how you're worded. One could glean from you that an article needs to have an image where it is appropriate. I thought of you when I was re-reading this opposition to Peter Wall. I don't recall ever seeing an editor oppose an FAC for lack of an image before then, but there we have it. What if an article needs an image but an appropriately licensed image cannot be found?

I propose: "It has appropriately placed images and other media when they are available, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." --Laser brain (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided on, it should be entirely consistent with WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. Calling Black Kite for advice! TONY (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes - given the recent problems at FAC, it needs to make reference to image policy somewhere - add on "Any non-free images must comply with the Foundation's relevant policies" (or something similar). Black Kite 11:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)