Wikipedia talk:Featured articles/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e
Featured articles discussion archives:
pre-12/2003 and renaming poll • Origins dispute • up to January 1, 2005 • up to January 1, 2006 • up to May 1, 2006 • up to Aug 7, 2006 • up to January 31, 2007 • up to August 23, 2007 • up to September 19, 2007 • up to April 10, 2008
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wikipedia: Featured articles (ancient talk)

Wikipedia has a plethora of good topics. The criteria used remains that expressed by Larry: (1) copious original content; (2) good writing; (3) clarity for the person who doesn't know what the topic is about (after all, this is an encyclopedia!); (4) whimsy (i.e., don't expect to see perfect consistency and fairness). 5) Refrain from listing many of the articles that consist of links to other articles, except where most of the linked articles were good (this is noted by "and related pages").

the CIA pages, anyway; hey, the CIA did a great job!


CIA pages are very buggy. I live in Poland and I had to fix a few serious bugs about Poland, I've also found serious bug in article about Isreal.I'm sure that people living in other countries probably could also find some bugs. So don't praise CIA World Factbook too much. --Taw

The author of the Eugene Wigner page placed his own page here, which I think we should agree is not appropriate (I happen to think some of my pages that aren't here deserve to be, but I'm not going to nominate myself like that). Also, it was in the wrong place, put here before the article was even written, and the article needs work. --LDC

Oh, I see. I'd agree with that. --LMS

Seeing that the same thing has happened again, I've added a sentence to the main page suggesting that you shouldn't nominate a page you've written most of. If that's not the consensus view, please remove it --Robert Merkel

I agree that the article is pretty good, though, and may well end up there soon. --LDC

I fully concur with the "don't nominate yourself" principle that LDC outlined. (OK - no page "belongs" to anyone, but obviously if you've made 23 out of 24 edits, there is a sense in which it is "your article" for this particular discussion.) Like LDC, I've written a few articles that I thought were damn good, but sadly no-one else feels they qualifyfor BP. However, that aspect is a good exercise in humility, and make's me want to try and write better articles. - MMGB

I admire your humility. But are you sure that the people who know about the brilliant prose page and who are knowledgeable enough in your subject area to recognize brilliant discussion of it are the same people who have read your article? ... Looking forward to having an active "watchlist," --Koyaanis Qatsi.

Even if I don't think you should add your own page, I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing attention to your work: Manning, I added your Paul Erdos page. --LDC

Removed Charles Evers because the article is clearly not yet up to scratch. To the person(s) working on the Evers page, I'd just like to make clear that this is a page for recognising the best writing on Wikipedia, not the articles on people who we think are particularly notable. If the article becomes brilliant, me or somebody else might well add it here. --Robert Merkel

Robert - I've also removed the Charles Evers article (on another occasion) for the same reasons of inadequate quality - better watch out for this link in future. - MMGB

Shouldn't Brilliant prose be named wikipedia:Brilliant prose? This article is really wikipedia-centric and has no place in the article namespace - me thinks. --maveric149, Thursday, April 4, 2002

Yes, I suppose it should now that we have namespaces. I'll try to hunt down all the links. --LDC

I removed a bunch of things: anarchism, capitalism, democracy, city, countries of the world because, well, because these pages are just not brilliant. I believe that when this page got started a lot of stuff got put here because they were some of our first long articles that actually resembled enclopaedia articles. But now we have a lot of truly brilliant articles, so I think we shouldn't be afraid to add those here and subtract the ones that really need work. djk 14:21 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

I'd suggest anarchism might now qualify: I'd like people to take a look and see what they think. Also, libertarian socialism might be good enough. I'll let others judge, since I did a lot of work on those pages. Sam 20:51 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)
Well? Look at them now, dammit! ;) -- Sam 12:49 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
Just a note: I've removed anarchism because, a year on, it has degraded. --Sam 11:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I tend to flip in and out of here a lot, so I'm not sure where to ask this, but is it possible to but a button or link on the pages that we'd like to nominate for inclusion on the 'brilliant prose' page? I'm sure somebody's had this discussion somewhere, just not sure where ... Certainly it would be an easier way to add pages and encourage adding to this list - it seems a bit clumsy at the moment. As long as its not abused, of course ;) Atorpen 00:37 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure it'd be possible to add such a feature. It would probably be nice, but IMHO there are more important features required. --Robert Merkel 01:02 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
Certainly understandable. Atorpen

Does Freestyle music really belong here? This article didn't strike me as being particularly well written, and isn't even laid out in the agreed wikipedia style (ie, no definition at the start, title isn't bolded (doesn't even appear!) in the first sentence... quercus robur 09:33 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

You can't call prose "brilliant" when it only avoids sexism by means of clumsy usages. Since in this case it was historically inaccurate (no female PMs yet), and the "they" form was not only clumsy but obscured the essential aspect of individual connection and responsibility, I changed it. I earnestly hope that someone can find a form of words that avoids both treading on toes and inacccuracy, but meanwhile - here's the former. PML.

Tannin, my face is getting red ;) Ericd 11:21 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I have to sit down and read it through carefully, Eric, but the work that went into that layout and, in particular the table, is fantastic. Who says open source can't get professional results? Tannin
Don't emphasize too much on the table I didn' collect the datas myself and my HTML editor did good job.
Ericd 11:33 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I just added Prisoner's dilemma, which seems well-written. What's wrong with it? -- Taku 17:51 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

It is a great article. I misinterpreted "-- Prisoner's dilemma" as meaning you removed it. Kingturtle 17:53 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
LOL, I was thinking the same thing, but I checked the diff and saw what he really meant, but then I really got perplexed when I saw Taku asking what was wrong with it. -- John Owens 17:55 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I gotcha. Sure, -- can be seen as "remove". I didn't think of that at all. I would be more carefully next time then. -- Taku 17:59 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Moved talk about new candidates section to Wikipedia talk:Brilliant prose candidates.

yippee

Freedom fries marks the first time an article something I helped created wound up as Brilliant Prose. that's nice! Kingturtle 04:30, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


'Brilliant prose' is a very bad name

A few of these articles have "Brilliant prose", but many others simply cover the topics fully and well. Might the list be better named something like "Excellent articles"? Wondering simply -- Infrogmation 18:49, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jengod had the name idea of "Readers choice". I think that that would be more accurate and less cocky. We don't need to change the standards for inclusion on this page - just the damn name. <evil mav>Any othe ideas or thoughts before I move this page?</evil mav> --mav 16:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK - unless somebody comes up with a better name, I'm going to move this page to Wikipedia:Readers choice on Saturday the 17th. --mav
I prefer Wikipedia:Approved articles.—Eloquence
Approved by whom? Wikipedia is going to be assumed by many readers as the answer. So that still sounds cocky and gives the incorrect impression that the content is somehow safe and correct - not that it went through an informal process of selection by volunteers. Best then to just state up front that it was just people reading the acticle who stated they liked it and thought that it was good enough for special listing. --mav
No, it wasn't just that - we have a relatively elaborate candidate process, and this process should be acknowledged in our terminology. Of course it is only based on volunteer participation -- all of Wikipedia is. But generally speaking, if any Wikipedian feels that a page should not be considered approved, they can voice their disapproval and remove it from the list. This is very important and justifies the use of the "Approved" label. Also, we want to move this to a more formalized and widely used approval process, and "Reader's choice" is IMHO a wishy washy term that does not bring us closer to this goal.—Eloquence

Might I suggest Wikipedia:Featured articles in line with the changes to the main page? Readers' choice is not really accurate, more editors' choice, and approved smacks og Big Brother to me. Bmills 09:00, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Big Brother or not, I would favor changing "Featured" to "Approved" on the Main Page also. The reason is more strategic in nature - I want to move toward a more streamlined approval process, and having only recently approved articles on the Main Page would help a lot (similar to "new pages", updated whenever articles are approved). The Big Brother effect could actually be positive: It might encourage people to participate in the approval process.—Eloquence 09:17, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
No! When I suggested the idea of having featured articles, the reason I did it was to get nontimely, non-new articles onto the main page. So using only newly featured/approved articles defeats the whole purpose of the suggestion. Not only that, but "featured articles" sounds a heck of a lot better than "approved articles," and needs a lot less explaining, too. →Raul654 11:08, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
There could be non-timely articles whenever there are no recently approved ones -- basically cycle through the list. The fact that it needs explanation is little reason not to use the term "approval" -- in fact it is a good reason to do so. "What is this approval mechanism? Where I can I learn more?"—Eloquence 16:58, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
All articles in 'Selected Articles' are featured. That along with "Brilliant prose" are titles that have got to go, IMO. I still don't like the word "approved" for the reasons I gave above. However, I do like the idea of listing newly 'approved' articles since that encourages more people to get involved in this process (which may someday be good enough to warrant the "Approved" label).--mav

How about "Excellent Articles?" It says exactly what we want, no unwanted connotations, no chance of a misunderstanding (hence, no explaning needed). →Raul654 03:56, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

It is nearly as bad as "Brilliant prose" in the cockiness department. We should at least *appear* to be modest. --mav 04:55, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think as the encyclopedia creators, we're allowed a little editorial judgement in what is good enough to be called excellent. To me, at least, it's not cockiness to call something "excellent". ("Brilliant", on the other hand, smacks of it). Hell, I'd call it "Well written articles" if that didn't sound so terrible. →Raul654 04:59, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't read "brilliant" as cocky, I read it as self-consciously cheeky. This is an Internet wiki, not the OED, so I think a little cheek is well within the cultural norm, and I think a lot of people like it. You might consider the principles that govern the universe a grave concern, but some very formidible thinkers have painted them with names like "charm" and "strange" and "flavor." I think we could all do well to lighten up. Wikipedia is too aggravating to participate in without a sense of humor.168... 06:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why not simply Wikipedia:Editor's choice then? It has a double meaning: New readers will view it as a high ranking selection but as soon as they know that everybody that reads Wikipedia can be an editor, then the real meaning sinks in. --mav
"Editor's choice" is adequate and I'll give it lukewarm support, but it just doesn't strike my fancy. I think it sounds too much like an awards show or a slab of beef from the Deli. →Raul654 05:09, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Could you go ahead and add your mild support to the poll then? --mav

I propose that we list this poll at Wikipedia:Current polls in one day. That should give us a little more time to develop new and (hopefully better) ideas. It would be bad form to add those after a whole bunch of people have opined. --mav 05:14, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. --mav 04:27, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about something referencing wikipedia 1.0 ? like "worthy of 1.0". Also, I think all brillinat prose (or whatever) should be protected, and only edited if theres concensus in the talk, and an admin agrees to do the edit. Jack 08:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you. I proposed protecting BP 2 days ago on the protected pages article. I protected it earlier today. →Raul654 01:47, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thats interesting, but I'm afraid you misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting protecting the wikipedia:Brilliant prose page, but rather ALL the pages we deem to be brilliant prose, or "worthy of 1.0" or what have you. Jack 02:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's have a straw poll


  • Wikipedia:Approved articles
  • For:
    1. —Eloquence (it is an approval process because it requires consensus)
  • Against:
    1. mav (Wikipedia:Reader's choice may eventually become that, but it is not yet)
    2. →Raul654 (strongly!)
    3. RickK (strongly)
    4. Infrogmation
    5. Tannin (No way!)
    6. Gentgeen
    7. Tuf-Kat
    8. DanKeshet
    9. 168...(begs the question "by whom" and implies more expertly vetted and authoritative than they are--hence misleading)
    10. Implies rest are not approved, and these articles are still being edited so may contain incorrect info. Secretlondon
    11. Bmills 09:25, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) (strongly)
    12. Lord Emsworth (strongly, for the reasons mentioned by Secretlondon)

<HERETIC MODE> Actually, I am deeply impressed by all the arguments above against one aspect or another of the current, past, and future versions of Brilliant Prose. I think the "this is a bad idea" arguments are compelling. So compelling, indeed, that my real vote is to scrap the whole damn thing. All are equal. If it sucks, improve it or delete it. If it's great, leave it alone. No playing favourites or making lists or anointing of the select and lucky few. A wiki article is a wiki article, and that's the end of it. Tannin 05:44, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) </HERETIC MODE>