User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ten tips to make an article FA
A possible recipe for success


Some introductory remarks
  • What is a featured article?: A featured article is considered to be one of the best articles in Wikipedia. Featured status is determined by Wikipedia's editors, who review articles nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (WP:FAC) for prose quality, accuracy, neutrality, completeness, stability and style according to Wikipedia's featured article criteria. A small bronze star (This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured (see a list with all the FAs here). As of March 2, there were 1,924 featured articles, of a total (as of today) of 2,406,324 articles on Wikipedia. Thus, only about one in 1,150 articles at Wikipedia have been assessed as meeting featured article criteria. From that you might conclude that it is very difficult to write a FA. No, it isn't! Just focus on your efforts, do not be disappointed by any (temporary) setbacks, do not be discouraged by the many myths that surround FAs, and read the following advice!
  • Is it worth writing a FA?: Why should any Wikipedian strive to create FAs? Is it worth writing a FA? The answer is definitely yes, because in this way Wikipedia is enriched with more articles of high quality that every person around the planet can read for free. It is not an exaggeration to say that by writing FAs you spread your knowledge, and you thus make the world a better place!

Contents

[edit] Before you nominate the article

Featured content:

Featured article tools:
My precious!
My precious!
1. Choose the right article. What does this mean? Many things:
  • Choose an article that you really like to improve and its subject excites you so much that researching it becomes pleasurable.
  • Prefer a non-controversial article. As Cla68 says, "if the article you want to work on is under the ``protection`` of one or more POV-pushers, you're just going to immensely frustrate yourself".
  • Prefer an article you can work alone without being disturbed. Articles that have been left alone for a long time fit for this job.
2. Conduct thorough research. Make sure that before you start writing or rewriting you have some basic sources to work with. During your writing continue searching for new sources. Look on the Web, in Google, Google Book Search and Google Scholar, in the local library and in your own library in case you've missed some of your books! Usually four sources are Ok for FAC. But I'm a reference-freak and I try to have dozens of them (you are not obliged to be as insane as me but I'd recommend it!). Printed sources are highly esteemed. They are deemed better than online sources because they're more stable and often more credible than websites. Have in mind that you can buy used books online very cheaply or use those you may find in Google Book Search. Articles found in Google Scholar are also regarded as printed sources. When you use these or other search machine for your research, it's important to use the right key words and to try various combination. While writing the article, never stop researching! When you make a new edit, immediately add your references so as not to forget them and so that other editors can also jump-in to assist if they want to and have access to the references you list.
3. Cite everything. A list of references is not good enough for a FA anymore; inline citations have now become one of the basic FA criteria. The (unofficial!) rule is one citation for each paragraph. My advice? One citation for each sentence! In this way you'll avoid the annoying [citation needed], you'll impress and you'll convince everybody about the high level of your research. Assertions, assessments, direct quotes and hard data should be definitely cited. According to the Military History Project "an article should have copious inline citations." Try not to have more than two citations in a row for each sentence. Let's not overdo it! Another useful advice comes from Cla68: "Spread your citations out among your references so that it doesn't look like you're using one or two sources for everything".
4.Make your prose "compelling, even brilliant". This is one of the most difficult tasks. Tony underscores that "for many contributors, this is the most problematic aspect of preparing a FA candidate (FAC)". According to the Military History Project, "one of the most common objections that articles encounter is that the prose is too dense or poorly written". The article flow is of paramount importance. I'll quote Robth this time: "One of the weaknesses of a collaboratively written article is that transitions from section to section are often awkward, and the order of presentation can become illogical as people add information at varying points". According to Robth, when you are writing, you should "try to make articles tell a story, with clear, logical reasons for why each section comes where it does. This is a good thing to think about whenever you're doing major work on a multi-section article." If you are not a native English speaker don't get discouraged. These are some things you can do:
A) Network with other Wikipedians who are interested in the topic and who are skilled at editing prose, and request input from them (before nomination)
B) Improve your article in direct response to the comments of FAC reviewers (after FAC nomination).
C) Improve your own writing/editing skills (before and after FAC nomination and continually!).
  • Ask for many peer-reviews utilizing the Wikiprojects, in order to network with native English speakers who will volunteer to help you.
  • Politely ask highly esteemed copy-editor to go through your article. According to the Military History Project, "it is incumbent on editors to ensure that an article has been thoroughly copyedited before being nominated for featured status; while this can be done, to an extent, on one's own articles, asking someone unfamiliar with the text to review it is generally very helpful in catching less obvious stylistic problems". You can always try the League of Copyeditors.
Some further prose suggestions:
  • "If you're stumped or your writing isn't flowing well, take a break and do something else with your free time for a day or so." (Cla68)
  • Make sure your article is not POV. This is a "Wikipedia particularity" and many editors don't understand it. Check WP:POV.
  • Avoid peacock and weasel words. Be precise and give a reference.
  • The prose can be sentimental but not unencyclopedic or POV. Sentimentalism is a great weapon, if you know how to use it. If you don't know this "art", don't try it!
Style and formatting
Manual of Style and its subpages
Related policies and guidelines
Other advice, including essays and proposals
Related to specific cultures
5. Layout and style. Various things you should check:
  • Carefully read and follow the instructions of the WP:MoS.
  • Concerning the use of quotations, italics and the way titles of works should be mentioned, check MOS:ITALICS.
  • Concerning citations, try to adopt a consistent and cohesive style of citing. Concerning references, if you want to cite online sources, make use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news. For books use Template:cite book and Template:cite encyclopedia, and for articles Template:cite journal. Again, I insist on consistency! Meaning? E.g. if you have ten books edited let's say after 1997, you must mention the ISBNs of all of them; you can't chose!
  • Read also WP:LEAD. The lead is the mirror of your article. It must summarize it and it must stand alone as a concise article. It must be neither too long or too short. Two to three paragraphs are usually OK for an article over 30Kb.
  • The whole article must not be too lengthy. Try to keep its size under 100 Kbs with not more than half of it prose (not more than c. 50-55 kbs). If the article is getting too long, a nice solution is to create sub-articles, which you'll summarize in the sections of your article (read WP:SS).
  • Find or create pictures and maps with an acceptable copyright status. Try to have informative captions. As Peirigill once told me: "Some FA reviewers want captions to be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to relocate or reinforce some information from the article into the captions".
  • Personally, I like very much quotes and inboxes. But, again, don't overdo it! Huge and repetitive quotes interrupt the article flow. Quotes offer what Cla68 calls the "human element".
6.Submit for more than one peer review. Last but not least action before nomination! The obvious choice is Wikipedia:Peer review. But you'll find peer-review procedures in more than one Wikiproject, which are usually better than the general peer-review forum, because the reviewers there are more experienced and check the peer-reviews more systematically. Characteristic examples are the military history project and the biography project, where I also review. I'm a constant reviewer in this project and in the History of Greece project. The helpful and experienced peer review editors will point-out any flaws or problems you might have missed. Try to address the concerns of the reviewers and then elaborate on your improvements in the peer-review page of the article. Don't be indifferent and don't give the impression that you are indifferent to the reviewers' suggestions.
7. Prepare yourself for the FAC nomination. The peer-reviews are over. All the concerns of the reviewers are addressed and the article seems now nice and stable. Everything looks perfect for the FAC nomination. But is it? Are you really well-equipped? My advice is to take some more time in order to prepare yourself for the usually tough FAC procedure. Take a look in WP:FAC to see what criticisms FACs face and what the demands of the reviewers are. In this way, you'll get used to FAC's logic and you'll track further deficiencies of your article. You'll also prepare yourself for possible criticisms and negative (or even absurd) comments you might face.

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:

  1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
    • (a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.
    • (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 present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
    • (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).
    • (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; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
  2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:
    • (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; and
    • (c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help).
  3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
  4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

[edit] After you nominate the article

8. Be there, active. After you nominate the article, devote your time to the nomination and show the reviewers that you are ready to address any concerns they may have. FAC nominations are often demanding and the nominators must follow them all the time, so that they don't miss something. That is why I advise you not to nominate more than one article every time. Start a new FAC nomination, only when you are over with your previous one. Two nominations at the same time will possibly distract your attention.
9 Be polite and avoid fighting with the FA reviewers. Be always polite. Don't forget to thank the reviewers for their comments, even if they are negative. They dedicate their time to your article and they deserve some praise for that. Believe me: A polite attitude can bring more supports. Assume that the comments or criticism that comes from the FA candidate reviewers are being made in good faith. Respond constructively and try to correct whatever they point-out. If what they point out seems absurd to you, keep your polite attitude, but convincingly explain why the comments of the reviewer are irrational. Have in mind that if somebody objects to something that isn't reasonable, another reviewer will usually come to your defense. In any case, avoid any personal attacks, insults or sentimental outbursts. If you are provoked, do not respond.
10 Don't get disappointed. If the nomination fails, do not resign. Start from scratch and keep improving the article. Vindication will eventually come!

[edit] In closing

Remember you are not here for thanks and praise; you are here to share and spread your knowledge. So, when you efforts are crowned with success, remain humble and go for your second FA! Good luck!

[edit] Helpful wikilinks