Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 3

message: Refactored to archives on 19:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

message: What is the appropriate way to deal with references to other wikipedia content?  Wikipedia:Cite sources suggests not including them in a references section.  Fair enough; the original references will be in other wikipedia articles, which we can follow links to see.  But this raises the possibility of an article with no references  section at all that is actually soundly referenced.  The easiest way for that to happen is to write a monster article, full of detailed references, then have it split according to Wikipedia:Summary style so that everything in the article is then a summary of some other wikipedia article, which contains all the references. 
This hasn't happened yet, exactly, but I was editing carbon and removed the only entry under "References" because replaced the only place it was used with information from material properties of diamond.  (Of course, carbon should have loads of references, but that's beside the point for now...) --Andrew 04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
:This is actually a pretty big deal, and one I also ran into (consequently, while working on diamond and its sub-articles) without knowing what to do.  If material properties of diamond is well referenced, as it is, and I use a fact from that article in the main article diamond, do I need to duplicate the reference?  I've come to think that maybe we can use other Wikipedia articles as formal references, but only so long as those articles are well referenced themselves.  (Does that mean we should list subarticles in the ==References== section?) The obvious danger is that we create huge circular references where we only back things up with our own articles, which of course defeats the whole purpose of referencing in the first place. - Bryan is Bantman 17:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
:That's a tricky point.  There is precedent and instruction for referencing foreign language wikis (which I've followed on some of the xxxx in Rail Transport pages), but other than mentioning related articles in a See also section, I haven't seen any other guidelines on referencing existing articles.  My thought is that if an article is used as a reference, it should be listed in the References section.  We have a mechanism to link to specific versions of articles through the page history, so why not use it?  Perhaps list wiki articles in a subsection of the References like === Wikipedia references === or somesuch, and list the article name as a link to the specific version that was referenced. slambo 18:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Surely the 'right' answer is that the copied fact should be checked again in the reference cited in the original article, just to make sure, and then the original reference is repeated in the article where the fact is copied. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I am hoping on nominating music of the United States soon.  Having recently used the Titan (moon) system of referencing, I'd like to get some input from the FAC crowd (since PR is inappropriate for this case).  See the References section, with quotes from the sources.  I think this is very useful and interesting, but is making the references section very long.  If the entire article is done like this, it will be way over 32k.  Should I remove the quotes but otherwise keep the referencing the way it is?  Or does page size not matter in this case?  Do you like the sound sample download format (e.g. at Music of the United States#Native American music)?  Or does that seem to obtrusive? Tuf-Kat 17:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Nobody is going to ding the article on length if what is pushing it above 32K is extensive referencing. --mav 02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US music

message: Is their a general rule for the status of fictional articles with regards to their eligability (or lack there of) of becoming featured articles? I cannot seem to find anything regarding the subject. TomStar81 08:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, define what you mean by 'Fictional Articles'. If you mean 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', then that article will be treated the same as any other. If you mean 'a fake article that is pulling the reader's leg', then that will be treated just like any other vandalism and be deleted. --mav 17:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means fictional in the good (e.g., literay) sense, like with Foundation Series or Superman or whatnot. And yes, those articles are treated no differently. →Raul654 20:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm talking about 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', like the kinds of examples Raul654 named. The reason I brought I up is because some of the articles related to the Gundam Universe (which is an entirely fictional universe) have been refined enough to meet the needed criteria for featured article status, but the only featured articles I see are those that come from the actual real world. I know that fair use images do not qualify for featured picture status, but I was unclear on whether or not fictional articles were similarly disqualified. TomStar81 23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional Articles and Featured Article Status

message: I know that it is listed as a step in "The Path to a Featured Article" infobox, but I have been noticing more and more often that articles seem to be nominated for FA without even bothering to go through the peer review process. Or they get impatient after about a week of PR and jump it over to FAC. Perhaps there should be a rule that any article is firmly required, without exception, to go through peer review for the full month period that PR remains active before being allowed to be a FAC. Should that apply also to repeat bids? (I think so - I can't see how it can hurt to give an article more time and outside help.) Even if there are good articles that get through to FA without PR, I find it hard to believe that the process can be a significant impediment to any article. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? Not to say that's a bad thing at all, but clearly there is a backlog, so should anyone object that a new rule of this sort would lower the number of promoted articles, the answer seems to be that that doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad thing in the short term - some of those older promoted ones waiting in the wings and getting dusty can finally see the Main Page! Anyway, just my musings... What do you all think? --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:34 (UTC)
:Requirng peer review for FACs has been proposed before and has been roundly shot down every time. It is understood that peer review is an optional part of the Featured article process. Requiring it is instruction creep, and it serves little value becaus people have no incentive to make it work. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? - No. The standards - what we expect of a featured article - have gone up (A LOT) over the past year, and this has artificially depressed the rate at which featured articles are being generated. I believe today is the 183rd day of 2005 and (to date) we have had a net increase of 181 featured articles this year (which is in fact below the 1 article/day minimum we must sustain in order to prevent any repeats). →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:39 (UTC)
:: Fair enough. I withdraw the proposal. (Shoulda checked the archives, I guess! Oops.) --Girolamo Savonarola July 2, 2005 02:42 (UTC)
:::Nah, in the future, don't bother checking archives - it's a waste of your time. It's probably buried deep in the archives of the featured article candidates talk page, and there are people here who can tell you off the top of their heads that an idea is not new. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
If you recommend an article should be sent to Peer Review, you should be active on Peer Review --PopUpPirate 01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC and Peer Review 

message: Please take a look. --MarSch 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit]] 

message: I have added the following criteria, because the GNAA article failed solely on this issue:
:Additionally, an article which exists on Wikipedia, though it may not be deleted because it is considered notable, may not become a featured article unless the group has been referenced in a published book, newspaper, magazine or Academic journal. (cf Gay Nigger Association of America). This is a controversial FA criteria because it cannot be actioned (we cannot effect external publications and we cannot publish original research.
If we are going to fail an FA solely on this criteria, then we should at least update this as a reason why an article may not make FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further criteria added to what is a FA 

message: Over at Wikipedia:Featured article review, I've begun a list of article types (e.g. albums, architectural styles, orders of chivalry) and their featured articles.  The goal is to encourage the standardization of layout and formatting between articles on similar subjects.  There's a lot of variation in featured articles, some of it for good reason, but a lot of it would be better off standardized.  Is anybody here interested in working on this? Tuf-Kat 18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example FAs by type

message: In many of "Today's featured articles", (e.g. Planetary habitability) the font size in the notes and references is reduced.  I generally consider featured articles as "best practices" and therefore would go along with the reduced font size in notes and references.  But, is this practice specified somewhere in the Manual of style or in some other guideline?  Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think it's specified anywhere - it's just something that developed as a result of articles with very long references sections (a common trait of featured articles). Using small font means that the article text isn't dominated by the references section. Raul654 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What does dominated mean in an environment where you are scrolling through a document of arbitrary length and there are good guidelines for the ordering of the material? patsw 17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that for reasons of style the referenes section shouldn't be longer than the article itself, or even similiar in length. Raul654 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size in references/notes sections 

message: I replaced one of the succinct words with concise, just because I found it odd to have such an unusual, but clever, word used twice. Deckiller 04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succinct? 

message: I'd like to announce the opening of the Featured Music Project, an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands.  You can help by evaluating articles, or by working on the articles that are already close to being ready for FAC. Tuf-Kat 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Music Project 

message: University of Arkansas, in the version nominated for FA, contained a "History and Founding" section consisting entirely of three paragraphs copied almost verbatim from this page on the University of Arkansas website.
Should What is a featured article say explicitly that featured articles ought not to contain copyright violations?
I'm not sure whether or not I'm joking. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK. Thanks for helping me decide. Well, in that case, nothing needs to be done. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be kind of like saying "Featured Articles should not contain Libel." Some things fall under common-sense. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bish and Bunchofgrapes took the words right out of my mouth. Raul654 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Should not contain copyright violations?" 

message: Matt Yeager removed the links to User:Taxman/Featured article advice and User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them, saying "userspace links are inappropriate from Wikipedia articles".  Clearly links to userspace from actual articles would be inappropriate, but surely we can have links to useful information in userspace in wikispace, no?  Quite a few things in wikispace started off in userspace... -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it's still userified in my case, though I suppose I should get off my assets and go fix it. But Matt's reasoning for removing them is specious, there's no policy against user pages on Wikipedia pages, and common sense would say to leave links to useful ones. Further, repeatedly removing them without discussion when people have added them back is innapropriate. But I'll finally go fix mine and move it to Wikipedia space if it's that big a deal. We could also have a discussion about creating a single article with expanded explanation of the criteria. For those editors that aren't familiar with how they are applied, the concise criteria probably aren't enough to know how to meet them. - Taxman Talk 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, well, when you can. :) - Taxman Talk 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point of view is this: I wouldn't want someone to make edits to pages in my userpage (other than to my talk page or maybe a copyedit of my user page). If people are going to link to them from a Wikipedia article, then they had better be editable like anything else. Right? I'm going to ask the two of them if they mind letting everyone else take a crack at editing them mercilessly. If they do mind, then the links need to be removed. Right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of common problems

message: I agree entirely with the sentiment, but perhaps there should be discussion here before a substantive change is made to the criteria. (The wording is not entirely clear, either.) Tony 22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition was mine. That reason (which fits perfectly within the MoS, AFAICT) is invoked so frequently in the FAC page it ought to be listed there, I think. Circeus 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me that's just part of good writing, so it's already said. There's lots of things the criteria in concise form can't expound on, so they don't. You can't fit every detail in them and still be concise. That's why I wrote my advice and Jengod wrote his, to expand in more detail how the criteria are applied. But I'm also not against having that in there, because it is one of the most common problems I see. What would become a serious instruction creep problem is if every objection at FAC were added as a line item to the criteria. - Taxman Talk 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously. That'd be ridiculous. It's just an explicitation attempted to reduce the amount of times we have to repeat it. After all, we can't make an objection that is not covered anywhere in the FA criteria. (e.g. the reference style) Circeus 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent point added to the criteria 

message: We should require use of the new cite format. It solves the problem of citations gravitating from their refrence point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering previous discussions about references, I think "strongly encourage" would be a better choice of words than "require".  In some articles, a list at the end of common references where many facts for the article were sourced is sufficient. Slambo (Speak) 15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "In the event where refrences or footnotes are used, the cite format is required" work? I'm not looking to require footnotes (I know, drama), rather require that any footnotes be in the new-cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's really that much of a encouraged/required problem, that's fine. ref-note is a terrible, terrible system, which is prone to making previously featured articles have bad references sections (because they have so many of them, keeping them in place is hard). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I agree with that, but there is no official preference between Harvard, inotes, ref/note, cite, or indeed any other system, so long as references are there. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, Aloan steals the words right out of my mouth. Raul654 16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh - Raul654 is my sock-puppet and claim my £5. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done - I've withdrawn the lot of my objections, but please let me note, for the record, strongly, that if there's no a compelling reason NOT to use the ref tags (example - currently broken for harvard refrences) as opposed to the ref-note templates, they are just better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Saffron uses an interesting combination of the <ref> style and the  style. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I'd like to invite everyone to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project.  The Featured Music Project is an attempt to improve a large number of articles on musicians to make them ready to be a featured article.  To sign up, put your name under one (or more) of the eight categories on the status page, such as the discography, format and style or lead section.  No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories.  You'd do what you can in the section you signed up for (and, of course, anything else you like).  If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles.  In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy.  If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or on the FMP talk page. Tuf-Kat 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Music Project