Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 1

message: I also think that some topics simply don't work well on the main page.  Articles featured on the main page should have some general-interest appeal, because that's what we're presenting to the general public.  We want people to read those articles, say "Wow, that was impressive" and start to look for more.  Some articles, by the very nature of their topic, won't do that for most people.  An article like Gröbner basis, even if it were a brilliant article on the topic, is too technical for a general reader.  It would need to wander far off topic in order to provide enough context.  I think that that should be a rough guideline - if most readers will need more context than can fit in the article, we probably should reconsider featuring it.
Comments?  Isomorphic 04:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion touching on this very issue is going on right now at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. There seems to be strong consensus that "being featured" (i.e. listed on Wikipedia:Feature articles) is a distinct thing from being put on the main page. Thus any topic deemed worthy of an article (not matter how inflammatory, technical, sexually explicit, whatever it is) can be featured. Thus we can reward all writers whatever their field of interest, and show the diversity of WP. Then a separate set of standards (currently applied ad hoc) are used to determine what goes on the main page each day, thus alleviating the concerns you espouse here. Pcb21| Pete 13:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I mentioned this page on Wikipedia:Peer review as a good checklist to work from before taking a page to peer review - David Gerard 18:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is FA status the same as suitability for the main page?

message: I've added a word on being sure of the copyright status of images, as this has become an increasingly common objection on WP:FAC - David Gerard 18:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image status

message: This article defines "factually accurate" and "well-written" but not "comprehensive." I propose adding something like:
*Comprehensive: does not omit anything which is currently known and relevant to the subject.
Objections?
Background: a current featured article candidate, Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003, is being challenged on the basis that since the conflict isn't over, or since the article lacks details that aren't currently known (and may well never be knowable), it can't be considered "comprehensive".
It seems silly to expect an article to cover everything that might someday be known. This would prevent featuring a biography of a person who was still alive or even, technically, a history of a country that still exists. Neow 19:45, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
:It would also be silly to expect most articles to cover everything currently known and relevant. That's not "comprehensive", that's "exhaustive". Encyclopedia articles necessarily present a condensed or potted account of most subjects, and therefore they omit things. (NPOV means omitting in a neutral way, it doesn't mean sticking every detail in.) That's why "comprehensive" is so hard to define, I guess.--Bishonen (talk) 21:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Comprehensive" can only refer to what we know about something. Since we can not know the future, the fact that an article on a current event lacks that info, means nothing. All that counts is whether or not the article is comprehensive in terms of what is knowable about the subject. It would be silly to de-list an article on a living nation or a person simply due to the fact that we do not know the full details of that subject's entire existence. Only consider blocking a nomination or de-listing a current FA if it lacks important updates. --mav 03:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What is comprehensiveness?