Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive20

message: Hi all,
I have submitted a proposal for a new award, to be given in appreciation of an editor's contribution in reviewing FACs. I call it "Reviewer's Award". The image I made for it is given below:
Since this concerns the FAC, I am also submitting the update here. Quite naturally to me, the first person who came in my mind for this award was Tony, to whom I have conferred it privately. I have submitted a proposal at WP:BAP. Please go through the proposal. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Love the picture. Joelito (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto on the pic. Very nice. I've always thought we should have an award or two for FAs--one for nominators and one for reviewers who put in a lot of work. Marskell 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New award 

message: I wonder if I could ask you all to check out Jake Gyllenhaal and its FAC. While I don't mind receiving harsh criticism for the article (I don't own it, after all!), the reviewers who have posted so far have been somewhat unhelpful or repeatedly contradict each other. The standards they seem to be using seem way beyond what I read in WP:FA; I would appreciate knowing if they want too much, or I'm wrong. Jake Gyllenhaal, as it stands(excluding the reference formatting), seems to me to be of the same quality as Eric Bana or Uma Thurman: both of which are FA. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Dev920 07:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dev920, I'm glad you're feeling better!! One comment before everyone here jumps in and repeats the same thing: never compare one FAC with other FAs. Having said that, I will take a look at the comments and hope that others will take a look as well.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thankyou for your concern. :) I will refrain from requesting so in the future, but may I ask why we should not compare FAs of the same category? Dev920 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Becasue some of the FAs are older and were allowed to pass under lower standards than the current ones. They would fail under the current standards. 2) The same reveiwers are not always available to judge all the articles. thereofore. some articles will be judges by reveiwers with stricter standards than others. there is no single set of reviewers with the same exact interperations of the criteria. 3) More importantly, reviewers simply do not make their evalutions by comparing one FA to another. So you should not either. It's just the nature of the beast.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Dev920 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessively harsh FAC? 

message: Can anyone help with this?  Sandy 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical help:  stars disappearing 

message: I would like to encourage FA people to comment on this discussion about recognizing good technical articles.  Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes. I have added some comments, but refuse to get involved in the interminable discussion that follows. Another case:  Nothing will be resolved and people will argue back and forth for the next three millenia. I think THIS is what Wikipedia is all about at this point. It's just a giant forum.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about technical articles 

message: Is it just me or that most nominations that receive a snowball clause objects are nominated by a non-author? To even add to this waste of time the nomination is usually completely ignored. Is it just me or you guys notice this too? Can we do anything about it?  - Tutmosis 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be right. I guess he wants to give articles FA status but doesn't seem to work on improving them. Only thing is telling him what is the aim of Featured article candidates page and try to explain him. --Ugur Basak 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? I have no idea who "he" is, I was just talking about in general. I was just suggesting making stricker rules for nominating?  - Tutmosis 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowball clause object nominations 

message: I can't fix this:  apparently Stegosaurus put his/her nom inside the Edward III nom, and somehow messed up Bucharest.  When you edit Stegosaurus, it includes Edward III and Bucharest.  I tried to disentangle it, but can't figure out how.  Sandy 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: restating: It seems that Bucharest and Edward III had added themselves inside the Stegosaurus nom, instead of as separate entries at the top of the FAC page.  I removed those from Stegosaurus, and inserted them as new FACs.  Sandy 16:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: oh, well, I'll try to fix it myself.  Not only did Stegasourus put his nom inside Edward III, but Bucharest linked to his old FAC nom and didn't correct it to the new one.  I'm halfway through unsorting it.  Sandy 15:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tried.  It was a 3-way problem:  Stegosaurus added the nom wrong, messing up Edward III and Bucharest, while Bucharest failed to move the old nom to archive.  The FAC page is now correct, but there's still a problem at Bucharest.  The failed nom on the talk page links to the new nom:  I don't know what to do there.  Will someone please doublecheck my work, as I was winging it here.  Sandy 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: restating, Edward III and Bucharest had been added inside Steosaurus, rather than at top of FAC as separate entries.  Sandy 16:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a thought, bu maybe change If you are resubmitting an article for a second FAC nomination to If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination? This covers multiple FAC nominations and articles that have failed FAR too. darkliight[πalk] 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better - I made that change.  Sandy 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stegosaurus 

message: I have a question/doubt: in FAs, is it WP:NPOV to have a third-party quotation about the subject? For example, Albert Einstein saying of Mahatma Gandhi: "Generations will..." Shouldn't all quotes (especially in FAs) be left to Wikiquote? Is placing Einstein's quote in the biography of Gandhi somewhat of POV-pushing? Rama's arrow 14:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on quotes 

message: This question might have been asked a number of times in the past, however, can someone please clarify, how a FA to be featured on the homepage gets selected and what is the order which dictates the selection. I must admit a personal interest in this as Chola dynasty, an article nominated by me, hasn't been listed so far in the FA queue, while a number of articles that have been selected much later. - Parthi talk/contribs 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you submitted a request?  Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.  Sandy 00:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't featured chola dynasty yet because I am not happy with the pictures offered. (Maps make awful main page images) Raul654 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the map with a picture of a temple built during the Chola dynasty. I have also requested clarification on the reuse of the maps from the provider. - Parthi talk/contribs 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I have just received confirmation from DEMIS BV that the reuse of the downloaded maps is allowed. - Parthi talk/contribs 06:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average turnaround time for a FA to be featured on the homepage 

message: Are current FAs too long (or, indeed, too short)?  I wonder what the longest and shortest FAs are.  Are the long ones any better than average?  Are the short ones any better than average?  Should we expect readers to be able to take a whole article in at one sitting, or should we be aiming for a short master's thesis on the subject that requires a second (third, ...) look for full understanding?
I expect I will get answers like "it depends" and "write only as much as is necessary to meet the criteria", but I would be interested in other people's views.  In the interests of full disclosure, I admit that I am not a paragon of concision, and admire the skill of others in writing short but excellent articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SIZE sums up the issues well: I get concerned when prose size (not overall size) passes 50 KB, and I definitely don't like prose size up around or over 60, because that suggests that summary style might be needed.  I wouldn't object to an exemplary short article.  Sandy 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare Australia at 50kb and Canada at 80; considering overhead, I'd guess Canada is twice the size. See White's tree frog at just 15. Marskell 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good comparison:  with very different overall sizes (due to overhead), Canada and Australia have similar (and appopriate) readable prose size, with Australia at 32KB, and Canada at 37KB.  (I had to fix Canada to confrom with WP:LAYOUT while I was in there; never understand FAs that don't conform with guidelines :-)  Sandy 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, how are you deducing the precise amount of prose only? Marskell 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I was told here: makes sense.  It's a "hackish" way to cut out everything but the prose.  Sandy 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm of the opposite camp where I consize the article size to be a completely artificial constraint. I think the article content should be judged on its own merits, rather than technical issues. Yes some good, tight prose is agreable, but not at the expense of losing useful and interesting information. :-) — RJH (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't you have both good tight prose AND useful and interesting information? Please see Wikipedia:Summary Style. Borisblue 05:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally wish that the WP:SIZE rules were more strictly enforced. A lot of people do read wikipedia casually, and forcing them through 80kb+ worth of text in the first article they encounter (which is usually the TFA) sets a very bad impression, and they will not learn very much about the topic if they give up reading past the lead. To Aloans original question, a featured article should appeal to both kinds of readers- the casual ones, and the readers who are using the article as a starting point for serious research. These are not mutually exclusive goals- articles written in proper summary style will satisfy both needs. Borisblue 05:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh. White's Tree Frog is nowhere near our shortest FA. At about 12K of prose, it's large compared to Hurricane Irene (2005) (~7K) and Diary of a Camper (~9K). And, having worked on both Final Fantasy VII and Diary of a Camper (a size factor difference of 10), I felt that the articles were of appropriate length for their respective subjects; the former was about a multi-disc groundbreaking RPG, the latter about a genre-establishing 100-second video. Meeting the comprehensiveness criterion is far more important than adhering to WP:SIZE. Given that recent efforts have focused on minimizing articles that consist of only plot summary, in order to ensure proper context, articles on fictional works will do their best to summarize the plot in one piece; for some articles, that piece will be necessarily somewhat long, to esure that the uninitiated reader can follow what's going on. — TKD::Talk 01:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Because the FAC process is concerned with brilliant prose, I'd like to make a request for a third-party copy-edit. For a few weeks, I've been editing The Princess Diaries (film) article and with User:Shannernanner, wrote a plot summary. Now, we're familiar with film's content and Shannernanner concluded that the writing is voiced in an "in-style universe". We added the appropriate clean-up tag, but nobody has answered it. If there's a third-party editor who has not heard of The Princess Diaries or knows relatively little about it, we'd be happy if you helped stylize the writing in a more "universal voice". Thanks to everybody! Never Mystic (tc) 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on the article's talk page. — BrianSmithson 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party request

message: Because our goal is to be better than Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encarta, I think that as part of the FAC process, a comparision with the respictive articles (if they exist) in other encyclopedias should be a requirement. What do you think? CG 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the onus is on the principal editors of any given article (particularly potential FAs) to make such comparisons themselves. I don't believe a requirement makes sense because it's unworkable, unenforceable and a tad authoritarian, but the principle underlying any potential FA - ar any WP article at all - ought to be, is this article as good as it can be?... without appealing to notions of competition with other encyclopedias, etc. I don't believe it is or should be our goal to be better than Britannica, et al, but simply to be comprehensive, fair and compelling. Pinkville 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding out if an articles is as good as it can be should certainly include a look at others (I definitely had "make it better than Encarta" in mind when working on Jaguar) and, though I'm too tired to dig up the quote, "better than Brittanica" as a goal has been suggested by Jimbo. But a requirement would indeed be unworkable and would actually waste energy and lead to argument ("I've found a para they have and we don't--oppose") and reduce FA throughput. Marskell 23:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing with other encyclopedias 

message: On technical/scientific subjects, I typically wait a week for knowledgeable experts to weigh in before entering my vote.  The last article I recall that was promoted in 5 days was Daniel Boone; it had 100% support.  (There have probably been others promoted that quickly, but Daniel Boone stood out in my memory because it was such an exemplary candidate.)  Why was Redshift promoted in only 5 days, with an Object two Objects, and without allowing time for more votes?   Sandy 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It doesn't make sense to me to have this article accepted as FA when there is still (unresolved) contentious discussion going on. Pinkville 02:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it had two previous FACs may have been a factor. Marskell 19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Redshift promotion

message: I don't know if it happened only to me, but several times, I add a late comment to FAC, but then, it gets featured immediatly and therefore no one sees it (Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amchitka). Could we make a rule that an article should be featured only if the nomination didn't get activity for the last 3 days (or 5 or a week), or at least no object or comments? CG 06:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with defeaturing (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity). The discussion (and votes) were going on for several days after it was removed, and at least one user later told me he was ready to withdraw an objection but didn't want to comment at what he saw as an 'archived' nom (meaning that while article got removed 5 days after listing with 5:4, 3 days later it was 8:3). Amchitka certainly should receive more comments; serious objections were completly ignored by the author :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's always the FAR listing for review of FAs. I agree that the Amchitka article could still be improved per the FAC comments. Perhaps the comments could be added to a to-do list on the article's talk page so they may be addressed at a future date? — RJH (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early promotion 

message: Sorry, my focus is completely shot because of the devastating fire and deaths in California:  can someone figure out why an old atomic theory nom just appeared at the top of the page?  Sandy (Talk) 16:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atomic theory is back again, needs to be removed.  Sandy (Talk) 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atomic theory

message: I'm not sure if I'm going to the right place with this, but I just had an article in an FAC and it was failed. However, the oppose votes came within the last two days, and the one before that had no more issues (I had just finished taking care of them). Should I just wait and open another later on, or was it unfairly closed? I suppose it had been going on for a while, but it wasn't the last on the list. I was just wondering what the community's opinion on this was, since I can't get Raul's. I wouldn't be bothered that much, but I thought I was making good progress on the FAC comments, and I'm little confused. It also happends to be my only project on wiki, and it's the only thing that's kept me here.--Clyde Miller 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just open a new one when you feel the opposing concerns have been addressed. Joelito (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I go to another peer review or something? The only problem left was prose and I asked people to copyedit it for me because it was in an FAC, but now that's over, I'm worried. How can I improve it further without other input? --Clyde Miller 20:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You had people offering to help out when it was a FAC, try contacting them directly and asking them to continue to make suggestions to you.  Instead of commenting on the FAC page, they'll just be commenting on the article talk page or on your talk page.  I'd assume that the people who were helping you out before would be willing to continue.  Then resubmit it to FAC when you know they'll be willing to support the article, or, if you like, another peer review first. Neil916 (Talk) 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I feel like I failed them by not getting the article to Featured status, but there isn't much left to do. I asked two people to copyedit, one of them did, and the other one is going to in a few days. After that, there really isn't anything else to fix. Is there an unofficial amount of time I'm supposed to wait before I re-open the FAC?--Clyde Miller 21:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Fair? 

message: Once I've finished with it, can List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E become a featured list in its own right, or can it only do so as a part of the entire article List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? Also, I believe there's a record for most number of references? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Wikipedia:Featured topics? It might be convenient to link them all together. Adam Cuerden talk 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at that. But List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people are all lists, whereas the topics seem to have a list to begin with and the articles in it. Or did you mean put the people on the list as the topic? In which case, FT says "collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles)" , implying that the lists could become featured seperately and thus my orginal question comes into play. Oh, this is so confusing. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weel, it would be useful to bunch all the sublists together in some way, if they're of quality, which they seem to be. A featured topic seems a good way to do that. As for the main question: Nominate it and see! Adam Cuerden talk 15:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, after I've converted teh otehrs to topics. I'll nominate A-E and see what happens soon. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List question 

message: I've been attempting to nominate OpenOffice.org as a featured article, but can't figure out how to post the nomination on the nominations page. I have the FA discussion page set up, so I was wondering if somebody could list it for me or tell me how to do it. THanks.
Yeti man5 23:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered submitting the article first to peer review? Sandy (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[OpenOffice.org]] FA Nomination