Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 4

message: * Comment  Is it possible to specifically mention "notability" as a criteria?  Adding requirements of secondary sources and the like skip around the real issue, which is, is this topic even notable?--Ataricodfish 20:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would love to have a "notability" requirement, but: 1) From the discussion above (that I started), I don't believe there is a consensus about notability -- many WPians are very fond of their "fancruft"; and 2) I could not think of a way of measuring notability that I thought would pass with a consensus.  If someone can propose a method for determining notability, I'd love to hear it. -- Gnetwerker 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've already answered it yourself. Any notable subject must have legitimate secondary sources and the lack of these is a sure sign that the subject is non-notable. BlueShirts 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be argumentative, but then we don't need a per se notability requirement, just a strictly-enforced sourcing requirement.  People would suspect that a notability requirement was the evil work of of old-fogey over-40-something actual adults such as myself.  So why try to get two things passed instead of one? -- Gnetwerker 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How are we defining "reputable secondary sources" for fictional subjects, incidentally? Kirill Lokshin 22:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is still better to have a notability requirement and then point out what makes a subject noteworthy. The more explainations the better. As for fictional subjects, there are still tons of "reputable secondary sources." For example, if you want to write a FA on the X-Wing, you'll find there are myriads of star wars technical journals and sourcebooks that are just waiting to be perused. BlueShirts 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but do they necessarily qualify as "secondary" (they were published, at least indirectly, by the same people who created the X-Wing; what distinguishes them from, say, game manuals?) and "reputable" (there hasn't, to my knowledge, been any significant study into the various sources on the topic, so there's no real basis for evaluating them)? -- Kirill Lokshin circa 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: defining "reputable" and "secondary" -- "Secondary" is easy (IMO), it's defined by Secondary sources, i.e. not primary sources.  "Reputable" is defined by WP:RS, and if sources are not widely-accepted as reputable, it is up to the nominator of the FA to establish its reputation. This doesn't have to airtight, just an improvement. -- Gnetwerker 23:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, WP:RS only mentions "reputable" in the context of scientific journals; I'm assuming you don't mean that anything reliable is automatically reputable? Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the whole FA process needs to move beyond the often stated "Any article can become a FA" mentality, which is why I'm for a "notability" requirement.  Leaving the sole requirement of "secondary sources" won't always be enough, as there are unofficial "fan books" for current music artists, third party strategy guides for video games, etc. which would qualify as secondary sources and yet introduce nothing but fancruft.  That's why I think notability should be mentioned somehow, even if to say that "Secondary sources must demonstrate why this is notable".--Ataricodfish 01:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we haven't defined notability; in fact, forming consensus on what is and isn't notable has been one of the main problems plaguing AFD. Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notability" is a bit of distraction the way it's usually argued, a red herring. The core issue, and a much more difficult one to tackle in the WP structure, is ARTCLE LENGTH. In any sort of "traditional" editorial planning — journalistic, encyclopedia, whatever — the amount of space devoted per subject is a main criterion. There is a practical reason for this (and the "not paper" argument is often misused in service of ignoring this). Some articles "deserve" 500 words, others 5,000. When that consideration is in play, "notability" discussions become much more manageable, questions like, "What are the chances the general reader will want to another 1,000 words on every season in X TV series?" are given a practical context (and it's equally useful on non-pop culture topics as well). Useless padding is (more) easily pinpointed. Arguing notability as an absolute is largely futile, it will only "work" in the most extremely obvious cases, like for a bio of someone abolutely no-one has heard of. In FAC, if not in WP at large, appropriate length can and should be dealt with. (And, it's already there, just not given "actionable" weight: "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". An article that is simply too long, filled with extraneous stuff (whether unverifiable, poorly written, or simply...unnecessary to the general reader) should not be an FA. I think a lot of "notabliity" issues would vanish if we stuck to that. --Tsavage 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: *Comment: Why the change from "reliable" to "reputable" and the insistence on secondary sources?  Would not reputable primary sources be acceptable instead?  And "shows Wikipedia in a positive light" is horribly weasel-worded. Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here is my reasoning: reliable is a value judgement, while reputable means "has a (good) reputation".  The Drudge Report may be "reliable", but its not reputable.  Indeed, Weekly World News is reliable (reliably wrong :-)), but not reputable.  It's a finesse, I'm not wedded to it.  Regarding showing WP in best light, it could perhaps be better worded -- take a stab.  What I really mean is that we should be able to look at Britannica, Encarta, and Wikipedia side-by-side and not be embarrassed. -- Gnetwerker 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern here is that people may be embarrassed by different things, and that this will be quickly used against any articles whose topics are unimportant, nonexistent, or just plain silly. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would gladly chuck it overboard to get agreement on the central point about WP:NOR. -- Gnetwerker 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable vs. Reputable

message: *Comment: I think we also need to amend to FAC process as well. Here are some of my points (taken from my page)
:1). Obscurity does not equate barreness. The former means that the topic is relatively unknown, yet researchable. The latter denotes that nothing much is researchable about the topic, and sources that turn up are likely to be of poor quality.
:2). Unactionability of the objection does not necessary entail that the objection is invalid. If an article has a shortcoming that is simply unfixable for whatever reason, but the objection is reasoned and supported by proof elsewhere and within the article and conforms to general rules of FA criteria, then the article itself simply is not of FA caliber. Thus under this condition, even though the objection is unactionable at this point, it is still valid and should be taken into serious consideration. 
:3). FA should be the best of the best of wiki "as an encyclopedia article." An article should be a summary or general overview of a body of knowledge, and also a gateway to more information. It shouldn't be a collection of facts, lists, plot summary, TV guide, manual...etc. As such, a FA shouldn't contain more information than the sum of its sources, unless the subject matter is barren and therefore the article becomes the sum of its sources (as many pop culture articles have done). Temporary account 00:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely agree with #2.  I am surprised at the number of nominators who, after someone makes an objection, immediately enter in bold letters, Objection not actionable and doesn't count.  It's upsetting to take the time to make a suggestion, only to be told that the opinion doesn't count.  I noticed this a lot in the Bulbasaur process, and this shouting match by its supporters kept me away from voting, as I didn't want to be "yelled" at by strangers.  I regret not speaking up now -- I was surprised it made it through FA.--Ataricodfish 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC Process

message: *Comment: Do any of the commentators either Support or Oppose the proposal?  Not to be churlish, but we have 44kb or more of commentary.  If we don't have enough consensus to even have a straw poll, I guess I will slink back into my corner. -- Gnetwerker 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Only if it garners support :-) (But seriously, feel free, and I tried, while maintaining some compatibility with the original). -- Gnetwerker 01:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Well, we all support the proposal, but before making strong supports, we all should formulate, criticize, and discuss about it first. This is not like fandom where we give "one-liner strong supports," and this sort of proves our point about being critical don't you think :) Anyways, do you want to change "comment" section to "suggestions" or "proposals?" Temporary account 02:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Comment Overall, I think the above is a useful modification of the criteria. IMO, it doesn't add new requirements, simply highlights and clarifies a couple of areas, things that perhaps weren't considered as important earlier. 
*The new secondary sources point (new #3) I take as a refined expression of No original research core policy. I think the wording could be improved, such that it is flexible but still made clear that articles relying primarily on primary sources are a form of OR (using a primary source to create an article that consists mainly of observational description, whether it's describing birds in flight by describing the contents of a documentary film showing birds in flight, or describing a video game character or TV show from observing game play, episodes, etc). I guess there is nuance and interpretation in the primary/secondary source area, but something like "... not relying mainly on primary sources..." would sound better. Right now, it seems like maybe a restrictiion on all primary source material.
*Breaking out the mechanics of References, from the somewhat dense current 2(c) to the new 4(d) also seems useful: it provides flexible, straightforward guidance that puts more emphasis on References as a standard section of an FA. 
*The reliable->reputable I don't think is necessary at this point, simply because it is more restrictive without having a clear way to determine "reputability". It also makes the criteria a little less clear, particularly in the intro to #2: "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable" seems to sum up the identical principles as "well written, comprehensive, neutral, factually accurate, verifiable in reputable secondary sources, and stable" in...less words. And the same debates will occur over what is "reliable" as for what is "reputable". If and when there is a quite comprehensive list of "reputable" news outlests, journals, and so forth, the difference seems moot, at least, in FA. And, while I suppose "factually accurate" in the summary encompasses NOR, the secondary stuff is made clear later, in the same way "verifiability" is.
:So, in general, it seems to me a good amendment (with finetuning), it makes clearer certain troublesome editorial areas without restricting anything or changing anything radically. Of course, the criteria are only as effective as how they are interpreted in practice. --Tsavage 19:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am not wedded to "reputable" versus "reliable".  Thanks for your support and for highlighting the intention -- that this is a clarification, not a major change.  Curiously, many of the comments here go to unchanged aspects of the current policy. -- Gnetwerker 16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So the proposal is to add (i) two references to "reputable secondary sources" and (ii) a reference to WP:NOR?  Firstly, what is "reputable"; secondly, what about primary sources; thirdly, I think the latter is taken into account already. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Reputable is defined by WP:RS -- Gnetwerker 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reputation" is very much in the eye of the beholder, as the rather woolly nature of that guideline - which is actually about reliability rather than reputation - makes clear.  It only talks about "reputable" sources when talking about other encyclopedia, new media, scientific journals, and false claims of authority.  They key has to be the citation of sources.  The reader can make up their own mind on the weight they should attach to any one source. Finally, I don't see the concern with primary sources - in some cases, they are all you have.  For example, I would rather have a photo of an event, rather than a photo of a newpaper report of an event. Similarly, eye-witness testimony van give crucial insights that a newspaper report cannot (while being aware that one person's point of view may not be neutral).  I don't see what this proposal adds to what is already there.  What is it intended to achieve? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *But why the insistence on secondary sources?  There are certainly cases where working from primary sources (reputable primary sources, no less!) is appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 17:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:RS says "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication".  However, elsewhere it makes clear that primary sources are usually acceptable only as sources for opinions, not for facts that might be disputed.  We also have editors here claiming that websites (e.g. dedicated videogaming sites) fulfill this requirement.  As I have said elsewhere, I don't think a Featured article should meet only the minimum requirements of Wikipedia.  I think that, while primary sources can certainly be used in articles, very few articles should be sourced with nothing but primary sources, and certainly no featured article should. -- Gnetwerker 17:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, yes, but "we may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication" isn't meant to limit the use of primary sources that have been published by a credible publication (to give a concrete example, these are, strictly speaking, primary sources; but they're published and quite reputable ones).  This might just be a quibble with the wording, but I think that if we want to eliminate the use of unreliable sources, we ought to do so directly, rather than trying to consider it as a primary/secondary source issue. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I suspect we are in violent agreement.  As a principle, however, I am not trying to create a new definition of WP:RS just for FACs, even if I think that WP:RS should be tightened up, that is a different fight.  So I am trying to walk the line of holding FACs to a higher standard while not duplicating the work of other WP policies.  I understanding your criticisms, though, and would welcome adjustments to address them.  Finally, while there are good examples of appropriate use of primary sources, most articles on WP use them inappropriately, IMO.  BTW, your example would seem to be the use of a 'tertiary source -- the 1911 Britannica, rather than primary sources.  If you consider the list itself to be from primary sources, lists are something somewhat special, being largely devoid of dispute, and when lists are disputed, secondary sources are called for. -- Gnetwerker 17:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Fair enough.  (My example, incidentally, was a somewhat amateurish attempt to list the books themselves, not the article in which they're contained.  We don't seem to have a separate article on Guicciardini's History of Italy, unfortunately; perhaps I ought to write one at some point.) Kirill Lokshin 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *"We also have editors here claiming that websites (e.g. dedicated videogaming sites) fulfill this requirement." I think some of this stems from the discussion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IV. And, yes, I was one of the ones who argued that GameSpy, GameSpot, IGN, and the like are credible (secondary) sources for video games, and particularly for critical reception of video games. (Note that I haven't worked extensively on the article in question and don't have a real attachment to the nomination; all I've done is to clean up a few minor things.) Basically, independent critical reception of video games, from the perspective of gamers, will come from one of two sources: Gaming magazines, or gaming websites. Those websites are generally recognized as some of the most established and credible gaming sites in existence (one is owned by CNet; I forget which off the top of my head). Of course, I completely agree that a featured article should have appropriate primary and secondary sources. For articles based on fictional subjects, I believe that this generally includes the fiction itself, ancillary distribution materials, and interviews with its creators as primary sources; and credible critical reviews, press coverage, and any reliable third-party analysis of that work as secondary sources. Of course, these have to be used properly; the creator of the fiction will usually be its most authoritative and credible source as to background, development rationale, and intended interpretation. Even though it is a primary source, it is credible in this context because the creator controls the content of the fictional universe. At the same time, one must rely on secondary sources for a NPOV treatment of the reception or popularity of that work. (In fact, I find it suspect when an article on fiction cites only primary sources; it usually means that the article does not cover the external, real-life implications or reception of that fiction well.) In short, I agree that there is no shortage of articles that do use sources inappropriately, but both primary and secondary sources are subject to conceivable abuse in the wrong context. What is reliable or appropriate for one type of information may not be for another. FAs should indeed represent the best of Wikipedia, and this generally means using reliable primary and secondary sources appropriately.  — TKD::Talk 13:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I respectfully disagree. I think that fictional and pop-culture subjects need to have been treated to more serious academic and journalistic treatment before being encyclopedic.  I don't think game reviews, authors' statements, interviews, and the like are secondary sources, and I don't think they are reliable.  I think a look at the treatment of these topic in extant encyclopedia will back up this position. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Donkey Kong (arcade game) is a model of serious citation for a game, and such fictional works as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lord of the Rings have been subjected to enough appraisal for serious encyclopedic treatment, but most fictional works are simply not sufficiently notable outside their fan base to support this, and therefore do not represent "our best work" if they are present here.  -- Gnetwerker 16:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So you are saying, in essence, that Wikipedia should not have articles - let alone featured articles - on topics unless they would either be covered in any other "reputable" encyclopedia (Exploding whale?  Holy prepuce?  I wonder what Temporary account would suggest as the "non-barren" parent topics for these "barren" subtopics - exploding animals? holy relics?), or they have shown themselves to be sufficiently long-lived as cultural phenomena to have built up a body of secondary sources (like Donkey Kong (arcade game))?  So, in essence, we should only cover topics that Encyclopedia Britannica would cover?  If that is what you are saying, I respectfully disagree: Spoo is, to my mind, virtually the perfect FA on these ephemeral topics: the secondary sources just don't exist, it has next to no cultural impact, but it does cite cast iron primary sources.  I can't imagine EB having an article on it (or even Babylon 5, come to that, and yes, we should have an excellent article on that too).  -- ALoan (Talk) 17:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, that is not what I am saying, and if you were to read the things I have said elsewhere on this page, you would realize that.  I do think that Wikipedia has way too much "fancruft", however.  I think it is, in fact, a strength of Wikipedia that it has a broad array of topics, as it is not constrained to a paper format.  However, I think some of WP's articles tend to bring it as a whole into disrepute.  FAs should be the most rigorously vetted articles here, and I don't think that is possible with a mere checklist of form and format issues -- it goes to scholarship, and fancruft articles often lack that. P.s. - Yes, I think that Spoo as a Featured article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * And thus we come to the core of the proposal.  It's my opinion, frankly, that the minimal gains in reputation that would result from any moves to relegate the articles you consider to be "an embarrassement" to second-class status are not worth the significant cost to the community.  Do you have any idea how high a proportion of Wikipedia editors are here to work on popular culture topics, most of which haven't the slightest chance of attracting proper secondary analysis; and what the effects would be if they were no longer to feel welcome here? Kirill Lokshin 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: *Comment -- I have a problem with the proposal: the use of the meta:cite format for footnotes and endnotes is strongly encouraged. This is a matter of personal preference. The footnote style may be useful but it does have disadvantages, and I refuse to use it blindly for articles I've authored. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is unchanged from the current policy -- Gnetwerker 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Indeed, I find  much superior to the cite format, but I presume that an article would not be failed for using a different citation scheme. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ** But with , you have to manually ensure that the footnote numbers match up with the numbered list, which introduces a rather large potential for error when the article is updated.  Using <ref>, the numbering is automatically synchronized for you, greatly simplifying editing.  For this reason I personally prefer <ref>. Slambo (Speak) 15:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *4d is from the current policy.  2c doesn't take a position on how the references are provided or cited, just that they are. -- Gnetwerker 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I'll put this for comparison purposes:
Templates:
*Require distinct names for all pairs refs and notes
**If several notes call for the same ref, backlinking is broken, unless a different, muchmore complex template is used.
*Require careful track of note/ref pairs
*Require careful track of notes ordering
*May break when used inside templates, such as 
*Adding a note requires the editing of several sections/the entire article.
*Frequently conflicts with numbering of external links
Cite.php:
*Does not require any tracking or the pairs or ordering
*Adding a note is simpler
*Combining notes is automatic with the "name" attribute
*Doesn't break templates (Used to break when used in picture captions, but that bug is now fixed)
*Does not conflicts with external links
*Main disadvantage: altering a note requires tracking it back into the text, which can be difficult.
Circeus 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template vs. Cite.php

message: I've written an essay that describes my own view of what Featured Articles on fiction and fictional elements should look like: User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction. It borrows some from a similar essay by Uncle G, but I've taking a different angle and tried to keep from making any judgements for or against fan material. Basically, the essay argues the articles on things that might be considered fancruft are okay so long as they are written from the right perspective, avoid original research, and are not overly reliant on primary sources. I would really appreciate any feedback and comments — feel free to edit the essay outright, if you feel so inclined. I'd particularly like to strengthen the discussion of what constitutes a good source for an article on a fictional character, weapon, species, etc. — BrianSmithson 17:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to wonder whether there isn't a WP:SIGN story waiting to be written about the recent debates over Bulbasaur and other recent FACs and FARCs... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be fair, I'd been planning something like this for a long time. That wave of FACs and FARCs simply prompted me to finally get my butt in gear and put fingers to keyboard. — BrianSmithson 19:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, your essay is quite good; I'm just wondering if there is not something to be written about the on-going debate... Perhaps I should hint in the Signpost... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your essay is excellent, Brian. Grounding it all on the in-universe/out-of-universe approach clarifies a lot of issues brilliantly. In my opinion, it should be moved toward guideline or policy. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That was well-put! Focussing on editorial style, rather than trying to identify particular topics or pin down "notability" is an excellent approach to dealing with certain "current event" subject areas. The editorial aspect also seems far more important to overall article quality, at this point, than some of the mechanical specifics of referencing and source quality. Still, this remains largely a "source" issue, in that, were great secondary sources quite readily available, I would imagine editors would (also) use them (at least, in the mad drive to get an FA star). The secondary source "problem" also extends to other areas than so-called "fancruft", for example, use of newspaper accounts, web-based  "information sites" of various organizations, blogs, and the like as primary material for a variety of biographical and other current topics (including things like, for example, environmental issues). However, trying to tackle all of that in one sweeping policy or guideline that attempts to pound home "source rules" seems impractical. This proposal could improve quality, generally, and in FAC if actively administered, and it is more clarification than...more rules or restrictions. I've read it only once, but I'm pretty sure I'd support it! --Tsavage 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm impressed. I would strongly support its adoption as a guideline. I would also note that long "trivia" lists should be highly discouraged. In reality, "trivia" is usually something of a euphemism for "unorganized, random bits of information and possible original research". If something in "trivia" is worth mentioning, put it in the relevant prose section; otherwise, just drop it. The reader is not helped by a loose collection of information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TKD (talk • contribs) 
I think BrianSmithson's essay is valuable, and a good statement regarding a portion of the overall problem of what has come to be called "fancruft".  However, detailed descriptions of fantasy universes are only a portion of the problem.  Other examples include the tedious and vasty overweighted descriptions of individual pop songs (e.g. I Believe in You (Kylie Minogue song))), of second- and third-rate films (Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation), of follow-ons to popular videogames (Final Fantasy IV), and of individual high schools (Stuyvesant High School), to name but a few.  Your proposal would address such things as Lord Voldemort, but might not clarify the situation with (e.g.) Stargate (device).  So I would fully support development of clarifying policies on fictional universes, and I think you have an excellent start, but I continue to feel that the larger problem of articles sourced in origina source material, and lacking adequate independent (i.e. non-Wikipedia) appraisal needs to be addressed.  -- Gnetwerker 06:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the sourcing issue remains central (as I hopefully made clear in my comment on this proposal, above). And (if anyone's reading every comment with interest :), I don't think out-of-universe style alone addresses the need for the general WP:NOR FA clarification, as addressed by the FA criteria amendment above. Both guidelines are complementary (and "universe" is good general editorial guidance, while the NOR stuff is for now specific to FAs). Both IMO attempt to speak plainly to an eclectic group of editors on, dare I say, "common sense" and in-the-spirit applications of the existing core WP policies and FA criteria. Put to a "consensus procedure" (vote), I believe I'd support both. --Tsavage 13:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It was never my intention to create a magic bullet, just to address something that I kept (and keep) encountering in articles up for Peer Review and Featured Article Candidacy. As for Stargate (device), I think my proposal would help that article—about 2/3 of the current piece takes an in-universe perspective.  I plan to add a bit more about primary vs. secondary sources; I hope you all won't mind if I swipe some of your comments from the debates above and insert them into the essay! :) The listcruft and trivia problems that TKD mentions are, unfortunately, bigger issues and affect more than just fancrufty articles. It's very common, for example, to see "Trivia" (or its alias, "In popular culture") sections on articles on everything from small towns to Japanese gods. I would whole-heartedly support any proposal nixing these kinds of things (perhaps a rewrite of Wikipedia:Trivia, which is currently trying to tackle the same problems as Wikipedia:Notability). — BrianSmithson 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree with BrianSmithson's essay.  I think it is a step in the right direction for both FAC and just general fiction articles on wikipedia. --Polkapunk 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on fictional FACs 

message: Inline citations are a common requirement in the recent FAs - to my knowledge every article promoted to featured status recently had them. Isn't it time to make this requirement official and add it to this page?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I predicted that inline citations would become a mandatory requirement about a year ago, when the predecessor of the current wording ("complemented where appropriate by inline citations") was added.  What is wrong with the current formulation? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people think "where appropriate" can mean none. I don't see how that could meet the verifiability policy's goals, but that's what some people have thought. Luckily I think that view is in the strong minority now. I believe all FA candidates should have the top 10-15 most important or controversial points cited to the most reliable reference available. Removing the "where appropriate" out would be the only thing new about requiring inline citations. - Taxman Talk 18:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By removing "where appropriate" you actually weaken the guideline; we do not merely require the presence of inline citations, we require them everywhere it is necessary to explicitly attribute a fact. Depending on the article, this may be in virtually no places or virtually everywhere; but certainly it includes all controversial or questionable statements, as well as anything that has been challenged by other editors or reviewers. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, specific inline citations should be a requirement. Mikker ... 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How specific?  Every paragraph?  Every sentence?  Every fact? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every statement that can be doubtful, at least, although the general guideline of one by paragraph already informally followed by several editors seems appropriate. Circeus 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: By specific I mean (Kissinger, 1974:423) instead of (Kissnger, 1974). I.e. inline citations should be page specific where possible in order to facilitate verification and thereby ensure WP's reputation for accuracy. (We have no central editor. Nobody "owns" an article. Therefore, to help both other editors & the reader, specific inline citations are required). As for the quantity of inline citations needed; that depends on how controversial the topic is. Something like Intelligent design needs plenty of refs, something like, I donnu, Puddle probably needs less. Mikker (...) 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that you're attached to that format, but since you used it here: I'm not sure parenthetical references are best for a resource like Wikipedia.  It tends to disrupt the text, and especially if there are a lot of them it can be bad news for readability.  Why not use the ref and references tags instead?  That's what they're there for, and they make nice automatically ordered footnotes at the end, too.  -Seth Mahoney 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Eventually every fact should be referenced, but this would probably be too much for most FACs (although it is what I tried with my latest, the Katyn massacre). 1 citation per paragraph may be a good rule of thumb (and would encourage people to merge short paras into larger).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New requirement: inline citations 

message: I note that Criterion 2c is silent on the issue of distinguishing text that is directly lifted from other sources rather than paraphrased. I suspect that some contributors think that an inline reference will cover them in both respects. This is not the case, and involves issues of copyright.
I wonder whether anyone thinks that it would be judicious to explicitly require the use of quote marks for directly quoted material as opposed to paraphrased material in FAs? Tony 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such copyright violations are a problem for Wikipedia in any article -- so why would we single out any treatment of them for FACs? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Quoting (which is recognized in virtually every country as an acceptable exception to Copyright), even extensive quoting, is generally not a problem unless it becomes so extensive that it becames an abridgement of the originaly text. As far as 'lifting text' (not necessarily copyvios, but copying of ideas without attribution, e.g plaguriusm in the academic sense) - I don't think we need to single that out in particular - WP:BEANS. Raul654 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  direct quotation versus paraphrasing 

message: Should all FACs be required to pass certification as Wikipedia:Good articles before they can be listed as FACs? --M@rēino 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start out with a no, and predict that that will be the consensus you will hear. We've consistently held that there should be minimal if not no hard restrictions on editors ability to produce FA's directly. Some editors already know how to write FA's and putting another bit of red tape would not help. So GA's are a good source to look for articles that can be polished up to pass FAC, but as a requirement that's not a good idea. - Taxman Talk 23:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's completely unnecessary instruction creep, at best; in most cases, a proper peer review would be far more beneficial to a potential FA nominee than a GA listing.  I'll also point out that the GA requirements are minimal; meeting them is an indication that the article isn't total garbage, but doesn't really imply it'll be any more successful at FAC than one that was never listed. Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. Raul654 08:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No. FAC has already had too many hoops and beucratic hurdles added to it. --Barberio 14:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy debate: FACs and Good Articles 

message: So can a gallery of images be used (instead of having images separately stacked) in a "featured country" project? The WP rules or guidelines mention nothing for or against having a gallery.--Zereshk 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think galleries should be avoided, in almost all (if not all) articles. Tuf-Kat 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Why not link to a gallery of free images on Commons? — Matt Crypto 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Q

message: The changes introduce serious category problems: for example, the style manual is highly relevant to the technique of great writing, and having neutrality and accuracy in very separate categories from the other two is awkward.
If you don't have your preferences set to number the subsections (which I don't, because I usually find the numbers redundant/intrusive), the highest level of classification is invisible. This is a problem if you're reviewing FACs and FARCs and want to cite an individual criterion.
There's a problem, in any case, in that we go from a to e, then start again from a.
It looks more complex on the page than the previous version.
What was wrong with the previous version, anyway?
Tony 05:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing was wrong with it, it was simpler and cleaner. I regard the new version as an experiment, and have reverted it. Sorry, Kaisershatner, yes, me again... please don't be offended. Bishonen | talk 07:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the reversion.  That version was much more difficult to understand. Tuf-Kat 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, I prefer the old version too. Sorry. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Raul654 15:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The old version is much, much better. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent substantial changes to the layout/formatting 

message: I'm not thrilled with the standard of prose in these resources; I think that they should be moved from the actual criteria below to the See also section, alongside the other articles that focus on particular aspects of the FA criteria. Sorry if I'm treading on toes, but there it is. Tony 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Great writing" and "The perfect article" 

message: Per the discussions above from March (most directly Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?#More on fictional FACs), an essay on fictional subjects on Wikipedia has now been proposed at the village pump as an addition to the Manual of Style. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The essay was written to address some of the more common problems with featured article candidacies, although if adopted, it would of course have wider implications. So far, the reaction has been very positive, but changes and tweaks are more than welcome. In particular, a Tony-style copy edit might be a good idea. — BrianSmithson 15:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it a lot. Raul654 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Where have you been Brian?, this has been sorely needed for a long time. - Taxman Talk 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in development since that discussion this past March. Luckily Ragesoss took the ball and ran with it as far as making the move from userspace essay to proposal. I'm very happy with the reception thus far, though keep an eye on the talk page, as there are some detractors. :) — BrianSmithson 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I like it too. Tuf-Kat 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing about fiction

message: Today's FA on the main page is boring. It is about an politician who spend a few years on Capitol Hill, lost his office and run so far two times again, without success. Of course the article is well researched and has all the cites needed for a FA, but there isn't a single interesting point in the article, making it a disgrace for the main page in my opinion. --h-stt !? 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; our intention is to inform, not to titillate. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but if an article is so boring that people take the time to actively complain after reading it, it may be failing to be "brilliant prose".  Jkelly 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does an encyclopedia determine what is interesting or boring?  Using the fact that a community with over a million registered members and untold numbers of anonymous visitors is able to generate a handful of people complaining about a topic is hardly a meaningful measurement criteria.  Given the size of the community and Wikipedia's visibility it is likely that every article has at least one person who is uninterested in the article's subject.  Adding such a criteria to eliminate "boring articles" based on complaints would just cause more people to complain.  A much better way to handle boring articles is to accept that you will not always get your first choice and to go on from there. --Allen3 talk 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, pretty much. The whole idea of requiring an article to be "interesting" is stupid - it's inherently subjective, and will cause endless debates to which there simply is no good solution. A bad decision is (by definition) one that leaves you with no good options, and this one fits that description perfectly. Raul654 20:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We're nine off. Are you suggesting something between WP:GA and WP:FA? The main problem is, we can't agree on a bar. An article on one subject will have to be of a higher quality than the last one promoted, see Torchic and Bulbasaur, Torchic was equal to Bulbasaur during the first FAC, but that wasn't good enough. Generally, demand has gone up; look at Wario, Bulbasaur and then Torchic. Guess which one was promoted first? And guess which is the least referenced? Exactly, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely, I find myself agreeing with everything here. Perhaps the solution is a balance. Criterion 1 should certainly come into the decision to run a FA on the front page. Although ultimately subjective, many institutions, including public broadcasters, manage to make calls on the "interest" of their material. Tony
PS WikiNews seems to determine the interest factor successfully; there's so much boring stuff that they could put on the front page. Tony 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering "interesting" as part of the FA criteria is extremely subjective, and discourages article writers from writing factual pieces, which is what Wikipedia should be worried about. Trivia is actively discouraged at FAC, and asking for an article to have "something interesting" seems like a euphemism for that. When students look at a reference work, they're not looking for trivia, they're looking for comprehensive facts, accuracy and clarity. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia is not interesting. What makes a less notable subject interesting is the context, the references to other more notable articles. -- Petri Krohn 04:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion Today's Featured Article should attract readers, not bore them to death. This particular FA is not attractive, therefore I believe it is unsuitable for main page and FA. Relevancy could be reflected in the lenth of an article, in an encyclopedia on paper this person would not get more than two lines. If cut to the relevant parts, this article would never have become featured. --h-stt !? 06:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new critiria: tell something interesting?