Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive3

message: Bullets (current version):
# Bullets. Indentation hurts the eyes after a while. →Raul654 21:54, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
#fabiform | talk 22:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick poll 

message: Why are the recently removed, and the proposals for removal lumped together? Thats not good. Sam Spade 06:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Recent removals and proposals for removal|Recent removals and proposals for removal]] 

message: There is a section in the article entitled "Redrwan nominations". This word is so bolloxed I don't even know what to correct it to! -- Jmabel 08:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the content currently within the section, I renamed it to "Withdrawn nominations". Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. ;) -- Hadal 08:39, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example of my featured english. I will not apologize because i know this will make people laugh... :) Muriel 23:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redrwan nominations" 

message: I'm mildly disturbed by the number of people that vote to "support" an article based on it being "well-written".  I hope that people here check the content as well as the style (e.g. spot-check a few dates and other "facts").
A proxy for fact-checking is the quality of the sources the article cites—we should demand that featured articles cite authoritative sources, and come down harder on the ubiquitous "some people say" that litters so many Wikipedia articles.  Just my $0.02.  Steven G. Johnson 03:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallelujah! Sam Spade 03:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There is a issue that if someone is knowledgeable enough about a subject to judge the facts, chances are they will have already contributed to the article and therefore shouldn't get involved in nominations and seconding. A decent set of citations appropiate to the article type is a way round this issue. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please judge ''facts'', not just prose, and demand citations

message: The procedure for addition and procedure for removeal do not specify what to do if a article is not objected to or seconded for a week.  Jrincayc 02:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do if not seconded within a week? 

message: This listing is far too long. There's nominations here dating *way* back. I think someone needs to take the initiative to start strictly enforcing timeliness. If it has no objections after a week, it's in. If it is still here after 2 weeks, it's bounced. Very simple. →Raul654 07:06, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
:What about those that had objections that were subsequently withdrawn? How long after the withdrawl of the last objection does it take to get it into FA? ⇒ whkoh [talk] 07:15, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
::Say all objections are withdrawn and no new ones are raised within a day or two, then promote it (assuming it has been there the full week; otherwise, just leave it there until the week is up). →Raul654 07:23, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
:Also the number of users is increasing (exponentially?), so the unilateral veto of single users on featured articles needs to be weakened to prevent a complete freeze. In fact the number of recommended articles should be going up as the total number of new articles increases. Some of the objections I've seen seem rather perfectionist. Perhaps people are working at cross purposes. It's not difficult for an expert to identify simplification and omissions in the even best reference books, but these are not usually errors but an attempt to make the material more accessible. In particular, the Soap bubble article was a very fine article in my view, and it seems to me a little harsh to expect it to provide a full account of the Quantum electrodynamics of thin films too. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but in my view too many objections run the risk of producing stagnation. Maybe a compromise would be an intermediate category, so we have "highly recommended" and "recommended". Another alternative (this is a better idea in fact) would be to have "recommended introductory" and "recommended advanced" articles. I recently contributed to a printed encyclopedia, and this was they divided articles along these lines - with the additional policy that introductory articles should not cite original sources, while advanced ones should. So for instance I would agree that Soap bubble should not be recommended as an advanced article, and presumably Banach-Tarski paradox should not be recommended as an introductory article. Just my twopennethworth. Washington Irving | Talk 08:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs help!

message: The last batch of removals seem to have gone without being archived or listed under recent removals. According to the procedure outlined on the FAC page reasons should be given for removal. BTW would anyone care to comment on my suggestion about introductory v advanced featured articles above? Should I move this to the village pump? Washington Irving | Talk 10:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great idea. Please do. Securiger 02:56, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Removals

message: Notices shouldn't go into the articles, but into the talk pages, as they make the articles look ugly. This was discussed for the featured article notice, and a featured candidate notice is even worse. There is no reason for the readers to have to deal with what goes on behind the scenes unless they want to. Dori | Talk 17:25, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree. They should go on the talk page, but there is no need for them to go on the articles. Angela.
Please stop putting those notices on the articles, unless there has been a discussion, and probably a vote to do so. The only notices that should be on the articles, have to do with improving the articles, and this notice serves no such purpose. Dori | Talk 13:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
:Apologies for messing that up in assassin.  I know for next time. :) Wally 21:54, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feel bullied by Dori, there is a large group that feels the readers of an article, who are unlikely to go to the talk page, should be informed that the page is being listed for featured status, and thus the nomination notice belongs on the article page.  It's always been optional for the nominating editor to choose if the nomination text is used, and where. Gentgeen 23:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notices

message: Seriously. We have ~3 pages of text telling people what to do. So does anyone actually read it? - No. Just so no one is surprised, I am going to be cutting it down sooner or later. →Raul654 22:02, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I read it, and when I did, it said something about
:*adding msg:fac to articles that are nominated (in contrast to advice above),
::After nominating an article, you may want to place a notice on it to alert readers:
::CODE: 
:and secondly
:*about archiving deleted items, archiving discussion and giving reasons under recent removals a heading which has now been removed (see above items).
:I agree that the msg:fac messages get in the way of the main article text and should be kept to the talk page. On the second point however, I think that following the procedure for removing articles would be helpful so that articles can be renominated when the issues raised are addressed. I appreciate that this means more work for those who take it upon themseleves to maintain this page, though (BTW, thanks for your efforts on this, Raul). Either way the intro should be changed to reflect the procedures that are actually followed (e.g., there is no recent removals section now, but the link is still there). I also agree the intro is too long and should be tidied up.
::And what about my suggestion regarding advanced and introductory articles? :) Washington Irving | Talk 10:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This intro sucks

message: I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, so perhaps I'm missing some important elucidating point.  If so, please call it to my attention.
The process on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates seems to me badly broken.  Consider:
#The philosophy of featured articles, as I understand it, is that "any article, given enough effort, could be made a featured article."
#There are some intractable objections about some articles that cannot be solved with any amount of effort.  For instance, some say Ian McKellen must use "Sir Ian" to refer to the subject, and any other use would be objectionable; some say it must use "McKellen" to refer to the subject, and any other use would be objectionable.  Or, for instance, the interminable debate over Gay bathhouse, where some say the article must discuss how objectionable homosexuality is to social conservatives, and others say it must not.
#Intractable objections disqualify an article from featured status.
These points are incompatible.  If no amount of effort can resolve these objections, and yet the objections will disqualify the article from being a featured article, then the statement in #1 is false.  Perhaps #1 isn't a philosophy, but merely wishful thinking?
--TreyHarris 03:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fundamentally, it's a democracy (technically, a consensus/supermajority democracy).  There is no-one to rule someone else's objections invalid, no matter how silly they may be.  Other wikis, like H2G2, use complicated heirarchies of editors and reviewers, an idea wikipedia fundamentally eschews.  Sometimes it's a subobtimal system, but most times it's less suboptimal than any other. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 04:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't going to comment, but since Finlay said it, I feel obliged to reply: "There is no-one to rule someone else's objections invalid" - Yes, I have done this on occasion. Consensus does not mean unanimity. If people want to lodge...erm, "silly" complaints then I reserve the right to disregard them. →Raul654 04:09, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
This isn't really an answer.  While I trust Raul654 to guage and reject "silly" objections, I'm asking a question about objections that are not silly, but are intractable.  If the process is in fact consensus, then it should work like polls, and an 80% support should carry, but that's not how it's written--it's written as without objections vs. "with unresolved objections."--TreyHarris 10:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FAC process seems broken