Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 5

message: Can I strongly suggest that a much more stringent checking of image sources start taking place. See my comment here: Talk:Iranian_peoples#Image_sources. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sources 

message: Perhaps this is just being picky, but is there any reason this couldn't be at "featured article criteria" rather than "what is a featured article"? As it stands, this article doesn't really attempt to answer the question it poses. These are just criteria, and people generally call this page "featured article criteria" anyway... just a thought. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you are coming from; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that the name is a problem at the moment:  we already have a WP:FAC, and I'm not aware of there being much confusion about the role of this page. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ALoan (as usual). Raul654 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It really isn't that important,  just a semantics thing. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this page 

message: I was told by Piotrus that according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections.  He said he saw this argument at various FAC/PRs and adopted it, as it sounds quite sound. My question is whether or not we should all follow this rule? --Loremaster 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus is right. If something is important enough to mention, it should be mentioned in proper context in the prose of the article, as opposed to a list at the end. And yes, this is probably worth mentioning in the criteria. Ditto for "trivia" sections too. Raul654 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Citation signal and "See also" line or section of the Help:Section going to be edited to inform contributors of this rule of thumb? --Loremaster 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thought I'd come in late on this as I was directed to it from the manual of style.  I'd like to register my objection to all three of the points that appear to be consensus.  I'm very strongly opposed to this way of thinking as it impairs my wikipedia user experience.  With user rather than editor hat one, it's frustrating to have to scan through an article to try and find the link that I want rather than just being able to scroll to the bottom to find the link.  If I'm trying to find something out then chances are that I'm not exactly sure of the correct title so I'm going to be finding the closest thing that I know about and working my way there.  I don't want to have to read each article on the way to get there.  MLA 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About See also 

message: i think this link contains too much useful information to remove from see also so i restored it. the date formatting issue is better addressed with edits to that page, rather than delinking here (cutting off hand to spite foot etc etc). cheers. Zzzzz 14:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I see no reason that it should have been removed, in particular without discussion here first. Tony 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who originally removed the link did in fact change AndyZ's page to reflect the MoSDATE guideline, and the change seems to be fine with Andy (it has stuck for three days).  Another editor, presumably unaware of this change, removed the link a second time.  I have reverted, since I assume this was a misunderstanding.  If not, I will not revert again, but to anyone who wishes to remove the link again, please explain on this talk page. --RobthTalk 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:AndyZ/Suggestions]]

message: hi, i suggest you try 3 things: (1) stop spreading the angry "flame war" you are having across multiple pages - please keep it focused in ONE PLACE if you must have it at all. it makes the shouting and screaming difficult to follow otherwise. (2) follow and understand the FA process a while longer before trying to change the world - I understand you have just 1 FA and are basing all your opinions and judgements on the one unhappy experience. the FA regulars (including me) OTOH have had many successful and unsuccessful noms, and generally understand these issues a little better thru experience. (3) stop being so hypersensitive about criticism - its what editing wikipedia is about! ;-) cheers. Zzzzz 12:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean about me "having" just one FA, and I'm not basing my opinions on one incident. I've been watching FAs for close to two years. And this is not a flame war. I posted on this page about the link on the project page. Where else do you suggest I post such a query? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop being so aggressive. You obviously haven't been following this. I am not the only person involved, and certainly not the one who started what you're calling a "flame war." I have three successful FAs, and two failed, though I can't see what difference that makes. Finally, I didn't say I was an FA regular; I said I've been watching them for close to two years. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Raul, I would like to add that the links represent personal views. Tony's views on writing are not shared by everyone, and the only alternative to adding that it's his personal view is for others to write up theirs, which would involve a lot of work. We don't allow users to post their personal views on adminship on the main RfA page, or to post to the RfAr page their personal views on how the Arbitration Committee should work. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if you are of that opinion, why did you include a prominent link to it at the bottom of your draft guidelines??? Tony 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by a "prominent" link; it's no more prominent than anything else. And I added that it is a personal view. That's all that has to happen here: that it be made clear that it's your opinion. I'm curious as to why you're resisting that. Do you want people for some reason to believe that your view of good writing is shared by everyone? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're putting words into my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. I'm too busy with more important things to get into a frenzy about something so trivial. Tony 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kinds of "important things", Tony? Writing Featured Articles? If so, which ones? Jayjg (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, is this necessary? --Spangineeres (háblame) 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreso than this, I would imagine. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that supposed to mean? I asked the question in good faith, expecting an honest response. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll continue this on your Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion

message: I know this will immediately seem redundant to most of you, but I thought I'd just throw it out there anyway. I know it wouldn't solve all the concerns about this particular section of the criteria, but what if article 2a was stated something like"  "(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant, and has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free of typos and errors in spelling and grammar.  ?
I realize this should be implied without stating directly, but through observation of the FAC process, I've noticed that a lot of people are quite touchy about objections of this kind. Obviously, this would not change the fact that objectors are encouraged to fix small problems where they can, nor would it need to apply to points of style which are equally accepted in Wikipedia, such as UK vs. US spelling. But as a small concession to potential civility concerns, I think it might be appropriate to emphasize in advance -- even if it should be obvious -- the fact that's it's completely fair to object over lack of proofreading, which may be a completely separate issue from the quality of the article's prose otherwise. Maybe?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your proposal, Lee. One problem it may raise it that explicitly citing one of the main means for achieving "compelling, even brilliant" prose (i.e., proofreading) may detract from the larger, simpler statement (of those three words in quotes here). Yes, I think it is redundant here, but might be useful somewhere else. Tony 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Lee, that it would be helpful to add that. Nominated articles do sometimes arrive with obvious spelling and punctuation errors, and if people are asked to concentrate on fixing those, they'll probably spot other errors too, so it's all to the good. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is definitely in the spirit of my previous suggestion, and I think it's a good improvement upon it. There's still a bit of redundancy, but as a separate item proofreading concerns would distract less from the statement about "compelling, even brilliant" prose.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could alter clause 2 to "It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, well edited and stable" and then make a new 2e (moving the old to 2f) "(e) "Well edited" means that it has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free from typos and errors in spelling and grammar, well copy-edited, and polished to a sparkling sheen."  I think it is important that we seperate the notion of being well edited from the notion of being well written.  I have articles that I believe are well written in the sense required here, but they are not yet well edited (or if they are I can't tell because I'm too close and I'm not a good editor).  If they were nominated for FA and then attacked for poor writing I would be pissed off, and less likely to contribute valuable writing to WP in the future (especially when I could be spending the time doing OR instead).  But if they were attacked as not yet well-edited, I would be greatful for the help in improving them.  I think this dynamic is at work in other places to.  I don't want to dwell on last week, but think about next week; and my best guess for how to prevent bad scenes from reoccuring is to seperate the requirements for being well-written and well-edited so that the expectations are clear, and you can cite the expectations in a way that isn't counter-productive.  WP needs to value both writers and editors, both people who contribute material for free, and people who polish material for free. Bmorton3 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought about 2a 

message: Does anyone know why this was removed? There's a note at the top of the page from Zzzz that people should only submit one at a time. Did that become a hard and fast rule? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are second nominations normally removed as "failed" after people have started to review them? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Padmé Amidala]]

message: Now I have not been following these things closely (I've been at Wikimania and I have all kinds of great things to talk about when I get back - please ask!). As a precept, I'm not enthusiastic about yet-another-featured-article related page (we have too many already). I skimmed over Wikipedia:How to review a featured article candidate (as it exists at this moment) and I didn't see anything particularly objectionable. Raul654 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Raul

message: It's things like this that sidetrack Wikipedia from its true goal of building an encyclopedia. Let's drop this, or, at the very least, achieve strategic distance from the debate :) — Deckiller 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good advice: I've just trashed my reply to SV in the hope that we might all take a breather for a few days and return in a conciliatory frame. Tony 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to repeat a note I've just inserted on the talk page for the FA Criteria: I'm withdrawing from discussions here until things settle down. I wish everyone good-will—that's the essence of WP. Tony 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop

message: I have noticed that for articles to pass FAC, they must have many footnotes. However, the Citing sources policy strongly advice not to use them. Could someone clarify me which reference scheme should I adopt to get my (well the one I worked on) article to FA quality? Thank you. CG 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE says you can use footnotes, Harvard referencing, or embedded links. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SV is correct - any inline citation style is acceptable, but the article should be consistent. Raul654 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it seems that footnotes are by far the most used ref style. right? CG 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By footnotes, I assume you mean Rob Church's Cite.php citation style - yes, that's the most common one, because it's easiest to use. Raul654 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has gained popularity very rapidly since it became available. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Raul, you mean Ævar's... Harvard referencing would catch on more if it were easier to implement, and not require esoteric hacks known by a select few. Titoxd(?!?) 05:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of us will forever use parenthetical reference.  The formatting of a parenthetical reference will never get broken by software changes, and it's immediately gratifying.  Geogre 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About referencing and footnotes 

message: Sorry if this has been brought up before; if it has, I've missed it. The mention of Bishonen's Law reminded me of a small question I've had regarding the FAC-instructions text for a long time: why "Nominators are expected to make a good faith effort to address objections" instead of simply "Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections"? What else could "make an effort" possibly mean? And why is linking to WP:AGF useful there? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. :-) Tony 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. Ryu Kaze 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good faith" effort