Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 2

message: I'd like to open up a discussion about new criteria for introductions to longer articles. Let me quote what Bantman and Fawcett5 had to say about this: 
I strongly feel that certain articles dealing with complex events and individuals will sometimes and appropriately be relatively large. This is OK, PROVIDED that there is an appropriate lead section. Long articles require lead sections that let the non-motivated reader get what they want and get out.  So the focus should be on demanding really well-done lead sections in articles that are longer.
I agree regarding the importance of a strong lead section.  Indeed, the common three-paragraph limitation on lead sections is a problematic restriction on long articles . . . . [T]he lead section should be brief . . . but comprehensive enough to A) properly introduce the article; B) provide a quick summary of the article to those with really short attention spans; and C) allow a reader with a narrow topic of interest to get a good overview, and then use the TOC to find the section he wants to read. 
These seem to me good suggestions. Hydriotaphia 01:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Anything more than 3 paragraphs and lead sections no longer really serve as concise encyclopedia articles (I have a copy of EB concise and all those articles are the same size or smaller than our current recommended lead section size).  Having leads that are too long also pushes the TOCs too far down the page. And just as leads can quickly summarize a topic in way that is comprehensive for their length, a survey article can do the same at a mid-level of detail. A mid-level of detail is the type of thing you'd expect to find in encyclopedias such as Encarta or World Book, while you'd expect the full Encyclopedia Britannica to have articles that could be huge (I've seen some with 500 sections). Different people are looking for different levels of detail (EB, EB Concise and the other two mentioned encyclopedias serve different audiences - we need to serve each of those same audiences and not just focus on one or the other). With summary style this diverse readership is served. 
:So the answer is not to make leads longer, it is to make long articles more compact and have them cover just the more important information. Articles on sub-topics that are prominently linked from just below section titles in the survey article is where that sub-topic can be explored in more detail (that sub-topic itself could then eventually be divided in the same fashion). This gives readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need.  --mav 02:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I was not advocating that lead sections should generally become longer than the current 3 paragraph guideline for a long article.. I think that is usually enough. I just think that for a long article we should demand that the leads be better.  I like the idea of having a concise EB style article for the lead. But many longer articles just don't have sufficiently developed lead sections, or they don't use their three paragraphs wisely. I'd also like to further clarify my earlier point about summary style. When writing a biography for instance, an individual may typically play a role in a larger-scale event, and that event usually merits a subarticle...but the role of the biography is to describe those same events through the lens of that individual.  To advocate having THREE articles in order to slavishly stick with summary style seems to me perverse (i.e. Biography of person, role of person in event X, and Event X).  In other cases, as with The Cantos, it just made sense to put everything in one article, and the TOC does its job nicely.  Give the reviewers credit for their sophistication....they are quite able to discriminate on a case-by-case basis. Fawcett5 04:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductions

message: I think it may be time for a consensus to be built. Those who are just joining this discussion should see the section above entitled "Size." Here, then, is new language about size that I would like to propose should be added to What is a featured article.
:*Featured articles should be concise. Articles that survey a major topic should be comprehensive but not exhaustive.
:*A featured article should be tightly written, that is, not longer than it needs to be to properly discuss its topic in the appropriate amount of detail.
:*If a summary article is felt to be appropriate in dealing with a major topic, it should synthesize the information contained in detailed sub-articles into a cohesive overview of the subject.
Hydriotaphia 02:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Support this proposal.  Obviously. - Bryan is Bantman 16:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Support Fawcett5 19:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is going to vary way too much from article to article to be useful. But Wikipedia:Summary style does exist. With some modification that page could be linked to. --mav 16:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That works. TomStar81 21:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for size