Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 6

message: __TOC__
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Didn't it used to be the case that articles that a FA linked to were supposed to be of some reasonable quality? Obviously not all links need to be checked, but the very first link from today's FA, Preemption (computing), has three big, ugly tags at the top, which just make it look messy. Can't things like this be sorted out before five thousand people click on the article (as they do for anything reachable from the front page)? — Asbestos | Talk  (RFC) 01:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Didn't it used to be the case that articles that a FA linked to were supposed to be of some reasonable quality?" - No, this has never been the case, either for featured articles as a whole or the ones that go on the main page. Raul654 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of pages being linked to 

message: Over at WP:WPBIO we were thinking of writing up guidelines on how to present filmographies for articles on people that would have this kind of info. What is the consensus here on best practices for that? Should they be in a table or in prose form, if in table, from earliest to latest?, etc. What do people here look for on a filmography when reviewing articles on actors, etc.? I'd like to have a guideline that will help the editor be able to have at least that part conform to FA criteria... Thanks! --plange 01:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmographies 

message: Something has to be done about guideline #3; I have read it and re-read it and I find it to be ambiguous. The criterion as now written reads:
:It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
Now, it is clear that the need for images is different depending on the subject. For example, Psychosis is not an easy subject to illustrate with images, and so the fact that the article does not include them should obviously not be a reason to remove its FA status (or to oppose its re-nomination should its status be revoked for other reasons). On the other hand, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a subject that does warrant illustration by images, as the article would not be able to present the topic completely without them. As I see it, then, there are two contradictory ways that criterion #3 can be interpreted:
#No featured article, no matter what the subject, requires images in the article. If this is the case, the criterion should be reworded to say "Any images in the article must be used appropriately, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
#The article must have images if including them is appropriate, but if they are not appropriate, it does not require them. This means deciding on a case-by-case basis whether images are needed to illustrate the subject. If this is the correct interpretation, the criterios should be reworded to "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." Andrew Levine 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree, then there can be discussion about whether images are appropriate for the topic instead of an innacurate inference that articles don't need images, which the current wording could make it seem. - Taxman Talk 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity in guideline 3 (images) 

message: I was reading up on the German Wikipedia article tagging system (aka 'stable versions', see info here) and noticed that they are talking about having a 'non-vandalized' tag and a 'higher tier tag' in which, unless I'm just translating it wrong, all of the references have been verified. It occurs to me that this latter is a significant difference between Wikipedia (English anyway) and traditional encyclopedias like Brittanica. Our 'featured articles' are generally considered 'good enough for publication', but our standard is that there are references listed which a reader could verify... as opposed to references listed which we have verified. Is this something we should consider transitioning to as a requirement for featured articles? If/when this tagging system is implemented here are we going to have 'featured articles' which don't qualify for any 'closely examined versions' (my translation of 'geprüfte versionen') because the references have never actually been checked by some 'qualified reviewer'? That'd probably be almost all of them currently... as there isn't even currently a way to specify that such a review has been done. As envisioned/described on the German Wikipedia this 'closely examined' status could be applied to a stub with poor grammar so long as all the information in the article were verified against the listed references... so 'featured' and 'closely examined' could be entirely separate statuses, but I'd think we would want our 'featured' articles to conform to the highest standards in every regard. It might even make sense to have a 'featured version' tag like those above which indicated a version that conformed to all standards. --CBD 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that would be the next level, actually verified citations, and really the only thing left that I can think of to raise the FA criteria. There is a project called m:Wikicite with essentially working code as I understand it to help facilitate that process. As far as I can tell, the only reason it's not getting instituted is not enough awareness. While the benefits of verified citations are clear for information quality purposes, I'm not sure it makes sense to put that in the criteria now. We only have just over 1000 articles out of 1.4 million that meet the FA criteria now, I'm not sure there would be an immediate benefit to instituting a criteria that only a handful could meet in a short period of time. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we probably aren't ready for this now, but the featured article requirements have continually become stricter over time (causing some articles to lose their status without actually having 'deteriorated' at all) and I think it makes sense to allow that to continue 'naturally'. As you note in the next section, we have standards now that some of the featured articles don't meet and have had such for a long time. For a long time just having a general references section was considered enough, but in the past year or so it has transitioned to requiring dozens of specific references... eventually that may reach the point of needing a specific reference for every fact stated. You're saying that we need to be stricter about making sure those references are reliable. Yet none of that transition was due to change in the standards themselves... it was in their all along, but not as strictly enforced/interpreted. Thus, I'd be inclined to add 'references have been verified' to the standards if (when according to Jimbo) the article tagging system goes live (or 'Wikicite' takes off)... with the understanding that it would be a 'suggestion' at first which we will become more strict about as time goes by. --CBD 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Verifiability' vs 'Verified' 

message: I started a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that people may be interested in. Please keep discussion in one place, this is only for notification, as the discussion involves how the criteria are applied. - Taxman Talk 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WT:FAC#Articles with no reliable sources]]

message: What does "substantial" mean in "a substantial...table of contents"? Hyacinth 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a subjective thing, but I'd say substantive means having at least 4 sections. Raul654 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: I've put forward a proposal for a new content policy, currently called Wikipedia:Attribution, with a view to merging and replacing Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Another aim is to get rid of Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a guideline, and reduce it to a page of advice about how to find good sources called Wikipedia:How to find reliable sources. Similarly, WP:CITE would become Wikipedia:How to cite sources, a page about how to format citations with no extraneous advice.
The reason for the proposal is that some good editors were finding V and NOR confusing, too restrictive in some areas, and bloated; and RS had become a bit of a mess. As V and NOR are closely linked, it makes sense to have them on one page.
The primary aim of the proposal is to produce a well-written, streamlined policy that picks up the most important points of V and NOR but ditches anything we don't need. The second aim is to try to find a way to accommodate editors who work on popular culture articles, where good secondary sources are hard to find. These editors complain that NOR and V are too restrictive (with their insistence on reliable, secondary sources; not using Usenet and bulletin boards; not allowing much self-published material etc). It would be good to find a way to accommodate the sourcing concerns of those editors without opening the floodgates to poorly sourced material. It's going to be tricky to balance those two needs, and it will depend on some clear and tight writing.
It would be great if the FA reviewers could get involved in helping to draft the proposal. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Please check this out and comment. Particularly the pop culture clause, since this is a big change to existing policy and needs to be made the best it can be (or killed if necessary). — BrianSmithson 09:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]

message: How many and how wide a variety of sources are required by "factually accurate"? Hyacinth 05:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However many it takes to convince reviewers that the article is comprehensive, neutral, and factually accurate:  depends on the quality of the sources used.  Sandy 13:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the topic of the article! ;-)  (As a general rule, the more controversial a topic, the greater the variety of sources needed to convince reviewers of neutrality and comprehensiveness.) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not much more specific than the project page. Is one reference ever enough? Is one high quality source equal to two poor quality sources? If sources indicate a topic is controversial, that means that even more sources are needed? Hyacinth 07:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SENSE. "Is one reference ever enough?" Yes, sometimes. "Is one high quality source equal to two poor quality sources?" Avoid poor quality sources. "If sources indicate a topic is controversial, that means that even more sources are needed?". Unquestionably. Marskell 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the additional sources also indicate the topic is controversial, are even more sources needed?
How does one determine how controversial a topic is in the first place? How could one source be enough? (if it described other sources?) Hyacinth 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See Zeno's paradox and reductio ad absurdum. C'mon! Marskell 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually accurate

message: Has there been discussion about how to handle older FA's that don't have in-line citations? I don't see this documented anywhere or previous discussion. -- Stbalbach 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many times - including twice in this very talk page's archives (Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article%3F/Archive_1#References, Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article%3F/Archive_3#Inline_citations) The answer is that yes, we hold older featured articles up to the same standards as new featured articles. Raul654 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it the current consensus was made de-facto to hold older articles to the new standard, the above links are some general commentaries. There are some very good older FA's created before in-line citation were available (a problematic template system optional). Currently it sounds like articles have 1-month to shape up or ship out. Many of these articles were written by people who are no longer around, and getting the sources to re-write it, or the attention of editors to re-work it, is problematic. Yet, they are good articles. They have Reference sections (the old gold standard) which is the same as published Encyclopedia's - the level of footnoting now required far exceeds all but the most rigorous academic standards. The victims are some excellent articles that get de-featured and no longer receive the readership attention they should. -- Stbalbach 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they aren't necessarily problematic.  Many articles (particularly those that don't have extensive other problems) have been salvaged at WP:FAR, which is the main goal of many editors working there.  In fact, several articles written by the editor you are concerned about (no longer on Wiki) have been referenced by other editors during FAR, and have had their featured status maintained.  That's the idea:  you're welcome to dig in and help us preserve the status of FAs.  I have a lot of respect for the editors who are saving old stars, rather than promoting new ones without fixing their old ones.  Sandy (Talk) 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones? Basically what I'm seeing is User:Lord Emsworth's articles being de-featured mainly on the basis of no in-line footnotes. I looked back through the record and did not see any that were fixed, as you say. Some of them had other problems, which is fine. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to look closer.  This discussion is going in circles:  I'll step out now.  Sandy (Talk) 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add to this discussion that FAR/C appears to be doing a good job of revamping old FAs. Often, other problems are picked up and worked on in addition to the citations issue. We do go to some trouble to alert projects and contributors to the process, in the hope that they'll display the loyalty that many of these FAs deserve. Tony 07:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Tony and Sandy. FARC is the best existing way to revamp old FAs.--Yannismarou 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older FA's 

message: I had operated under the assumption that FA's required inline citations, including nominating FA's for FAR and objecting to FAC's on that basis. However, at the bottom of WP:CITE, I recently noticed this:
"The arbiters of the criteria for being a "Good Article" have declared the use of inline citations mandatory, and articles relying on other forms of citation are being delisted as Good Articles. The status of "Featured Article", on the other hand, carries no such requirements on the form of citations." Should that be updated? I would also like to see the inline citation requirement stated more clearly in WIAFA, which would involve the rewording of "and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations". Thoughts? Gzkn 09:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated how?  As a practical matter, FAC and FAR reviewers all agree that inline citations are required, where they are appropriate, but without specifying the form of the citations (most use footnote in the <ref> style, but many perfer Harvard citations).  Are you proposing that featured articles must have inline citations in a particular format?  Which one?  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh crap. I should learn to read closer :) Somehow, I glossed over "the form of". Sorry! And nope, I'm not proposing that the inline citations should be in a particular format. Although reading WP:CITE over again, it's still a little unclear to me. "The arbiters of the criteria for being a "Good Article" have declared the use of inline citations mandatory, and articles relying on other forms of citation are being delisted as Good Articles." Does that mean either footnotes or Harvard is OK? If so, how is that different from FA rules, as suggested in the next sentence? Gzkn 11:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Harvard is acceptable, as it is inline. It's in the text (Smith, 78). As for the sentence you're citing on WP:CITE, I have just removed the second clause relating to FA. No idea what was trying to be said there. Marskell 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah much better, thanks! Gzkn 12:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A contradiction 

message: Just stumbled upon User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA - worth adding? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too bad.  Could use some cleaning up though (seems to ramble in places, and a copyedit would be helpful). --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs serious copy-editing; then I'll be pleased to cross-reference from mine. Tony 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User advice

message: I recently did an informal FA review of Charles Darwin (here) and I noticed that the article mixes the Harvard and Chicago (i.e. footnote) styles of referencing. As we all know, 1c requires compliance with WP:CITE, which in turn requires the consistent use of either (1) Harvard, (2) footnotes or (3) embedded links. Consequently, mixing these reference styles would be a violation of 1c and therefore a (good) reason to object to a FAC and a decent reason to suggest improvement of a current FA (WP:FAR in more egregious cases). 
The odd thing about Charles Darwin is that it uses footnotes a lá Chicago, but then formats the actual footnote text as Harvard links to a reference section. (Apparently, this style of referencing was copied from the universally-loved FA Saffron). I just want to clarify whether this style is allowed or not by 1c and CITE - whilst there is an example of how to do this on the talk archive of WP:HARV (here) and although the "Template" section of HARV seems to suggest it is allowed (though it is very unclear), Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples doesn't include it and, personally, I think this mixing goes against citation best practice. I think articles should be referenced using either proper Harvard or proper Chicago, not some odd mixture. What I suspect was the original intention of this kind of mixing can be found here. Mikker (...) 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's almost proper Chicago; the correct form would merely change the date to a short-form title (or omit it entirely, if following the 14th ed. rules).  Personally, given the wide variety of reference formatting in Wikipedia articles—we're not exactly imposing a full house style—I think such a minor deviation needn't be a cause for concern. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I'm not so sure there's a minor difference here - the ref style in Saffron seems very far from proper Chicago (like here) or proper Harvard (like this). Perhaps that's subjective opinion, I don't know. Mikker (...) 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Dawkins uses full-form Chicago notes, which are typically used in cases where there isn't a separate bibliographical listing of works cited.  When there is a separate listing, short-form Chicago notes (e.g. here) can be used instead (see 15th ed., §16.41); they're quite similar to the form used in Saffron (with some minor changes in puncutation, and the change from title to year). Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, looking more closely: Richard Dawkins isn't traditional Chicago footnote style at all, but author-date style (and should thus be using parenthetical citations)! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe Dawkins is a bad example then (but the only thing wrong with it - except for the occasionally incorrectly formatted ref - is the location of the dates.) Chicago reguires, inline "bla bla bla<1>" and then in footnotes "Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, Oxford: OUP, 1973, p12." Harvard requires inline "bla bla bla (Rawls, 1973: 12)" and then in a bibliography "Rawls, J. (1973) A Theory of Justice (Oxford: OUP)". (That at least, is how I was taught...). Now Saffron does inline "bla bla bla<1>" then in the footnotes "Rawls, 1973: 12" THEN in the bibliography "Rawls, J. (1973) A Theory of Justice (Oxford: OUP)". To be proper Harvard or Chicago, either the inline refs should be changed to the Harvard style, or the footnotes ought to be changed to Chicago style. They shouldn't be mixed. Again, maybe this is a aesthetic judgement on my part or something - but I just find the ref style of articles like Saffron terribly confusing. Mikker (...) 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, that's the full-form Chicago.  The short-form Chicago would have, in the article, "bla bla bla<1>", in the footnotes, "Rawls, Theory of Justice, 12", and then in the bibliography, "Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: OUP, 1973."  That's not all that different from what Saffron does. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This method's not really Harvard referencing but an opportunistic use of the Harvard formatting to allow readers to jump from the notes to the cited book in the list below. It would only mix the two styles if things like (Jones 1889:71) appeared in the text, jostling among the inline cite tags. I've seen this convenience use at Finnish Civil War and when I did some copyediting there found it very helpful. There's certainly some convenience in being able to find a particular book with one click on a long booklist, particularly as for some multi-edited volumes or multi-authored anthologies etc. the author's surname is not always the clue it should be on an alphabetical list. This technique is probably a glimpse of the future, to a day when we'll be able to skate about all over (and under) articles by clicking. The only disadvantage I see at the moment is more difficulty for occasional editors, given the sleight-of-pedia required. qp10qp 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, there are a whole lot of articles out there with the "mixed" style. Personally, I think it is an excellent format. It combines the best features of both. The actual text is plenty readable, since all footnote-type data is moved out of the way. The footnotes are VERY easy to read, since there is no mindless repetition of masses of identification info where there are numerous cites from the same source. The bibliography contains exactly what it needs, no more and no less. Wikipedia is definitely not bound by conventions worked out for hardcopy media; we should take full advantage of our hyperlinks (or whatever you want to call them) and develop a reasonable style guide all our own, which will serve as the model for other on-line publications. Although citations are really a minor thing in the grand scheme, I think this should be a policy, not a guideline, so that we have consistency. It's better to have one policy that two guidelines. If it's up for vote, I say we should use Wikipedia citation format. Cbdorsett 19:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent references - mixing Harvard and Chicago 

message: I seem to remember that a similar proposal was howled down a while ago. I can live with the current name, but I do think that the proposal has merit. Tony 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed name clearly describes the content of the page. But so does the current name. The move seems like useless paper shuffling. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same move was rejected for (amongst other reasons) creating an handy initialization for this page of "FAC" - sound familiar? I see no need to move it from one accurate title to another. Yomanganitalk 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noted this discussion on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture#Requested move; but further comments may be more useful there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed name change 

message: If they are a toolkit, multiple forms of citation may be expected in a single article, as they are at Pericles; different tools serve different purposes. Pericles makes a systematic distinction between <ref> and ; other articles are less systematic, but still have clear reasons to use different forms of citation at different points. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Pericles has only one form of citation.  (It does have two forms of footnotes, but that's not the same thing; only one of those is used for source citations.) Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not how I would phrase the distinction; there are (or were) citations in the extended footnotes too. But even if this is not the best example, there remain examples where different forms of citation are rightly used in the same article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The important thing is to ensure that the necessary citation data is provided in whatever format. Some formats lend themselves to this better than others; in-text external links are particularly problematic since it is difficult to attach the desired information (author, etc.). In general, I think any reasonable (not necessarily 100% consistent) style should be alright. For instance, an article that mostly cites books but has a few online references may want to use author-date for the book references and footnotes for the few others. I wouldn't see a problem with this. Regarding <ref> and  in particular, their auto-numbering features don't work together, so unless you are using one for discursive footnotes and the other for short citations, they probably ought not to be mixed. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another example of mixed referencing is at recursion theory. The print references are cited parenthetically, but references to online sources go in footnotes.  This is the style I am used to using for journals, and I find it uncomfortable see links to websites called "references".  I assume that Pmanderson is concerned about whether these mixed schemes can get through FA review. (N.B. recursion theory is NOT an FA candidate, so I don't need a full description of its flaws.).  CMummert · talk 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As long as all data is available, citations can be extremely diversified. Just look at Hippocrates. I have serious issues with it, but it provides a good example of the varieties of ways people have adaptated our systems. personally, I prefer seeing  mostly when more than one "notes" section is desired.Circeus 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are citations a toolkit, or a shibboleth?

message: As you all know, at WP:FAC articles have generally been expected to have a fair number of images, and a lead image illustrating the subject has been considered essential.  Given Kat Walsh's directive in this e-mail, I wonder if it might be time to rethink that expectation, and to change criterion 3 to reflect the problems inherent in over-reliance on fair use images.  I do not think this is an easy question to answer but I propose to begin a conversation based on Kat's e-mail.  Chick Bowen 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, a close read doesn't really appear to be changing anything in this area.  We still require (probably overly) strict fair use rationales, and the e-mail isn't abandoning fair use, so yeah.  The actual Foundation statement may say differently, though... --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say that at least 90% of the images that are tagged as "fair use" are going to end up being deleted per our new Foundation-level guidelines.  For instance, every single screencap of a television show, of which we have tens of thousands, is unnecessary.  --Cyde Weys 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not.  That seems excessive and beyond the scope of even what's being said.  Unless we're trying to create a shitstorm, of course. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good - it's about time!  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty shocked to see some FAC articles with multiple FU images without meeting FU criteria, some without rationales. Carnidilo used to object to every such article, and I do when I spot them, but all reviewers should be checking this. --Peta 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would if I could - it's still Greek to me.  And no one else is doing it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things to look for that come up frequently in FACs; first does use of the image meet the criteria. Specifically, does the image page contain accurate source information and have a fair use rationale (FUC 10)? And does the material contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) (FUC 8)? --Peta 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And is it replaceable? (Just what "replaceable" means is subject to debate, but is tending to be more strictly interpreted by WP nowadays than is provided by the common law). Tony 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was on a related crusade awhile back to try to find at least one free image for every FA, and found a lot of stuff that was overlooked in the FAC process (probably because the issue wasn't addressed).--Pharos 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I really wish someone would take up the crusade.  I really can't add another area (particularly one I'm not familiar with) to the list of things I review. I'm equally alarmed at the number of articles that get through that don't conform with basic WP:MOS guidelines and other such fundamentals.  I recall a time when Peta or Jkelly used to check all FACs for Fair Use on images - I do wish someone would take up that task.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My image reviewing tapered off when I noticed that I was getting somewhat grumpy about it -- it seemed like every article I looked at had some kind of imagevio in it.  It wasn't just Wikipedia:Fair use problems, either, it was images sourced to someplace with no copyright information, images with made-up licensing claims, etc.  It's just a lot easier when someone comes to me and says "Hi, can you help me sort this out" as opposed to showing up here and, um, rain on someone's parade.  Jkelly 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: --Quuxplusone 18:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to rethink images 

message: Per some of the comment above, I've started Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey.  If you're interesting in supporting free content in featured articles, try filing a report.  Thanks.--Pharos 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image survey

message: I found that Good article and Featured article criteria is very similar. In result of this problem, the number of good and featured articles are very similar(1,959 vs. 1,310). I think we should change one of them. I think the number of good articles should be 2 or 3 times more than featured articles. Therefor Good article criteria can be facilitated.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one of the main reasons why GA (in its present incarnation, anyhow) is such a silly process. Marskell 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is; GA is a good concept, but it sometimes takes an article longer to get reviewed than it would take on FAC. — Deckiller 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't understand why should we have two similar ranking. I propose to facilitate GA article criteria. For example we can recognize an article GA if it doesn't violate WP policies and guidelines. The main criteria are NPOV, Attribution, verifiability and accordance with manual of style. We can remove these criteria:broad coverage of the issue, stability and containing image. There are too many articles which have reached to this criteria. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. However, removing "broad in its coverage" would mean that a stub could theoretically be a GA... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Except that WPians are free to (indeed, encouraged to) work all articles up to a high level; why is this separate system of GA required to motivate them, when the verification and review processes are so shonky? Tony 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's very difficult to get a relatively short article or a controversial article to FA status. — Deckiller 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Deckiller is correct. It's a good motivator—not every student can aim for an A+. I will add that the article assessment system, comprising [checks the damn dictionary again] six levels, needs GA, or something like it. Three levels of this six-level assessment system are barely used, making the larger article assessment program an extremely vague effort. If it were up to me, I'd let members of a hypothetical "GA WikiProject", versed in the criteria, assign GAs independently (with a review process available for disputes). –Outriggr § 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All is lost if there's no proper review process. It seems indulgent that a GA can be created and quashed by mere nomination. Let's not navel gaze on WP; the Internet is increasingly competitive, and without the highest standards, the project will fatally compromise its authority worldwide. Pity to endanger the reputation it has already achieved: that reputation needs to be constantly maintained and nurtured, and what appears to me to be a loosely organised process for rewarding articles without proper review can only dilute standards, and appear to the outside world to be amateurish. Tony 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should nominate GAs in the same way as we nominate FAs, just with lower standards? That way, more than one person chimes in? — Deckiller 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article and Featured article criteria

message: I edited 1d down to half the length. [Demented cackle, starts slashing madly at criteria.] Bishonen | talk 19:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was unneeded. Marskell 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it unnecessary, Tim? The further detail is in the link, and it's in everyone's interests to make these criteria as succinct as possible. Do we really need the new Criterion 5 on talk pages? Tony 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Criterion 5 on talk pages was deleted almost as soon as it was added—not sure what version you're looking at?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was unneeded per "if this, why not that?". You take this canonical line from NPOV, why not add that one? Marskell 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, sorry, I mistakenly read Criterion 5 as current while checking previous versions. Tony 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And I took 1c back to what it was before ATT was initiated; it was considerably clearer before IMO.  Can you and DK tweak?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right. I completely forgot how severe the highlighting was. — Deckiller 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A strict reading of "It has images if appropriate to the subject" is "It has images if [it is/the article is] appropriate to the subject", which of course doesn't parse. :) –Outriggr § 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I'll revert it. Tony 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned "quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." ATT and V don't differ, so it's fine in either case. Marskell 07:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1c is redundant now (it mentions inline citations twice).  Also,  I (and others) have always disagreed that ATT and V don't differ or that there was any consensus on ATT, but we should wait a few days for ATT to be settled rather than trying to deal with this in multiple places.  I'm going to leave it alone for now, and wait for ATT to shake out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the double reference? And to be more precise, ATT and V don't differ in this respect. Marskell 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; one says "external citations" while the other is "inline citations".  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1d

message: There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images about the permitted level of usage of Fair Use images in Featured Lists. Your input would be welcomed. Tompw (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images in Featured Lists 

message: I was surprised to see this on ANI; I had never heard of this WP:IUP rule -- "avoid specifying sizes in thumbnails".  As I posted in that thread, FAs appear not to follow this rule much, if at all.   I am not really active over here, though I have participated a little bit in the past when I had a candidate article here.  However, I'm working on some articles I would eventually like to bring here and would like to know if the FA reviewers feel this is something that is relevant to FAs.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use and image issues are frustrating; if someone would explain them in English, I'd check.  I just removed the pixel sizes from Tourette syndrome, but it's still Greek to me.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image pixels in thumbnails