Wikipedia talk:Featured article advice

Untitled

Good advice! thanks for pulling this together. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, any ideas to improve too? Specifically what are the most important points, so that we can go in priority order if possible. - Taxman ^Talk 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Starting from the bottom, back for prioritizing tomorrow, I had no idea it was so laaaate....zzzzzzzz....

I'm imagining the addressees are skilful writers but green wikipedians, very likely writing about something they have expert knowledge of. Those would be frequent and attentive readers of the page. They need concretion. I think they need more links, too.

Lead section. I edited it slightly, but I don't fully understand about the impact "on others". On other topics..? And please skip the "or if that impact is limited, that should be stated also" bit, pedantry creep. (No, no, I'm not calling Taxman a pedantry creep.) It's good as far as it goes, but wholly devoted to warning against too-short leads (whereas the criteria page recommends a "concise lead, maybe you want to edit that a bit also?). There are too-long leads.

Balance. The points made here are extremely pithy and helpful, especially as the summary-style criterion formulation at Wikipedia:What is a featured article? is rather mystifying, leaving uncertainty about when to use summary style. However, more concretion is needed. What are "proper" summaries like, how're they inserted in the article, and most especially, how long are they?

Images. Too hard to understand. If somebody had said such things to Giano and me when we nervously nominated our joint newbie article, we would have run away. "Properly noting the image license is required" ... help, what's it like when it's proper? Where is it to be noted? Etc. I think this bit needs a number of links. Is there a page about those enigmatic "tags" to link to, for instance? Some info about the whole concept of an "image description page"? OTOH, I'd skip the last two sentences as obvious. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Ok I did what I could to cover what you pointed out. For the balance, what do you mean by more concretion? What else could I explain that I didn't? I'm not sure how to make the images section easier to understand, but you're right, it should link to more of the image pages. - Taxman ^Talk 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

By concretion, I only mean what I go on to specify: describing what a "proper" summary is in this context, especially how long. Oh, you removed the word "proper"--that actually doesn't help, IMO. I think people need more specifics about the summaries, not less. Bishonen | talk 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Ok, I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. It seems all to be covered by prioritizing to me. More important topics deserve longer summaries, less important, shorter ones. Why not just try to edit it towards what you're looking for? - Taxman ^Talk 13:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Half-formed thoughts on priority

I'd change the bolded headings to fit in the same list. You know what I mean--"Well written" doesn't for instance go with "Research". Make them all nouns. I'd put them in this order:

First the major ones: Good writing-Research-Balance. Then I suppose the minor ones: Lead section-Paragraphs-Images. Or maybe Good writing-Balance-Research followed by Paragraphs-Lead section-Images, that's not a big deal.

I do know how much trouble the minor ones make--the typical short wiki paragraphs are a blight--and what FAC hotspots they are. I'm still a little troubled, aesthetically and pedagogically, by how they're on a whole different level from the major ones. Perhaps the list could be made two-part, somehow? Unless you think that would just make the whole thing look more complicated. I mean, something like "These are the three basic requirements for an excellent article" (perhaps bolding the entire text of those three, or in some other way making them stand out visually). Followed by "And here are three pesky details that experience shows are particularly likey to cause trouble on FAC". Only better put. What do you think? Bishonen | talk 11:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Bish, before I read the above, I moved Lead section and Well edited to be next to Well written. Feel free to move back if you disagree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't edited to implement my suggested order, I guess Taxman did that. What held me back was that I reckon changing the order and changing the grammar of the headings must be done together: it would look crappy to have the headings "well written" and "well edited" and not having them together. At least I think it would. I'll edit it later to show what I mean. Must... go...buy...groceries... right... now... Now where's that auto-suggestion tape? Bishonen | talk 11:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

research

I'm uncomfortable with "Typically, a substantial number of these citations will clearly demonstrate the quality of research that a featured article needs was done." Although it's reworded (without substantive change to the meaning), I suggest that it be removed altogether as a little restrictive in its ambit. Tony 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it saying "it should be obvious from the number and quality of your references that you have done enough research"? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If so, it's not expressed well. And IMV it too narrow an assertion that a great deal of research is essential. I'd be inclined to express it with slightly more lattitude, given the range of topics and contributors. And returning to this statement, I don't want it to be seen as encouraging over-referencing, which can also be a problem. Overall, this issue needs to be carefully expressed. Tony 08:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As in my response on my talk page a great deal of research is essential. The rest I'll copy here: Even an expert needs to cite their sources. For the few people in that category, I think they'll know the extent of their research will be to find the citation information and review the information. Even that probably qualifies as research though. There are areas I would consider myself nearly an expert in, but I still check my sources. Practitioners aren't necessarily experts and aren't exempt from research and citing sources. - Taxman ^Talk 16:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just concerned that it may be a little inflexible, and may result in over-referencing in some cases. Just what does "a great deal of" mean? IMV, better not to amplify. The amount of research will vary as appropriate to a number of factors. That's the default without the amplification. Perhaps revisit after a little while and re-assess? Tony 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Over-referencing is different from researching though. I agree we shouldn't encourage footnoting to the point of unreadability, but I don't think strong language on the need for research does that. Also, over referencing can be solved by software methods or using something like an inote rather than throwing away the citation information. Tools like m:Wikicite will enable verifying that citations support the cited fact, something very important for information quality. - Taxman ^Talk 04:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Tony 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• "The goal is not merely to list information, but to do so in a way that is compelling and engaging ...". Given that a key complaint of reviewers is "listiness", I think this is going to give some nominators the wrong idea. So the goal is to list information in a compelling way? For a Featured List, yes. But for a FA, the goal is to write the information compellingly, etc, and to use lists judiciously (needs a clause or two defining what "judicious" is). Don't you think? Tony 08:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I have changed this to refer to "nuggets of information". I have also replaced "clearly demonstrate" with "it should be obvious ... ". -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Experiment, please revert freely

This may have been tried before, I haven't dug into the history to check, but I was thinking that a likely scenario for a newbie FA writer is that they're unfamiliar with the criteria themselves AND with the FAC hotspots that this page focuses on. For that writer to relate the discussion on this page to the criteria page, where the numbering is different, would be a hurdle in itself. Experimentally, I have juggled the paragraphs here so that they're directly based on the criteria list and the reader can more conveniently navigate from one page to the other. At least that's the idea. It turns out that this page is based on criteria 2a, b, c, 3a, and 4. Please take a look, it's only a suggestion, and I'm not even sure I agree with it myself. It just seemed simpler to demonstrate the rearrangement on the project page than try to describe it here on Talk. Of course the tradeoff is that the ordering by priority is lost. And also, there's one section that isn't an elaboration of a criterion at all: the one that was called "editing" (I've re-dubbed it "flow"). It's very useful advice, which I didn't want to lose, and I thought of creating a sixth criterion to fit it, but... well, somehow, it's not the kind of thing that quite fits as a criterion, either. I guess there's a reason it isn't one. I haven't edited the text much apart from linking it to the criteria, except for a few deletions of words and phrases. Please don't take those amiss, it's only a bit of a tic I've got: I kill text. Leave me with an edit window for an hour and it'll end up empty. ;-) Bishonen | talk 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Definitely easier to see the results now that you've done it, so it was worth a shot, but It seems harder to read and more imposing now. I do see the value in following the criteria order, but since this is a guide focused on the problems in meeting the criteria, there's also clear value in going in priority order. I favor the latter, but I'm more than happy with something like this if others agree. - Taxman ^Talk 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen's idea is good. What may make it seem less hard to read and imposing is the relative simplicity (visually) that removing the bold text provides. See if you like what I've done, and revert if you wish; but to me, the sections are now nice and clear, and there's no formating tension between bold for titles and bold within the main text. Tony 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy?

I'm unsure why this box appears at the top. It appears to be in conflict with the title (and the content), which concerns advice. I'd have thought that policy was too black and white for what appears here. I'm not for a moment concerned that the purpose of the page is misguided: on the contrary. I just don't think it's suitable for elevation to official policy. Tony 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)