Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive10

← (Archive 11)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates (archive)

(Archive 9) →

Anschluss nomination removed

to Raul654: May I ask why this nomination was removed, although all objections have been adressed? As it was just behind the nomination for the Yom Kippur War and this article is now under Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2005 I am a little bid irritated. Themanwithoutapast 02:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After 6 days on the FAC, it had (as I saw it) 1 support (Martg76), and 1 objection (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus) --- not consensus. If you want, I can put this nom back up for a few days, and see if it gathers a few more comments. →Raul654 02:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The objections of Piotrus have been addressed 5 days ago, however he has not responded yet. So I would appreciate it to have the article back up as a FAC. Thx. Themanwithoutapast 01:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Signed submissions

Proposal: As we have in VFD, only registered users should nominate and vote here.

I've seen some nominations by anons and unsigned ones. While that itself is not a big problem if the article is good, I fear that if we have to discuss certain issues, we won't know who we are dealing with especially if s/he has a dynamic ip address. Also, that person might not make a commitment to addressing reviewers' objections if he is a casual visitor. To save everyone's time and energy, it would be best if only signed and registered users nominations appear here.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 11:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree. There's no reason why anons shouldn't be able to make nominations here, provided they sign. Generally speaking, anons are rare enough that if one particular article gets multiple comments from several nearby IPs, we'll know its the anon (proveded he signs his comments). →Raul654 16:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Beowulf

I am trying to help an anonymous user nominate this article. Something does not seem right, though. Please help out.--Wiglaf 09:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just changed the heading level - I think that's what you were thinking of. violet/riga (t) 10:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thanks! :)--Wiglaf 10:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Extremely important problem!

Apparently, template:ref and template:note no longer works. Numerous featured articles have been "broken" (for lack of a better word) by this. I scheduled libertarianism (which uses the templates) for Monday, so I'd appreciate it if someone could fix the problem soon. →Raul654 16:56, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a MediaWiki problem, not a template or CSS one. I have commented in more detail at your talk page. --cesarb 17:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm the fix to this bug is what caused the problems. It's now implemented so that templates are not expanded within attributes at all. This is simple, easy to implement and understand, and wrong. JRM · Talk 22:02, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Ouch. I thought it had been changed so that some ordering was different, like scrubbing the HTML after the template expansion, or something like that. The MediaWiki parser seems to be a real problem... --cesarb 22:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What needs to happen is that intrinsic events called through templates are disabled. I can speak with total disregard, as I don't have to implement this... Perhaps they can add something to put in a character entity code wherever an intrinsic event term crops up where not put in there by Mediawiki.

smoddy 22:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's simpler than that; all " and ' characters found anywhere when expanding a template or a template parameter within an HTML attribute should be escaped to " and '. The hard part is to know when you are within an HTML attribute, since the parser is based on text matching and thus does not know its context. Brion has answered on his talk page, and said it's being tracked as bugzilla:2309. --cesarb 23:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed libertarianism to the suggested list format for References, which makes it look better. The crosslinks for the references and notes are still broken because the generated id= fails, for reasons mentioned here. (SEWilco 03:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I changed it into an ordered list, and sorted it so the autogenerated number for the note and the reference number match. I believe {{ref}} and {{note}} were meant to be used this way. --cesarb 13:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are correct; matching autogenerated {{ref}} link numbers with Reference list numbers is the best way to use {{ref}} until an equivalent Citation tool exists. Helpful would be WikiSyntax for an anchor (easier to restrict than transclusion within HTML), but I'm not finding on MediaWiki an "article anchors wanted" discussion; [1] [2] [3] (SEWilco 20:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Brilliant Prose revisited

I still feel there needs to be some mechanism to recognise excellent articles that aren't/can't be featured, since certain articles are apparently beyond consideration for FA status. Exploding Boy 17:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious - what do you mean by articles that can't be featured - without intending to provoke (yet another) argument, it's been pretty much decided that any VFD-survivable article can be featured, even if it shouldn't go on the main page. →Raul654 17:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I took it to mean articles that don't necessarily meet all of the criteria for becoming an FA, like missing references or images. But, I don't know of any reason why an article with brilliant prose couldn't be made into an FA eventually. I see the recognition as someone coming along to add the missing requirements and getting the article featured. slambo 18:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

m:Instruction creep. Let's not make this too complicated, eh? smoddy 18:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two submissions

I want to submit two related articles at one go. The problem is that the boundaries between the two articles are vaguely defined and some content of the two articles will overlap. Indian Railways (the only railways in India) and Rail transport in India. [Work on both articles unfinshed as of now]. How do I feature both?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I suggested you get one finished (with well established boundaries as to what is should or should not contain), then work on the other, before nominating either. →Raul654 20:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

When was Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) promoted?

In looking through WP:FA, I noticed Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) in the list as one I hadn't seen there before. I don't remember seeing this one go through the nomination process and I don't see anything in the Featured Log for it. When was this article promoted? slambo 13:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article talk page says they hope to work it up to featured status, mabye someone over enthuastic added it to the list.--nixie 13:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The when was Jun 11, 2005 (as shown in this diff). As it appears to not have gone through FAC first, I have been bold and removed it from the list. --Allen3 ^talk 14:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought had happened. slambo 14:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting little statistic

Today, the last day of June, is the 181st day of 2005; to date this year, we have produced a net increase of 181 featured articles -- exactly 1 new one per day. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 07:40 (UTC)

Also, for those who are consider this bad news -- bear in mind that the quality of the featured articles has gone up substantially over the past 18 months, so there's hidden increase in value per article. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 07:47 (UTC)

Deryck C

This guy is voting strong opposition to most FACs because he doesn't consider them as famous (on Norman Borlaug: "We Asians have NEVER heard about this guy") or they are too long (on Bertrand Russell: "Object, yes, long, long, too long. Nobody will be interested to read an article of 7919 words."). Can we just not take his votes into consideration? Am I being too harsh? Harro5 June 30, 2005 23:04 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have read the criteria and it's his first time voting, votes that are inactionable, like he's not famous enough, are generally not counted.--nixie 30 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)

Petaholes/Nixie is right -- if his objections are inactionable, let him know it. His comments on the central asia nom "Oppose at the moment. The contents are good and the article body is well-written, however the introduction is definitely too long. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:33:28 (UTC)" are a valid objection, but from a quick survey, most of the rest are not -- these are ones I ignore. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 23:12 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification guys. I did leave him a message on his talk page re: inactionable votes. Harro5 July 1, 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Discussion of Current/Past FA's

I can't seem to find an archive of the discussions of proposed FA status of past featured articles. I'm curious about the discussion about today's FA. Cigarette 1 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vanilla Ninja. I try to avoid participating on WP:FA, so I probably don't have the moral right to comment, but does today's FA really "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work"? –Hajor 1 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

You're right it's too late to affect whether it is granted FA status and the only way to do that is to participate at FAC. But the article's author would probably like to hear any advice for improvement as long as they are polite, detailed, and something can be done about them. Comment on the article's talk page of course. To the original question, the link to that can be found in the header on the top of the article's talk page. - Taxman ^Talk July 1, 2005 14:04 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I left some comments on Talk:Vanilla Ninja y'day. –Hajor 2 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Taxman is correct. I'll listen to any advice, but to be honest people are against its status there mainly because its such an 'obscure' topic. Hedley 1 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

If you had wanted to actually accept advice, Hedley, you would've respected the amendable objections that were presented in the nomination or at least offered some sort of compromise. You did neither and now you're accusing everyone of being against the article because of it's obscurity. That's very disappointing.

Peter ^Isotalo July 2, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I did take on the objections. I added a small amount of commentary on their music, as brought up, and more recently have fixed complains on it being unclear on the language they perform in. Everyone who supported the FAC, and Raul who promoted it, seen the two objections as not needing to be fixed. In future, if the group have further music videos made, I will branch out into a sub-article if need be. Hedley 3 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Gauss

Can I confirm User:cognition's objection to the GaussFAC will be ignored like User:Slimvirgin said? Thanks Borisblue 2 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)

Slimvirgin is stalking me on pages that have nothing to do with LaRouche, like the Gauss article, because of my political views. This is pure McCarthyism. Cognition 2 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Cognition mentions specific things that he wants the article to discuss - are these things LaRouchian (is that even a word) in origin? (A citation would be appreciated) If so, then yes, by the terms of the arbitration committee rulings we can (and are oblidged to) ignore this objection. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 18:59 (UTC)

You could just say that anyone's objection is "LaRouchian in origin" and the ignore it. You have no evidence that my objection has anything to do with LaRouche, because it doesn't. Just because I happen to admire LaRouche does not mean that I, like any ohter user, cannot edit other topics. Cognition 2 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

If you can produce reputable sources who are not directly or indirectly connected to the LaRouche movement, which describe the influences of Kepler, Leibniz, and da Vinci on Gauss; and Gauss's influence on Riemann, specifically the latter's 1852 "habilitation dissertation" (whatever that is), people will be happy to entertain your objection, and indeed, I'm sure the authors would be pleased to include the material, so long as it was relevant and properly cited. But the onus is on you to show that you're making a relevant objection that's actionable within our policies and the arbcom rulings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 2, 2005 19:10 (UTC)

No way. None of the other users are required to cite sources for their objections to be heard. I must not be treated any differently, regardless of your attempts to have me blacklisted. Cognition 2 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

Cognition - I'm in no mood to play these legalistic games. Other people think that your objections are to the Gauss article are LaRouchian in nature, and that's good enough for me. Either cite a (non-LaRouchian) source that makes these connections or I'm saying the objection is moot. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

The main author was taking me seriously until Slimvirgin showed up and said that I am to be ignored and blacklisted. No one has any evidence that my objections are "LaRouchian in nature" other than the fact that I have made them. Sorry, the onus is on them to provide the evidence. I am entitled to be treated like any other user. Cognition 2 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

You're being treated exactly like any other user. Your objection sounds fishy to a number of editors, so you're being asked to substantiate it. Do that, or go find something else more productive to do. - Taxman ^Talk July 2, 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Yeah, my objection sounds fishy to editors who probably haven't even heard of Gauss. Cognition 2 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)

Try getting some evidence. If there is evidence, it can be included. If there isn't evidence, it cannot. As simple as that. smoddy 2 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

I was the one that challenged you, I've heard of Gauss plenty. And experienced wikipedians can smell the fishiness factors of this new account without doing any math: aggressive editing, rebarbative edit summaries, remarkable familiarity with wiki practices and jargon. Bishonen | talk 2 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

So you're saying that those thinkers whom I had mentioned had no influence on Gauss? Cognition 2 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

If you think they did, please provide sources. Otherwise you look like a POV-pushing troll. smoddy 2 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

All scientists influence each other; I'm saying that Kepler and Da Vinci didn't have influence notable enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia article. Most biographies of Gauss (the references I used for example) don't even mention their names. Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

If you people are too lazy to do your own homework, I will do it for you. [4] Cognition 2 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

• Umm, that's a dead link. The thing is, Raul, I did entertain his request, as I stated in the FAC page, Gauss+ Riemann's habilitation dissertation gets only a few hits, all from Larouche sources and all making only cursory mention of gauss. A googled discussion of Kepler and Da Vinci's influence on Gauss also lists very few sources, and even if I were to include LaRouche sources the information I would add would be very sparse. I've gone through my biographies again as well as googling, and I am certain I will not be able to add the information Cognition asks for without breaking the original research guideline. If cognition will provide a source I will do my best to comply to his request at the best of my ability.Borisblue 3 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
  • I think Bish and Borisblue have made a strong point. I consider the objection moot. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 00:57 (UTC)
    • Don't mean to rush, but I've handled the last few (minor) problems 10 days ago, and the voting currently stands at 7-0. How long before it gets featured? Borisblue 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The delay is because I am/was waiting for user:Tannin. I left a message on his talk page several days ago asking him to revisit the nom and reevaluate it - he has not responded, so I'll be mindful of that next time I do the promotions/removals here. →Raul654 18:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Tannin did visit the article's talk page, and made a few changes himself, which fixed a few more details he found ambigous. Borisblue 03:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyright

A user, well meaning Carnildo, is visiting the various FAC's to object to using fair use images. I know he has the right to object to picture copyright, due to FAC requirement number six: "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured." However, what considers an "acceptable copyright?" Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Licenses for a basic description. Long story short: CC, CC-by, CC-by-SA, GFDL, GPL, BSD (and alike), and public domain are all OK →Raul654 18:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I'll object to any image tag on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that isn't in the "public domain" or "free license" sections. I'll accept "fair use" under very limited circumstances: in general, if the image is essential to the article and there's no other way to get an appropriate image. --Carnildo 20:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I wish to explain to you why I am using the Fair use images for the Sybian article. I posted a link to Google, showing many smiliar photos. Though they are on different websites, with different copyrights, there is no way we can trace the copyright. Second, a machine will cost over 1400 USD to buy, and no places rent it due to fear of STD's. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If we can't use an image under a free-use license, then we probably shouldn't be using it at all. Difficulty in obtaining a free-use image is not grounds for violating copyright. --Carnildo 22:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It is the article which is under consideration for featured status, and not the images. It does seem to me unreasonable to reject an otherwise-qualified featured article because the images are fair use. Wikipedia can, and has, used fair use images for main page articles. David | Talk 13:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia can, and has, used fair-use images for main page articles. Should it? I don't think so. --Carnildo 03:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

In reply to both Dbiv and Carnildo re: fair use in featured articles -- this is a subject on which there is much disagreement, and strict rules are not a realistic option. We have to balance our desire to make the database as reusable as possible with our desire to make articles as informative as possible. Both of these are primary our objectives. As such, we have to consider each situation on a case-by-case basis. →Raul654 04:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's all a great shame because there's some great articles that we all know are superb (and correct), but struggle with image and reference problems. --PopUpPirate 23:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit

Please take a look --MarSch 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Relationship between FAC and Peer Review

I'm noticing that FAC seems to get more traffic than PR requests. Does anyone else think that is a bit backward? I've seen a whole lot of FAC objections that should have been brought up when the article was up for peer review, so I wonder why there are people voting in FACs if they aren't also commenting in peer review requests. In my opinion, FAC should be a quick process- PRR is where the work should get done. --malathion ^talk 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You're very much correct. Because FAC is working towards something, people are quicker to find faults. Too many people ignore PR and come straight to FAC for more in-depth reviews. PR is open-ended with nothing to aim for in the end; FAC gets positive or negative comments and a reward at the end. At least that's how it's perceived by some. violet/riga (t) 17:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about this issue and have a few things to mention. From one side, as Violet/riga mentions, FAC is the last step before a substantive recognition is made via community consensus. If an article is an FA, we as a community are holding it up as one of our best; therefore we would expect a lot of community involvement and comment in the nominations process. Peer review, on the other hand, is a more general article improvement process, which is helpful but implies no community "stamp of approval" and therefore does not attract as much interest. I have often said that big issues should be dealt with on Peer Review, and FAC should indeed be there to catch the "nitty-gritty" and do a final touch-up before FA-ship, which is why I sometimes vote "review to peer review". Big changes simply shouldn't be made while on the FAC list; they often don't have time to really become a cohesive part of the article. On the other hand, the sheer volume of Peer Review can be intimidating. Right now there are 59 articles on PR, compared to 19 on FAC. While I would rather catch big changes needed while on PR, I have to pick and choose which PR articles can get my attention; on FAC, there is a sense of urgency and every article demands a thorough look. In the end, I guess I would say that while it is unfortunate that so many articles come to FAC with so much left to do (even after long stays on PR), it appears to be a necessary evil. - Bantman 17:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

What they said. Editors are working more toward the "Holy Grail" than they are interested in improving an article for improvement's sake. With a specific goal in mind, they do what they can to speed up the process by skipping PR (I'm afraid that some of my own submissions fall into this category, but I've learned what's needed before an article should be nominated (I'm working on getting another article up to featured status, but it will be some time before I nominate it here with all the other editing that I've been doing)). In some cases, this is fine, but for those articles that need a lot of work, I'm also voting to refer them to PR for further improvement. slambo 18:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Minimum number of votes to reach FA status

I have been involved in the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates page and I have noticed that many of the FA articles that come up for possible removal had very small discussions prior to reaching FA status. Is it possible to come to consensus on having a minimum number of supporting votes before an article is promoted to FA status? Perhaps having three or four votes in support as a minimum? Or is this an issue that used to come up with FA candidates but no longer does. --Alabamaboy 17:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The FAC gets more traffic now that it did in the past - nowadays, I tend to look for a certain minimum amount of support (in the neighborhood of 4 or 5 supports, assuming no outstanding objections). If something has no objections but doesn't quite reach this, I tend to let it 'stew' here a little longer.

In the past, such a minimum was a significant obstacle - some articles simply did not get enough supports, even if no objections were found. As such, I was more reluctant to hold-back articles that had no objections but few supports. On the other hand, this is not so much of an issue now as it has been in the past. →Raul654 17:55, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

(Doh! edit conflict) I would not be in favor of a minimum number of votes. Some articles that come through just don't interest the people who spend their time reviewing and voting for articles. As was mentioned last month, we don't have enough new FAs to fulfill the one-a-day on the main page without repeating old FAs. Requiring a specific number of votes seems to me an inducement toward sockpuppetry or to advertising the article in places where it might not be appropriate in order to garner more attention. Other articles don't get much discussion because those that were here at the time didn't have much to say about it (or those who would discuss it in detail either didn't have the time to thoroughly evaluate an article and trusted the community opinion). I get the impression that we're rejecting more candidates lately due to a lack of conformance with the FA standards than we're promoting, so in all, it seems like less of a problem to me. But, that's just my $0.02 worth. slambo 17:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

No need to worry. (A) I do not support having a hard-and-fast minimum number of votes -- it's just I've come to believe that 1 support and 0 objections doesn't really qualify as consensus. On the other hand, hard-and-fast minimums just beg for sockpuppetry. (B) We are averaging exactly 1 FA per day (we produced 181 net new FAs in the first 181 days of 2005), so we will likely never run out. →Raul654 18:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (and it sounds like this is no longer an issue). Thanks for the information. --Alabamaboy 00:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to FAC, but the sort of fluid guidelines did take me by surprise. I'm used to the guidelines over at WP:FPC, so you may want to take a look at those, which are much more rigid, for a starting point for revision/standardization.- Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 20:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I very much prefer fluid guidelines - the FAC is generally a bit more complicated in terms of voting (you have to supply a reason for objecting, which is often resolved and leads to withdrawn votes). Fluid guidelines make this easier to deal with. →Raul654 20:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is a VERY BAD THING. →Raul654 20:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware that instruction creep is a particular concern (FAC is mentioned on the page), and it's a bad thing. But there seems to be a lack of clarity as to what is meant by "consensus" and "long enough," except in editors' minds. It would be nice to have some guidelines or at least examples, rather than rules, that people could refer to. Then again, maybe not, as it forces editors/voters to justify their conclusions rather than pointing at a rule. But for the nominator's sake, it would be nice to be a bit more explicit. Maybe I'll spend a bit more time around here before trying to get into policy, though. I was just a bit taken aback by the sheer openness of the policy. - Matthew Cieplak ^{(talk) (edits)} 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now, I have no problem in maintaining the current system - I trust Raul's judgement. On the other hand, should he choose to pass this on to someone else, then I might favour more solid guidelines. Guettarda 05:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This issue is a potential consideration in the Featured Article Removal candidate, Hutton Inquiry which received solely a nomination and an implicit endorsement 'very good article' when nominated in February 2004. David | Talk 13:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said, things worked differently back then. →Raul654 15:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

CVG nomination question

I'm working on getting a few RPG games up to FA status. I noticed that some of the articles have no Fancruft in them, but their subpages do. Someone mentioned to me that if the subpage contains Fancruft, then it hurts the articles chances of becoming a Featured Article. Is this true? Or when you guys vote on an article, do you only look at the article that is up for the nomination instead of its character pages? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the article. For example, when Battle of Hampton Roads came up on FAC, I would have objected if the related articles on USS Monitor and CSS Virginia were not sufficiently detailed. Other articles stand on their own. --Carnildo 19:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In general, related articles are looked at, but only in a cursory fashion. If there's tons of red links in an article, I think it's a valid to request that they be at-least stubbified. On the other hand, a featured article stands or falls on its own merits -- the linked articles don't have to be perfect (or even necessarily good, IMO) →Raul654 19:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Where do they go?

If a featured article is not put on the main page, what happens to it? Is it just noted as a featured article or is it put on a secondary page? Rentastrawberry 04:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

All featured articles can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles (which is linked to rather prominently from the main page). Bolded ones are ones that have been on the main page. →Raul654 05:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.Rentastrawberry 05:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago fan votes

I'm not surprised that there are many support votes for the Chicago article. Most of the votes come from wikiproject Chicago editors and have no idea as to how city articles have to be written. They rarely/never have taken part in FAC. While I do have legitimate concerns, I don't think my objection will be taken care of because of these "fan" votes. How would you deal with this situation? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps emphasizing to the nominator on his talk page, or the article's talk page, that the unaddressed objections (e.g., the image problems) will prevent the article from being promoted might speed him along in solving them. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

This is actually quite a serious issue: the recent nomination of Eric Heffer failed despite all outstanding issues being dealt with, only because insufficient support votes were cast - presumably because the subject was relatively obscure. This is a systematic bias in the FAC procedure which anyone making a decision to promote or not to promote should bear in mind. David | Talk 14:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a very serious issue. The Chicago article does not deserve featured status. None of my objections were taken care of despite being valid. I review all cities/countries and places. If the editors are unwilling to take care of my objections then I'm afraid we'll have poorer quality Featured Articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the Chicago article has failed the FAC nomination. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it was not tagged properly on the Chicago article talk page. Its now corrected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

While I feel sorry for Eric, I think we should keep this in proportion. FA status is not important. Writing good articles is what's important, not whether a very small subsection of editors can be bothered to vote for or against them. Mark¹ 08:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

indeed. this is the moment for me to confess that despite close to 9000 article space edits, I have not a single FA under my belt :o( this is because I prefer to scatter my edits over hundreds of stubs that I think are crucial for WP to have, rather than polishing a single precious article that is good already... dab (ᛏ) 08:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. FA status encourages people to write a quality article which can match other encyclopedias. While dab's work is great, I believe that the only way we are going to rival other encyclopedias is by getting all major articles up to featured status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you said featured quality, then I'd agree with you. Realistically no-one except the author cares about featured status: it gives you 24 hours in the sun and then a place buried in one of our lists. Mark¹ 03:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree. On the day (and the following 3 days) after the article is featured, the quality of the article prose is upped by several notches. Discount the odd vandalism, that happens to all articles. This is my personal observation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Nichalp's observation - almost all our articles gain (significantly) in quality during their stint on the main page. →Raul654 18:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lists

We are having a fine time over at WP:FLC, but it has been suggested that some of the lists with more explanatory text may be suitable for WP:FAC too (or instead, not that I would want featured lists to be see as some form of inferior featured content, of course).

A case in point is List of countries with nuclear weapons - would this stand a chance of becoming a featured article? Would it have to be renamed Countries with nuclear weapons or similar? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

In general, I like to see more prose than list material in FAs. Your example is one where I would relunctantly object to because it's still a list, even though the list entries have a few sentences each. However, I must say that the information in your example is well-formatted and logically presented. slambo 19:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Slambo - when looking at a FAC, I expect good ("even brilliant") prose, and a lists inherently do not make for good prose. Further, I've repeatedly objected in the past to articles with too much list. →Raul654 20:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Fine - not a problem, just testing the water. If anything, it proves that the featured list concept is adding something interesting, rather than just being an inferior form of featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

1911 EB content

I was reviewing the nomination of Zambezi when I noticed that the article has a ((1911)) tag. I asked the nominator and main author, Worldtraveller, about this, and he replied that "I'd probably say it's still similar enough to require attribution rather than be listed just as a reference." Given that meaningful portions of the 1911 EB content have been preserved, what do we as a community think of featuring this article as "exemplify[ing] Wikipedia's very best work?" I for one am uncomfortable with the idea of presenting public-domain materials as examples of our best work. That said, I'm also uncomfortable using that reason to not support articles such as this one, which has clearly grown from the public-domain material in question into something better. Thoughts? - Bantman 21:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think you've come up with two very good points, and I can't tell which one is better, either. Dave (talk) 21:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point there - I'm hesitant to promote featured articles which are copied (mostly/entirely) from somewhere else. →Raul654 22:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you read the original 1911 article you'll see that Worldtravellers text is significantly different, alot of the material in our article isn't covered at all the the EB one, and I actually couldn't find any sections where they were word for word cut and pasted text. In this case I can't identify a meaningful portion of EB material. I think if we pass over article that have their origin in 1911 or some other public domain text we're probably doing the editors that have whipped it into shape a disservice.--nixie 22:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this issue should probably be handled on a case-by case basis, and I trust Nixie's judgement. I wouldn't object to this article, her analysis of the article. Dave (talk) 23:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be useful if I just try to clarify my thoughts on this a bit more. I started by copying 1911 content wholesale into the article, and have since probably re-worded pretty much every sentence (and cut it down by about half - my word, they were verbose back then!). So, I would think only a very small part of the text would now exactly correspond to the 1911 text. But, I think it wouldn't be right to merely list it as a reference, as the article is still very much based on the 1911 text, even if it's now very different to it. The whole 'course' section is a derivative work rather than a new piece based on references, so I felt it more appropriate to leave the 1911 tag there, to properly credit what I derived much of the article from. Worldtraveller 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nerts! I was too slow to get my vote in. I'll say my piece here instead, and incidentally I think this illuminating discussion should be moved to or linked from Talk:Zambezi when it's time to archive this page. I agree that we must evaluate such issues on a case-by-case basis. Bantman makes good points, but there's one aspect that hasn't been mentioned: the decisions World had to make about the 1911 content, i. e. his analysis of which bits remain reliable and which have been superseded. He didn't just rewrite some bits of the 1911 article to fit the modern perception of encyclopedic prose style, he also took responsibility for picking the bits, i. e. for researching which parts of 1911 have been invalidated by later observation, map-making, uh... measurements, and what have you... and which haven't. Doing that reliably seems to me to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. At the same time, it would be good if he accounted for his selection principles and conclusions, say in a note at the top of the article's talk page (with a request for archivers to leave it there), so readers can evaluate them. The "cribbed from the 1911 EB" template should stay on the page, but it's not in itself enough information about the relationship between the new article and the old. Anyway, I would have supported! Bishonen | talk 12:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

FAC and references again

I think it would be beneficial to the FAC process if a guidline for referencing a featured article was added. Recently I have seen someone demand innote's be turned into notes in a very non-controvertial topic and on a different artcile someone else ask that the foonotes be removed. If we can agree on a guidline for FAC then the expectation is more clear for authors and reviewers. These are the guidelines that I try and follow and offer as advice on peer review:

• Statistics and direct quotes should be cited inline, for verifiability
• Anything that the author knows is recent research or contentious should be cited
• Works that have been read to write the article, but not directly quoted should be included in a list of references.
• Html links should be cited as any other reference and included in the list of refs/notes in full.

Comments?--nixie 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There already is a guideline - "Includes references, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources)." I see no reason why that is not suffecient. →Raul654 02:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Raul - except for FAC I was asked (and did over several hours) rewrite the references for an article to wikipedia style and move everything that was inlined into a seperate "footnotes" section that I saw other FAs using. Anyway, what I gather is this (not really my own opinion but what I had to do to get an article to FA status) -

• Anything specifically mentioned should use the ref/note combo and put in "footnotes", including plain links and nothing should be "inlined".
• General references used to build the article should go in the "references" section
• All the stuff in the references section and footnotes section should use the templates on the Cite sources page for each source
• (Optional) Instead of bullets, the footnotes should be numbered and the number should correspend to the reference number in the article... there was a perl script that I used for this that was a lifesaver...

--Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite Sources is really vague, people should have some sort of indication as to exactly what the expectations are. Mbye cite sources hsould be rewritten.--nixie 03:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point that there is no one correct referencing style. You do not have to use the footnote/ref template. When I wrote Yom Kippur War, I used academic citation style, which is a perfectly accetpable alternate inline citation style. →Raul654 03:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the point here is that it should use a consistant referencing style across the whole article? --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of these suggestion are not particularly useful. Simple, undeniable, uncontroversial, easily verifiable facts do not need either inline citations nor footnotes. It's disruptive to texts and it might encourage people to sprinkle footnotes liberally just to make the text seem more verifiable and academic than it might actually be, which I find entirely unacceptable in an encyclopedia, even one like our's. Footnotes are supposed to be used when refering to complicated or disputed issues that need a side comment that doesn't belong in the text or a reference because the fact might be somewhat controversial or very hotly contested. A participant, regular or not, might come along and demand that we provide a footnote to some really simple fact like the size of Uganda or the population of Iceland, but that does not mean we have to do it. With an {{inote}} perhaps, but not with a footnote visible to the average reader.

And I agree with Raul that the criteria as well as the guidelines about referencing are very clear. People just don't seem to read these guidelines too carefully (or at all).

Peter ^Isotalo 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything said by everybody above. I do not see any contradictions, no one has said anything surprising. @ RN: I think "inline" means that a number appears in the text, not the whole note.
I strongly disagree with any mandatory template-use, however.--Fenice 16:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page. Thanks.--Pharos 04:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Overload

FAC has increased dramatically in size recently, and it looks like people are having problems keeping up:

• Appointment to the Order of Canada has two comments, and is #25 on the list so it's unlikely to get much more attention.
• Removal from the Order of Canada has one, and is #24
• Ted Radcliffe has three and is #23
• Templon has three
• Spyware has three
• Battle of Trafalgar has one, plus a discussion of front-page status
• Even Supreme Court of the United States only had 3 until I added one more and asked for more people to look at it

I was wondering how these articles would be handled. I don't really feel comfortable with something getting promoted if only 3 people have commented, and it doesn't look like these articles will get much more attention, as they're so low on the list. I was also wondering if anyone had a longer-term solution in case the load on FAC remains high. Dave (talk) 18:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed it too, but my reason for not voting this month is that I've been too busy to give the good candidates the attention they need. I've seen a lot of subjects come through that I'd be interested in reading about, just haven't had a chance to read them. slambo 18:54, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I also think 3 votes are not enough. There should be a clear rule as to how many pro-votes an article needs and the number should be more like ten. I do not have a problem if the page is full. But, to keep it from getting worse and to get more attention for this page it could be listed on Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week. This project takes efficient care of these kinds of build-up problems.--Fenice 18:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles that get no oppose votes and few support votes get left here a while. If after a while (around 8 days, give or take) they don't get enough favorable comments, I fail the nomination. And Fenice, no, I will not be hardcoding this because formal rules like that are a pain in the ass. They add red tape to what is a relatively simple and pain free process and only work to encorage sockpuppetry. →Raul654 19:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I know that this is a persistent problem, Raul. I'm not gonna stop mentioning it if that's what you are getting at. As Dave's comment shows, there seems to be little understanding for promoting pages with three or four votes from other users as well...--Fenice 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

instructions for promotion and rejection

I was just thinking that we should post on the page the instructions for featured article promotion or rejection when the time period for voting is over like is done with Featured picture canidates since like FPC it doesn't look like there's anything there that takes an admin to do so we should make it so everyone at least knows how to do it correctly, we should also have guideline for exactly how long a page is listed before being removed and either promoted or rejected. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, the page just fine without your instruction creep, thanks. Hard coding the rules is inherently a bad thing, because it automatically makes it harder to adopt to changes. The whole idea that you seem to be missing is that there *IS NO* pre-determined length of time for an article to stay here - it stays here until things have been decided. If it's unaninmously rejected, it gets taken down quickly; if it's stagannt and attracts few comments, it stays here longer. The page isn't long because it's not being cleared out often enough; it's long because it's been very successful without radically changing the way it works. →Raul654 00:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Raul on this one. With many more articles going through the peer review process, more articles will wind up on here. Though 20-30 articles on here is not as bad as 50 or 60. Plus, as Raul says, if there are ones that are clearly failing, he can remove them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, to break the news to you, Raul, this is not about instructions but about transparency. I personally do trust you; but the demand for more clarity and transparency will be coming up again and again from other users. (I don't want to go into what nonsensical rules have been hardcoded and are, as you say, undeletable and cast in stone.) This is about you laying open your policies. And since you are perceived as the one who manages this page, I predict you probably could change anything again later without much of a vote or objection.--Fenice 11:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop picking on Raul. He is merely acting as the interpreter and instrument of community consensus. Everything is very transparent; community opinions are gathered in an open way for everyone to see, and everyone has an acceptable amount of time to criticize or respond to criticism. If anyone has a question why a particular nomination failed or succeeded, they can ask Raul and he is always prompt and polite in answering. I think we need to just get off his back. Increased volume should mean there are more editors hanging around FAC, which is a good thing. We can't expect that FAC will always be limited to 10-15 articles staying on the list a week at a time; exponential growth of the encyclopedia indicates a corresponding rise in FAC volume. We counter that with more editors on FAC, not by unnaturally restricting the flow. - Bantman 16:32, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

If JTKiefer asks for transparency, that is not 'picking on Raul', Bantman. It's a legitimate suggestion. It'll most likely come up again and again. People have time-planers, holidays, project-schedules to follow, asking for a clear schedule is not uncommon or surprising in our time. It is vital to know how long you have to stick around if you nominate an article here.--Fenice 18:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The point here is that making the policies "clearer" will only result in making them stricter and more detailed. This is exactly what instruction creep means. These things should be allowed to take as much or as little time as is needed and even if I don't always agree with Raul, I think he's doing a great job judging just how long that time should be. Since all FAC are kept and archived, people have all the time in the world to address objections and renominate the article once they have addressed the objections. The FAC-process is about improving articles and getting the community to confirm their quality, not to please the contributors.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A healthy consensus group knows how to delegate. Raul does great work on this, any other solution than trusting him to continue to do so would take soooo much more effort from the rest of us. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Managing increasing volumes

As has been noted, there are more and more articles coming here, and it can happen that an article gets rapidly moved down the list and gets consequently less attention and comment than its authors would like. Maybe the FAC page could be arranged in subsections, according to broad subject area, like for example arts, science and humanities? Then they'd still all appear on the same page, but those interested in particular subject areas could be guided to articles on which they have a particular interest. I'd personally probably be more likely to comment on science articles if they were all gathered in one place. Worldtraveller 11:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. I would also welcome if we could tell users (In the explanatory text on the page) to put a link to the ominated article in their edit-summary when they add the nomination to this page. This way, people do not have to check this page directly every time a new nomination is added. They have it on their watchlist and might go there directly or at least remember to do the review later. --Fenice 11:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

An interesting idea, and one that could be implemented without much trouble based on the categories that we've already got on WP:FA. However, my first thought is that we should not implement this suggestion. As it is now, it's pretty easy to tell which nominations have been on the list longer than others. One of the first things I do on this page is glance at the nominations since the last time I've been here; that's much easier to do if they are arranged chronologically. I probably wouldn't have found blackface if the nominations were arranged by subject. Also, keeping the nominations listed by nomination date keeps the process simple for new editors. slambo 11:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think that might actually have the reverse effect. People might stick to their own area of expertise/interest and thus not bother about a nomination that they would (in the current system) have looked at. violet/riga (t) 14:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Violet/Riga and Slambo - this suggestion would actually have the opposite of the intended effect. It would also greatly increase the amount of time it takes me to clean this page up. →Raul654 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Featured topics

Based on the fact that there are some pretty fine collections of articles that might be worth highlighting, I have created Wikipedia:Featured topics. Please take a look at the idea and make some comments on the talk page. 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Possible problem with recent FA candidate

Those of us who help out on the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates page have had an issue raised with History of South Carolina, which was promoted the other day to Featured Article status. According to the editor's comment on the removal page, the article went through one round of FA consideration, was rejected, then was immediately returned to FA consideration without the required notice being placed (at first) on the article's talk page. As a result, many of the editors who raised issues with the article in the first FA round did not know the article was again being considered. This caused a number of editors not to vote and, more importantly, at least one of them feels the issues raised in the first FA round were not addressed before the article was selected as a FA. I feel that this isn't an issue to be addressed on the FA removal page. For the complete background, please see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of South Carolina. Thanks. --Alabamaboy 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

After checking the Talk:History of South Carolina history page, it appears the notice about the second round of FA was placed on the talk page one day after it was renominated for FA status. I doubt this lag had any ill effects. However, it should be noted that the article was renominated on 26 July 2005 and on August 2 it was promoted to FA status. Is one week long enough for voting? In addition, the point raised about the article not addressing the first round FA issues needs to be addressed, I believe.--Alabamaboy 22:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

One week is plenty - the average nomination stays on the FAC page about 5-6 days. As for immediately renominating an article - that's considered bad behavior. →Raul654 20:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Evidently the person who immediately renominated the article was a newbie. That user has apologized and has been encouraged to work with the editor who first raised this issue on the article.--Alabamaboy 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wish things were resolving that neatly. The editor still hasn't explained why she posted that she wasn't going to quickly renominate the article, but did so; hasn't take any steps to discuss the problems with me or with any of the other objectors to the initial FAC, and hasn't taken any significant action to address similar defects I commented on in another FAC. Instead, several of her friends are are posting a run of personally abusive comments about me in various places, and the reaction that followed by noting her appropriation of copyrighted text without acknowledgment, in accordance with designated copyvio guidelines, has been thoroughly inappropriate. I think the situation shows problems with the whole featured article process; given the relatively small number of approvals needed to get the designation, and the ease with which small groups can manipulate it (as evidenced in the "History of Arizona" dispute, where most of the approvals seem to be coming from the editor's friends), it seems rather difficult to enforce the appropriate criteria. Monicasdude 19:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a serious charge which needs to be substantiated. Could you provide citations of the edits in question? To do so, please provide either reference the FACs in question or particular edits (the URLs of the edits, which you would cite like this). If this is the case, it may be a case of "gaming the system," but one ought not say too much without seeing the evidence you believe relevant. Buffyg 19:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit of additional research indicates that the behaviour to which you object is in part the activities of WP:FAD, which appears to bring together most of the parties I can identify in these disputes. I'm not convinced that the behaviour is of the malign sort you believe. This may simply be a disclosure and transparency issue. I believe it does merit a some scrutiny to see how the project process interacts with FAC voting. Buffyg 03:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no Featured Article Cabal. Members of the FAD vote as they see fit. If there is a problem with the way we do things; take it up on our talk page. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 19:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

We have cleared virtually all of this up elsewhere (including the FAD talk page) with the explicit participation of Link, Rob, Monicasdude and me. Among other things, everyone has already agreed that there is no conspiracy or current allegation of conspiracy — none of the facts you are arguing appear to be in dispute, so there is no need for further argument. Let's all cool off for a while. Please. Buffyg 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Highlighting FA

Being bold - should Featured Articles have a star on them, to signify that they ARE featured?

In other words, when you are browsing, you are alerted to the fact that it is a Featured Article, without having to go to the talk page? --PopUpPirate 23:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

No. The featured article designation is metadata, and should be placed only on the talk page. →Raul654 23:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to have some kind of star (not a template) on the page.This system, BTW is already being used in the Swedish wikipedia. What do you mean by metadata? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Metadata is information that relates to the article itself, rather than the subject of the article. Common examples on Wikipedia are VFD tags, stub tags, image requests, collaborations of the week, FAC and featured tags, 'etc -- all of these relate to the article, not the subject of the article (e.g., Harry Truman). We want the wikipedia database to be as portable as possible, and that means keeping the articles and metadata seperate; if someone wants to host a copy of our database, it makes it extrodinarily hard for them if we are lax about keeping the two seperate. The featured article is supposed to exemplify what makes wikipedia great, and that means keeping it portable, which means keeping metadata out of the article. →Raul654 06:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Some of those you mentioned do appear in the article itself, and there is still disagreement and discussion (Wikipedia:Template locations, for example) about which templates go where. Hence the (temporarily stalled) Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article which is intended to reach a compromise and end the debates. violet/riga (t) 06:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is, those other tags *shouldn't* be in the articles, and using their bad decision to justify a bad one here makes even less sense. The featured article is supposed to set a good example, not follow their bad example. →Raul654 06:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have it as true metadata, but that isn't yet possible. Stubs and the VfD notice have been in the article for quite a time now, and I remember many debates about the stub positioning. violet/riga (t) 06:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)