Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposed accessibility criteria

Although Wikipedia:Accessibility is already implicitly included as a criteria under the MOS criteria (2), I think it would be appropriate to highlight these accessibility guidelines with an explicit, additional, 2d along the lines of:

(d) accessibility guidelines

In the same vein, criteria 3 should explicitly require that images have either a caption or alternative text (3 out of the 5 most recently promoted FAs have at least one image without either a caption or alternative text). Any objections to this? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ah. Lot to learn there. I'm not sure we need to add it to the instructions, since it's already part of MoS. Perhaps we just need to call it to the attention of reviewers at WT:FAC? It's the first time I've read that page, and now I'll add it to the list of MoS things to check for; I'm sure others will if they become aware. I worry about increasing WIAFA to include too many MoS points, and I think the issue here is we just need to be more aware of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Accessibility; it would probably be better to follow up there, since that page has a larger audience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanking new featured-list criteria—food for thought?

Dear colleagues—After two weeks' debate, the new criteria have been implemented. This represents a reduction from 420 to 220 words, and from 15 to seven categories/subcategories. Food for thought WRT the FA criteria? Do I sniff repetition, over-complicated hierarchy, and the unnecessary inclusion of universal requirements? Tony (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! If we were to overhaul FACR in this way, I would envision that 1c, 1d, and 3 could go... BuddingJournalist 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"... a minimal proportion of red links" seems content-free. The minimum is, of course, always going to be zero. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FAC. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Freshened up criteria

• Changes: I've done the bare minimum by removing the frightful repetitions and bolding the themes of each criterion/sub-criterion. The "means that" mantra has gone. The substantive meanings are untouched. The hierarchical structure and numbering/lettering are untouched. It has shrunk by about 11%. THE OLD JUNGLE; THE FRESHENED UP VERSION; THE DIFF Tony (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We are going to have to implement Marksell's recommendation to redirect these talk pages, because following discussions fragmented across many pages is not good. Discussion moved to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stability criterion

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review § Obama FAR, and User:Raul654/archive16 § Obama_FAR

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Criterion_5_.28Stability.29.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the GA stability criteria is interpreted differently than the FA version (See Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Stability. Second, can we do away with this criteria? The Criteria are supposed to be a guide to measure the quality of the article. And this stability criteria is supposed to prevent FAC from being used to decide which version (mine or yours) is the right one - left over from an era when FAC didn't have a director and didn't take 2-4 weeks. Now, it's interpretation has been drifting to being applied to the stability of the subject in real life, not the article. Our WP grading scheme should not be influenced by John Doe leading an unstable life. This unpredictable real life may cause the article to not be comprehensive in the future but that is a different criteria. FAC has hawks now that can end (or intuitively not promote)nominations that are just edit wars. maclean 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with most of what you wrote, Maclean. Also, it may be more productive to discuss GA stability criteria at GA (GA has nothing to do with FA), and FA stability criteria at WT:FAC, which has a wider audience than this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Maclean, I don't think you will find broad support for removing this FA criterion. We don't actually want to review FACs that are in the middle of edit wars or whose subjects are rapidly dynamic. It's impossible to maintain quality in those circumstances. Agree with Sandy that GA and FA don't really have anything to do with each other. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First, (replying to Maclean's comment above) the stability criterion does not predate me. I added it as an FA criteria in 2004 when someone nominated Beslan school hostage crisis within a few hours of the school being stormed. At that point, the article was (as you can guess) in a rapid state of flux - the identities of the hostage takers were not known, the number of dead was not known, etc. I figured it would be a good idea to avoid articles that were in a high state of flux due to newsworthiness. I think most people can agree that that is a Good Thing.

I'm of two minds about the Obama article -- on the one hand, I think it's great that a major candidate has a featured article about him and I'd like to see Hilary and McCain also with featured articles; on the other hand, I can see how that would be a nightmare where the process and the stability criterion are concerned. I think Marksell and Joel feel much the same way I do. I do agree with MacClean that someone leading an unstable life should not presage an unstable article. I am very against FAC objections of the form "This person is too newsworthy -- this article could never be stable enough to be a featured article". For that matter, on principle I am very much against *any* FAC objections of the form "this article can never be a featured article" regardless of the reason given.

As for the good articles, they are free to adopt whatever criteria they like. If they think they can adequately review articles that are in a state of great flux, then more power to them. On the other hand, I know for a fact that FAC cannot handle them, so I think the criteria is very appropriate. Raul654 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there may be shades of gray with the stability critiria between GA and FA that I do not understand. What I had hoped was that both WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA would be revised so that it is clear that objections like so and so is a current candidate for election or this building is under construction are not valid. It would lessen a lot of debate. As I have stated on WT:WIAGA, I think we should refine the criterion for clarity. A statement like Excepting cases where the subject of the article is an current breaking news story, completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today. Crystal balling of potential future content is not relevant. might be feasible. Some clarity should be added saying that although a current candidate's article might be considered stable, his campaign article might not might provide a good example.

My personal agenda is the prospect of a WP:FAC for Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), which is a building under construction. Depending on the timing of WP:GA promotions for items at WP:CHIFTD, I may nominate this article next at WP:FAC. Although, this clarification is now moot at WP:WIAGA because the article has now passed, it is in the long-run best intersts of both FAC and GAC to clarify the criterion. In the short run, I am hoping to diminish the sure objections based on the fact that it is under construction. Personally, I think it would be very interesting to see a building under construction at WP:TFA. Has there ever been one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A partial answer to your question is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Building of the World Trade Center and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/7 World Trade Center. You can find any others by searching the Art and architecture or Engineering and technology sections at WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I gather that in terms of skyscraper construction there is little value in the building being undersconstruction. Well then the pool of articles is much larger.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have suggestions for clarifying this? Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Our options include:

• Botify it into AH as a keep (not what Joelr31 intended)
• Create a new category in ah, neither keep nor remove, just review (a TON of work for Gimmetrow, and not likely to be used again, the only other semi-similar situation was the ID FAR which never really got on track to review minor issues)
• Restart the FAR and "police" it to keep commentary on track (something I've been spectacularly unsuccessful at doing on another FAC)
• Do nothing; leave it out of AH. Wouldn't bother me at all.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish this conversation hadn't been started on five different pages; I'm responding here, since both Raul and I have directed it to here. Joel suggested a new catgory be created: [2] That means THREE archives for each of FAC and FAR, and re-programming GimmeBot, for what as of now may apply to only two FARs out of thousands. I can't quite agree with that idea, unless Gimmetrow has a suggestion for how to make it work (and he well may). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

On the specific issue of handling FARs like that one, it would be easy enough to add a third option to the AH template, but I'm not going to program the bot to deal with the paperwork. I would treat a FAR which isn't a remove as a keep by default, and a FAC which is archived (for restart) is a non-promote by default. Then add a note to the top of archived page to explain any unusual circumstances. Gimmetrow 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To make sure we all understand (you have a habit of extreme brevity :-) On a FAR no-decision, we would:

1. Move the FAR to the Keep archive, where
2. GimmeBot would botify it into articlehistory as a keep, but
3. A different message would be added to the top of the archived page, indicating something like no decision.

Is that correct? On the restarts at FAC, I don't think I'll use that method again (move to archive instead of permalink). First, it didn't achieve what it was supposed to achieve, since the reviewers were still furious that it was restarted and they had to retype the same opposes, and second, if we ever want a bot/script to tally FAC declarations, we'd then have the FAC split into two different files. I agreed to try it once, and I don't see the benefit; reviewers still had to retype their opposes and were still furious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind, with your step 3 done by hand. [Keeping it brief] Gimmetrow 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But, also, if any one of the four of us does a "no decision" archive on a FAC or a FAR, we'd have to drop you a note so you'd know that it's an exception (to be handled partially manually) even though it's moved to archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You can move it to the archive, then come back later (after the bot's done) and fix up the AH template however you want it to look. That should discourage exceptions ;) Gimmetrow 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused, we can't change the AH template, which only has two choices? I thought we change the message on the archived FAR? So, if everyone agrees to this, it means that 1) you botify the third Obama FAR into AH as a Keep, and then 2) Joelr31 edits the archived FAR to change the closing message at the top, specifying it as whatever he wants to call it. Is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Or Joel31 removes the Obama FAR from Talk:Obama, if that's what he wants to do. Gimmetrow 04:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

When I asked for suggestions, I was actually thinking in terms of the bigger picture of tweaking the FA stability criteria to reflect some of the above discussion (sorry, my fault for being vague). I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of the Obama talk page, but while we are on the subject -- I definitely think that the FAR should be noted somewhere on the page. I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other on how it should appear - whatever you guys think would be easiest. Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the creation of an Inconclusive category. It is more appropriate in this case than keep. Joelito (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think an analogue to the XFD no consensus would be good. I do now see FAR3 is in a sidebar a bit down from the AH where people who are looking for the AH might not be looking. I looked at the page several times without seeing it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, Gimmetrow - what do you think about creating a FAR inconclusive result? Raul654 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If that means "inconclusive" stays FA, I think that would create a dangerous precendent. Tony (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is different from "No Consensus" at WP:XFD?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a dangerous precedent and can lead to abuse but take for example the Obama FAR and more recently the Final Fantasy IV FAR. Neither of the articles went through the normal review process so they should not be closed as "keep". Closing as keep could be used by people to imply that X version was reviewed and deemed to comply with the FA criteria.

In the majority of instances restarting the FAR would be better than closing as inconclusive but I believe that the category has its uses. Joelito (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of a new category makes me uncomfortable for two reasons: 1) creating a new category requires reprogramming GimmeBot and articlehistory, and creating three archives x 2 (FAC, FAR) for rare exceptions; and 2) an article is or isn't featured, we shouldn't have grey territory. I'd rather see a restart and closer policing of the FAR to keep discussion on track (the Obama FAR was disrupted by a now blocked user). Clinton failed FAC and Obama is less stable than Clinton, so I don't see the compelling reason to create an exception. I also think our criteria are fine; we just need to police the FAC or FAR to apply them. The other option is what Gimmetrow suggested (default Keep, record in AH as keep, but record a different manual message at the top of the FAR indicating no consensus ... which only means it would be back to FAR soon anyway, so restart is better). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AFD has fairly complicated results; article may not only be "kept" or "deleted", but merged, redirected, salted, and so forth. FAR has simple results - either the article remains "featured", or it doesn't. As far as the bot is concerned, tertium non datur. If you really want a "no consensus" result in the AH template, that can be arranged, but it's functionally a "keep" if it stays listed at WP:FA. Gimmetrow 02:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, Raul seems to want it recorded in AH (which for now would be as a default keep), and Marskell does as well (on my talk page); shall I go ahead and do that, and we can change the category later if needed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is "AH"? Tony (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And the same thing should be done at [3] Gimmetrow 03:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my reasons for visiting a discussion page hardly ever involve the information at the top, so I guess I'm out of the loop there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

But that's where you can find convenient links to old peer reviews and FACs, find out what faults people found in the article six months ago, and how the article was edited since then. Gimmetrow 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with electrician again tomorrow, still trying to get my house back after storm; Gimmetrow, if everyone concurs, you may get to it tomorrow before I do (I'm not planning to use that restart method again, btw, will continue to use permalinks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I gave you the diff so it only took an undo. Gimmetrow 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant Obama; on the other one, does Raul want a trial method restart recorded as an archived FAC? (If so, I also have to move it to archive, so it's more than one step.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Gimmetrow: yes, but I review only what I see currently, and usually don't even look at who the nominator is. Perhaps that's unusual, but I don't want to be influenced by the history of the article and its critiqueing—the present state is all that matters. It would also take time I'd rather spend reviewing another FAC or FAR/C. I don't want to undermine the view of your considerable technical achievements, though: they're entirely necessary and a significant advance for the project. I speak only from the perspective of my usage patterns. Tony (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand, especially if you're only checking prose, the current state is what you want to review. Gimmetrow 04:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I am satisfied that the discussion has been moved to the AH. In terms of future policy, I kind of think a third type should exist. However, archiving as kept with a clear explanation at the top of the archived discussion is also O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Brilliant" prose

In the first requirement element a states:

"(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"

The phrase "even brilliant," as written, is not a part of a serial conjunction, but rather it is an Intensive which modifies "engaging." This means that "brilliant prose" is not a requirement of featured articles.

There are two courses of action here depending on what the community wants the requirement to be:

(1) if "brilliant prose" is to be an FA requirement, then the line should read:

(a) "well-written: its prose is engaging, brilliant, and of a professional standard;"

(2) if "brilliant prose" is not to be an FA requirement, then the phrase should be eliminated entirely for clarity. The line would read:

(a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;"

This is a subtly that has caused debate on an FA nomination. I ask that this be reviewed and one of the two options be chosen as a fix.

My personal opinion is that "brilliant prose" should not be an FA requirement. If it were, there would be very few FAs. Brilliant prose is hard to come by. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. Featured articles are meant to be an example of Wikipedia's best work, so why shouldn't their prose be brilliant? I currently view 1a like so: engaging/professional standard is the first step, and then brilliant is the step where you polish the prose. If working on, or nominating an FA, your duty should be to ensure not only that the article meets the FA criteria to its absolute fullest, but that in doing so, you are giving your absolute 100% to Wikipedia readers. This is especially important when in regard to articles which receive higher amounts of traffic. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that FAs should represent Wikipedia's best work. However, "brilliant" prose is a subjective standard which is beyond the scope of what would be considered normal language use. Brilliant prose wins prizes and contests, becomes celebrated works of literature, and often influences its representative culture. E.g. the prose found in sections of Shakespeare's plays is brilliant. I feel that "engaging and professional" is an acceptable standard for the language of featured articles. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I usually find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Wackymacs, but not on this occasion. While I'm unsure that Lwnf's opening grammatical analysis is valid, I agree with everything else s/he says, including the second suggestion: "... engaging and of a professional standard". "Brilliant" used to be there, was removed (for about a year, was it?), and found its way back into 1a perhaps six to 12 months ago. I didn't object to its removal or reinstatement, but was very happy to rely solely on the "professional standard" bit in my FAC reviews. I'd like to formally propose that Lwnf's second example be implemented. Tony (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that "even brilliant" should be removed, as I advocated last year. — Deckiller 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Tony in preferring Lwnf's second example. "Brilliant" is far more than just a bit of polishing, as Lwnf quite properly says. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a "me toothree" from over here. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that Lwnf's second example should be implemented. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, my opinion has certainly been outvoted here! :) — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with removing "brilliant" and substituting "professional". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If "brilliant prose" is no longer a requirement, should reviewers maybe be a little more demanding for the article to be "engaging"? (As opposed to now where, like Tony1, most seem to be only checking only for professionalism) indopug (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Lwnf's intial analysis is quite right: the adverb renders "brilliant" an intensifier and nothing more. But people miss this. A few times on GA talk, for example, I've heard it suggested that FAs must have brilliant prose. As phrased, the criterion doesn't say that. Given the potential confusion, I agree with the second option. ("Brilliant" does have a long pedigree around here, however; it will be strange to see it go.) Marskell (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always liked "even brilliant," as a standard for people to aspire to, hard as it is. "Professional" sounds deadly dull. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As per my comment below, I wholeheartedly agree with SV here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

True. After all, it was called Brilliant Prose once upon a time. And there's nothing wrong with adverbial phrases used for emphasis. Perhaps we should reflect on this a little more. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more reflection is good. Including "brilliant" is a nice call back to the early "Brilliant Prose" days and should be kept as a nod to Wikipedia's earliest contributors. Sure, it's not much more than a nice gesture, but what harm does it cause? — Dulcem (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say that I am a "brilliant" writer, but I agree that it gives people a standard to work towards. The majority of people can make prose "professional" or near professional, so I think keeping the criteria for Wikipedia's best work far higher than, say, GA is necessary. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe "brilliant" to be a quantifiable standard, then I invite you to define it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, "professional" prose is sufficient for an encyclopedia. No typos, correct grammar, proper wording, etc. "Brilliant" is prose that is perfect or nearly so; it draws a reader in and makes them want to read the entirety of the article. Good articles must be "well-written", so be removing "brilliant" from the criteria waters down the name of featured articles. I don't think it is a big deal, but I think it distances Wikipedia's best work from the rest of Wikipedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that professional prose is sufficient for an encyclopedia, but only brilliant prose is good enough for wikipedia? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a work of art? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I was being confusing, I was using encyclopedia and Wikipedia interchangeably. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it, I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My main reasoning for wanting "brilliant" to remain in the criteria is that I think it keeps the FA standards high, and thus can still be considered "Wikipedia's best work". I am open to change, however. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the brilliant wording, but neither will I holler if it's removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't entirely agree with the distinctions being made above between "professional-standard" and "brilliant" prose. To me, prose of a professional standard is more than correct: it's well expressed, free of redundant wording, and logically cohesive and focused—it's an easy read without any of the bumps that characterise subprofessional prose. Our epithet "engaging" requires it to be a good read as well. Brilliant prose, in turn, is more than these two things: it implies beauty and unusual cleverness in the writing. That is too high a benchmark in all but a few, exalted contexts—a novel, a prize-winning essay, or the best journalism might have elements of beauty and cleverness in the writing; but here, a good, well-written piece free of technical glitches is what we're after. Such is within reach of collaborative partnerships between content writers and copy-editors. Occasionally, it's within reach of a single author. Tony (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  Tax reports and legal opinions are professional; they are seldom brilliant (with rare exceptions, of course), let alone engaging. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree SlimVirgin.[4] Also somewhat agree Tony: "a good read" sure featurable. But how enjoy reading without "elements of beauty and cleverness" in writing? Not possible! Make language brilliant and beautiful. You too can be fluent, articulate, limpid, well-spoken, persuasive, eloquent, silver-tongued like Bishzilla! Use wordsmyth.net, free resource, indispensable, essential, helpful, convenient. 'Zilla use all the time. Therefore voluble. ("Redundant wording"? Say again, little Tony?) P.S., fewer verbs, please. bishzilla _ROARR!! 07:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

• Completely agree. Some people seem to think that "professional" doesn't go far enough, but you can take "professional" a long way. Truly professional prose is, as TONY has rightly said, expressive, free of redundancy, cohesive, and focused. Most prose isn't professional. Its sad but true--even edited news articles are often lacking something. Professional is the highest standard of excellence that can be properly objectified by criteria and achieved by the average writer. "Brilliance" a much more subjective standard, that is typically reserved for literature--particularly good literature at that. I would go as far to say that brilliant prose is (or should be) a constituent requirement for a piece to be considered literature. Wikipedia is not meant to be a literature mill. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which should be held to high standards, but not to standards so lofty that they are unattainable. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Explaining 1a further for clarification and to aid FA article writers

OK, so we seem to have a community consensus on removing "brilliant" from 1a, which I am fine with. I do have an idea of how we can clarify what a "professional standard" of prose actually is. I note that, currently, Wikipedia:Prose redirects to the MOS, but the MOS does not seem to have a section on Prose/Writing quality itself. Maybe the words "professional standard" in 1a should link to User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a or a new Wikipedia style guideline located at Wikipedia:Prose?. Writing "professional standard" prose does not come naturally to everyone, and so some guidelines would indeed help article writers at Wikipedia, especially when writing for FA standards. Thoughts? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just been alerted to this discussion, and have to say I utterly disagree with removing the reference to "brilliant" prose in the FA criteria. This is an aspiration, rather than a requirement, it's true; but prose is where, in my view, Wikipedia most falls down. (There's a bunch of interesting if short essays about this out there by Mark Bauerlein; I probably disagree with every word he's otherwise written in his life, but here I agree with him pretty much.) I would be loath to relax this aspiration in any way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the FACR defines requirements for featured articles. If we want to include in the FACR additional "recommendations" (The company I work for mandates the use of "shall" and "should" to express "requirement" and "recommendation" respectively. E.g. "The prose shall be grammatically correct." and "The prose should approach a standard of brilliance.") we can do that. But, either way, the language used in the FACR should be precise enough to remove interpretative ambiguity. The current language in the FACR is vague. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"My understanding is that the FACR defines requirements for featured articles." As you've pointed out, in this case it doesn't. What you mean to say, then, is that in your opinion it should define requirements. I disagree. There's no ambiguity here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, the FACR or the MOS should define objective requirement statements for prose. "Engaging" and "professional" are much easier to concretely define than "brilliant." Do you have suggestions on how to define "brilliant?" Lwnf360 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If it were a requirement, then we should indeed try to define it further. Again, as you've pointed out, it isn't. Meanwhile, I'm not entirely sure that either "engaging" or even "professional" are so much easier to define than "brilliant." Such is language... fluid and hard to pin down. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Giving more substance to Criterion 1a is an excellent idea; it is probably the most challenging criterion to meet, and the area where editors tend to have greatest difficulty. Tony's guide is an excellent suggestion (I refer people to it all the time), although I wouldn't be opposed to something directly linked to the MOS either. Risker (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that there be a section on the MOS page regarding prose, or a Wikipedia:Prose with expanded and detailed criteria describing what constitutes "professional prose." I lean toward having the redirect to MOS, as prose is very much an MOS issue. TONY's guide may be a good starting place for establishing such a standard. Lwnf360 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not create another MoS page <eeeeeeek> ... and if we link to Tony's page, someone will want to move it to Wikispace, and then who knows what will be next ... I don't have a problem with brilliant, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't deny the fact that, on almost every FAC, prose becomes an issue. Its something which a lot of editors have trouble with, and thus why many articles actually fail the FAC process. There's no harm in aiding those who want to write featured articles. Most published Manuals of Style discuss prose or writing, if not minimally, but the WP MOS does not at all. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In so far as this is true, then there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Why not just point to a list of common style guides: Strunk and White, for instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we certainly need to leave the "briliant" wording, so writers understand the standard. I don't want to see Tony's essay moved to MoS space, where it will be destroyed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the current wording is vague, is often misinterpreted, and is an unreasonably high standard. TONY's essay can be left intact, but its points can form a basis for an MOS section. (As an aside, I've never heard of TONY's essay before this discussion, but I've damn sure heard of, and referenced, the MOS. Including the content of his essay in the MOS will: establish a firm objective standard; and disseminate that standard across the community.) Lwnf360 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the current wording vague (whether the prose on a given FAC is engaging and brilliant is determined by consensus), don't agree it's often misterpreted, and think another MoS page would degenerate to the usual MoS nightmare (of the kind those who hang around WT:MOS will recognize). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You have just misinterpreted the meaning of the current wording by saying that, "the prose on a given FAC is engaging and brilliant." As I said above "even brilliant" is being used as an intensive to modify "engaging." This makes the logical structure of the sentence (in somewhat of a hybrid of the notation used in discrete mathematics and philosophy see: predicate logic):

A) the set of language that is prose

Φ) "is engaging, even brilliant,"

Ψ) "[is] of a professional standard"

∃(x)є(A) [Φ(x) & Ψ(x)]

Which reads: "There exists an x, which is an element of the set of language that is prose, such that x is: 'engaging, even brilliant' AND 'of a professional standard'"

Your construction would be:

A) the set of language that is prose

Φ) "is engaging"

θ) "[is] brilliant"

Ψ) "[is] of a professional standard"

∃(x)є(A) [Φ(x) & θ(x) & Ψ(x)]

Which means: "There exists an x, which is an element of the set of language that is prose, such that x is: 'engaging' AND 'brilliant' AND 'of a professional standard'"

The difference between the two versions is subtle but important. The first example is what the standard currently states viz. brilliant prose is not a requirement. The second example is what many people, erroneously, believe it to say viz. that brilliant prose is a requirement. My point in bringing this up is that the community can decide either way on this issue, but the wording should be made clearer by one of my two suggestions above. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank God someone here understands basic set theory. :) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "brilliant" as an intensifier? I don't follow a lick of the stuff you wrote above, but I see the criterion as saying, "The prose is engaging and of a professional standard. And, hey, why don't you try to make it brilliant too? That'd be swell." What is the problem? — Dulcem (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• No way ... Tony is one editor and his 'prose preferences' should not be codified into the FA criteria. Don't you know there are already enough concerns about this editors 'preferences' being forced into every fac, within the broader wikipedia community. 75.127.78.190 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to appear churlish, and I thank those who might approve of the 1a page, but it's too individual in its angle and approach to move into mainspace or to link from an actual criterion (heavens, enough that personal pages are linked to from the bottom of the criteria page). The 1a page also contains OR. Hoary, who copy-edited it, takes issue with what he sees as overprescription in a few places. While I might recommend it to some people, it's about time it was overhauled (to start with, the listing technique stuff goes on a bit, and might be better on its own); I might have time to do so in the next month or two. Tony (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then someone needs to write an official MOS page, based upon Tony's User guide. As Lwnf has rightly said, most editors do not know of Tony's page. If it was in the MOS, it would be highlighted more. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Professional prose" is not defined by TONY's opinion. There is a universally accepted set of standards which are codified in style manuals and writing guides. These standards, though they sometimes quibble about whether it is "modem" or "MODEM" (it's totally the latter), are generally uniform in their principles. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

75.127.78.190, the anon above: is that you, Lwnf? It shows the same casual indifference to apostrophes as you do. If it's not you, I wonder whether it's another of the RCC cabal whose nose is out of joint ... Tony (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you Lwnf, but most people have never used a style guide in their life (and that is very evident from the sort of articles that come up on FAC sometimes). — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh believe me, I know. But that does not excuse them from learning this stuff. If we codify it, we can at least direct them to it. I think it would improve the quality of their work, and avoid a lot of the unnecessary back-and-forth on the nominations. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't; it will just give another page for editwarring, and won't be read by those who most need it. Brilliant is fine, Tony's essay is fine, we don't need another MoS page to edit war over when we can't keep up with the ones we have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, see the next section below, where I'm suggesting a handy guide, rather than an MOS extension. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think that the short answer is that professional prose is gauged by the FAC reviewers. To avoid being patronising or overly lengthy (or non-comprehensive) in the criterion, it could say something along the lines of "professional prose, as gauged by reviewers at [WP:FAC]]". (That probably needs wordsmithing - I'm in "ferinstance" mode here) We could wikilink one or two words of that clause (perhaps "gauged" in this example) to a new guideline page - a simple list of issues reviewers look for in professional prose. This guideline could include a link to Tony's userspace essay. I'll knock up an example in my userspace here --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's up and running. Ignore the fact it's in userspace - I warmly invite you all to mercilessly bash it into shape. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started to take a look at and comment on things on Dweller's page. I would ask that others do so as well. Lwnf360 (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

An open letter to Criterion 3

You begin: "It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."

I know you mean well, but I don't like how you're worded. One could glean from you that an article needs to have an image where it is appropriate. I thought of you when I was re-reading this opposition to Peter Wall. I don't recall ever seeing an editor oppose an FAC for lack of an image before then, but there we have it. What if an article needs an image but an appropriately licensed image cannot be found?

I propose: "It has appropriately placed images and other media when they are available, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." --Laser brain (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided on, it should be entirely consistent with WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. Calling Black Kite for advice! Tony (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - given the recent problems at FAC, it needs to make reference to image policy somewhere - add on "Any non-free images must comply with the Foundation's relevant policies" (or something similar). Black Kite 11:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 1b, comprehensiveness

There has been an ongoing discussions regarding how criteria 1b should be interpreted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Lack of sales figures and comprehensiveness. The discussion is videogame-centric, and has been based on actual sales figures for videogames, but does apply to 1b in general. The dispute is how accessibility of information affects an article's chances at FAC, based on the article then failing to meet criteria 1b. For example, if an article does not contain information about the game's commercial success, should it be opposed even though that information is simply not accessible? The main points are in the discussion linked above, so we would like some clarification on how the criteria should be applied in such instances. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The information cannot be used on Wikipedia. It's as comprehensive as humanly possible in that regard. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No specifics have been mentioned so far in this discussion. Being comprehensive as possible within the limits of the average Wikipedian is very different to being comprehensive. It's like an article passing FA without a "Development" section just because the info isn't available. I just want to find out what the consensus is on this. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming you could get ahold of these numbers and use them in a verifiable way, I don't even know that NPD would allow them to be published freely. Nifboy (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, this isn't really about NPD specifically, and that's besides the point; that just came into the discussion earlier as an example. I just want clarification on if/how much the accessibility of the information has a bearing on if the article is to be considered comprehensive or not. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An article should have an equal chance of being featured as other articles. If a game is only released in North America and/or Europe, it can't have sales information unless A. the information is given by the publishers, or B. the game makes the top ten (and even then, that's a poor judge of its sales). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Information accessibility and availability are not to be confused. If the information is published and can be obtained by someone with access to a news/journal database (through a library or school, for example), then the information can be expected in the article. If the primary editors don't have access to the information, they should find someone who does (I and many others fill requests for full-text articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange). Too many articles are researched using Google and then considered comprehensive because that method of search was exhausted. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The people who have that information cannot be considered reliable sources, are not allowed to share this information, or both. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about hearsay, I'm talking about sales and other information published in journals or news articles. --Laser brain (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

NPD, the only supplier of sales figures for North America, only releases the top ten to the public. Journals and news articles get that information, which is not substantial enough to be useful whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if I were going to oppose a video game FAC on the grounds of "missing sales figures" (which I probably wouldn't), I would go look for myself to see if they are actually available through reliable sources. If not, it's a moot point. --Laser brain (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Link, this isn't about NPD. I just think a line should be drawn between when information not being present is acceptable and when it isn't. Because, if such a line didn't exist, then VG articles would be able to go at FAC without a "Development" section on the merit that the info isn't available. Is this dependent on the importance of the information that doesn't exits, and if so, doesn't that make it subjective? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to create a hard line for a topic on what must be there and what must not. WikiProjects attempt to define a basic outline of what ought to be included in an article, but for the FAC comprehensiveness piece I think it depends entirely on the subject of the article and what else is included in that article. Karanacs (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suppose that would make opposing on a grey area difficult. Okay, thanks for the replies. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving text re formatting in 2.c.

To bring the explanatory text closer to what is being explained, I propose to change -

(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

to -

(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] (the meta:cite format is recommended for articles with footnotes or endnotes) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references).

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That would change the focus of the sentence, which is to explain that either method is acceptable (since that is the issue that comes up at FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the user hits the open-parenthesis and is led to believe that the parenthetical is only about footnotes and then has to make a mental shift when it becomes clear that the parenthetical will cover references as well. Here is an alternate solution that leaves the focus of the sentence intact (and, in fact, may actually make it sharper):

(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.

What do you think? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's good, but please allow a few days for others to opine before making the change (good to keep the page stable :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your second idea is probably better for the reason Sandy mentions. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the criteria are written as complete sentences, branched in many cases into list items. The punctuation and sentence structures reflect this. It's why the parentheses are used (to preserve the single-sentence structure); I know it's fussy, but looking at the criteria as a whole, don't you agree that it's more cohesive and logical that way, Butwhat? Tony (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great timing, Tony :-) I just changed it; changed back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a grand coincidence, then! I visit this place only occasionally. Tony (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC) PS Tim Marskell had issues with the combination of dashes and colons and semicolons after the last cosmetic update a couple of months ago. I asked for help from Hoary, but he was too busy. I don't see any other way out of it: the dashes indicate a slightly different relationship between the before and after ("I'm going to unpack this now for you"); the semicolons require a tighter relationship between the two clauses. Semicolons just didn't seem to work where the dashes are at the moment. I'm OK about it. Tony (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Structurally, yes, it is more cohesive and logical. But should we let form lead function around by the nose? Maybe there is a compromise that will preserve the form and enhance the function. Instead of "p. 1). See" how about "p. 1); see"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant prose

I notice that "even brilliant" has crept back into the FAC criteria, despite what seemed to me to be a consensus that "brilliant prose" can only be subjective.

Indeed it seems to me that the strict application of a Manual of Style together with a requirement for "brilliant prose" is inconsistent; one tends to pull against the other. I'm just wondering whether I'm singing in a choir of one? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't creep back (it was always there), and I didn't see consensus to remove it. Disagree that MoS impedes brilliant prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not always.[5] I actually had in mind when I started this topic Dylan Thomas' Under Milk Wood, which I think most would accept as brilliant prose?

And in the little pink-eyed cottage next to the undertaker's, lie, alone, the seventeen snoring gentle stone of Mister Waldo, rabbitcatcher, barber, herbalist, catdoctor, quack, his fat pink hands, palms up, over the edge of the patchwork quilt, his black boots neat and tidy in the washing-basin, his bowler on a nail above the bed, a milk stout and a slice of cold bread pudding under the pillow; and, dripping in the dark, he dreams of ...

Do you really believe that a sentence like that would get through the MoS police? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tony (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant prose is challenging, it's not constrained by a style manual. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the inclusion of "brilliant", because it's a mere adornment to the point. It's quite sufficient that writing be of professional standard

that alone is a very tough requirement. But since the presence or absence of "brilliant" make no difference in practical terms to the review/response/promotions process, it's not worth getting steamed up about. Tony (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then as it makes no difference it ought to go, yes? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so, but Sandy and others are uncomfortable about its removal, and it's no big deal. Malleus, since this is neither here nor there, there are far more important issues, like reviewing nominations! And look, young Deckiller has just removed two redundant words while we've been speaking: now that is useful, and no one would disagree with it. Deckiller has become a master at weeding out redundant wording. Tony (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been reviewing nominations, just not FA nominations. Although I don't understand or subscribe to the bias towards "it's no big deal, it ought to stay", over "it's no big deal, it ought to go", I do agree that it's of no practical significance in either event, so I'll say no more about it for now. I can see that this particular horse is is resistant to flogging. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We could change it to:

"its prose is engaging, possibly even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"

The addition of "possibly" emphasizes the role that we wish the concept of "brilliant prose" to take, while clarifying the vague meaning. I say we compromise with that and stick a fork in this one. Lwnf360 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly only muddies the water further; I don't see any problem with the current wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Possibly" is redundant and inappropriate. Tony (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, strictly speaking, and thought of that at the time. My defense was going to be: how can it be redundant if it clarifies meaning? But on second reflection, we can strike "even" and leave "possibly." Is that an acceptable compromise? The bottom line here is that the current wording confuses editors and causes battles in FAC. I'm open to other suggestions if anyone can come up with better wording. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's still redundant, because it describes a way in which the article exceeds the standard already laid out; the criteria are supposed to measure the minimum standard of featured quality, and a description of potential quality on top of that is redundant. It would be like us adding something like "...even possibly including featured-level pictures" to the image criteria. I believe it's best to leave the subjective and redundant wording out of the article — both to keep the wording crisp and to avoid issues like this one.

I really don't mind the two words that much, but I believe it might intimidate people (if it already hasn't). Then again, seeing some of the questionable FA nominations, perhaps that's a good thing. — Deckiller 05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been all for removing "even brilliant" from the get-go. So we now come back around to that. The wording is a problem. This is not an unsolvable problem. If striking "even brilliant" is the best solution (based on this discussion of redundancy and confusion), then we should go with that. Lwnf360 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just what is wrong with requiring a professional standard of writing? It's all I ever cite in reviews. I ignore the brilliant stuff: overkill. My own writing at its best is of professional standard, that's all. Tony (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think we should change it in 24 hours unless a counterargument is presented. — Deckiller 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the "brilliant prose" sets up unrealistic expectations for Feature articles; therefore they all seem dull in the face of the expectation of brilliance. Professional writing does not set up any expectation of brilliance. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think brilliant is useful, and don't suspect all editors make the distinctions that our esteemed wordnerds do. To me, it separates a dull and plodding but professionally-written technical manual from what we aspire to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sandy here. To me, "professional" writing means correct, audience-appropriate, and mindful of its constraints. But how many editors who haven't majored in rhetoric connect with that definition? "Engaging" means the reader is drawn in, and "brilliant" means it's just fun to read. --Laser brain (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, your argument assumes that "brilliant" is a requirement--which it is not, as I have explained at-length above. Secondly, I would like clarification of your position: are you saying that "brilliant" should be a requirement because articles should be "just fun to read"? Lwnf360 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't assume it is a requirement. I've never opposed an FAC on that basis. I'm not saying it should be a requirement, either. As worded, I agree with Tony that it is an adornment. However, it is an adornment that might help editors connect with the spirit of the requirement. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Any more dead horses we could dredge up? "Brilliant" is a reference to the history of this page. It's a nod to those editors who were among Wikipedia's first to be recognized for "brilliant prose" on the project. It's not hurting anyone, so I say it should be a default keep. — Dulcem (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, I was afraid to say that, since it's hardly an "actionable" reason to keep it, but I must confess that I'm a traditionalist, and agree those folks should be respected. Nail --> head. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How many of those who currently read the FA criteria either know or care about this little piece of history? Let it go, it means nothing to those of us who weren't around when the Ark was built, but more importantly means nothing fullstop. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It means something to me or else I wouldn't have posted about it. — Dulcem (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. So out the 9,000 or so active editors on the English wikipedia, so far it's two who care and one who doesn't? Why keep dragging history around like a ball and chain? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The "keep" argument is: nostalgia?

I'm a bit frustrated at this point. The "remove" people have provided several substantial arguments as to why "brilliant" should go (not to mention severely outnumbering the "keepers"). Nostalgia is the best you got? Lwnf360 (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, please chill. As Dulcem said, the word isn't exactly causing any harm. To some of us, brilliant separates some perfectly grammatically correct but thoroughly dull and plodding articles that could pass FAC if "brilliant" is eliminated; perhaps the wordnerds see it differently. I really am not going to fuss one way or another over this, but having spent a lot of time in FAC archives, yes, I have some respect for the editors who started brilliant prose, even if I wasn't around then and never knew them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the argument is respect, not nostalgia. — Dulcem (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a proper chronology may be in order here. When was the requirement for a professional standard of writing introduced for instance? Before or after the elusive "brilliant"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• April 20, 2004: Raul's first version, compelling, even "brilliant" prose
• End of 2005: still compelling and brilliant
• Beginning of 2007: still
• April 2007, DK changes compelling to engaging and adds professional standard during his Tony training :-)

To Tony and DK and MF, there's a difference that I don't see. That's why I keep them close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's in our interpretation of the word "brilliant". To me, brilliant prose wins a Booker Prize, not an FA star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree that "brilliant" means "fun to read". "Brilliant" prose is what you occasionally see in novels and very occasionally in other documents—it carries notions of beauty and extreme cleverness. "Professional" is everything you could hope for in the normal run of life. It's clear, unambiguous, easy to read—indeed, a good read. You might have to be good—even clever—at writing to achieve it, but not an artist. Tony (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Requires

DK's back, Cool !! But, um ... it doesn't "require"[6] a References section, because some people call them Notes or Footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I write to urge caution with regard to this reasoning. Here is why: I have launched a discussion on the Layout talk page with the aim of clarifying the difference between "Notes" and "References" because of the confusion that results from folks erroneously using "Notes" when they mean "References" (and vice versa). I suggest that editorial articles should be clear and consistent, and not add to the confusion by being intentionally vague, particularly if the reason for the mushiness is that users frequently use the two headings erroneously. Otherwise, some people (e.g., me) will mis-read the guides and blunder forth in good faith to "fix" things that aren't broken. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If we are still debating on the title of the section in which the sources are listed, then we could just remove "reference" and leave "...requires a second in which...". — Deckiller 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should debate longer to force Deckiller back to Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a debate regarding what the section should be called? This article has referred to it as a "References" section since at least January of 2006. Has it been misleading all that time? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't misleading until the word "required" was added this week; now the word "References" does need to be removed (I agree with Deckiller and Parham). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Deckiller that "involves the provision of" has the same meaning as "requires." So the meaning of the sentence, and the use of "References" in that sentence, is not changed by his copy edit. (Also, what about my first question: Is there a debate regarding what the section should be called?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Forgive me if this has been debated, but I believe that we can probably remove the footnote/harvard referencing examples; we do include the link to the citing sources guideline, after all. — Deckiller 06:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can of worms; best hear from Marskell first on that, as this was and is a big issue at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I saw the edit summary and I thought you were going to say that I was beating a dead cow (instead of beating a dead horse) :) — Deckiller 06:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, all I propose is changing:

1. • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

to

1. • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

It's just a minor thing. Perhaps I should waste my energy on actual articles :) — Deckiller 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's big for Marskell; for some reason, some FAR nominators just don't get it, and it leads to sticky situations. Glad you liked my edit summary. Go copyedit some FACs now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical criteria

After discovering yet another TFA with malformed XHTML (luckily, it was easy to fix, unlike the previous accident), I propose to add a requirement for validity of page XHTML, unless it's caused by a MediaWiki bug. Why it's so important? Because there are lots of different browsers that may handle non-conformant pages quite differently. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification of stability criterion

The criterion currently is: "(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."

This is unclear, and I would like to propose that it be clarified (it is written in the present tense, but apparently some people believe it applies to the future as well). I suggest three alternatives, of which the first is my favorite:

Uno: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process.

Dos: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are unlikely in the future.

Tres: (e) stable: it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are very unlikely in the future.

The thing that is prompting this request for clarification is that I'm thinking about putting John McCain up as a FAC. However, regardless of what is prompting this request for clarification, 1(e) looks somewhat vague, and so a little bit of clarification would be helpful for the whole FA process.

Presumably, there is already precedent to support Uno, Dos, or Tres. If so, I'd be interested to hear what the precedent is. In any event, one reason for preferring Uno is that it is kind of crystal-ballish to be forecasting future edit wars or content changes. Moreover, if an article becomes unstable in the future, it can always be put through FAR and de-listed.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing the proposal here. The addition of the word currently is redundant, while two and three add a clause "unlikely in the future" (that's the only change I see, and it's also redundant, very is extra redundant, so I only see two options here, add that clause or not):

Current

it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

One

it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process.

Two

it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are unlikely in the future.

Three

it is not currently subject to ongoing edit wars or significant content changes, except in response to the featured article process, and such are very unlikely in the future.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the quick response. Apparently, there are some people who think that inserting the word "currently" would not be redundant. They believe that an article is not eligible for Featured Status if it is likely to become unstable, even if it is currently stable. Inserting the word "currently" would clarify this point, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it will help. In my experience, people use the 1e oppose without having apparently read the wording, regardless of how clear it already is. Further, how do you define currently, and how do you define very? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as clear as it could be. Inserting "currently" would make it blatantly obvious. Right now, it's understandable why some people would be confused.

More specifically, the word "is" in the current version only applies to edit wars, and does not apply to content changes. The phrase "does not change" in the current version can be interpreted as both a present situation and as a future situation.

I can tell you that there are reasonable editors who believe that 1(e) precludes featured status for articles that are currently stable but likely to become unstable. That's apparently not your view, so why not make it unequivocal in the language of 1(e)?

P.S. I would define "currently" as meaning "during the featured article review".Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here: "During the featured article process, it is not subject to edit wars, or significant content changes except in response to the featured article process." This is much more clear than the current version.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I changed the 1(e) language today (my edit summary said "Using present tense for clarity. Feel free to revert if you disagree"), as follows:

1. • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change is not changing significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Sandy reverted it back (with the edit summary "doesn't add clarity, keep same tense throughout the page, same meaning").

I am extremely confused now about what the 1(e) requirement means. The present language of 1(e) is extremely ambiguous. Present tense is used regarding edits wars, but present tense is not used regarding significant changes.

Does "does not change" in 1(e) mean "does not ever change now or in the future" or does it mean "does not change currently"? People are making 1(e) objections during the featured article process, and thereby killing featured article consensus, because they think there is a likelihood that a stable article will become unstable in the future, and they think 1(e) therefore applies. Is that really what 1(e) means, and why not clarify it as suggesteed (by merely replacing "does not change" with "is not changing")?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, "does not change" and "is not changing" are both present tense of the verb to change. "Does not change" is more concise in my view. "Is not changing" does not nail down the time frame any more specifically. Not sure what the problem is. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Mattisse. Wikipedia actually has an article about this. See "Present tense".

"Present simple" tense is used when we want to state a fact or ask a question without any time reference. - I live in Frankfurt. - She plays football but she does not play tennis. - For breakfast, he eats rice and drinks cold milk.

1(e) is now written using present simple tense ("does not change"). In contrast, I am suggesting that we instead use present progressive or present continuous tense ("is not changing"), which is used to describe events happening now, e.g. I am reading this wiki article, and I am thinking about editing it. There is a big difference.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Either "does not change" or "is not changing" is going to be understood within the time frame of the person reading the sentence. Neither can speak to the future. "I live in Frankfurt" would have little meaning if read later when you no longer live in Frankfurt, nor would "I am living in Frankfurt". I am not understanding (I do not understand) your distinction in the context of featured article criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between present simple tense and present progressive tense. The phrase "She plays football" is different from "She is playing football." The former can be true even if she is not presently playing football right now, but the latter cannot.

If people really want 1(e) to use present simple tense in addition to present progressive tense, then we can keep it that way, and featured article candidates (or FAR) will continue to be vulnerable to criticims about a likelihood of future instability. However, my impression was that 1(e) was intended to use present progressive tense.

"She is playing football" speaks to the present; if she's not playing football right now, then the statement is false. However, "She plays football" may be true even if she's not playing football right now. Same with 1(e).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, frequenting the FAC pages a fair amount, I have only seen that issue brought up once. And that time it was in the hypothetical. That is, this article has the potential for being unstable as its subject is a current event. It did not prevent the article from becoming a FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard and seen, this issue has cropped up for more than one political candidate, and there have been several opposes based on hypothetical future instability. Why not nip the thing in the bud, by clarifying 1(e)? I've already asked a respected editor to co-nominate John McCain with me, and he declined citing the issue of future stability. I am reluctant to nominate this article if a chance of future instability really is a legitimate 1(e) concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up on Barack Obama briefly but did not hinder the article's progress. Also, a Early life and military career of John McCain article just received FA. There was not a problem in either of these. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it also came up in Hillary Clinton. Anyway, if one or two people raise this issue, then that counts against consensus, so I don't see the harm in clarifying 1(e). The issue would not have arisen in Early life and military career of John McCain because that article is about a discrete period of time long ago. And, the issue arose in FAR for Obama (which had already been listed as FA in 2004), rather than in an initial Featured Article process for Obama (this distinction was cited during the FAR, I hear).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent} - There is nothing wrong with bringing up instability of a volatile topic as a valid concern. I believe it should be brought up. For example, Fidel Castro is unable to overcome persistent instability. The point is that when there is solid referencing, instability even of a controversial topic or subject can be over come. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding how FAC works. It is not a vote. Only if a concern cannot be allayed is it a problem. If you look at an FAC, many concerns are raised and responded to. A concern only has weight if it is a genuine problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a possibility of future instability is a valid 1(e) concern, even though there is presently no instability, and even though an article has been stable for months. If that is what 1(e) is supposed to mean, then I suppose it is phrased well right now. I was under the impression that such crystal-ball-type concerns were not meant to be covered under 1(e), and that FAR can be used to de-list an article if and when it actually becomes unstable.

I know that FAC is not a vote. Instead, it's a consensus process based on criteria. That's why I've been focussing here on the criteria, and whether they actually say what Wikipedia really wants them to say. I agree 100% that ongoing instability is a valid concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your replies, Mattisse, and Sandy. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See also

On average, it is my experience that Featured Articles have short, not long, see also's sections. Whether WP:LAYOUT should contain a suggestion that see also's sections should be shorter (it currently doesn't) is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Length_of_See_Also. Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always been there and still is:

Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. A "perfect" article then may not have a "See also" section at all, though some links may not naturally fit into the body of text and others may not be included due to size constraints.

I've tried to made it more clear, but was undone. Perhaps somebody else can make the point more clear? Reading this section does not make it easy to understand that "good articles should have few see also's", at least - not to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is a good editor; I explained. Whatever GA does isn't really relevant, since there's no consistency there, but I pointed out that he's pointing to a GA that needs to be delisted anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sourcing issue, expertise means what, exactly?

I have just returned from holiday to see that the F-20 article was closed (which is fine). However there is a lingering issue that needs to be more fully explored.

I have been writing about aircraft for well over a decade. Two of my pre-wiki articles were released into the public domain and have seen some level of use. I have transcribed one of these into the wiki, with major editing, to become the basis of IAR-80. These articles were thoroughly researched, at least to the limits of my abilities as someone who cannot read the original German and Romanian sources.

Throughout this period I was constantly assisted by Joe Baugher. Joe is very well known in the aviation world, and widely quoted across the 'net. Like me, he chose to release all of his very-well-researched and amply referenced sources into the public domain on the 'web. In over a decade of reading his articles I have never found an error that does not also appear in the original source he quoted. (this is astonishingly common in the aviation world, most widely-used references are literally filled with errors) In general I consider Joe's articles to be of the highest quality.

The spirit of the law is that we want to weed out low-quality sources so we can safely remove content when someone wants to insert a dubious claim and then points to a dubious source to back it. As the V page states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." The point here is not whether or not they are published, but whether or not they are reliable. I couldn't agree more.

Yet Joe's excellent works have been declared unusable because they are self-published. No one has once questioned his reliability or quality, or raised any particular concern about the data within. From what I can tell of the limited history, this was done by fiat, following the letter of the law. So, can anyone offer any reason to suggest that Joe's body of work fails the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic" requirement? Joe is an "established expert on the topic".

Now a lot of readers will at this point be thinking "established by whom?", and that is the real issue here I think.

As time goes on I fully expect more and more content around the world to become self-published. Limitations imposed by traditional media outlets are causing all sorts of fields to move to self-publishing over time. One of the best examples are scientific papers, where there has been a major concern over the journal's reluctance to release information freely available on-line. Given my extensive writing in technology, this personally effects me, and I have paid groups like the IEEE and Nature hundreds of dollars in order to write articles for the Wiki. Music is another example. Changes in distribution have made self-publishing far simpler than it was in the past, and for smaller bands it becomes something of a no-brainer to avoid the traditional labels. And recently we have reports that open textbooks are becoming a real force in the university world, where both professors and students are trying to avoid the high costs of traditional textbook publishers.

So it seems we are moving to a world where more and more reliable content will exist solely in the internet. At that point it will not be possible to say "well it was published in AW&ST, so that's good enough". It's not going to be published, and yet will still be high quality. So what are we to do in these cases?

So it seems that it all hinges, given the current wording, on expertise. How do we know expertise? If I, someone with at least some claim to expertise in a field, vouches for the expertise of another source, is that good enough? What if five well-respected editors do it? A million? Do we need some other metric? Can anyone propose one?

Maury (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you raise some good points. The tack that I've seen used at FAC most often to determine reliability is whether the self-published source/random website has been cited by independent, published sources. Do newspapers/journals/tv broadcasts mention the person, or the website as an expert, or cite the website as a source? Has the person had other material (books, articles) published on the topic? Those types of details can help determine whether the source meets the reliability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, that's the problem. When the vast majority of content is self-published on the internet, very little will ever be mentioned in "newspapers/journals/tv broadcasts". This process is already well underway, and will only increase as time goes on. Maury (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify this a little: already we are seeing a dramatic reduction in the importance of print media. Magazines like Time and Scientific American are engaged in race to the bottom, and newspapers are going ad-supported free forms in an effort to get people to pick them up. I, and pretty much everyone I know, believes this process will continue. So when print media is reduced to the level of Cosmo and Weekly World News, clearly we are not going to be able to use them to vouch for other sources of information.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest a "web of expertise" system should suffice. It does in academia, so why shouldn't it here? Maury (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Baugher presents a specific, excellent working example of a self-published site which does not meet WP:SPS. Being widely quoted across the 'net only means that any errors he potentially makes may be widely replicated, and Wiki shouldn't become part of that. What is your foundation for the statement: No one has once questioned his reliability or quality, or raised any particular concern about the data within. ? No one? Ever? Anywhere? Can you prove that? There is nothing wrong with using self-published or 'net content when the author or the site meets the standards established by our policy at WP:SPS; changes to our policy should be taken up at WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to return to the real issue here. How are we going to decide what SPS to use in the future when everything is SPS? Maury (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Our current SPS policy contemplates that with no problem. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. Joe Baugher is not a published expert in aviation by the standards set by Wikipedia policy; being widely published and being an expert published in the field by independent reliable sources are two different things. Anyone can put up a website and have their content duplicated across the web. We covered it in depth at Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1, and even the Aviation Project members couldn't come up with evidence that he meets SPS. But if you want to change our WP:SPS policy, that could be taken up at the WP:V talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal for a change to Criterion 2

Per some discussions at the village pump, where some editors have expressed concerns that the intricacies of the MOS are being given too much importance in the FA review process.

Struck sections removed, bolded sections added:

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of It meets the following criteria for style and has:

• (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
• (c) appropriate internal consistency, such as consistent citation format and spelling —where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

I'm assuming that the (c) details on style are detailed elsewhere and don't require repetition here. The intent of the change is to remove the majority of MOS concerns from the FA review: they can be added later if and when necessary but should not be a substantial part of the FA process, especially because the MOS is not a static document and the majority of the elements in it are either logical extensions of criterion 1A or otherwise do not directly affect the substance of the article. SDY (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Stongly disagree, for the following reasons:

1. If articles aren't cleaned up to a professional level while at FAC, it won't be done anywhere. FAs should represent a professional standard. We don't have copyeditors available for hire (as suggested in a recent Wikimania conference presentation), nor are we ever likely to, and such statements reflect a misunderstanding of the resources available to Wiki.
2. There was no consensus (or for that matter, even a strong indication) on the Village Pump discussion that there is an issue; in fact, there were some statements that were flat wrong (as pointed out and acknowledged by the author of one statement, including an apology on my talk page). MoS is not a major part of FAC, no matter how many editors try to assert that it is. MoS issues are easily corrected once copyediting, sourcing, images and other policy concerns are addressed, most often by a simple pass through by someone familiar with MoS.
3. The wording on consistently formatted citations is there for a specific reason, because of frequent misunderstandings about inline Harvard-style referencing.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. A featured article is supposed to represent Wikipedia's best. That means that we must have some sort of guideline to follow (and enforce) so that they are all formatted similarly. The problem seems to be that the MOS changes too often, making it more difficult to follow. THAT problem should be fixed somehow; let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Karanacs; there are some issues at MoS that need to be addressed, some related to interpersonal conflicts, but application of the messy areas of MoS at FAC accounts for the fact that MoS is a guideline, often in flux. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

The issue then becomes a problem with FAR if compliance with MoS is an ironclad expectation. In other words, linking FA to a standard FA does not control will result in ever-changing standards, since MoS is the "weak link" in the chain. I agree that MoS-creep is the source of most of the problems, but FA is the only real user of the strict interpretations and the only real place where MoS is guideline and not essay. Divorcing MoS from its main audience will take the wind out of the creep that is generated there and leave it as what it should be: practical suggestions on formatting and presentation that are followed because they justify themselves, not because the consensus of pedants demands it. SDY (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said; can you try again? No article fails at FAR strictly on MoS either. Divorcing MoS from FA will mean we have no professional standard of presentation anywhere on Wiki. If you want to deal with MoS-creep problem, deal with the obstructionists who refuse to allow for MoS cleanup and spread the false memes about MoS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

To bypass the subtleties and put it plainly, I actually agree with I hear you saying: MoS compliance, other than critical elements such as a lead, will not make or break a FA. I'm just trying to make the WIAFA policy say that. (Giving an impetus for a robust reform of MoS is a fringe benefit.) SDY (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to remove something that improves the professionalism of our articles, and is easily cleaned up in usually under half an hour once policy and prose items are worked out at FAC. If we remove it, we have no standards of professional presentation anywhere on Wiki, including our mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on the exact implications, and a couple of other points. It was worth suggesting just to see what responses would arise rather than just babbling about it endlessly at the pump. SDY (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that parts of the MOS support professional presentation and parts arbitrarily discriminate between options that are equally professional. Bringing an article into compliance with the MOS usually involves making changes that do not improve the article's appearance, clarity, or readability, along with those that do. This reduces the usefulness of the FA process because more time is directed to activities that do no improve the product we are delivering to our readers. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That argument assumes that the editors who are checking and doing MoS cleanup might otherwise be checking neutrality, sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose, etc., which I believe is a faulty assumption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that assumption is necessary. To the extent that MOS-mandated changes are of zero value, those editors might as well sit outside and enjoy the last days of warm weather. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

←Rather than characterising debate at VP as babbling, we're pleased to talk about this anywhere, Yankee. The nexus between the MoS and FAC is the engineroom of cohesion and the maintenance and improvement of WP's standards of style and formatting. A recent external review praised the standards of the top ranks of WP articles (with a few detractions), and we should be pleased that the system works as well as it does. The proposal, BTW, is not moderate, but one that would have major negative consequences for those standards, I believe. Tony (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the history of things called "a Modest Proposal" I was under no delusion that it was a moderate suggestion. SDY (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Sandy here. MoS is necessary for a professional standard of articles, but because it's so complex it's hard for article writers to absorb them all (I think I've got down the dash thing—maybe.) Simplificiation, however, is far different from just making it optional. While I believe spelling and grammar are the most important aspects, the header and TOC stuff is pretty important too, for the same reason that it's desireable to have similar articles have similar layouts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)