Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article/Proposal for improving TFA selection guidelines

This is a first draft. I will refine it, including doing more research into existing WP guidelines and discussions, and then attempt to get some input. Please feel free to edit for clarity or expand in keeping with the proposal as stated, else, there's the Talk page... Thanks! --Tsavage 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for amending TFA selection guidelines

Statement of intent

TFAs, as the front and center "face of WP", should actively support the principle of separating education from commerce, and demonstrate the core WP principles of verifiability and neutral point of view.

Proposed TFA selection guidelines

1. Whenever possible, TFAs should deal with primary topics in the general subject areas they concern: "tissue" not "Kleenex", "personal computer" not "Apple Macintosh", "operating system" not "Microsoft Windows XP", "acting" and "motion pictures" not "KaDee Strickland". This isn't to say that if an FA PC article doesn't exist, Mac is OK, it means, if there are clearly more fundamental topics, then the candidate should probably be disqualified.

2. A TFA should be based primarily on a comprehensive and stable body of references. Abundant peer-reviewed sources and other credible, academically recognized reference works should be the standard. Therefore (based on 1.+2.), "war" before "World War II" before "Iraq war". This is particularly useful for further evaluating the suitability of people when they are actively working, brand-name products, proprietary technologies, religious occasions, current events: "green tree frog" not "Kermit the Frog". Articles based mainly on sources like news media (newspapers, magazines) or official product literature would generally not meet this standard.

3. TFAs should NOT be scheduled in order to create a topical (e.g. current event) tie-in, in fact, that should be actively avoided. No "Christmas" on Dec 25 or anywhere therabouts; no "KaDee Strickland" on KaDee's birthday. In this respect, TFA should demonstrate the quality represented by FAs by deliberately not resorting to common promotional techniques and an appeal to popular trivia.

Perceived advantages

This approach to TFA selection could have some interesting effects on the FA and general article improvement process:

• flexible and inclusive: based on consensus discussion and allows for exceptional situations (nothing is explicitly excluded based on subject)
• puts improvement-oriented focus on TFA selection (perhaps more FACs would be nominated based on TFA criteria, which would seem to be viable, for one, because there are lots of articles out there that are at or near "FA quality" that simply aren't nominated because nobody has championed them).
• highlights necessity for ensuring highest FA quality this sort of focus takes the "cute" out of TFA and focusses on the FA "compelling even brilliant", in that, you should be able to pick any TFA at random and be drawn in to the article, regardless of whether the topic is familiar and timely or completely alien and out of the blue...

Perceived disadvantages

• Rule creep
• Tomorrow's Featured Article is not a review process, if an article is Featured, then it's the best that WP has to offer. If it doesn't front-page, maybe it's generally considered to be too offensive / etc. But still a FA.
• Inflexible - "Kleenex" may be more interesting than "tissue", for example.
• Promotion is a good thing! Featuring an article on Isambard Kingdom Brunel on the 200th anniversary of his birth should be seen as a celebration! And if mass-media picks up on it, all the better - free promo!
• Quirky front page articles make Wikipedia the unique entity that it is - introducing people to the charms of the Japanese Toilet and the Heavy Metal Umlaut!