Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

"Well written"

Featured articles are supposed to be well written. But I looked at a few of them, and they were all badly written. For example, in Starship Troopers,

Anecdotally, it appeared that a variety of audience responses occurred.

In The Office (US TV series):

Differing from many other mockumentaries, much of The Office is scripted.

Then I started looking at featured articles in alphabetical order. In Art competitions at the Olympic Games:

Generally, it was allowed for artists to enter multiple works, although this number was sometimes restricted.

"It was allowed for artists" is much worse than "artists were allowed". And what number was restricted - the number of artists, or the number of works? Next, in Felice Beato,

In an October 1866 fire that destroyed much of Yokohama, Beato lost his studio and negatives and he spent the next two years working vigorously to produce replacement material.

It sounds as though the fire lasted two years.

I don't see how anybody could come to that conclusion. The sentence is perfectly clear to me - he lost his studio in a fire, and then spent 2 years trying to replace it. You can't say it much more clearly than the sentence already does. Raul654 14:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No. It's in the timing. The comma makes a pause, and then the rest of the sentence all comes as one block, with no pauses, so it seems as though it all happened during the fire. There should be another comma after "negatives", or change it to "... Beato lost his studio and negatives. He spent ...." Joe579 23:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously think Wikipedia should give up any attempt to be well written, and just concentrate on its strengths, like having a huge amount of information. Just my opinion!

Joe579 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What, so just because some articles have writing flaws we should give up trying to write well? That's really a terrible idea. There are mechanisms for addressing this: first of all, you can fix things yourself. If there's too much for you to fix, there's FA review. You could also take part in the reviewing yourself. Worldtraveller 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just some articles. Featured articles are supposed to be the best 0.1%, and they're still very badly written. It follows that probably virtually all articles are badly written. (So yes, there is too much for me to fix.)

You're right, obviously people should not give up trying to write well. But the "well written" criterion for featured articles is clearly not being met. If that criterion was removed, I think it might make the idea of featured articles more credible. Joe579 23:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem might simply be that Featured article continue to be edited. The Starship trooper sentence you quote was not even in the originally promoted article. There were ugly additions to Office Space since its being featured on April 22 (such as this big, useless "music" table). Well-Written is also subjective, and it is thecommunity agreement most of anything that makes article to be featured. Circeus 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Let's stop this spiral into mediocrity. Using the argument that "well-written is subjective" is the oldest trick to justify poor prose. FAC contributors have used it a number of times, and we simply ignore it. The reality is that much of good writing arises from patterns that have widespread agreement throughout the English-speaking world; there's a certain element of individual style, but in most cases it is distinguishable from the former aspect.

WP's authority will always rely significantly on how well its articles are written. Slapping information into a poorly organised, poorly written article will increasingly fail to have an impact in the highly competitive online environment.

My bet is that the antagonists in this section are not good writers/editors. Why not improve your skills? Tony 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Is there a real reason to not try to write articles that correspond to standard English conventions? If there's errors on other articles, feel welcome to fix them. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image sources

Can I strongly suggest that a much more stringent checking of image sources start taking place. See my comment here: Talk:Iranian_peoples#Image_sources. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of this page

Perhaps this is just being picky, but is there any reason this couldn't be at "featured article criteria" rather than "what is a featured article"? As it stands, this article doesn't really attempt to answer the question it poses. These are just criteria, and people generally call this page "featured article criteria" anyway... just a thought. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree; your proposed name says precisely what it is. Tony 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If this were an article, I think I'd be comfortable being bold and moving it as a non-controversial move, but I since it's part of the FAC process, I'm nervous about making changes. I'm sure it doesn't hurt anything to have it here, so maybe people would prefer not tampering with it. Do you think it's worth straw-polling over, Tony? This isn't extremely important to me if it's likely to be controversial. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 13:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from; on the other hand, I'm not convinced that the name is a problem at the moment: we already have a WP:FAC, and I'm not aware of there being much confusion about the role of this page. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ALoan (as usual). Raul654 16:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It really isn't that important, just a semantics thing. -- Lee Bailey^(talk) 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

About See also

I was told by Piotrus that according to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into the main body of the article 2) if something is in the main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. He said he saw this argument at various FAC/PRs and adopted it, as it sounds quite sound. My question is whether or not we should all follow this rule? --Loremaster 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus is right. If something is important enough to mention, it should be mentioned in proper context in the prose of the article, as opposed to a list at the end. And yes, this is probably worth mentioning in the criteria. Ditto for "trivia" sections too. Raul654 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So is Citation signal and "See also" line or section of the Help:Section going to be edited to inform contributors of this rule of thumb? --Loremaster 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd come in late on this as I was directed to it from the manual of style. I'd like to register my objection to all three of the points that appear to be consensus. I'm very strongly opposed to this way of thinking as it impairs my wikipedia user experience. With user rather than editor hat one, it's frustrating to have to scan through an article to try and find the link that I want rather than just being able to scroll to the bottom to find the link. If I'm trying to find something out then chances are that I'm not exactly sure of the correct title so I'm going to be finding the closest thing that I know about and working my way there. I don't want to have to read each article on the way to get there. MLA 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing Strictness on Historical Articles

Some articles, Hannibal for example, are really detailed but don't have sources for the actual events. Like, for example, did Hannibal really use this strategy? Did he really take this course etc. etc. For most of these, the answer is obvious, yes he did, but where do you need to source and where do you just let it go? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good question. I agree that all too many historical articles don't cite their sources. The accepted mode of writing seems to be that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles don't really need to cite sources (although there are numerous policies and guidelines providing citation standards).

In my opinion, since Wikipedia is always a work in progress with multiple editors, each editor should know the sources for the state of the article to date. Thus the traditional standard of citing a specific source, for example (Doe 1996, p. 27), for every fact that isn't common knowledge is especially important.

Given the concern to maintain a NPOV and avoid presentation of fringe arguments, we might even want to consider the standard of some newspapers by expecting citation of two Independent sources.

Since we're not trying to do original research, I'd argue against citing Primary sources extensively. Primary sources are hard to interpret and most important primary sources have developed a whole literature of expert interpretation that should be cited instead. --SteveMcCluskey 14:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:AndyZ/Suggestions

i think this link contains too much useful information to remove from see also so i restored it. the date formatting issue is better addressed with edits to that page, rather than delinking here (cutting off hand to spite foot etc etc). cheers. Zzzzz 14:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I see no reason that it should have been removed, in particular without discussion here first. Tony 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor who originally removed the link did in fact change AndyZ's page to reflect the MoSDATE guideline, and the change seems to be fine with Andy (it has stuck for three days). Another editor, presumably unaware of this change, removed the link a second time. I have reverted, since I assume this was a misunderstanding. If not, I will not revert again, but to anyone who wishes to remove the link again, please explain on this talk page. --Robth^Talk 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No In-Universe Topics

I have a suggestion about a new rule for Featured Articles: Restricting featured articles that are about a fictional work to only the work of fiction itself, ie. an article about a James Bond movie, book, series of movies or series of books, but not an article about James Bond himself. If something in the work of fiction is important enough to be a featured article, there will most likely be significant information in the article about the work of fiction itself. I realize that this is not a perfect rule, and may end up being completely impractical, but I thought it was interesting enough to mention.

I was a bit surprised to see that today's featured article is Bulbasaur. To me, this is an article on something that is not notable, but I understand that the definition of a featured article does not include notability. Furthermore, I understand that the concept of notability is difficult to define and whether or not something is notable will vary greatly from person to person. Although this is certainly not a way of removing ALL Featured Articles based on cruft and is far from perfect, I thought it was interesting enough to toss out their and see if anyone was interested in discussing it. What do guys think? --Polkapunk 16:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So does this have any point other than preventing Bulbasaur from being an FA? ;-)

(More seriously, this could be broader than you intend. For example, Superman would, strictly speaking, no longer qualify under this rule.) Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Superman is also the name of the original comic strips and books Superman was in (but that's just me being insanely anal). Your point is taken.--Polkapunk 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is quite simple, really:

WP:AFD is the place where we test whether an article should exist (for notability, or other reasons).
If an article can pass AFD then it can, in principle, be a featured article, so long as it meets some quite general criteria that any good encyclopedia article should meet (well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable, meeting relevant style criteria, with appropriate images, and of appropriate length).

Where is this stated? I've seen a lot of people say that anything that passes AFD can become featured, but there's many topics that are just too trivial or unsourcable to feature. An example of the former is Jordanhill railway station, which is probably as complete and well-written an article as you can get for something so minor in importance and scope; an example of the latter would be an article on some Renaissance nobleman about whom history records his name, title, and lineage but little else. Please note, this is not a statement of support for Polkapunk's blanket ban on in-universe FAs, rather an objection to a spurious principle that everyone seems to take for granted. Andrew Levine 13:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is FAC policy because I have decided we will do it this way and most everyone seems to think it's a good thing (in that it prevents FAC from becoming the new AFD). Raul654 13:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, it is consensus, whether it is written down or not (and remember that our policy pages and guidelines are generally descriptive of the consensus way of doing things, rather that perscriptive of the way things must be done).

Jordanhill railway station had a FAC in March, when the consensus was that it was too new, and there were some suggestions for expansion. Who knows, it may be nominated again, and it may pass - why not give it a go? There is no minimum size for featured articles - AEJ Collins is very short, for example, but there is not much more that can be said of someone who died aged 29 after doing one remarkable thing. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've thought for a long time now we should replace that standard by one we already have: WP:V. Essentially a topic that has enough verifiable information to be featured can, one that doesn't can't. It neatly solves the issue because a topic having sources is an objective thing whereas AFD is mob rule and voting on emotions. As mentioned here AFD is more subject to project demographics. As to fictional articles, we just have to make sure they have enough out of universe information from reliable sources. No sources=not featurable, we don't even have to worry about AFD. - Taxman ^Talk 23:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If an article becomes a featured article then it can, in principle, appear on the Main Page (with a few exceptions, such as Wikipedia, which is failing a FARC on WP:FAR as we speak anyway).

I can't for the life of me see why an article on James Bond or Gandalf or Jabba the Hutt or spoo or the TARDIS should not be capable of being featured, any more than articles on such arcane but factual matters as A. E. J. Collins, the Swedish allotment system and the Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an overabundance of articles that, in my personal opinion, qualify for deletion (of which many, I'm embarrassed to say, have been edited by me), but many of them have such a force of emphatic fans behind them that they are often kept. Enforcing a stricter policy on Featured Articles could end up with a trickle down throughout wikipedia, but as you and Kirill Lokshin have pointed out, there would be an overabundance of characters in fiction that have had a significant impact in culture that would not be possible candidates. On a personal note, I don't consider spoo to be a notable :P--Polkapunk 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

there is an official wikiguideline : Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).Zzzzz 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we will not be instituting this criteria. Raul654 20:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Link giving advice about writing

Tony has put up a link on this page to his user subpage User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. Criterion 2a is how to make sure an article consists of good, even "brilliant" writing.

I disagree with quite a bit of Tony's advice. Much of it is highly subjective, and will lead (in my opinion) to boring, stunted writing, quite the opposite of brilliant.

I'm concerned that people will read this and feel it's the only way to satisfy 2a. I would therefore like to (a) remove the link from the page; or (b) leave it on the page but copy it into project space so that anyone can edit it; or (c) move it to a title that makes clear it is Tony's opinion only. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is in Tony's userspace would suggest that it is his opinion. Tony is a professional editor and I think his clear suggestions on FAC do lead to the overall improvement in the quality of text. If it helps people then there is no issue.--Peta 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't always help, though, Peta; sometimes it causes problems. Other people editing Wikipedia are professional editors (and, indeed, not just editors, but writers), and they don't always agree with Tony. So the advice is subjective, and shouldn't be presented as though it were an agreed standard. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

i like it, there is no issue. it should stay as is. Zzzzz 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is to stay, it must be made clear that it's one person's opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why single out this guide, when there are 4 unoffical guides at the end of this page?--Peta 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason this one is a problem is that Tony often comments or objects to articles, sometimes very aggressively, because he doesn't like the writing, and he cites 2a. However, 2a is not just about the writing, and it doesn't say anything about what good writing is, just that articles have to be, inter alia, "well written," whatever that means. For Tony then to post his own opinion about what "well written" means, but on his user subpage, and called "How to satisfy Criterion 2a," suggests it is an agreed standard. It would be like people posting on the RfA page their own opinions on what people have to do to become admins, but keeping the list in user subspace to discourage others from contributing to it. Try posting such a list, Peta, and count how many seconds it would survive.

Query—If you have these objections to it, why did you insert it at the bottom of your draft reviewers' guidelines? Odd. Tony 12:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made it clear now that the links represent personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, "now" is the operative word. You mean, you decided to do that after I wouldn't go along with the thrust of your "guidelines". Was it originally just a device to try to win me over? Really, this is all too transparent. BTW, you may think that I encourage "boring, stunted writing"; to turn the other cheek, I must say that I think you're a good writer. Tony 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To give an example of Tony's (as I see them) problematic views, he recently objected to an FA nomination on the grounds that the article failed 2a, offering by way of example that the following two sentences contained "serious flaws in language and logic." But he was unable to point to a single serious flaw in either, and nor am I.

[Hilary Putnam] is perhaps best known not for any particular view, but for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with the same degree of intense scrutiny, subjecting them to rigorous analysis until he exposes their flaws. As a result, he has acquired a reputation for frequently changing his own position."

I'm concerned that he's attempting to impose his own opinions about writing on the FA process as though they were matters of fact, or an agreed standard, or that they represent what most good writers would advocate. But they're not and they don't. They really are just his opinions, and that has to be made clear in some way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The example you cite is obviously too complex, I needed to read it twice to understand what was going on, and it could easily be shortened to - Putman is known for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with intense scrutiny. - without losing any of the meaning. Tonys guide is useful for anyone who wants to improve their prose, you seem to be making an issue where there is none.--Peta 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a serious issue. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam, where Tony believed he knew better than, I believe, three professional philosophers, two professional editors and writers, and at one point, Hilary Putnam himself.

Peta, the example I cite is not at all complex. The two sentences mean what they say: no understanding of the background or context is necessary. And leaving out the second sentence would miss the point that he has a reputation for changing his own position, which is what he's chiefly known for. Please outline what you think might be the "serious flaws of language or logic." Or rather, don't waste your time. There are certainly tweaks that could be made to the writing, though there's nothing seriously wrong with it. But a serious flaw, or any kind of flaw, in logic? And yet that was the basis of Tony's objection to a featured article, one that Hilary Putnam himself has said he likes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just suggesting shortening the sentence I mentioned, which is too long and complicated, not chopping out the whole bit. You seem to be entirely ignoring the audience in your criticisms of Tony. Of course academics are going to be ok with multi-part complex sentences, however the general reader isn't. Anthing that makes this kind of writing more accessible and understandable to a general audience is a good thing.--Peta 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In editing the sentence, you changed the meaning, which is what editing must avoid. It is not simply that he is known for scrutinizing etc and changing his mind a lot. It is also that he is known for doing that more than he is known for holding any particular position, which is unusual in a professional philosopher.

I agree to some extent that we have to write for a general audience, but no general reader is going to understand the Putnam article anyway, so in reality we're writing it for other philosophers, philosophy students, and people in related disciplines. We have to write with them in mind, so not everything can be spelled out in words of one syllable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"... no general reader is going to understand the Putnam article anyway". It's this elitism that we don't need. The challenge in an encyclopedic register is to write in a way that is accessible to the general reader. The scientists manage to do this, and so should philosophers. That is why Alain de Boton has done philosophy a great service, by making it accessible to us non-specialists, by making us think where formerly we wouldn't have. I don't care if the purists pooh-pooh him: he's made us think more deeply about some aspects of life. This can be done in almost any topic without damaging the intellectual/technical aspect, although there may be parts of an article that general readers have difficulty with. That's where the skilful use of sections and subsections can play a valuable role. Tony 07:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It would not be possible to write a good article about Putnam that a general reader could understand; if it were, there would be no need for people to spend years studying it. In what sense has Alain de Botton done philosophy a "great service"?! He is not a philosopher (did a BA in history and an MA in phil) and didn't make anything that academic philosophers study "accessible to the general reader." Sadly, philosophy is a subject that people think they can have a view on without having studied it. But it is not about "aspects of life." It is a rigorous, demanding, almost impenetrable academic discipline, one of the most difficult. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg's edit was a good compromise, Zzzzz. Please don't revert again. My preference would be to remove it entirely, so if I can accept this compromise, I hope you can too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Niz, if you want to restore it to the pre-dispute version, then please go back to before Tony added it, the day before yesterday. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal views are just that, personal views. If people want to move their advice out of personal space and into the Wikipedia space, so they can be voted on as guidelines, then they can become guidlines. Until then, we shouldn't give editors the false impression that these are anything more than the personal views of the authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

hi, i suggest you try 3 things: (1) stop spreading the angry "flame war" you are having across multiple pages - please keep it focused in ONE PLACE if you must have it at all. it makes the shouting and screaming difficult to follow otherwise. (2) follow and understand the FA process a while longer before trying to change the world - I understand you have just 1 FA and are basing all your opinions and judgements on the one unhappy experience. the FA regulars (including me) OTOH have had many successful and unsuccessful noms, and generally understand these issues a little better thru experience. (3) stop being so hypersensitive about criticism - its what editing wikipedia is about! ;-) cheers. Zzzzz 12:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about me "having" just one FA, and I'm not basing my opinions on one incident. I've been watching FAs for close to two years. And this is not a flame war. I posted on this page about the link on the project page. Where else do you suggest I post such a query? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

i have never seen or heard of you before, are you sure you're an FA regular? if its not correct that you have achieved only 1 successful FA nomintaion, i apologise and ask you to please indicate how many FAs you have achieved, and how many were unsuccessful. (for balance, I have 5 successful, 3 unsuccessful - and i found all the links to personal essays here extremely useful). as i see the same angry accusations made on almost every FA-related page, all seemingly instigated by one user, SLimVirgin, you can see why I would call the discussion a flame war. i suggest the talk page of WP:FA, where it seems this angry exchange has been going on the longest, is the place to vent your spleen. Zzzzz 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being so aggressive. You obviously haven't been following this. I am not the only person involved, and certainly not the one who started what you're calling a "flame war." I have three successful FAs, and two failed, though I can't see what difference that makes. Finally, I didn't say I was an FA regular; I said I've been watching them for close to two years. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The guide currently says "The following guides focus on the most common problems in nominated articles:". I am happy with tihs for the time being, and I suggest we leave it as that for now. Raul654 13:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul, I would like to add that the links represent personal views. Tony's views on writing are not shared by everyone, and the only alternative to adding that it's his personal view is for others to write up theirs, which would involve a lot of work. We don't allow users to post their personal views on adminship on the main RfA page, or to post to the RfAr page their personal views on how the Arbitration Committee should work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you are of that opinion, why did you include a prominent link to it at the bottom of your draft guidelines??? Tony 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "prominent" link; it's no more prominent than anything else. And I added that it is a personal view. That's all that has to happen here: that it be made clear that it's your opinion. I'm curious as to why you're resisting that. Do you want people for some reason to believe that your view of good writing is shared by everyone? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're putting words into my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort. I'm too busy with more important things to get into a frenzy about something so trivial. Tony 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What kinds of "important things", Tony? Writing Featured Articles? If so, which ones? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, is this necessary? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreso than this, I would imagine. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? I asked the question in good faith, expecting an honest response. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll continue this on your Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A thought about 2a

I know this will immediately seem redundant to most of you, but I thought I'd just throw it out there anyway. I know it wouldn't solve all the concerns about this particular section of the criteria, but what if article 2a was stated something like" "(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant, and has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free of typos and errors in spelling and grammar. ? I realize this should be implied without stating directly, but through observation of the FAC process, I've noticed that a lot of people are quite touchy about objections of this kind. Obviously, this would not change the fact that objectors are encouraged to fix small problems where they can, nor would it need to apply to points of style which are equally accepted in Wikipedia, such as UK vs. US spelling. But as a small concession to potential civility concerns, I think it might be appropriate to emphasize in advance -- even if it should be obvious -- the fact that's it's completely fair to object over lack of proofreading, which may be a completely separate issue from the quality of the article's prose otherwise. Maybe? -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 01:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal, Lee. One problem it may raise it that explicitly citing one of the main means for achieving "compelling, even brilliant" prose (i.e., proofreading) may detract from the larger, simpler statement (of those three words in quotes here). Yes, I think it is redundant here, but might be useful somewhere else. Tony 02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Lee, that it would be helpful to add that. Nominated articles do sometimes arrive with obvious spelling and punctuation errors, and if people are asked to concentrate on fixing those, they'll probably spot other errors too, so it's all to the good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make a counter suggestion, that I hope is in the broad spirit of Bailey's suggestion. Let's leave "well-written" as it is so that it continues to imply compelling rather than merely polished prose, but add as a new requirement: "Well-edited" and we can specify it to include notions like proof-reading, copy-editing, careful adherence to style manual, etc. "Polished to a brilliant sheen" is my sense here. I think this would also help to diffentiate the standards for FA and GA. See also the discussion at the talk page for wikipedia talk: How_to_review_a_featured_article_candidate. Bmorton3 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely in the spirit of my previous suggestion, and I think it's a good improvement upon it. There's still a bit of redundancy, but as a separate item proofreading concerns would distract less from the statement about "compelling, even brilliant" prose. -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We could alter clause 2 to "It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, well edited and stable" and then make a new 2e (moving the old to 2f) "(e) "Well edited" means that it has been carefully proofread to ensure the text is free from typos and errors in spelling and grammar, well copy-edited, and polished to a sparkling sheen." I think it is important that we seperate the notion of being well edited from the notion of being well written. I have articles that I believe are well written in the sense required here, but they are not yet well edited (or if they are I can't tell because I'm too close and I'm not a good editor). If they were nominated for FA and then attacked for poor writing I would be pissed off, and less likely to contribute valuable writing to WP in the future (especially when I could be spending the time doing OR instead). But if they were attacked as not yet well-edited, I would be greatful for the help in improving them. I think this dynamic is at work in other places to. I don't want to dwell on last week, but think about next week; and my best guess for how to prevent bad scenes from reoccuring is to seperate the requirements for being well-written and well-edited so that the expectations are clear, and you can cite the expectations in a way that isn't counter-productive. WP needs to value both writers and editors, both people who contribute material for free, and people who polish material for free. Bmorton3 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Padmé Amidala

Does anyone know why this was removed? There's a note at the top of the page from Zzzz that people should only submit one at a time. Did that become a hard and fast rule? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As per the FAC instructions, Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice. Zzzzz 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are second nominations normally removed as "failed" after people have started to review them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it - it should not have been removed. Raul654 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is the only nomination I currently have at FAC. Dmoon1 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

New guidelines

I'm not participating in an edit war over my original title. It was: "New guidelines should alarm every reviewer here". SlimVirgin has now reverted it twice, and Yomangani and I have each reinstated the original title once. I think that changing my title is improper; SlimVirgin was quite at liberty to start her own subsection under another title; but this was the title I chose, with good reason, IMV. Tony 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Headings_on_talk_pages:

"Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please refrain from being critical and negative in headings on talk pages. Keep in mind that you may think you are being critical about details of the article, but those details were written by individual editors, and thus you are criticizing their edits and them." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear colleagues

I'm sorry to appear adversarial after Slim's previous notification of these guidelines, but I want to warn all reviewers, here and at WP:FAR, that this proposal appears to be going in the direction of regulating what we may and may not say, and how we may say it, in the FAC and FARC rooms.

The push is coming from several contributors to the Hilary Putnam nomination—still current—who weren't expecting to encounter objections to what was a premature nomination, and who, I believe, reacted poorly when challenged. The evidence is there for you to inspect overleaf. Nevertheless, with a lot of work and unnecessary grief, the article has improved dramatically, and I think that all reviewers, including me, have switched to "Support".

Now, it looks as though steam is being let off in the development of unnecessary and inappropriate rules. I hope that this little project remains in draft form and never sees the light of day: otherwise, I feel that the hard work that you all do here may be significantly compromised.

You can have your say on the talk page. Tony 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you said just a couple of hours ago that you supported it. What happened to change your mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic that the majority of people cooking up this policy regulating WP:FAC behavior are users I have never seen on WP:FAC until a few days ago. If this is going to get any credibility at all, we're going to need input from people like Taxman, Titoxd, Nichalp, Mav, Raul, Worldtraveller, ALoan, Tsavage, Petaholmes, and others whose names currently escape me but are long-time FAC contributors. I'll try to participate in the discussion, but at this point I'm not optimistic about the end result. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. SV, I can't speak for Tony, but you launched what looked like a good idea to help improve the FA process, but your idea was overrun by people with an apparent ax to grind over bruised egos. The last time I checked, it was headed the wrong direction, so I hope that train can get back on the right track with more balanced input from reviewers who have longer involvement on FAC and FAR. Sandy 20:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, as I said before, you and the other reviewers are the ones with the hands-on experience, and so your input is vital for the page to work. I think it can work and that some good will come of it, but it'll take time to write it well. It was only put up a few hours ago, so it's still just a draft of a draft of an idea. Please add your own knowledge and experience to the page when you have time. I can assure you that I am not trying to lower standards. My aim in this is only to try to lay out a set of consistent, transparent, and explicit standards, so that reviewers and nominators know what's expected of them, and nominators will know not to submit candidates until those standards are reached. It seems to me that that's in everyone's interests.

Tony, I hope you don't mind, but I've changed your header, because I feel it's premature and unfair. It's too early to reach any conclusions, because the proposal hasn't been written. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take another look at it now: WP:REVIEW. I've switched the focus away from reviewers, and the advice is now for reviewers and nominators. I'll also do my best to keep Putnam-related criticism off the talk page so individual reviewers won't feel they're being attacked. The page isn't finished yet, of course, and people should feel free to add to it as they see fit. I hope the switch of focus helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, SlimVirgin, I do mind if you change my title to your own purpose, and have reverted it. I'm getting the line "Oh, wait, it's only under development, it's unfair and premature to criticise". No, I can see exacty where this is going. First, I'll point out a few of the draft guidelines and their ramifications.
- "Reviewers should ... have good writing and research skills ...". Why? The FA Criteria are wide-ranging, and draw on a similarly wide range of reviewers: identifying NPOV, and lack of comprehensiveness or stability, and problems in image and sound copyright doesn't require these skills—many WPs are adept at these matters, but would not claim to be good writers or researchers. Many WPs are good at pointing out instances of poor prose, an inadequate lead, lack of summary style, and a poorly organised ToC, but would not claim to be good writers or researchers. This restrictive assumption about who should be a reviewer is reinforced later, in "Unless you are sure of your own mastery of the subject, try to ...". One of the best things about WP is its inclusiveness. Anyone should be able to perform just about any function if s/he wants to; the process sorts out those who have nothing to offer. We need more, not fewer people in FAC and FAR/C.
- [Reviewers should:] "aim to be rigorous without being unnecessarily discouraging." "[be] tactful and respectful". "be sensitive and tactful when they offer criticism." And "contributors may be upset if told that their grammar or spelling is wrong". WP already has rules about civility that apply everywhere, including the FAC and FARC rooms. We have a well-oiled mediation process, if it comes to that. More specific proscriptions here will prompt (1) constant debate over how to define these epithets, and (2) a practice by the "smart" nominators of quoting them back at reviewers to rebuff the critical process. I can see this significantly weakening the process. Nominators are well aware that submitting their work to the FAC process may be tough; there's no other way of maintaining a two-tiered system. Sometimes, the process may result in discouragement, because not everyone on WP has sufficient support to prepare a nomination. Reviewers should not be aggressive or rude (as everywhere on WP), but cannot be held responsible for the most intimate feelings of those who have willing exposed their work to structured criticism.
- The guidelines endorse the practice evident in the behaviour of most of its authors (see the current FAC for Hilary Putnam) of aggressively rebutting critical comments: "Be ready to use additional sources to defend your edits if you feel the material is being criticized unfairly. Keep a standard style book to hand so you can support any vocabulary or use of grammar that is challenged, if you feel you have to (though note the advice above not to do so neurotically). Become familiar with the sources you've used, and keep some in reserve in case you have to develop particular points for the reviewer."
- [To reviewers:] "... if you maintain your objection in the face of a challenge, make sure the issue is important enough to block the nomination over". This hearks back to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Hilary Putnam, where the first and continuing line of offence was "your objections are trivial". It will be a sad day on WP when no one cares about fixing little glitches in language. Who would want to watch a film sprinkled with little editing glitches? It raises the bar to exclude all but make-or-break issues. Why?
- "[If unsure of their mastery,... reviewers should] try to check any contentious points of grammar in a standard reference work". "If a contributor can cite a precedent in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it." "(e.g. "Fowler says ...")" I frankly don't want to have Fowler quoted at me all the time—written in the early 20th century (even though updated), it's a partial account that can be a little dogmatic at times. These statements seem to be an invitation to have reference-book wars in the FAC room. But it's in everyone's interests to minimise combativenes in these processes.
- "Be helpful. If you see an uncontroversial way to improve the article, and you have time to make the edit yourself, the nominator might appreciate it." This plays to a continual refrain from some nominators "Why not do it yourself?". This provides a license for nominators to make this claim. Reviewers are under no obligation to edit what they review, and are thinly spread just critiqueing at the moment. It assumes that reviewers are interested in every topic they review, which is certainly not the case (more likely, they're interested in maintaining standards across the board).

I don't really see a problem to be fixed. Nominators and reviewers become frustrated, even angry, from time to time. It's part of the process, as long as it's kept in proportion. But in the now-huge FAC for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Hilary Putnam, many of us feel that a sense of proportion was lost by the nominators, not the reviewers. These same people are now the authors of these guidelines.

To illustrate why some of us find it galling that incantations to nominators to "Be unemotional", "Don't be neurotic" and "Be civil" are trotted out in these guidelines, I'll selectively quote below some of the text from this FAC, involving most of the authors of the guidelines: Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias, Sam Clark and Dbuckner—but not, I must add, SlimVirgin. The text I've quoted suggests variously bullying, self-congratulatory, and simply offensive behaviour. There's much more that I haven't included. The first glimmer of the problem was when Sandy said "Nice work so far" and was rebuffed with "Yeah, I'm sure you really beleive that." Then it snowballed, despite reviewers' demeanour that varied from helpful to deadpan—take a look yourself. The FAC text would make an interesting study in group dynamics.

"Here they come, ladies and gentlemen!! They FA clique.... Toni's lapdogs will now weigh in with similar nonsense and sink the nomination, of cousre. The goal is to control the FA process and ensure that only the same three or four people with the exact same linguistic prefernces will be allowed to have Featured Articles in Wikipedia. Are you going to let them take over control of the magic tower by a virtual coup d'etat, ladies and gentlement."//"Who on god's earth are YOU to imply that you know more about the quality of prose than Hilary Putnam!!!"//"Maddening!! What the devil?? You see: what [Tony] does is mix in two or three genuine errors with fifty subjective calls about commas and "later stills anf then throws out "ALL the sentences suck!! You are an idiot. Rewrite the whole thing from top to bottom."// "After that, three or four people jumo on board with their object 2a, object 2a, object 2a, Peackock words thrughout..."//I just don't understand why WP is doing its best to discourage the one person [Franko] who is capable of improving the overall poor standard of articles in this area."//"the constant attacks and harassment from trolls (philosophy being the one subject area where everyone fancies themselves an expert). Franco is the one person who has persevered. Why is WP doing their best to discourage him. This article is FINE PIECE OF WRITING.... So give the guy a break."//The following ironic text from Lacatosias: "Self-incrimination: "the same writer who wrote the "compelling and briklklaintly written philosophy of mind FA, now writes god-aweful prose that comes no where near metting FA standards!!"//"Toni and his collaborators (Sandy and the others above who refuse to remoive their irrelevant objections!!)are hell-bent on getting me off the Wikipedia for reasons I cannot even beging to fathom (and do not want to). I will leave you all to your nonsensical dispute..."//"Your views on prose style are dogmatic and prescriptive, and the fact that others have pointed this out before is not a refutation of that point. Perhaps you should have listened? As a final point: I have made no contribution to this article beyond correcting a few typos in passing. You should check the edit history before making this kind of accusation of bias.... high-handed and patronising treatment ... of FF, or of others here."//"Do you have any substantive points to make, by the way, other than the punctuation trivia you mentioned. Your criticism consisted of no more than the pedantic comments above, then the sweeping assertion that the writing was poor. Could you explain what you mean by 'bad writing'? If you mean mis-punctuation, or your idea of mispunctuation, then you are wrong. I checked on Fowler this evening, and he is relatively relaxed about the whole thing."//"... the patronising tone of your remarks. Your initial objections to the article ... were made in an unnecessarily aggressive tone."//"himself, Sandy, AmbujSaxena and two or three others who have taken control of the FA process behind the scenes ..."//"So,where are the legendary copyeditors anyway?? I just put the cleanup tag on and they're not coming around. I doubt they will ever come around. Don't you agree, Toni??"//"Do not edit the article if you have "supported" it. He's trying to manipulate you you into editing it, so he can then try to make the case that your vote is invalid."//"[Spangineer's objections are] vague generalities".//"I already had an FA (I don't give a *** if the standars were lower). Your missing MY point compltely. I wasn't even satified with that. People came back on shit on the FA with ridiculous and irresponsible comments ... The usual nonsesne, incomprehension, lack of respect." Apparent self-congratulation among the contributors: "Franko, you have NO NEED to defend your good writing style and your mastery of the subject matter."//"I'm finished with criticisms, balance and refercnces."//"Why haven't you fixed the Fodor article, Tony"//"EVERYTHING IS PERSONAL. AND LISTEN TO HIS SARCASTIC TONE though."//"your tone is inappropriately sarcastic, dogmatic and patronising. It would be inappropriate in pretty much any context.... Take a step back from your self-certainty and egotism for a second, please,..."//"Why are this people spending such an effort on opposing based on the prose and finding this minor examples day after day? Wouldnt it be simple to fix it yourself and support?"//"Many of the objections, as I have repeatedly pointed out, are groundless, and the article is the worse for it."

I suggest that these guidelines are not helpful, and worse, that they have the potential to significantly damage the FAC and FAR/C process that we work so hard to maintain. They should be dismissed by serious WPians. Tony 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, there's no question that people were very rude to you on that Putnam FA page. In your shoes, I'd have walked away from it, so credit must go to you for persevering.

But can you also see that some of the statements you made were provocative? For example, you wrote about two sentences of mine that they contained "serious flaws in language and logic." Here are the sentences, discussing Hilary Putnam, the philosopher:

"He is perhaps best known not for any particular view, but for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with the same degree of intense scrutiny, subjecting them to rigorous analysis until he exposes their flaws. As a result, he has acquired a reputation for frequently changing his own position."

You wrote up a long critique of these two sentences, but at no point said what any of the "serious flaws in language or logic" were. I don't care for myself, because I have nothing invested in this article, and I wrote those sentences only to help with the copy editing because you'd complained about the writing. But if I had written the article, I'd have been stunned, in part because of the rudeness, but mostly because the criticism makes no sense. Those sentences aren't going to attract a Nobel Prize for Literature. Nevertheless, they're perfectly clear.

Then when you were told that Hilary Putnam had seen the article and liked it, you wrote (apparently seriously): "But these serious flaws in language and logic are nothing compared with the fact that the man "has praised this article", as you asserted here. If that is so, he's hardly qualified to rigorously analyse the language and logic of his fellow philosophers. There's a kind of awkward circularity about that, isn't there."

Are you able to see why your approach is causing problems? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't see any point in responding to this with further argument. People can just read it themselves and draw their own conclusions. I stand by what I wrote. Tony 06:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who started the aggressive posting, so please answer the question. Are you able to see why your approach is causing problems? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first clause: (1) To find the one who started the aggressive posting, go to the Putnam FAC. (2) What you regard as aggressive may simply be an opinion that takes issue with yours.

Your question answered: no.

Further comment: I'm getting sick of this discourse, when there are so many other worthwhile things to do here and in real life. Tony

Question for Tony for the third time: please answer

You seem to feel you have a right to be rude and aggressive, but when people ask you to explain, you declare yourself bored and wander off. Well, of course, you do have that right, but you undermine your credibility when you do it; and if you do it as part of the FA process, you undermine that too, which you have no right to do.

I am therefore going to ask you this again. You objected to an article because of its writing. You offered as an example of the poor writing that the following contained "serious flaws in language and logic."

[Hilary Putnam] is perhaps best known not for any particular view, but for his willingness to approach all philosophical positions, his own included, with the same degree of intense scrutiny, subjecting them to rigorous analysis until he exposes their flaws. As a result, he has acquired a reputation for frequently changing his own position."

I am asking you to point out one example of a "serious flaw" in language, and one example of a "serious flaw" in logic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tony, obviously, but I do see several serious problems. The first sentence is overly wordy and convoluted, and a number of shorter phrasings would be preferable. "Putnam is perhaps best known for intensely scrutinizing all philosophical positions, including his own, analyzing them until he exposes their flaws", for example, gets the same point across in fewer and clearer words. That strikes me as a "serious flaw in language". Second, "As a result" implies that this is a result of the fact stated in the previous sentence. In fact, one would presume that Putnam changes his position not because he is known for scrutinizing all opinions, but because he scrutinizes them. One possible better phrasing would be "His constant reexamination of his own positions has led him to change them frequently." I assume that this was the "serious logical flaw" in question. And I agree with Tony that those sentences were (are?) in need of work. --Robth^Talk 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can argue with a straight face that this is a "serious flaw in logic." The "as a result" applies to "his willingness to approach ..." not what he is known for, and it's very clear from the sentence. Yes, by all means, copy edit it to make it clearer, but to base an objection on it is beyond absurd.

Tony went on to argue that, as Hilary Putnam himself liked the article, and given that it contained such serious logical flaws, Putnam (one of the best known philosophers of logic in the world) was not in a position to judge it, nor indeed to judge any of the philosophical positions he is so fond of tearing apart. I'd have laughed if anyone else had written that, but I don't think Tony was joking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly clear what the sentence means, but the wording is, strictly speaking, wrong; what I meant by "serious flaw in logic" was a serious flaw in the logic laid out by the phrasing. Although there is sound logic behind what the author meant, what the words actually say is something different, and, well, logically flawed (it may be that I'm out in left field on making this distinction; if so, chalk it up as a side effect of too many years of Latin, where this stuff really matters). Looking now at the FAC in question (which I should have done before first commenting; my apologies), I see that Tony was getting at a different though related issue, and though it may seem pedantic, it is important to look at the strict, literal meaning of sentences; it's a critical element of good writing. More to the point, although this particular passage became the locus of the argument, I don't think Tony is objecting on the basis of this one sentence being wrong; he's objecting because the prose of the article is at such a level that you encounter sentences that are this wrong very quickly upon starting to read it, which presumably indicates similar problems throughout; sort of a rough statistical sampling thing. It's a fairly standard practice (pardon me if I'm telling you something you already know; I don't know how closely you follow FAC), although in this case the rationale was less overtly stated than is usual. So, all that said, Tony's critique looks valid to me, although the joke about Putnam was unnecessary. The objection was not based on matters of personal taste; those sentences do not say what the writer intended them to say. --Robth^Talk 05:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SV, Please see the FAC page for this discussion, where it would be better to carry on this dialogue. There, I went to great lengths to explain my view, and everyone can peruse it. As I've said before, it appears that I'm "rude and aggressive" because I've taken issue with you. Please try to take out the personal and the emotional from the discourse. I can understand that you're upset, but hey, you're a good writer, so we need you out in the articles. Calm down and move on. Tony 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that won't do. I don't believe you're rude and aggressive because you took issue with me; feel free to take issue whenever you want. It's the aggression and the certainty that you're right that is causing problems. Sometimes you're right; sometimes you're not. Most of the time, it boils down to preference. So by all means comment on how you would write something, but you can't base objections on issues that are matters of taste. Not everyone shares your views. You seem to prefer dry, clipped prose: short sentences, few commas. I don't. I like to hear the writer's voice. You appear to be trying to impose your voice on other people's writing, and that's what's creating a problem.

I fully support efforts to improve the writing in Wikipedia, which Jimbo once memorably and rightly called "horrific crap." But the bad stuff is out there among the one million plus non-FA candidates, so if you're really serious about helping to improve it, please get out there and do some copy editing. Trying to undermine people's FA work to the point where they consider not contributing anymore, which you did to the main author of Hilary Putnam, is not on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I was hanging around FAC, trying to make a decent contribution, because it was such a nice place. Sandy 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Random comment — Tony's a professional, so I just go by what he recommends :) But that's just me; I'm an 18 year old still finding my voice. — Deckill e r 04:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion from Aksi

I am not a regular at FAC. My only interaction with FAC has been due to some Indian articles regularly coming here. But I can see some serious flaws with WP:REVIEW too. Firstly, I don't see any need of the guideline. There is no need "to set out a clear checklist for both parties, to ensure a consistency of review criteria across the board". Whatever is needed for the nominators is already stated in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. And the only skill needed to review an article is the ability to read it. Some people spot errors on reading the article even if they are not good reviewers. If someone finds out some problems with the article, is it really that important whether he puts it under the heading Comment or the heading Object? The first point Be sensitive made me laugh. Put the positive points first... followed by the negative points. What is the need for things like that? Be realistic then contradicts your first point. What could be less sensitive and tactful than hearing that your article has no chance of making it to FA? I could go on like this for all the points. Your guideline could be summed up as "Please don't upset the contributors as they have put in a lot of effort". Surely Tony, Sandy, Spangineer and others never wanted to hurt anyone. I don't think there is any need to turn FAC into a place where you are afraid to voice your opinion because any time the nominators could challenge you citing one of the seven standards set out in WP:REVIEW. Lastly - aren't we forgetting the important role that Raul is playing here? After all it is he who decides whether there was consensus to promote the article. Surely he can see if there are some trivial objections which could be ignored. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 06:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NO, the skill of reviewing the article requires knowledge of grammar, style, punctuation, difference between US and English use &c. A lot of the criticisms were just silly and baseless, and were upsetting the main contributor. I don't excuse for a minute the way he reacted, but if a reasonable approach had been taken, this would never have happened. There is no contradiction between 'being tactful' and being realistic. One of the standard interview questions I give is 'how do you deliver bad news?'. Slim, GREAT piece of work. Dbuckner 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"What is the need for things like that? " Every course on dealing with difficult situations has a bit on that. It really helps in dealing with difficult people. Dbuckner 07:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NO, the skill of reviewing the article requires knowledge of grammar, style, punctuation, difference between US and English use &c. A lot of the criticisms were just silly and baseless, and were upsetting the main contributor. I'm sorry, you are simply mistaken. Several editors have indicated my review was fair and helpful. I don't focus on grammar or prose, because those areas are not a strength for me. On the one hand, you say reviewers have to have certain skills (which I don't have), so how do you reconcile that with the fact that apparently my input was helpful? Do you want me to stop reviewing because I acknowledge a relative weakness in the areas of grammar, style, and US/British use? Your proposals are *weakening* FA. WE *all* need to work together to make it work. I am not an expert on Fair Use: when there is a question on images, I make sure JKelly has had a look. I am not a great writer: if I feel the prose is tortured, I make sure one of the good copy editors have weighed in. If there is a content problem, I make sure someone knowledgeable in the area has commented. You are suggesting that only good copyeditors or writers should do ALL of the work, and we are already dealing with the problem of not enough good copy editors, with Tony expected to fix the 70-80 FACs and FARs that are up at any one time. Your proposals show a serious lack of understanding of the entire process, and you are basing your conclusions on one flawed FAC. And, from where I was sitting, you were the one who made things so hard on Francesco, and continually fanned flames, making it harder for him to do work he was capable of doing. Sandy 13:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy. Your work was consistently fair and helpful. Apart from one point of grammar which you made, which was flawed, I did not make any objections to your comments. Franco's work benefited enormously from your work. The points you make above bear out the need for the guidelines we have suggested. You are not an expert on Fair Use or whatever, so don't make any comments. You are clearly an expert in the area of referencing & so forth. Please don't take my comments to heart in this way.

But also, please (see below) stop this North Korean reference to 'understanding the process'. There is no such process as you describe. Dbuckner 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Apart from one point of grammar which you made, which was flawed, I made one point of grammar which was correct (an incomplete sentence). Besides that, I asked for a rework on a complex sentence, which was done, and the result was better. Had one sentence not changed, that would not have held up an FA unless a lot of editors had the same problem. You do not understand the process here: whether I'm right or wrong on my subjective call of a sentence that could be reworked, the nominator makes a good faith effort to address my concern, we talk, we resolve it, end of story. That's how a typical FAC works; they aren't adversarial as you made the only one you have any experience with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The process wasn't broken: the nominators were unreasonable and don't understand FAC. Sandy 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy here. The entire flaw (IMO) is that this proposal has come up due to one FAC. Everything was working fine till this and Ambuj's RfA came up. I am not trying to bring that RfA here. Sandy is right - the process of reviewing should not fall on one person who is a jack of all and master of none. If I develop skills in reviewing references, then it should be my right and duty to comment on them (and even oppose) if they are not correct. Again I stress that you are giving too much importance to the words oppose and comment here. This is not an RfA. This is one of the processes which actually works on consensus, feedback and improvement through that feedback. And this is not about Slim too. It is really great that SV actually thought of doing something. I just don't agree with the way she has taken. IMO it is the nominators who need to be trained to identify the proper comments made on an FAC and act upon them. I am not going to reply any more here because I too have my FAC to take care of among other things. And please don't take this personally. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was, in fact, the Hilary Putnam FAC that brought this to a head, but there have been many others in which inconsistent review standards, rudely expressed, have caused problems. It's time to get them fixed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be fixed. Please stop the drama and get back to building the encyclopedia. Or better yet let's try to solve the pathetic review process (Peer review, good articles, assessment, feedback, etc.). Joelito (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:REVIEW is trying to make a start in that direction by coming up with an explicit standard for reviewers and nominators. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There aleady are standards, they are working well, the page is repeating them, adding instruction creep, and not oriented towards addressing the real issues (for example, the ones raised by Joelito). Sandy 04:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion from Dinosaurs

I am not a FAC reviewer, but I have submitted Featured Article Candidates as part of my work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. I will say that each FAC we've had (4 in the past four months) has been difficult, with various objections that we sometimes felt weren't fair or even correct. For example, on our most recent FAC nomination, Tyrannosaurus, we were told by a very experienced FAC reviewer to "fix" the article so that it read "Tyrannosaurus" or "T. rex" in each instance in the article-- despite these two names being quite separate (Tyrannosaurus is a genus-level name; T. rex refers to the species; despite the genus being monotypic, one cannot simply substitute words; if you're talking about the genus as a whole, you cannot always just stick in the species name). We've experienced difficult objections with most of our dinosaur FACs, often for similar reasons. Despite our frustrations, all of our FACs did eventually pass, as we (I feel) hammered out some compromises with the reviewers. I don't feel restricting the FAC review team with a set of proposed rules like this will help. Already there are too few reviewers who are qualified to review on so many diverse subjects. Hampering the team with further restrictions will only lead to more wear and tear on their numbers, and we'll be left with even fewer ideas of how to improve our articles, less feedback, and, in the end, an article that isn't nearly as good. In this case, Tony is absolutely right: the new proposed guidelines should alarm every reviewer here, and should alarm every FAC nominator here, as I feel they will lead to lower-quality articles. Reviewers need to be able to feel they can really voice their opinions, objections and ideas, as long as they adhere to the usual Wikipedia guidelines concerning civility and whatnot. --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines will make the process easier. Why spend futile hours arguing over whether the first person "we" can be used in a philosophy article. If the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does it, why not Wikipedia? The guideline on precedent will sort that out. Note the onus is on the nominator to find the precedent, so there will be no extra work for reviewers, and the argument time will be nil. Dbuckner 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why spend futile hours arguing over whether the first person "we" can be used in a philosophy article. Yes, why did you? It was disruptive and unproductive, showing you don't understand the process. If a minor point is holding up a review, the admin (Raul) closing the FA makes that call. You simply do not understand FAC, and you are making judgments based on no experience with this process. Sandy 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's v. North Korean to say someone doesn't understand the process. Why is an admin calling on some minor point? I thought WP was all about consensus. The proposals that SV and I have suggested will allow issues like these to be resolved in a consensual way. Dbuckner 15:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On the point that there are too few reviewers: 1. There are too few good quality contributors to philosophy, I'm afraid the Putnam stuff has already scared even those ones off 2. There is now a small group of professional philosophers who have agreed to weed out and filter poor quality nominations so there will be even less work for reviewers. We have made every effort to make things easier for everyone all round, please support these guidelines. Dbuckner 11:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I fear that this misses the point: reviewing should be open to anyone, not restricted by professional background. Often, those with strategic distance from the topic can immediately see problems that the experts can't. It happens often to me, when people correct my prose. Tony 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You see problems where there aren't any. You impose your own opinions about the writing as though they were matters of fact. You impose them rudely and aggressively, and yet sometimes your opinions are very odd, not what most good writers would do at all. This attitude is where at least some of the FA problems are stemming from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that in this case there were reviewers seeing problems that simply weren't there. Dbuckner 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand why DBuckner thinks Wiki is *all* about Philosophy. That violin isn't playing well with me, since in my area of interest, I am the SOLE editor on Wiki, I have been trying to drum up someone to help me with my articles for six months, and there is not a single editor on Wiki who knows my area. That's life. The fact that there aren't enough philosophers is just no news: there aren't enough good editors or writers or knowledgeable people in many areas. And these proposals will only chase away editors when we need to attract more. Sandy 13:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

NO, quite the opposite. These proposals will give us an easy life. Dbuckner 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is "us"? How many articles do you plan to review? Sandy 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

He might be more inclined to get involved if there weren't so much unpleasantness, Sandy. I know I would. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I read through the guidelines, but it doesnt say how to layout a review or where, nor does it explain when to use comment, support or oppose. For a set of instructions on How to review a Featured Article Candidate, it is not unreasonable for this to be included. The guidelines dont explain how to review a scientific article whats expected in them or a mathematical article. Its appears to be solely about Biographical articles, does that mean that FA will be only available to this group. Gnangarra 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gnagarra, the guidelines aren't finished yet. By all means add to them.

Sandy, can you give an example of the kind of reviewer who might be put off reviewing by these guidelines; and can you point to the specific part of the guideline that you feel could have this effect? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already given you an example: me. When I came to Wiki, I had to use the helpme template a gazillion times. User:CommanderKeane might as well have set up a cot in my study. My UserPage says "Who wrote the instruction manual for this thing, anyway?" I wrote a few computer manuals in my day, and I *hate* the instruction creep on Wiki, the lack of clarity, and the number of places where the same version of some information is repeated. There is nothing new covered in this proposal, and it is not addressing the problems that come up in FAC. Editors are using FAC in place of PR and thinking GA prepares them for FAC: they're going to continue to do that unless the rest of the review process is fixed, and they aren't going to read another set of instructions if they haven't read what we've already got, and no amount of instruction is going to prevent the kind of abuse that reviewers received on Putnam, which was simply based on a lack of understanding of Wiki, the FAC process, and one person fanning the flames. Sandy 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

An example of the real problem for DBuckner

DBuckner, your proposals are heading in the direction of excluding me from review because I acknowledge I'm not a great writer. Now, I want you to carefully look at this example, and comment on it. I want you to see the real problem we should be addressing. PLEASE tell me if my analysis of the prose problems here is incorrect, and if you really believe this reviewer read the article before voting support. Please tell me exactly where you believe I am unqualified to point out prose problems in this article.

In the lead: Aspergers in children and adults assistance can consists of contraversial therapies that address the core symptoms of the disorder:
Research: Some research is to seek information about symptoms to aid in the diagnostic process. Other research is to identify a cause, although much of this research is still done on isolated symptoms. A lot of research have exposed base differences in things such as brain structure. To what end is currently unknown; however, research is on-going. FAR AS

Do I *really* need to detail the 2a) prose problems in that case? Do you really want to discourage me from reviewing? No one here, who works hard to improve FAs in Wiki, needs to take this kind of abuse. Sandy 13:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, who said I did? The example you gave is peppered with very obvious grammatical errors. I followed the link, and you seemed to have resolved it well. What's the problem? Dbuckner 15:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PS none of this is meant to be abusive. Dbuckner 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's example, with five supports already (why don't I see Dbuckner, SamClark and Lacotosias in there voting and helping copy edit, reference, and clean up the article? After all the time we gave to your article, it would be kind of you to reciprocate and help out with other articles here.)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Green and Golden Bell Frog

More importantly, why should I bother to object if the end result of an object is abuse of the objector? These are the problems that need to be addressed.

Sandy 18:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"DBuckner, your proposals are heading in the direction of excluding me from review because I acknowledge I'm not a great writer."

Sandy, where does WP:REVIEW state or imply this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I said, his proposals. Read up, to his comments on the requirements for reviewers. He seems to think we all have to be professional writers and copyeditors: who does the tedious work of checking images, references, links, WP:MOS, WP:GTL, WP:FN, everything else that matters? Who reads the talk page to check for POV or lack of comprehensiveness or unresolved issues? Who Googles when there are questions of article comprehensiveness and POV? (For example, there's a tax FAC up now: I'll be checking for liberal-conservative POV.) Who comes back to an FAC three, four, five times because the good-faith nominators keep working, and asking you to check again? He doesn't understand the collaborative spirit of FAC, the amount of work it takes to really filter the best, he fueled an extraordinarily adversarial FAC, and now wants to write policy based on a bad example and experience with not a single other FAC. Your proposal is feeding the misconception he has of FAC, and heading in a direction of further pitting reviewers against nominators, by adding instruction creep and lowering the give-and-take that is working just fine. We don't need more instructions: we need to prepare nominators for the big gap between GA/PR and FAC. And we need MORE reviewers, who actually *read* the articles, to take the burden off of the few that already do so much work here and on FAR. And we sure don't need to tell Tony and the other good copyeditors we have to do more copyediting, considering the amount they already do here, on FAR, and for other articles. Sandy 04:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read WP:REVIEW, I don't think it states or implies that writing skills are the only thing that's needed. If it does, please tell me where and I'll fix it. I hope you'll move away from the misconception that it was only Hilary Putnam that caused this. That triggered this situation, yes, but bear in mind that this has been going on for years. Why should we have guidelines for nominators, and none for reviewers? Don't you want to see some consistency in review standards so that nominators know what to expect? Wouldn't telling nominators — "here are what the reviewers will be looking for, and here are the issues they will base objections on" — help nominators not to submit articles too soon, as they currently often do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"here are what the reviewers will be looking for, and here are the issues they will base objections on" ... Right here, is what the reviewers are looking for. Adding another page to say what that already says is instruction creep. (You asked on the other talk page for an example: read up, it's in this section.) I can explain all the things I do to check that each point is met, but others work differently, or focus on different areas. The strength is in the collaboration: Fair Use just can't find its way into my brain, so I ask JKelly to check when I'm not sure. Reviewer standards will fuel adversarial discussions between noms and reviewers, disturbing the give-and-take collaborative environment. Again, the problem is NOT FAs that aren't getting promoted when they should: the bigger problems is ones that end up on FAR only months after promotion. I've asked you to show me an FAC that didn't get through when it should have; you haven't done that. Sandy 14:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I answered your question, I think twice already, on the other page. I can't keep posting to multiple pages about this, so I suggest we confine it to the proposal's talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul

Now I have not been following these things closely (I've been at Wikimania and I have all kinds of great things to talk about when I get back - please ask!). As a precept, I'm not enthusiastic about yet-another-featured-article related page (we have too many already). I skimmed over Wikipedia:How to review a featured article candidate (as it exists at this moment) and I didn't see anything particularly objectionable. Raul654 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PS - about the cool announcements - after I posted that comment, I sat down and wrote all hte things I'm trying to remember. I'll be posting them in more comprehensible form soon (probably to the signpost). Raul654 14:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

RyanGerbil10

I was once a regular at FAC, but have become less so in the past month, and especially since I have become an administrator. However, I agree that the reason I moved away from FAC is that I felt nominations had become contentious and petty. Although it is good to have high standards, I have thought in the past that some objectors have been a bit harsh. Don't get me wrong, Tony is excellent to have around and we should all thank him profusely for ensuring that only truly remarkable articles make it to the Main Page, but he could use a bit more tact in objecting to some nominations. After so much time at FAC. he should know that nominators are often attached to their articles, perhaps a closer author/article attachment than exists anywhere else on Wikipedia. These people should be approached carefully, not because they are deranged maniacs, but because they are attached to their articles in an emotional way that sometimes prevents them from being as objective as we would want. This behavior cannot be excused, because it runs contrary to policy, but we should recognize that it happens and will continue to happen, and we as reviewers should act in such a way to reduce inevitable over-emotional reactions. However, the rules page is something else. I agree with Raul that nothing on the rules page is objectionable, but I oppose us having it, as it is instruction creep, and should be avoided. We should all act in the way the rules page lays out, whether the page exists or not. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 16:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel it's not only a question of Tony being tactless. It's that he believes his opinions about writing are somehow matters of fact. But they are only his opinions, and many good writers would disagree with them. It's fine for him to leave comments giving his views, because the nominators might agree with him and edit the article accordingly. However, objecting to an article on the basis of a minor difference of opinion over comma placement is inappropriate, and when it's pursued aggressively, then obviously highly inappropriate. It is bound to drive good editors away from the FA process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's rubbish. The issue here is someone responding really badly to criticism of their article. Encyclopedia writing should be clear and concise - which is usually the thrust of Tonys objections. If people sought a second opinion and got some help getting copyediting their noms, then most FACs would be far less problematic.--Peta 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part of the above you're saying is "rubbish." Francesco did respond badly, it's true. But Tony's objections were baseless. Please think carefully about what you're saying, Peta. You are saying that Tony (who is not a professional writer or a professional philosopher, and who has no academic qualifications in philosophy, or in writing or in editing) knows more about writing and philosophy than the three professional philosophers who were on the Putnam FAC page; the two professional editors and writers; the others who each had at least one degree in philosophy; and Hilary Putnam himself, who likes the article. That cannot seriously be your position. I realize that experts have no special status on Wikipedia, and I support that position, but nor should we assume they know nothing about their area of expertise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone has a problem with someone's objection they should comment and explain the issues with it. FAC is not a vote. Slims comments are getting AWFULLY personal and she really should back off. RN 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was appalled by the exchanges I witnessed on the Putnam FAC, and they're mirrored (although with much less drama) on other FA pages, so something has to change. I should add that I tried to respond with a non-personal, constructive suggestion by creating WP:REVIEW, as a good-faith effort at dispute resolution, but Tony's aggressive and patronizing response (calling it my "little project") certainly didn't help to oil the wheels of collaborative editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But Tony's objections were baseless. I was appalled by the exchanges I witnessed on the Putnam FAC. I agree with RN: it's time to back off of this. Do you think any one of us will want to work in this room seeing these kinds of comments, implying that the appalling behavior was from Tony? What has to change is that the next time nominators abuse of reviewers as they did in Putnam, we should pull the nom and tell them to resubmit after they cool off. If you launched that proposal because you had an ax to grind over differences with Tony or Saxena, it might have been better to wait until there was some distance. This is becoming much too personal, and I sure don't want to review an article on FAC in this kind of environment. Sandy 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been loosely following this conversation, but I hope people won't mind me butting in. Frankly, we don't need a flurry of featured articles. If we have less featured articles because people are too strict, it won't be a loss. A featured article is meant to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work." As long as the objections are valid, there should be no issue with having them. There may be cases where people oppose based on their own preferences - however, if the style guide says the current way in the article is okay, then that's fine - just ignore the oppose vote. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Raul is a grad student. He can figure out where commas should go and which objections, whether concerning commas or not, are valid. I just don't think we need a page on how to tell me to tell someone that they need more references, or that their prose needs (fill in the blank). RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said several times, I don't believe there's a problem with articles being rejected on the basis of flawed objections, because Raul wouldn't let that happen. But I do believe there's a danger of discouraging people from getting their articles up to FA status again because of the experience they go through as FACs, or watch others go through. If you want to attract decent writers, professionals, and academics to write or review FAs, you can't address them as though they know nothing about their areas of expertise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Slim, I think you're being over-sensitive to my critiqueing. Perhaps my hard-hitting, no-nonsense style gives you the impression that I'm tactless, or worse that I think my opinions are the only ones that count. But if you look carefully at what I say, you'll find no explicity evidence of that belief. Let me say that I'm delighted when people improve my prose, as I point out on my user page. It happens quite often. I'm learning too. And as for tactless, well, I think that's in the eye of the beholder. I could sprinkle my comments with please, sorry, maybe, might, may, possibly, you're a good writer, but. However, I believe what I say, and I don't have time to insert "softness" tags throughout my text. Nor do I want to bother the readers with any more text than is necessary to get the point across.

However, occasionally I do make misjudgements in my tone, so you're right in that respect—see the top of BAE systems (silly on my part), but we're friends now. I usually apologise in those cases. However, I don't think I misjudged my tone in the Putnam debacle. I'd love to stop bickering with you, Slim. Tony 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop bickering. But in that case, please work with me to try to create a set of standards for reviewers. I'm not hugely bothered what they are, and I have no interest in trying to impose particular standards on people that they don't want. But I've been editing for close to two years, and there have been problems with inconsistent review standards throughout that entire period, so it's time to fix them. There's no reason there should be guidelines for nominators, but none for reviewers. The nominators have to know what's expected of them (roughly); and the reviewers have to know when to lodge an objection and when simply to make a comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't pretend to have read every last word in this discussion (that would take an entire day if I had absolutely nothing else to do that day), but I would like to point out that we've already got standards for reviewers at the top of the FAC page under "Supporting and objecting". What is this argument supposed to accomplish that hasn't already been established? o.O It's just a bunch of people getting sick of each other over things that have been set in stone for a while now. It really does need to just. STOP. Besides, Jimbo Wales has been pretty clear that there will be no elitism here among members, so reviewers don't have to bring a degree in a subject with them before they respond about it. As long as people follow the very simple rules outlined under "Supporting and objecting" (which already demands that an objection involve a specific actionable rationale, or that it be dismissed), there's no problem. Everybody just needs to get back to building the encyclopedia and forget all this nonsense. It's not improving anything, and is only sowing seeds of disdian. Ryu Kaze 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

It's things like this that sidetrack Wikipedia from its true goal of building an encyclopedia. Let's drop this, or, at the very least, achieve strategic distance from the debate :) — Deckill e r 04:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good advice: I've just trashed my reply to SV in the hope that we might all take a breather for a few days and return in a conciliatory frame. Tony 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And to repeat a note I've just inserted on the talk page for the FA Criteria: I'm withdrawing from discussions here until things settle down. I wish everyone good-will—that's the essence of WP. Tony 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal guidelines on FA writing

Personal views regarding the best way to write a Featured Article are just that, personal views. If people want to move their advice out of personal space and into the Wikipedia space, so they can be voted on as guidelines, then they can become guidlines. Until then, we shouldn't give editors the false impression that these are anything more than the personal views of the authors. And please don't personalize this discussion with edit comments like "slimvirgin is on a personal attack campaign". I made the edit, I am not SlimVirgin, and I am not attacking anyone. On the contrary, I am simply properly labelling these guides, unless someone here is claiming they have official status. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

please leave the article as per raul's decision:

The guide currently says "The following guides focus on the most common problems in nominated articles:". I am happy with tihs for the time being, and I suggest we leave it as that for now.

while nobody can claim to have official status, raul is featured article director so his opinion should be at least noted and not ignored. i see the flame war is continuing to spread above (i wish people would just air their greavances at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates to keep the discussion centralized) so lets keep it amiable shall we? cheers. Zzzzz 19:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In my own guide, I made an effort to collate the most common problems and only discuss solutions that represented consensus accross a wide number of editors over a significant time at FAC. I've seen no one claim that my guideline represents anything different than a clarification of consensus on what the featured article criteria mean. However, no offense to Tony, it's clear that a number of people disagree with his recommendations. That being the case, I don't believe it should be linked from this page until there is substantial consensus around the recommendations it makes. If anyone does have objections about my guidline or believes they see ways it does not represent consensus please let me know. - Taxman ^Talk 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you've entered the fray, and in a partisan way that is frankly quite unnecessary and does you no credit, allow me to have my say about your guidline (sic). When I first perused it in February and edited the first few sentences, my view was that it was in an amateurish state—both the language on the clause level and organisation on a larger level. I did wonder whether someone who writes "The second criteria is probably the big one" and "a lot of nominations are far from meeting the criteria" should be advising anyone on how to prepare an FA. It is in a better state now that it has been substantially rewritten, thanks to the efforts of a number of people. However, there are still numerous problems with the prose—and beyond that, with what you are intending to mean—including a couple of matters that I've gone as far as raising on the talk page. (I may be wrong on these counts, but I think these and other problems need to be worked through.)

Therefore, I find it strange that you should be asserting in a non-specific and one-sided way that "a number of people disagree with [the] recommendations in my article on Criterion 2a" (what, all of its recommendations?) without the slightest mention of the fact that a lot of people find it very useful, as evidenced in a number of places on WP.

To put the shoe on the other foot, I wonder whether the move of your piece to WP space would have gained consensus if it had been put through a proper, formal process such as FACs must undergo. And this "consensus accross (sic) a wide number ("sic") of editors over a significant time" that you claim to have encapsulated is not verifiable. I, for one, would have said "no" until substantial improvements were made, and I suspect that other voices would have been raised in objection. I still think it needs work.

I would not normally take an adversarial line with someone with whom I've previously had satisfactory relations. It would have been wise for you to have done the same. Tony 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. The difference is you've made this personal. Nothing I said was directed to you, instead I simply pointed out that people have stated they disagree with your guidelines, which is a fact. There is a big difference between personal comments and a minor comment about a piece of work. To keep the conversation on topic to the FA criteria, I'll leave the rest of my reply to your talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and perhaps I might have been softer, but I was put off by what I saw, and still see, as one-sided comments. Tony 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No. You're still not getting it. I commented on the fact that others have stated they disagree with your recommendations. You responded by lashing out and insulting me, which is not an appropriate response even if you disagree with what I wrote. It's not about being softer, it's about being out of line. Your adversarial attitude and seeming inability or unwillingness to see when your statements may come accross as being rude is part of the cause of the friction your are experiencing. Again though, this is not the place for discussing this. - Taxman ^Talk 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it. I've been under sustained attack for more than a week, and you joined in. What do you expect? You continue the attack, and I regard your tone as rude too. You demonstrate what you accuse me of. Tony 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We are all getting it. Please stop, both of you. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad you asked :-))

15-20 such citations for an article would not be out of bounds, and would generally clearly demonstrate the quality of research that a featured article needs was done. That seems like a low number given current citation standards. Maybe you can say it's common to see well-referenced articles with over 50 in-line citations?

Spend some time looking through the other featured articles on related topics to get an idea of their basic quality, and the choices they have made in coverage and style. Nominators point out featured articles which have deteriorated, or don't meet current referencing requirements, and want to know why they are held to a higher standard. Maybe you can point that out? Specifically, they often say, well so-and-so only has six inline citations, and it's an FA. <grrrr ...> Sandy 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. 15-20 was from when we were building consensus for adding inline citations to the criteria and there was still some resistance. 15-20 is a number that any well researched article could hit. Not sure that putting a number in there is a good idea at all come to think of it. Any ideas for a solution on that would be good. Your second one is spot on, I should fix that. More specific comments are welcome on my advice page's talk page. That seems the better place. - Taxman ^Talk 23:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On another talk page ... <ugh> ... the discussion about FAs is already on about five different talk pages :-) My conclusion from reading all of those pages is that Tony's page has broad support, and that objection is coming from limited sources. I don't know how to fix the 15-20 wording: I only know that 15-20 isn't working anymore :-)) Sandy 00:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think just leave it vague, but make it clear what sort of things need an inline cite. The focus should be on the types of claims that need it, not on the number in the article. Rebecca 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's only one real way to find out if something has broad support; put it in the Wiki space, propose it as a guideline, and see what happens. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just waiting for people to state that's what was wanted, so I've done that now. Sandy, after re-reading, it already states that you can't compare to lower quality FAs as reasons why yours should be featured. Is there some way it's unclear that can be made better? - Taxman ^Talk 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

15-20 is fine. 50 is fine. It's foolhardy to try to indicate a number. A featured article that is 2 screens may have 10 references. One that is 8 screens may have 50. Any statement of numbers is foolish and gives ammunition solely to the people who wish to view these as checklists rather than assessments. Do not change the present wording. Geogre 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Announcement: I'm withdrawing from this and other discussions that have become poisonous. I wish SV and others good-will: after all, that's what WP is all about. I'll return when it's all back to normal—so many fascinating things to do in the meantime. Tony 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the most compelling objection to linking those "personal guides" is that they are in someone's personal namespace, and thus other people will not feel comfortable about editing them. This is supposed to be a collaborative project, so any and all guides intended for mass consumption should be in the Wikipedia namespace. --Yath 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The material is in Tony's user subspace, and some editors strongly disagree with it, yet we're unable to change it, and still he posts it to this page. My own opinion is that his advice on writing leads to a lifeless form of prose that not everyone wants to copy. (But that's just my opinion, as his is just his.) In addition, he imposes these views on nominators in what I feel is a very damaging way. See his comments here in response to a nomination, where he corrects the nominator's post introducing the FA candidate:

"I'm going to start by being a little brash—sorry, but I hope there are not as many redundancies and grammatical glitches in the article as there are in your short nomination text:

'The aArticle has ~~already~~ gone through peer review and the suggested improvements have been made. I believe it ~~now~~ meets the requirements for FAC status ~~in my opinion, and~~; I ~~would also~~ welcome ~~any other~~ further suggestions'." (Tonys colors) [1]

Here's the original: "Article already gone through peer review and the suggested improvements have been made. I believe it now meets FAC status in my opinion, and I would also welcome any other suggestions." [2]

The nominator, Mark83, responds: "I would not describe your attitude as 'brash', rather incredibly pompous and confrontational. Perhaps wrongly I did not believe FAC requirements applied to nomination text!" [3]

The problem is that, with Tony's text on this page, and not even identified as a personal viewpoint, inexperienced nominators may believe that Tony's views on writing have a special status and are agreed upon, and may therefore feel they have to do as he says. The link should therefore be removed from the page, or we have to make clear that these are his personal opinions. Perhaps as Tony finds this discussion very trivial, he would agree to remove the link as a gesture of good faith, as it was only added on August 5. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

<YAWN ...> Tony 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As Taxman has moved his into the project space (thank you, Taxman), I've moved that into the See also section, and created a section called Personal views for the others. I think that's a fair compromise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is rude to change someone's nomination text. It is blinkered to apply a single style sheet to articles. It is blind and blinkered to apply a style sheet to FA's. The best of English prose includes the choppy sentences of Hemingway, the florid sentences of Mervyn Peake, the elaborately tense sentences of William Faulkner, and the avant garde structures of James Joyce. Each is communicative. Clarity is a paramount goal, but clarity is not enhanced by putting up a Procrustean bed for articles. Articles should be accurate, complete, concise, and clear. These qualities have to be assessed by our deliberators. Trying to hold up one's tracer paper from a corporate prose guideline to the articles is misbegotten, as the result will not be clarity, conciseness, or accuracy. It is sufficient that we say the prose should be clear and good. Going beyond that is a mug's game, if not a mugger's game. Geogre 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And you've added your own rudeness in the form of laughably elaborate and pretentious language ("misbegotten"? Hello? Which planet are you from?). Who's going beyond clarity and concision, in any case? Be careful who you're implying might be a mug or a mugger. Tony 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, I've been told off! Tony, you might try reading some literature at some point. I know it's probably intolerable, and I'm sure you can't imagine how hacks like Fitzgerald ever managed without your corporate style sheet, but, honestly, some people have more than 15,000 words in their vocabularies and are bored to tears by the "See Spot run" sentences you favor. Because some people might mess up an introductory adverbial clause is no reason to forbid them, unless, of course, you mistrust all writers but yourself. As for implying that you might be a mug or a mugger, I'll let your actions (changing a nominator's text, telling everyone about your real life qualifications, typing "YAWN" when a legitimate complaint comes up, saying that you're storming off to more important things (implying that all these people are beneath you), "all this/ And so much more") speak for themselves. I'm sorry that I had to specify like that, but I use such cloudy language that I didn't want to take the chance that I was obscure. Geogre 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One telling off "begets" another, then. My "yawn" comment was in response to what I see as a partial and dishonest argument by SV. Go see the talk pages of Mark and me (and the FAC page) for the rest, which puts a different light on it. In addition, I brought up this incident on the talk page of the FA criteria some time before SV thought she'd try to use it as ammunition. Old news.

A major element lacking in all of these accusations is solid evidence that I think I'm the only authority, that my opinion is unchallengeable, and that I operate with some kind of (corporate?) style sheet. I don't. I read the text and I criticise it from first principles, which are all about ease of reading. Assertiveness in reviewing is required if nominators are to be prompted to improve their texts: many of them are unaware of the need to do so. I'm sorry if some people regard this as rudeness: that's not the intention. And I wonder why you're not focusing on the abusive behaviour of some of the contributors to the earlier Putnam FAC. Tony 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I thought the other participants in that were very poorly behaved, and my comments are not related to that discussion. However, I have never been ambiguous about this: I regard stylistic mistakes as a reason for a comment, not an objection on FAC. I regard any attempts, by any reviewer, to demand any particular style (my own love of periodic sentences or another's love of simple sentences) to be reductive and wrong. I react strongly to you because you place objections (and often rude comments, and this has nothing to do with that particular FAC) that assert superiority without actually going in to help, without editing, without specifying general things that the authors can do. Additionally, you repeatedly offer a very specific set of requirements. I hope that we are capable of knowing when a long sentence works and when it doesn't, when a suspending modifier is poetic and when it is dangling, when parallelism is effective and when tedious without trying to make a hard law on something as open and various as encyclopedic prose. I would rather not make this about you, and if it had been about you (instead of specifying all elements of FA writing to the smallest particle), I would not have entered the discussion. Geogre 11:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony is entitled to his opinion on the definition of good writing, and as such, his well-developed and useful page on meeting criterion 2a should have the same fate as the other user space pages here. IMO, either they all go, or they all stay. It's easy to find points to disagree on in all of them, not just Tony's. Certainly, though, if they do stay, they should all be marked as personal opinion (that may not be evident from the "User:" to a new user). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Spangineer, I agree. Taxman has now moved his to the project space, so that can go under See also. The ones still in user subspace should all be identified as personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my latest edit? The level 3 header might be a little long, but I think it's more meaningful than "personal views". --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Spangineer, I don't disagree that Tony1 should have his opinions, and I wouldn't have commented if I thought it were remaining that way. I have seen a sporadic but insistent effort to overly define each element of the FA, and each time to do so in an idiosyncratic way, where the people doing the defining seem to rely more on presumed authority (from real life, no less) than reason, citation, or persuasion. I disagree with saying how many references are needed, in saying how many red links are allowed, in saying how many pictures are necessary, and, most of all, trying to say that there is one style that is appropriate writing. Each time we reduce the duties and freedom of the reviewers and turn FAC into a checklist, we're being reductive and dishonest. Finally, though, I have felt, pretty consistently but not universally, that a lot of the objections that have been raised under 2a have been style sheet variations and not grammatical or clarity concerns. Style is a reason to ask for a change, but it is not a reason to object, and if it isn't a reason to object, it sure as shootin' isn't a reason to regulate. Geogre 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the focus is constantly changing, and that the basis for it usually isn't well defined. At least one reason for the constant shifting is that things improve: I find that I need to object less on references nowadays because people are doing a better job. I don't think my standards have changed much in that regard.

I'll attempt to temper your point on allowing all writing styles by suggesting that an encyclopedia isn't the same thing as a novel and thus may not be a suitable medium for all styles. I haven't read enough Hemingway, Peake, Faulkner, or Joyce to argue with you on any one of them, but in my opinion, an encyclopedia article does not lend itself to as much stylistic variety as does a novel. I'd never want to see first person in an encyclopedia article (I strongly doubt it would ever appear in EB), but authors of novels use it effectively all the time. The question for me is where to draw the line: Tony, I think, defines "encyclopedic prose" rather narrowly, and whether that's good or bad, I don't have the background or experience to judge. The consistency and uniformity appeals to me, but I'm an engineer, not an arts/humanities guy. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency and uniformity are not Wikipedia's strengths, and never will be. To produce consistency and uniformity, one really needs a command-and-control structure. We should expect every featured article to be an example of our best work, but we should not expect them all to look and feel the same, or to read as if they've been written by the same person, or in a "house style," or anything like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, Dpb. To answer Spangineer, I was pointing out that the best of English prose includes a great variety. That was then narrowed by the goals of encyclopedic writing. Encyclopedic writing strives toward accuracy, comprehensiveness, clarity, and conciseness. Those are the criteria. We can satisfy those criteria with ornate and simple sentances, with lavish vocabulary and elementary. We can satisfy them all sorts of ways. Obivously, no one is going to write like Benji (from The Sound and the Fury), but, similarly, I find the straighjacketed prose that Tony1 favors to be thoroughly boring and therefore disaffecting. If the prose is disaffecting, it's not very communicative. However, I would never propose a 2a standard that says, "Anyone who employs a to-be verb more than three sentences in a row shall be shot or shat, and anyone who relies upon a pronoun when an appositive might pique interest is a fool." In other words, we have to allow for variation, and if we try to get into such a wild subject as "good prose" with a little bag, we're just going to reduce the utility and readability of our FA's. Geogre 14:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I admire Tony's passion for copy-editing and clear skill with it. But that is not my skill. And I worry that we are in great danger of setting the bar too high for a Professional amateur project. A professional text may well be able to professionally copy-edit its text to within a very close tolerance of a very precise style manual. But an amateur, volunteer organization cannot afford to be so picky. Zhuangzi tells the parable of the "model gatekeeper" (chap 26), His father died and yet he stayed at his post for weeks going through extremities of self deprivation, he was rewarded with the title of "model gatekeeper" then "Some others in the area underwent such extremities and half of them died." The "model" was too strict. The point is that if the bar is too high people will try to reach it and fail, and then back-off, rather than reaching a lower standard. Maybe professional level copy-editing to a tight style manual is the right standard for things on the CD projects, maybe it is the right standard for all FAs, but 1) it is not yet the consensus standard of the criteria for FA (and it is not implied by the phrase "compelling, even brilliant", and 2) if it is the standard we chose the result will be to put FAs out of the reach of any wiki-project that does not have a professional level copy editor willing to donate services to it. If our standards for FA really are professional level copy-editing, then I cannot contribute to any article that might someday become an FA. Every contribution I made to Putnam was undone by later editors (sometimes with an insult thrown in). I cannot be alone in feeling that I am unable to contribute to our joint project (or at least any part that is striving for FA) if the standards really are that high. I do not wish to insult anyone who has taken part in this, (certainly not Tony) but I would like to plead (especially to Tony) to interpret the standards for FA in a loose enough way that people who are not professional copy-editors can still contribute meaningfully, or perhaps to set up some kind of system where articles that are ready for FA other than the copy-editing can recieve appropriate copy-editing from volunteer professional copy-editors (if there are enough willing ones). None of the mechanisms in place now seem to accomplish this, (certainly neither GA, nor RPP, or RFC seem to accomplish this) unless a wiki-project happens to have their own copy-editing professional. Bmorton3 14:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi BM, it's not a question of high standards, just different ones. Many people wouldn't want their FA articles to be copied edited by the same small group of people. I certainly wouldn't, because then they'd all read the same. Following Dpbsmith, we don't have, and don't want to have, a house style when it comes to writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How tight the style manual is is one question, and I suppose I agree that we shouldn't have a house style other than variety. But how high the standards are is a seperate issue and doesn't go away as quickly. If the standard for FA isn't "professional copy-editing" then is it "excellent copy-editing"? Is is "well edited"? "competently edited"? "adequately edited?" Can we imagine an article that is terrible in terms of copy-editing and yet is well-written, compelling even brilliant and strong enough in content to be among our best work? If such a beastie existed, should it be nominated for FA? Should it pass? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have some kind of copy-editing standard before an article is nominated for FA, and I just don't think the "well written" requirement does the trick. Maybe I'm looking for trouble where there isn't any yet, but it seems like there are de facto editing requirements of some kind for FA, and if we can make them fair and explicit it will help in the future. Bmorton3 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can make things explicit, because good writing isn't algorithmic. I'd say an article couldn't be well written and "terrible in terms of copy editing," but it might contain some quirks and, indeed, it would likely be the quirks that made it well written, as opposed to being something that simply followed a style sheet. We don't want to suck the heart and soul out of people's writing, in other words, but nor do we want low standards. You'd have to show us an example of something you think is okay (and the kind of thing you feel you could manage), then we could say whether it'd pass muster with most people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a professional copyeditor; in fact, the extent of my formal writing education is three university composition courses. But Tony has called me an excellent copyeditor and has modified the "solutions" in his writing guide to reflect my suggestions. Like any skill, copyediting takes time to master, but you can get started by taking a look at some of his examples. By going through Tony's guide and attempting to improve, you'll get better at identifying problems according to Tony's style. I don't think Tony is unreasonable—if you look at his voting record, he doesn't support only FACs that read just the way he would write them (he supports even when others copyedit). Perhaps greater flexibility is warranted, but I don't think we have to worry about this being restricted to professional copyeditors only. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with Dpbsmith that we shouldn't expect featured articles to "look and feel the same, or to read as if they've been written by the same person, or in a 'house style,' or anything like that." Hear hear. I absolutely don't want all featured articles to read the same way. I don't like the prose style Tony recommends, and I won't write that way myself, nor do I enjoy reading articles that are written like that. But if others do, that's fine. So long as the most basic rules of grammar are observed, I want the individual voice of the writer to shine through, and that's possible even within the confines of encyclopedic writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Tonys guide is useful for people who need help with basic composition. Nobody is suggesting that all articles should follow some strict set of rules, I doubt that is his intention either. However a lot of the writing in articles that make it to FAC does need work, there are often problems with grammar, the logial progression of ideas, sentence construction and even simple things like word order. If we can provide people with information on how to fix common writing mistakes that is a really good thing.--Peta 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. We really shouldn't think that editors are so stupid that they can't read some guidelines and useful exercies and take what they need, while retaining their own writing style. Most of the FACs need the redundancy exercises, at minimum. Sandy 00:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Exercises? Yes, that is out of bounds. Further, trying to contain every stylistic plus and minus in a guideline that can be read and applied is impossible. I will settle for articles that do not violate the conventions of standard written English and that express their information clearly and concisely. Specify absolutely no more than that. If we were to get this down to a list of "Do's" and "Don't's," we could have -bots promote and demote articles. Instead, we have living people who have sufficient intelligence to know if they have understood what they have read, and we have a community of readers who can establish a community standard. FAC is not going to replace English 101, and it's silly to even try. If an article has rough spots and illogical presentation, then it's my job, as a reviewer, to help the article by actually getting in there, not to sit on my couch and denounce all of these peons with their inferior writing skills or to grasp my clipboard and pass judgment by checking boxes. Geogre 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to stop Tony making suggestions or giving an opinion, which everyone is entitled to do. The problem arises in trying to elevate opinion to fact, or personal views to agreed standards, and one editor acting as though he or she is the main authority. Opinions, if clearly expressed as such, are fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm tempted to write one of these things. A nice short one; "Please make sure that none of the images in your "best of Wikipedia" work are candidates for speedy deletion. It's really only about two minutes of effort." Jkelly 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. My advice and exercises are just a minimal framework for concision and clarity, within which I expect WPians will naturally express their own personal style. I'd be delighted if FACs did "not violate the conventions of standard written English and [expressed] their information clearly and concisely", as Geogre puts it. That is all I hope for. This idea that what I've written is a straightjacket that will somehow make everyone "write the same way" is poppycock. SlimVirgin and others here write well, but a cursory look at their texts will reveal different—in some cases, distinctive—patterns. But none of us should be putting up with the large amount of redundancy that pervades writing in almost every register in English. While this concern may seem to be my private hobby-horse (perhaps because I've targeted redundancy on WP), it is shared by all good writers in every language, whether consciously or unconsciously, and whether non-professional or professional. Eliminating redundancy is an essential platform for good, authoritative prose, although it is insufficient for that purpose: this is where individual style comes in.

As for the argument expressed above that high standards of prose, as demanded by 2a, will make WPians disenchanted, it's hardly the case that there's a shortage of nominations—more likely a torrent. And those who rile against "professional" standards are, IMV, at a tangent: there's good writing and there's bad writing, and the Internet is a competitive jungle. I remind these people that putting an article up as an FAC is to seek something special, beyond the usual standards of WP articles out there. Please don't give in to this pressure.

Perhaps I can throw light on an issue that appears to underly some of the complaints about my critiques at FAC. In encouraging people to see the patterns of good prose, each comment by a reviewer could be seen to occupy a place on a continuum from "widely accepted pattern" to "highly personal preference". For example, at one extreme are obvious grammatical errors, misspellings, inconsistencies, and whether to use contractives (e.g., "doesn't") in an encyclopedic register. A short way along the continuum are common redundancies and the few areas of grammatical tension in the language. Further along are matters of tone and texture, of which there is considerable choice in an encyclopedic register. Close to the "personal preferences" end is, for instance, the use of "ise" or "ize in BrEng, and the "if"/"whether" choice. The use of commas occupies not a point but a broad band stretching from the "widely accepted" end (no one would accept this comma—"The, brown house") to the "personal preference" end (e.g., whether to use Oxford commas, or commas after a sentence-initial adverbial phrase). In fact, redundancies also occupy a band from those that no one would accept to those that may be on the borderline (SlimVirgin is right—removing "also" can occasionally give a stilted feel to a passage, and I may have slipped up here once or twice; but almost always I think I've been right, dare I say it). Should the word "own" be removed from my first sentence? There's not a clear-cut solution.

Reviewers do not flag where their criticisms of prose fall on this line. I suppose that many people have not thought about it in this way; in any case, it would be cumbersome to pin down every comment on the widely-accepted/personal-preference scale. People will not even agree on where each issue is located on the scale. Perhaps a compromise is that reviewers be encouraged to mark comments that they believe to be clearly personal preferences; but this can only be a rough, unenforceable guideline, and I suspect that it would not be much used. When I say "more commas required for ease of reading", I really do believe that in some places the absence of a comma clearly makes for harder reading. Flagging this comment as personal would be problematic. I suspect that this is why, in their wisdom, those who designed the FA process went for simplicity.

As for tone, some people may see unsoftened criticisms as harsh, but sprinkling them with maybe, perhaps, might, and frequent usage of "please" is not going to change the basic message, will bloat the size of a critique, and will take more time (of which most of us have little). Nominate for FA status and you must expect your work to be scrutinised and criticised in detail. Otherwise, this project will sink into fudge.

Tony 03:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments don't need to be flagged. What people are objecting to, I think, is actual objections being based on personal preference about writing style. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to objections based on comments for which flagging as towards the personal end of the continuum is problematic. Tony 04:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well the point some people are making is that objections should not be based on personal preference, so it's not a question of flagging them, but of not making them. As for when writing is bad enough to be grounds to object, there can't be hard and fast rules, so it's going to boil down to common sense, but when there are very basic grammar, sp and punctuation errors, then of course it would be grounds. When it's to do with length of sentences and numbers of clauses, then not, because that's a preference thing. I love long sentences, for example. I understand texts more easily when there are long sentences (and the longer, the better), and strangely, I remember them better too. Short sentences irritate me. Based on what I've seen of your comments on noms, your preference is the other way round. It's the same with the drive to remove redundant words. Words that are redundant in some sense might serve to illuminate nevertheless, and often extra words are good for rhythm and flow, even if not necessary for meaning, something you only notice when you read several sentences together. This is why I argue that good writing is never going to boil down to algorithms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people would argue that good writing would come down to algorithms if we were able to design them to account for sufficient complexity. That is not yet possible. I pointed out that there is no hard and fast distinction between the personal and the widely accepted, so banning reviewers from making personal-preference comments is futile. Your notion of a distinct boundary between what is "common sense" and what is not, is equally problematic. I disagree that the longer the sentence, the better. That's the kind of elitism that we saw when some of your colleagues asserted that a philosophy article couldn't be understood by non-specialists. I will continue to object to sentences that I feel are too long. Tony 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of a published writer (a good one) who argues that good writing is algorithmic? Again, I have to repeat: I have nowhere argued that reviewers should be prevented from making comments based on personal preference. On the contrary, comment away. I am arguing that you should not base objections on personal preference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Is"? No, I said "would"—it's hypothetical at the moment, but nevertheless theoretically possible, IMV. I don't want to go down that route, though. You seek to legistlate what shall and what shall not form the basis of an objection, far beyond the wording of the criteria. It's impractical and undesirable. I will continue to balance many factors when assessing the length of sentences, and whether to object on the basis of that assessment. I've made the case and I don't want to argue this ad infinitum. I've persisted this long because what you want will knobble the process if ever put into practice (whether that is your intention or not). But it won't be implemented, because people will see it for what it is: futile and undesirable. Tony 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding Featured Article?

Do you think it would be a good idea to further classify articles on Wikipedia called Outstanding Featured Article? For example, these articles would represent the elite form of featured article in terms of content, style and prose. It would represent the stratrosphere of encyclopedic writing. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 18:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not be a good idea. Raul654 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be worth the extra effort in process an time to do so, but it could help highlight the ones that we really are recommending that people emulate. - Taxman ^Talk 22:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to an "unofficial" example (like already found at {{Grading scheme}}), but having a blown-out process for this does seem a bad idea. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wish to thank you for your feedback on this. But may I know the reason why this will be a bad idea? Perhaps this will motivate editors to create articles of outstanding quality, like for example, those found in Britannica and other established paper encyclopedias. These articles could have two stars instead of one at the top of their respective pages. The reason why I propose such a measure is because there have been criticizms about the quality of even some of the featured articles on Wikipedia by those opposed to Wikipedia and its philosophy. This idea would no doubt dispel these concerns. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of our featured articles are better that those in Britannica, if you find a problematic FA then send it to WP:FAR. Otherwise it is a terrible idea, too few editors are prepared to go through the FA process as is, what you are suggesting would have little to no community support.--Peta 04:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mostly, I oppose it because that's what FA is supposed to be already: the most outstanding articles. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles already should have no actionable objections pursuant to the criteria. Presumably then this new classification would then require new, stricter criteria; what do you have in mind? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i personally like the idea, considering the two-pronged general deerioration in FA quality recently. FACs, for example, are skewed by endless me-too support votes from any wikiproject concerned (or "fans" of the subject) drowning out any objects, and by voters who are unaware of/dont understand/dont like WP:WIAFA. if you find a problematic FA then send it to WP:FAR unfortunately is no longer valid advice as nominators must now jump through hoops in order to have even their nomination recognised, and current discussions focus on restricting nominations still further. a quick trawl through the FA list will reveal many substandard FAs: so they dont really represent "the most outstanding articles" either. therefore this new proposed process (which should of course remain unofficial for a while first) could be valuable IF it can find a way of addressing these perennial issues above, which could be difficult. Zzzzz 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Raul: this doesn't seem to be a good idea. Simplicity is a commodity that is of great value in a process such as this. There's already enough complexity and enough instructions. Tony 13:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i'm assuming this isn't yet-another-attempt to "change the FA process" but actually a brand new, separate process, of somehow grading FA articles. am i right siva1979? Zzzzz 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul is correct that this is not a good idea. Determination of quality at the FA level with regards to content is difficult to determine beyond the level of editorial preferences. Quality decisions regarding style and prose are intrinsically subjective by nature. As a result any effort to differentiate FAs based on these areas is very likely to degenerate into political bickering. In addition it is not clear what the benefit gained will be after the effort to differentiate various FAs is completed. --Allen3 ^talk 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a good idea; the added complexity isn't worth it. As others have said, problematic FAs can go to FAR. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good idea. We already have the virtually meaningless GA; no need for yet another layer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

- Stable versions should help limit the degeneration of FAs too.--Peta 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this idea either. There are two main reasons, it seems, for the disparity in FA quality: (1) The standards have gradually risen (inline citations weren't in vogue previously); and (2) FAs deteriorate by continued editing. As Peta mentioned, stable versions would help with the second issue. Ensuring that even one FA maintains quality is nontrivial.

The core problem, then, is not that the FA criteria are themselves insufficient and need a second layer, but that FAs need maintenance, just as with every other article, to ensure that quality stays in line with current standards and guidelines. To add another layer doesn't address the core problem at all. If this meta-FA process is implemented, meta-FAs would still require the same levels of maintenance. If that maintenance is not provided, then WP:FAR ends up dealing with the issue of not only whether FAs are no longer FAs, but whether meta-FAs are just "plain" FAs, or not FAs at all. — TKD::Talk 05:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which all goes to suggest that FAs, particularly those on dynamic topics—those that are liable to change continually—need a band of committed guardians, or "friends". I'm thinking, for example, of Economy of India, which is in FAR at the moment. I've slaved over the text to make it acceptable, but now the task is to attract back the original, economically literate contributors, and encourage them to stay with it from time to time. I'm getting to the stage where the lack of "friends" impacts on my "Remove"/"Keep" decision for borderline cases on dynamic topics. It would be a different matter for an article on 17th-centure Indian pottery, though.

Thoughts? Tony 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that this might be an argument in favor of the use of {{maintained}} for FAs, in that if the current maintainer(s) leave Wikipedia or no longer actively edits the article, then someone or some project should be encouraged to seek out someone to preserve its FA status. I'm not entirely happy that it can leave the impression of article ownership, but, used appropriately, it might gelp. The problem currently is that, even if WikiProjects claim an article to be within their scopes, the projects are usually sufficient broad that there might not be an editor both willing and able to keep that specific article up-to-date. If someone notices that a maintainer has left, maybe a replacement can be sought and found before a FAR occurs.

Again, I'm not sure that {{maintained}} is the best way to go about this, but I do like the idea of somehow encouraging coverage of FAs. — TKD::Talk 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It raises the problem of ownership. I reached the point with an FA of actually allowing edits that contributed to its deterioration (in my view), because I didn't want to be seen reverting everyone else's input. As a result, it had some very poor grammar in it for a few weeks until I decided to sneak back and change it again. How do we distinguish between justifiable protection and a violation of WP:OWN? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow; on one hand, I admire your patience; on the other, I'm not sure that letting bad grammar slip into FAs is a good idea; I'd have at least corrected the mechanical mistakes up front. As for the ownership problem, I don't have an easy answer. Perhaps it could be tracked internally by WikiProjects, or something less prominent than a potentially intimidating template on the main talk page. Some people like the maintained template; others don't.

Protecting article quality becomes problematic ownership, I think, at the same time that reverting becomes edit warring. The key is to explain any reverts or otherwise potentially contentious changes and to maintain open discussion, as with any other article. That might sound a bit glib, but I don't know of any other way of defining a boundary. Maintainers naturally might have stronger points, however, by presenting higher-quality sources, pointing to previous discussions, etc., without having to obnoxiously assert ownership. — TKD::Talk 09:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it help to have a template (I can't believe I'm suggesting yet another template) saying that this is a featured article, and therefore all edits have to be clear improvements, or words to that effect? In other words, don't fiddle for the sake of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that there was some discussion previously on the wording of {{featured}}; the present wording came about due to these concerns, IIRC. A article that's had unhelpful problematic additions in the past or a history of NPOV negotiations might benefit from judicious HTML comments advising that the current wording was carefully chosen, or similar. — TKD::Talk 09:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in May 2005, the phrase "without compromising previous work" was added with that intention. During that discussion and since then, a number of people complained about its tone (that is, it doesn't sound welcoming). So it might be hard to further toughen the wording. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Outstanding" featured articles? No thanks. Why would we want or need to identify "Yes, yes: we really, really mean it this time; it actually is rather good" featured articles, as distinct from "dreary, run-of-the-mill, merely exemplifying our best work" featured articles? Efforts would be better directed at improving some of the other 99.9% of our non-FA articles towards FA standard.

On ownership, at risk of being glib too, IMHO, a principal writer of a featured article (as any other article) should be open to new contributions that are improvements, but reverting negative changes to any article cannot be considered ownership. Whether a change is an improvement or not is best decided on the relevant talk page.

One of the worst things that can happen to a good article is that it is neglected and slides into mediocrity. Stable versions seems to be on the way (at last!) which should help here enormously. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I don't think that happens; it'd be interesting if someone could look at some diffs from a sampling of featured articles, with 'Before' being the version that was promoted, and 'after' being the current versions. Judge whether or not the article has degraded; I think, for the most part, featured articles do not decay; they are simply overtaken by the increasing FA standards. Raul654 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, for the most part, that someone is looking after most featured articles to keep them within reasonable bounds, but it would be useful to have some evidence :) There should be some candidates at WP:FAR or in the archive of recent demotions. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the only really worthwhile way of instituting a level of recognition higher than FA is to go to a different medium. You know an article is good when it becomes a centerpiece in a print edition, for example. Adding another layer to the process here wouldn't do much good and would multiply the headaches all around — just imagine Outstanding Featured Article Removal (OFAR), Stable Outstanding Featured Article Candidates (SOFAC) and all the other new acronyms we'd have to deal with. The way to make a better prize is to push the entire project into a different arena.

On the subject of FA degradation: I remember a big fuss when Christmas got FARCed, and cruft is a perennial problem over at Calvin and Hobbes. Gut feeling says that the decay rate is proportional to the "poppiness" of the subject. Anville 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Factually accurate

I'd like to suggest that we change this to "verifiable against reliable sources," or similar. We don't in fact judge articles according to their accuracy (which we're usually not, if ever, in a position to judge), but according to how well-sourced they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't we require articles to be accurate (in most cases, there is at least one reviewer who is able to say whether something is wrong or misleading) and verifiable against reliable sources? Something can be accurate without being verified, and something can be verified by reference to "reliable" sources (whatever "reliable" means - no source is unimpeachable) without being accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an accuracy policy though—that's making a judgment on what's true and what isn't. All we can do is report what has been written (as per WP:V and WP:NOR). In the most extreme case, if all sources say the sky is green, we write, "the sky is green", despite visual evidence to the contrary. Accuracy for us can only mean consistency with the general body of printed knowledge. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would change it to "verifiable against reliable sources and consistent with the general body of published knowledge" then. This overlaps with the neutrality/undue weight and comprehensiveness points, to some degree, but I don't think it hurts to emphasize them. Kirill Lokshin 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh; again my bias against online references is made evident. Thanks for switching that to "published" (otherwise my current FAC wouldn't stand a chance). This makes more sense to me than "factually accurate", but let's wait a bit and see if we've convinced ALoan =). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu Kaze has been working on a revision too over at user:Ryu Kaze/Sandbox that is worth looking at, and the debate on it has mirrored a lot of this discussion. Bmorton3 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should aim for factual accuracy without verifiability. Nor am I saying that we should report what is or isn't "true" in some objective sense - we judge "fact" or "truth" by reference to the consensus of experts in a particular field, as verified by reliable sources. Let me quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

What I am saying is that verifiability is not enough on its own. We should also be aiming for factual accuracy. We should not just be reporting something as a "fact" because it can be verified from a source. Sources are known to be wrong or inconsistent, and our report of a source may make a mistake or be misleading. This is a horrible can of worms, because you have to decide whether a source is "reliable" or not, and how to reconcile inconsistent sources. But I think we should be aiming for factual accuracy and verifiability.

Kirill Lokshin's formulation is not bad (and there is already an interplay with NPOV, since we say that "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy) but I don't see what it wrong with requiring featured articles to be "factually accurate". -- ALoan (Talk) 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there's nothing wrong with saying that we should aim to be accurate, but a distinction must be drawn here that "accurate" means "accurate according to the best sources we can find", not "confirmed to be true". Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look up fact on Wikipedia you'll see 3 totally different definitions, and don't get us started on true. There is no good way to aim at factual accuracy without doing OR. We should be reporting something as a "fact" just because it can be verified from a reliable source, because that is precisely what makes WP an encyclopedia instead of OR. No OR, and Verifiability are core values and official policies. Allow me to quote from the offical policy of Verify

""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth."

We are "strongly discouraged" officially from pursuing factual accuracy at any level beyond verifiability in reliable sources. Bmorton3 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite; we are, in fact, instructed to carefully evaluate the degree to which a given source may be reliable or not. Granted, this is not the same as actually checking whether it is accurate; but the idea—particularly for featured articles—is to reject questionable or unreliable sources in favor of more reputable ones, thus arriving at something accurate (or at least accurate as far as outside sources can agree on) almost by default. Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Again that is aiming at "reliability" not at accuracy. We can work on verifiability, and we can evaluate the sources for reliability, but truth and accuracy are specifically off limits, and NEED to be, to do our job. Add in reliability of source language to the verification stuff if you want, that's fine, but don't talk about accuracy or truth if you can avoid it. Bmorton3 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am hesitant to remove the factually accurate requirement. I have no problems with saying something along hte lines of "Factually accurate, where factually accurate means __________" (fill in the blank) Raul654 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost entirely agree with Kirill Lokshin - how about "factually accurate, according to the best sources we can find". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys have all been here longer than me but "factually accurate, according to the best sources we can find" looks to me like a recipe for stupid fights about which source is really best. My source saying Copernicus was Polish is better than your source saying he wasn't, etc. The point of requiring only "reliable" sources not "best" sources is to undercut this kind of fight and allow minority opinions some standing. Can you think of anyway of establishing which sources are "best" without being POV? If that is the standard, then again, nothing I can do can meet it, and again I lose clarity on exactly how a FA is supposed to be different from Original Research. Trying to establish which sources in a debate are best, or what is factually accurate rather than merely reliably verifiable, looks like OR, and a recipe for POV flame wars to me. But hey, as I understand it, it's your call Raul, if that's what you want ...

Again here is the threshold requirement from "No Original Research"

"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. (my emphasis). In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library."

Aiming for a higher standard than verifiable in reliable sources, such as "according to the best sources we can find" sure looks like "analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data" that has not been published by a reputable third-party publication to me.

Bmorton3 16:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the cause of confusion here is due to forgetting the third fundamental policy: WP:NPOV. In particular, WP:NPOV#Undue weight is applicable to sources; "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" suggests that we must, in fact, aim for a comprehensive survey of literature from "experts on the subject" in order to meet the NPOV requirement. (This does not mean, necessarily, that we are calling for a "my source is better than your source" argument, but rather for a "your source is not of a comparable caliber to the other sources, and cannot be considered an expert view" argument.) Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Right!, but that's what we mean by a "reliable" source, right? Bmorton3 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; citing an interview (from the New York Times) with a random teacher on the topic of advanced nuclear physics would likely meet the reliability requirement imposed by WP:V and WP:OR—the NYT is generally regarded as a reliable enough source—but basing our nuclear physics article on such interviews, rather than on scholarly literature, would still be problematic, for obvious reasons. Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a synthesis of Raul's and Kirill's suggestions: "factually accurate, where this means verifiable against reliable sources and consistent with the general body of published knowledge"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That still seems to me to fly in the face of "whether or not we regard the material as accurate," but it is definately a step in the right direction, and may be the best compromise we can hope for. What does that "factually accurate" phrase buy us? Is there a motivation for keeping it that I am not picking up on? Bmorton3 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe associate accuracy with the sources explicitly: "verifiable against reliable sources and accurately presenting the general body of published knowledge"? Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If your worry was that the use of sources might not reflect the general body of published knowledge, then that looks like a great phrasing to me too. Bmorton3 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I don't think this particular point has been really contentious in practice, actually, so I doubt we'll have major problems either way. Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the long note by Ryan. I contributed the original 6 points, now 5 and somewhat edited. I'm off on business and can't comment any further, but I do think there is a misunderstand. 'Be sure of your ground', even in its current form, in no way implies elitism. It just suggests that someone should do a basis fact check before they weigh in with some comment. It's not that one minds being told basic grammar is wrong, but one does mind when the basic grammar is not wrong at all (only the reviewers). In the unmentionable article, there were a number of cases of this. Glad that 'defer to precedent' might make it through. That's the single most important one as far as I am concerned. Who wants some stupid argument about where to put a comma or a question mark, when the great and the good have been before us.

On not having redundancies, I'm all for a single page which is a one stop shop about putting in a nomination, e.g. how to start, how to keep going, how the process finishes off &c. Hate following links around. I do think Tony's style guide IS somewhat separate (though it's very useful and carefully written). Dbuckner 19:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Requiring things to be "factually accurate" is bad. Firstly it seems rather obvious. Things in the encyclopedia should not be falsehoods: they should be truthful. And that's all that "factually accurate" says on its own. Second, actual factual accuracy is an impossible, idealized state that does not occur in the real world. So what we have is a directive that that provides no direction; it does not help authors and editors at all. Instead, there should be a directive that lends itself to some kind of action or result, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability. I am glad it is the latter that appears under the edit box. --Yath 07:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just now noticing this discussion over here. Sorry for not getting involved sooner. I'll incorporate what's been discussed into the proposed changes at User:Ryu Kaze/Sandbox.

By the way, Dbuckner, hope I didn't offend in any way. Like you, I'd just like to see things be as efficient as possible without being offputting to anyone. Bmorton3's been a great source of input on how newcomers might respond to certain things given his own status as one. I'd like to extend a thanks to him for that. Well, I'm about ready to see if everybody's okay with the proposed changes, so we can get everything prepared for the future of FAC. Ryu Kaze 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

About referencing and footnotes

I have noticed that for articles to pass FAC, they must have many footnotes. However, the Citing sources policy strongly advice not to use them. Could someone clarify me which reference scheme should I adopt to get my (well the one I worked on) article to FA quality? Thank you. CG 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE says you can use footnotes, Harvard referencing, or embedded links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SV is correct - any inline citation style is acceptable, but the article should be consistent. Raul654 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But it seems that footnotes are by far the most used ref style. right? CG 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

By footnotes, I assume you mean Rob Church's Cite.php citation style - yes, that's the most common one, because it's easiest to use. Raul654 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It has gained popularity very rapidly since it became available. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Raul, you mean Ævar's... Harvard referencing would catch on more if it were easier to implement, and not require esoteric hacks known by a select few. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of us will forever use parenthetical reference. The formatting of a parenthetical reference will never get broken by software changes, and it's immediately gratifying. Geogre 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone verify whether the comment from User:Plange regarding inline citations at Citing Sources is correct? From other pages I have seen, the only requirement is that referencing be consistent within the article.

I ask in regard to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Narnia where the eventual aim is to improve all articles to good article status, and possibly submit them as FACs afterwards - should all articles within the category of Narnia then keep consistent formatting, and will inline referencing be suitable? I would appreciate any comments you may have on project talkpage.

Many thanks, Curiousbadger 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have a question. I'm planning on writing an article and getting it to WP:FAC. However, because there's practically no internet sources, I'll rely only on news archives (dating backs to 1975! which are not accessible by the general wikipedian), books and TV documentaries in Arabic and French. Will I get this kind of objection during its nomination? Thank you. CG 09:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Roughly what proportion of your sources is in English? And the ones not in English — are there equivalent English-language sources you could use instead? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that I could find one english source, maybe a small paragraph or sentence mentioning the subject. CG 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Having no English sources at all could be difficult. The relevant guideline (WP:RS) says that English-language sources should be used in preference to equivalent foreign-language ones, but where no equivalents are available:

"In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly. Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

"Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
"Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

Following from this, you would have to provide a translation of any material you used as a source. Not the whole thing, for course, but the sentences you rely on. So for example if you write that John Doe argued that Jane Doe's company was bound to go bankrupt eventually, you would have to link to the source and provide both the original language and a translation of the sentence(s) you rely on to make that edit. You'd also have to provide the orginal of anything you quote. Both of the above could be done as part of the footnote. Otherwise editors who don't read French and Arabic won't be able to check your work.

Are you willing to say what it's about? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, should I provide a translation of every sentence in the article? Why don't I translate it all? And second, I can't provide links for my sources (news archives, documentaries, books) other than the newspaper page or the ISBN and the IMDB link. CG 10:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You should provide a translation of the sentences you rely on as sources, not the whole articles. When you cite, you should give, for a book, the author's name, title of book, publisher, year of publication, page number, ISBN if you want. For a newspaper, author's name, headline, name of newspaper, date of publication, page number. For a documentary that has been broadcast, give name of documentary, production company, who broadcast it, date and place of broadcast. And in the same footnote, you can add any other information about the source that might be interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's for sure. I was worried that some users will complain that they can't go and verify these sources. CG 11:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

They might. It's an unusual situation not to have a single English-language source; in fact, I don't think I've encountered it. So you face two possible sources of objection: first, that your sources can't be checked, and secondly, that you can't show notability in the English-speaking world. The first is likely to be the bigger problem. You'll just have to make sure you translate very carefully, and source as much of the article as you can. Good luck. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I find out that many FAs have practically no English sources or English internet sources (eg: Defense of Sihang Warehouse, Laal language...). However, I might find one english internet source to assert the notability of the article. CG 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing proposed changes for inclusion

Hey, guys. Since most discussion about this page is taking place here (that would make sense, wouldn't it?), I've decided to go ahead and start a discussion here for a final review of the changes I've proposed for Wikipedia:What is a featured article? and Template:FAC-instructions. For those not already aware of the discussion behind these proposals, but who are interested, you can see the (surprisingly) short discussion that led to them here.

These proposals are based on all the discussion that has been conducted on the matter lately (including that on the Wikipedia talk:How to review a featured article candidate page and the Factually accurate section above), so it should reflect everyone's concerns and compromises. So far, several individuals have expressed a favorable response toward these proposals, but I wanted to make sure that anyone who might still have an issue with them got a chance to review them. I eagerly await your feedback. Thanks in advance. Ryu Kaze 16:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu, I won't have time today to look at the entire proposal, but I saw a source of confusion I was hoping you could clear up. Older FAC noms, FARs, and FARCs will still refer to 2a, 2b and so on, and for those of us who *finally* got that list committed to memory, would it be possible to retain the previous order? Changing them may confuse people reading older FAs, and may confuse reviewers who have them committed to memory.

In your structure, 2a is still prose, and 2b is still comprehensive, but all of the others changed order. Is it possible to leave 2c as factually accurate, 2d as neutral, and 2e as stable, while adding on 2f as well edited and 2g as sensitive? Sandy 16:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. You bring up a good point. I'll see if I can fix that. Thanks for the feedback. Ryu Kaze 16:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've addressed the order of criteria. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast. Another common problem is that noms sometimes strike reviewers comments or objections when the nom considers s/he has done the work. In your "supporting and objecting" section, would it be possible to remind noms not to strike reviewer comments, but to wait for reviewers to strike their own comments? Things can get tricky when noms start striking comments on their own. I still haven't had time to peruse your proposal thoroughly, but I saw those items on first glance. Sandy 17:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You bring up another good point here, so I'll go ahead and take care of it as well. Ryu Kaze 17:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I added it to the part about striking out objections. Ryu Kaze 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I have wording issues and there are now too many criteria (1d and 1g are doubtful).

2. Why are "Great writing" and "The perfect article" still in the body of the criteria, rather than down the bottom with the other Wikispace links?

3. Why the senstive biography bit highlighted right at the top. It's already in 1g, which is quite enough. In fact, I can see problems with 1g: why is it now part of the criteria, rather than elsewhere?

4. Why is "well edited" necessary when the prose already has to be "compelling, even brilliant"? How could the prose be that if it has "typos and errors in spelling and grammar"? This is a category problem and weakens the criteria.

Tony 17:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu Kaze originally added "well edited" at my request, because I felt that "well edited" and "well written" should be seperated. Prose CAN be "compelling, even brilliant" when it has a variety of other errors and weaknesses, it can even be "compelling, even brilliant" when it is not (yet) well edited. When I first began reviewing FAs I had no idea that "well edited" was intended to be one of the criteria, because it is not implied by "well written." If we want well edited to be a requirement for FAs we should be explicit about it. If we leave it off, we should not require it of FACs when we are reviewing them. Nothing sets up the potential for bad blood like holding articles to a standard that has not been made clear before hand. Bmorton3 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've integrated "well edited" into "well written", so people will be aware of them both. I felt that it was important that we maintain the use of "copy edited" and a link to that page within the "well written" criterion. There shouldn't be any confusion now, and people should hopefully take the idea of "well edited" as being part of "well written". Ryu Kaze 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it offend anyone's sensibilities with we took the "thus," out and have "the prose is compelling, even brilliant; it will have been carefully copy-edited." A large part of my point was that careful copy-editing is not implied by compelling even brilliant prose, even if it is also a good thing in its own right. I don't think well edited is part of well written, but I guess I'm not in the consensus on that one. But I sure don't think it follows logically from being compelling prose, and I might still be in the consensus on that. Bmorton3 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think it's implied that something that has been well written will have been carefully copy edited, I can see why it doesn't necessarily follow that something will be compelling/brillant simply because it's been well edited. Even writing free of errors of any kind may not be compelling/brilliant, so I agree with the change. I'll see if I can incorporate it a little better. Thanks for your additional input. Ryu Kaze 16:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the change I made: "it will have also been carefully copy-edited". I think this establishes that "compelling", "brilliant" and "carefully copy edited" are seperate characteristics that all work toward establishing "well written", while none of them necessarily establish the criterion on their own. Does that adequately address your concern? Ryu Kaze 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, But it seems like the appropriate compromise between my concerns and the concerns of others, ;) Bmorton3 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being kind enough to take the compromise. Ryu Kaze 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Tony. I'll address each of your comments in the turn presented:

1d was already part of the criteria, actually, and "sensitive" needs to be added to complete the set of content policies
Sorry about that. I'll move them down
I'll remove the highlight
I'll merge well edited into well written

Okay, done. Any better? Ryu Kaze 17:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to Raul in the explanation of the process should appear as "...determination of the consensus established is made by the Featured Article Director...", to give some clue as to why Raul gets to decide on the concensus. The following "...as time allows..." is redundant as the next sentence explains the timing (although what is meant by "a significant amount" could do with an example or range). Apart from that, it looks fine to me. Yomangani ^talk 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Thanks. I had been tinkering with how to word the line about Raul, but couldn't come up with anything. That sounds perfect. Ryu Kaze 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes, Ryu.

By "1d", I was referring to the bit about typos and grammatical and spelling errors. You have indeed moved this up to 1a, which is better because now it's not disconnected from the criterion that it jars with. But the category problem remains: as I noted above, if text is "compelling, even brilliant", it will have been carefully copy-edited to ensure the text is free from spelling and grammatical errors: that much is obvious even to a newbie, and thus, the horse has already bolted earlier in the sentence. It's in everyone's interests to have criteria that are as brief and concise as possible, and this clause is ... dare I say it, manifestly redundant. Not only that, it singles out just two preconditions for compelling, even brilliant text above others (removing redundancy and using correct punctuation among them). We could create quite a list, but I suggest that this belongs in the WP-space ancillary resources linked under "See also" (where these aspects, among many others, are nicely covered).
Thanks.
"Sensitive" doesn't belong in Criterion 1: it refers to too specific an issue, which involves a minority of FAs. I think Criterion 1 should be wide in scope. And the word "sensitive" is the only one in the lead sentence that begs serious questions as a stand-alone epithet in this context (looks very new age, SNAG ...). I suggest that you move the biography stuff to a new 2d, IF it's covered at all in the MoS. (Is it? That would be great if it were.) If not, a new Criterion 3 would be a better place than jammed uncomfortably into 1. I'm still unsure that it needs to be in the criteria at all. So much detail isn't and can't and shouldn't be included in the criteria.

Now, I do like the moving of the "best work" criterion into the top sentence, but the "recognizes style guidelines" is a bad idea. It's vague (does it refer to WP's MoS alone, or to all style guides?). It assumes that all style guidelines are right for WP in the 21st century: they're not. There are many, many style guidelines, including in-house ones that are for a specific purpose: why is there reference to anything more than WP's own style guidelines? Why bother having them, in that case? By legitimising all style guidelines, you will create chaos and reduce the status of our own MoS. This is not a good move.

I see that there's still the requirement to announce "self-nomination" if you've worked on it, but no corresponding requirement to disclose that you've been a recent contributor to an article before nomination; even the GA process requires this disclosure.

The text can be trimmed in a number of places without changing the meaning. There's a missing apostrophe, among other things. (Sorry, I'm a word-nerd.) Tony 03:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional feedback. I'll make some further revisions soon. The "sensitive" thing, by the way, is actually beyond the MOS and is one of the encyclopedia's official content policies, in the same vein as NPOV. Ryu Kaze 03:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to a point made above, WP:BLP doesn't only refer to biographies of living persons but to any mention of living persons, so the "sensitivity" advice applies to a larger number of articles than just bios. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. That should probably be emphasised. Ryu Kaze 04:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing that all up, by the way, Ryu. It's very clear and helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to have been of service. Ryu Kaze 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the bio thing applies to a larger minority, but not, potentially, to any FAC, as do the other items in Criterion 1. I still think that it's better dealt with in a new Criterion 3, with reference to BLP. Tony 04:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, more stuff:

Tony, I altered the line about compelling and brilliant prose to be less redundant; however, I left the presence of "copy edited" to ensure familiarity with the term, and to have an excuse for including the link
You're welcome
SV's made a sensible change for the placement of the info related to "sensitive" with the addition of criterion 5; by the way, SV, I minimized this line a bit so it wouldn't repeat criterion 1 too much; let me know if you think this is an improvement
Addressed the "style" issue in the opening by simply removing the line
Added "If you have been a significant contributor to this article, please indicate this" beside "If you believe an article meets all of the criteria, write Support followed by your reasons"

Hope that takes care of everything. Let me know. Ryu Kaze 04:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies here, guys. I thought I'd made these changes last night, but apparently I forgot to hit save page. Ryu Kaze 12:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Er. N...o, not altogether. The sentence at the top seemed to have had a bit of an accident, so I changed it. I hesitate to edit in Ryu's userspace, or I would also have made the "As you may have spent weeks" paragraph more concise. But mainly, I'm worried about the addition of point 5. Slim, I'm sorry if you've already explained about it somewhere round here, I'm having a little trouble navigating the page. But my problem is that NPOV, verifiabilty, and NOR are the criteria for Wikipedia articles, not for featured articles. They're the basic policies of the encyclopedia. NPOV isn't a featured criterion, any more than not being a copyvio is one. Surely? And also it's a surprise to meet these policies at the end of the list, when a more demanding--so to speak, a more featured--version of them is mostly already covered in point 1. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bish, yes, fair point. I thought OR would be worth mentioning because it's only partly covered by the need for sources. Material can be sourced and yet still be OR (e.g. an editor's own arguments composed of individually sourced premises). However, if you think it best not to include it, feel free to remove. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys have a great idea for something, don't hesitate to add it to the page just because it's my sandbox. Bish's point makes sense, really. It's a basic assumption that an article would meet those criteria already. Even so, I don't think we should remove mention of them from 1, because it makes note of some specifics that people should be aware of. Ryu Kaze 12:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you spoke just at the right time, Ryu. I'll put my head on the chopping block by proposing a modified version of Ryu's work. Here's the edit comparison; it's a bit messy, but please persevere through it, noting what you agree with and what you don't: a clean revision appears underneath, of course.

I think the criteria should be as short and simple as possible, and I'm almost certain that Raul and other experienced FAC people such as ALoan will prefer this (Raul regularly talks of "instruction creep").

There are numerous edits that I suspect no one will mind, but what still has to be resolved is the vague, open-ended reference to style guides at the top, which may be a sticking point (please don't throw the whole version out on the basis of that one issue—it can be isolated for debate); content policies are already covered in the criteria, so the rest of that sentence can probably go too. The only content policy in Criterion 5 that wasn't already covered was the one about original research, which I think shouldn't be mentioned here, since it's a requirement for all WP articles, as Bishonen has pointed out. Therefore, I've removed 5 altogether. I've reluctantly retained the reference to "copy-editing", although I will still argue that it is totally redundant.

I've gone for a multi-sentence list (i.e., each item is a stand-alone sentence)—this helps with the longer items. Some time ago, we turned the "shoulds" into indicative mood. As for "with the exception of improvements based on suggestions from the nomination page"—I (unwisely) inserted this last December, and then someone removed it; I see that at some stage it was reinstated. Isn't "edit wars" clear enough per se, whenever they might occur? I'd like to reduce this text to the absolutely necessary. I like the "professional standards" bit at the top, but wondered why it should refer only to "presentation" (the visual aspect?); I haven't changed this, but suggest "writing and presentation": any thoughts? FAs, of course, should do more than "strive" for anything: they should achieve it, so I've used "attain". Summary style should be used throughout, not just where there are links to daughter articles.

I used my own sandbox because the last thing I want to do is to usurp Ryu's good work. However, I will argue that the changes should be incorporated into it. I haven't yet looked at the rest of the text (underneath the criteria). Tony 13:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC) ~~:And of course as soon as I hit the button I noticed that the piped link to featured article in the first sentence didn't make it through in my proposal. Can easily be fixed.~~ Fixed. Tony 13:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure that the order of 2–5 is right. Tony 13:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of your suggestions certainly make things more crisp. I'll try incorporating them into my sandbox to see what it would look like in the final version (one of the things I was shooting for with my example was making it look exactly as the final version would, navigation box and all).

By the way, do you have any suggestions for the FAC instructions or are those okay? Ryu Kaze 14:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, changes implemented. Ryu Kaze 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me, but darn, people are going to get confused with the new 1) and the old 2). I guess there's no way to fix that. Sandy 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the inclusion of the "with the exception of improvements based on suggestions from the nomination page", because I really dislike when people try to tear down an article by BSing the stability criteria. We have users who will oppose because of this. Moreover, the "does not change significantly" line will make people believe that it is in addition to edit wars. I STRONGLY suggest reintroducing the line. — Deckill e r 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Another question:

(b) "Comprehensive" means that an article covers the entire topic and does not neglect major facts or details. Couldn't this be compressed to: (b) "Comprehensive" means that an article does not neglect major facts or details. Isn't it clear that if an article neglects major facts or details, it is not covered in its entirety? — Deckill e r 21:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions, Deck. By the way, Sandy, you're right. I couldn't think of any way around that. :( While I suppose we could move criterion 4 up to be the new criterion 1, it would be odd to get info on length before getting info on the article being well written. Ryu Kaze 21:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've incorporated your suggestions. Here's another link to the sandbox for easier navigation (link at the top of the section and now one down here). Ryu Kaze 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the new 1) and the old 2) will be such a problem in practice: new nominators won't know the old order, regular nominators won't re-read the criteria, and anybody quoting them during review will quickly adjust. Yomangani ^talk 22:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Though I guess Tony will have to rename his 2a article now. Ryu Kaze 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

True, that's one I didn't think about - it's mentioned in the automated peer review code too. Maybe the order could be 2a, 2, 3, 4. Arf. Yomangani ^talk 23:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agh. Well, you said order's not important, right? People are familiar with the 2abc's already, so what would it really hurt if we moved the length criterion up to criterion 1? It wouldn't make a difference to new people, as you've said. It would just make things easier for those who are already established. I think I'm going to do that. While I think the well written, stable, etc. stuff should be first, it technically wasn't listed first before anyway. Ryu Kaze 23:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that 2a,2,3,4 bit was a joke (or at least was meant to be). I'm sure 2a not being 2a any longer won't cause more than a minor blip on WP's heart monitor. Yomangani ^talk 23:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, but I'd like to make it as easy for everyone as possible. I don't think it will produce any problems to have the length thing first. Ryu Kaze 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony's informed me that he'll graciously take one for the team and change the name of his advice page, so the "well written, comprehensive ... etc." criterion is now going to be the first one again. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes previously, but he also feels that it makes the most sense as the first on the list. Ryu Kaze 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I've had a go at the rest of the text: here's the edit comparison. The shorter the better, and I'm a little uncomfortable that it's longer than the existing text, even after my trimming here and there, but Raul may not object if the consensus is that it's necessary. (I think the new text is a significant improvement.) I've added one substantive sentence: "Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objections have been addressed."

I've removed two bits in the interests of concision:

"—either because the topic lies within your professional or academic field, or because of the time you've spent researching it—"
"For example, there are significant country-specific variations in the way English is used (such as American English and British English)."

Reinsert if people think they're necessary.

It still wanders a bit from second- to third-person. Might be OK. Tony 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Ryu Kaze 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking the looks of these recent changes -- Tony's edit was quite effective in trimming some of the fat without losing content. One minor concern I have is this wording:

If, after sufficient time, objections have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination is removed from the list and archived.

I could go either way on this, but it seems like the above doesn't acknowledge the Featured Article Director's authority to overturn objections on the basis of objections being unactionable, wholly subjective, or particularly insignificant. I realize there's that "unactionable objections may be ignored" clause down at the bottom of the page, under the supporting/objecting instructions, but that seems to contradict the above, and the "may" statement is vague -- may be ignored by whom? And does that mean the article will be archived, or not? For the sake of reducing frustration and promoting civility, it's probably worth giving people a pretty clear idea that if, for example, Grace Paley were to drop in and say "I object to this nomination because I think good prose should never contain adverbs," the article might still be promoted, and that the promotion would not be considered outside of the process. -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 16:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. The FAD's authority isn't emphasised well enough. I'll make some changes. Ryu Kaze 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've changed:

"If, after sufficient time, objections have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination is removed from the list and archived" has become "If, after sufficient time, objections considered significant by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination is removed from the list and archived".
"If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, it may be ignored" has become "If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, it may be ignored, and won't be taken into consideration by the Featured Article Director".

While one might think the "may be ignored" part is made redundant by "won't be taken... ", I think it should remain for the benefit of nominators, so they'll know they don't have to even worry about it. Ryu Kaze 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it inconsistent to say "It is well-written, comprehensive..." and then say "an article"? It seems like "it is" suggests that we are talking about one hypothetical featured article, but then in the actual suggestions it sounds like we're referring to all articles. Thus I'd suggest changing instances of "an article" to "the article". --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Deckiller's gone ahead and taken care of that, so we're good on that now. Thanks for pointing it out. Collaboration produces quality. Ryu Kaze 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotta say that "objections considered significant by the FA Director" gives that person open-ended power—goes too far the other way. What is significant should be what is actionable. I suggest simply changing "significant" to "actionable", which will draw everyone back to the criteria. (Like, I could say that something breaches the criteria but , to me, is not important and therefore is not "significant": so let's ignore it. But improving a FAC often involves fixing lots of little things. "Actionable" is at least arguable in terms of black-letter law, i.e., the FA Criteria, rather than how important something might be deemed to be.)

"it may be ignored, and won't be taken into consideration by the Featured Article Director"—well, yeah, it's bloating again: there's nothing clearer to newbies than "it may be ignored". Tony 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Or better: ", the FA Director may ignore it." Tony 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've tweaked those two lines. Thanks.

With that done, does everyone feel pretty good about the proposal? I think that so far it's a major improvement over the status quo. Ryu Kaze 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to hang this proposal up, because I do feel good about these changes and support them. But to quickly address the significance/actionability issue, I'm not sure just throwing in the actionability clause totally addresses the specific authority of the FA Director -- unless I'm misunderstanding the process, and forgive me if I am. I'm not trying to be proscriptive, merely descriptive, and my understanding was that the director can throw out objections which are deemed to be insignificant or overly subjective when the article otherwise has support. The phrasing now suggests an if/then relationship: if there are outstanding actionable objections (even one), the article will be archived and not promoted. Maybe the problem is my understanding of the term "actionable", but I would assume my Grace Paley example would be actionable; it would be possible to remove all the adverbs from an article, just annoying and possibly stupid. Same goes with insisting on US or UK spelling, for example. Again, I'm not sure about this, but it certainly seems like the director does have some unique, interpretive power in disregarding objections. Perhaps just change the "will be archived" to "may be archived"? -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I follow the point you're making. Raul does, indeed, have the authority to deem a case of opposition irrelevant. In the strictest sense, "actionable" would only apply to things that can be changed, but it's usually used to mean "something in accordance with FA criteria". If you get right down to it, there are few non-actionable objections (ex: "The article's about a comic book character; object" or "We've got enough History related FAs already"). Nonetheless, I'm inclined to agree with you because a newcomer isn't going to be aware that the word might also be used to mean "This objection is absurd because it's based on how many nouns are within".

How about just doing what you suggested and changing "a nomination is removed from the list and archived" to "may be removed from the list and archived"? Because of the info beneath that, it's clarified that objections like "I don't like the subject" or "I just feel something's not right yet. I can't put my finger on it, but my gut's telling me it's not ready" aren't valid. I'll go ahead and make this change. Let me know if you think it works. Ryu Kaze 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Honestly, I don't think any experienced Wikipedians are going to have problems understanding this, even if they're not experienced in the FA process -- the idea of objections being dismissed if they're criminally silly is something one gets a hang of elsewhere in the consensus-building process, too -- but for the benefit of newer editors, I think that "may" is a little more precise, and helps to convey the important idea that there's some judgement involved in the process. Thanks. -- (Lee)Bailey ^(talk) 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. As always, thanks for your input. Ryu Kaze 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's looking good. I've tweaked a few minor things (no substantive change in meaning). At this point, can I make a plea that the name of the page be changed to what it is: "Featured Article Criteria"? This came up here a couple of months ago, and no one could be bothered doing the change (Raul had no in-principle objection.) Now would be a good time to do it. As well, I'm sure that there's a German equivalent—the list of other such pages looks rather short; but that's a minor matter. Tony 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, Tony. Now would be the perfect time to change the name of the page to something more to the point. Ryu Kaze 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added changes to the proposal page to reflect the implementation of "Wikipedia:Featured article criteria" as the new title. I'm hoping everyone will be okay with this change. While it might not have really been something that desperately needed to be done when it was briefly discussed before, considering that we're making all these other changes, now would be the time to straighten out any and all kinks. Ryu Kaze 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So if everyone's ready, I'll implement the changes soon. If no one finds anything else of concern, I'll do it in about 24 hours. Ryu Kaze 13:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Support/object

Erk, missed the discussion. Two nitpicks:

"Write object/support". Should we be ordering people to write these exact words? When I object I rarely actually write "object" because it seems too didactic.

"Therefore, nominators must gracefully accept criticism that is in accordance with the FA criteria". It seems odd to tell people they must be graceful. Marskell 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad, BTW, that this was brought back to this page as had been suggested earlier on SV's start-up. Far more sensible to have the expansion here. Marskell 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tim, do you write "Oppose"? If that is so, would you be happy with "... write "Object" or "Oppose", followed by ..."? We need to use a solid term or terms for this.

What about "Therefore, nominators are strongly encouraged to respond positively to criticism that is in accordance with the FA criteria."

BTW, I noticed a jingle that is my fault: "The timing is determined by the Director on a case-by-case basis."—ace ace ace. What about "The Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination." I think it means the same (am I right?), and is shorter and crisper without the passive voice. Tony 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony's suggestions work for me. Like he said, we need some standard terminology for the process to be introduced in the instructions. "Oppose" works fine if someone wants to use that in objecting/supporting, as people often do, but we should take care not to clutter things up with too many synonyms for how people can indicate their judgement. We have to be sure to give standard terms for how reviewers begin their comments, because if we word it to read "indicate object/support followed by your reasons", we might lose the straightforward nature of FAC. It could lead to newcomers placing their final judgement at the end of a sentence, or even in the middle of a paragraph, requiring extensive reading of all comments to gain an idea of what they want to say. The instructions really are for the benefit of the newcomers and not those who are already familiar with the process. I think it's fine if we use "write Object or Oppose", but we shouldn't add any more optional terminology than that.

I'll go ahead and add these changes to the sandbox. By the way, I think there should be a note added about placing "Comment" in lieu of outright objecting or supporting. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added Tony's changes. I also added a line about comments so that newcomers will know they can offer input without choosing to object or support. See if the wording is okay to you: "If you wish to provide constructive input on a nomination, but have not yet decided to support or object, please write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice". Ryu Kaze 17:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe there should be no requirement to begin your FAC comment with anything. You can begin it with it "hey, why no pics?" if that's what you want. I've started a couple with almost there, but or something similar. Of course, we should note that support/oppose is what people most often start with, but we shouldn't make it a must. "Extensive reading" required. So what. I would hope the FA director (or any admin, if it gets thrown open) reads more or less everything. Marskell 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree. If you let people comment in just any fashion they see fit to, you end up with comments like this one from this FAC: "As comprehensive an article as it is possible to achieve. Given that it is a fairly insignificant single/event there are plenty of refs and probably forms the most complete central source for such info on the web".

I assume that's a support, but the reviewer didn't clarify if it was or not, and since the comment followed another reviewer's Object, it was even less obvious. This is why the the system of support/object exists. It tells people where you stand, and they know where your comment is heading as they read it in addition to it giving someone looking over the FAC an idea of the direction the overall nomination is heading .Nominators, fellow reviewers, and the FA Director should not have to try to guess what someone's standing is, why they got there or where they're going with their comment. One should tell them their standing and spend the rest of theirr edit explaining why they arrived there. This is more simple for everyone. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since the original set of FAC instructions drawn up by Raul on July 8, 2004 included the system of Support/Object and it's been in there ever since, it's probably something he wants to keep. Ryu Kaze 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way again, it isn't like we're changing the FAC instructions where object/support is concerned. It's always been like that. You don't necessarily have to change how you've been providing your input, but newcomers most certainly should be encouraged to present their stance in this most straightforward and approved of ways. Ryu Kaze 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I find this wiki-lawyering, to be perfectly honest. Newcomers should be encouraged to dig into an article and comment robustly, which may require something more nuanced than "support/oppose". If it were a nose count/vote it would make sense to demand a standardized response, but it isn't a vote and the instruction should thus be only suggestive. Of course, this isn't going to matter to a large degree, as 9 out 10 people are still going to comment with support/oppose, but I don't intend to where I'd rather not. Marskell 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tim, can you give an idea of what you propose instead—perhaps even the wording? Tony 10:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Newcomers are encouraged to comment robustly. The wording says "write support/object and then your reasons". The word alone isn't enough. They've always been required to provide reasoning for where they stand. Ryu Kaze 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this for the second bullet: "When reviewing an FAC make your position clear initially (e.g., support, oppose, comment, question). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this."

I'd also like to add something to the effect that you can provide objections without objecting in toto (i.e., not yet). This is one reason I don't like "object." I might have a concern that isn't actually a failure to meet criteria (e.g., the best arrangement of the sections or "can you add another pic?") or I might have a criteria concern that should be fairly easily addressed such as the lead. Marskell 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under the "comment" thing already included in the instructions? I'll see if I can make it a little more clear, but as near as I can tell, this concern and the one above are already addressed. Ryu Kaze 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking it over, I don't see how I can change it, really. I mean, it already says what you want it to say, but in a much more straightforward manner. It's supposed to be a bullet list so that it's easy to follow. Again, this is for the benefit of newcomers who need the instructions handed to them in the most simple of terms, not for those of us who already know how everything works. Your sample sentence couldn't be used because it's lacking a significant amount of support/object information. It would have to look like this:

"When reviewing an FAC make your position clear initially (e.g., support, oppose, comment, question). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. Be aware that references on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it."

That would be a really cluttered way of presenting the information, and it would combine almost all the bullets, such that there would be no point in having a list. I don't think this would make things any more simple for newcomers. It seems significantly more jumbled to me. Even I had to read it twice, and I already knew what it said. It involves too much jumping around. It doesn't come across as coherent like this, and we couldn't place the idea of supporting/objecting in a seperate bullet from the information that goes with those ideas without making it incohesive.

It's far more simple and straightforward to first explain how to support and provide the extra info that goes with that. Then we go to explaining how to object, and provide the extra info that goes with that. This is the most simple way to present the information. Ryu Kaze 13:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I was going to implement the new changes in about 14 minutes, but I'm going to extend that a few more hours until we get a chance to discuss this a little more. Ryu Kaze 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If it seems that difficult to change it just post the page and it can be gone over later. Essentially, I don't like the imperative mood in the two sentences but it can be tweaked when its live. Marskell 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well then, I'll go ahead. Ryu Kaze 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Being copy-edited isn't part of what "well-written" means

"It will also have been carefully copy-edited." No, not necessarily. I know how contentious it is to object to this, and that Tony has introduced copy-editing into the criteria before (and I have removed it before), so I'll really try to be clear about my objection to it. Being copy-edited isn't part of what "well-written" means. Well-written, compelling, brilliant... the words refer to the reading experience, not the writing process. "Copy-editing" speaks, by contrast, to how this quality of prose should--must? "will have been"?--achieved. I'm sorry, having the article copyedited is good advice, but as a criterion for a Featured article it's just unwarrantably interfering. Please note that none of the other criteria attempt to legislate how comprehensiveness, factually accuracy, neutrality, stability, etc. should be achieved. They just say the qualities have to be there. 1 a should be on the same level, in other words be neutral as to the writing process. We do have several pages with advice for how to achieve the criteria, in fact we have one page, Tony's, wholly devoted to criterion 1 a. I've removed the clause about copy-editing. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

Nope, I didn't like it at all, and reluctantly retained it (trimmed the phrase) in the spirit of compromise. Apart from this, I entirely agree with what you say. Tony 02:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I never saw this as referring to process, but rather to result; perhaps a better way to make the same point would be

"Well written" means that the prose is compelling—even brilliant—and follows the usual rules of formal writing concerning grammar and usage;

as it should probably be mentioned somewhere that the writing must not only be compelling, but also correct. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arghh. The art of anticlimax. :-( The prose has to be brilliant and also acceptable? Must we do that? Bishonen | talk 03:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

Well, possibly; I don't know whether we have anyone of Faulkner's level working on FAs at the moment, but a cursory reading of, say, As I Lay Dying will easily demonstrate that prose may be brilliant and yet entirely unsuited for use in an encyclopedia (and a grammatical nightmare, to boot). It's not a major concern, however, and I'm willing to leave it off if you think the point is implicit from other criteria. Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so not directly responding to Bishonen, but relevant.) Clear, direct, free of spelling errors, typographical errors, and grammatical errors. Or something to that effect. Of course, one could very well argue that "well-written" on its own is enough: a self-obvious term without need of further explanation. Using "copy-edited" as a proxy for trying to explain what "well-written" means fails as a circular argument, really: copy-edited toward what end? One might copyedit a book of children's nonsense verse, or a gothic romance novel, and not achieve anything particularly encyclopedic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I admit I'm strongly opposed to explanations of self-explanatory words, per Bishonen's Law: Instructions are always growing so someone has to keep trimming. Bishonen | talk 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

I like Bishonen's Law; I think Raul would, too. Sure, compelling, even brilliant prose can have occasional glitches (I even found a grammatical error on p. 77 of Patrick White's The Twyborn Affair—just to show what a nerd I am.) But frankly, I would argue that the simple, short version of 1a says it all, and avoids the begging of untidy and circular questions, as Bunch points out. To my knowledge, no contributor to date has quibbled over the meaning of the "well written" criterion. I've tweaked the wording again. I'm reminded of an ancient Chinese proverb that, roughly translated, says: "Editing text is like sweeping up leaves in the wind". That won't stop me trying! Tony 03:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the part about copy-editing is fine with me. To be honest, I never was a big fan of the inclusion of that, but wanted everyone to be comfortable with what was being included, and I think it was a particularly large concern for Bmorton3. However, most certainly "well edited" or "copy edited" refers to the process and not the end result, so it should be removed from this list of criterion on those grounds. I hadn't thought of it that way before. Wish I had and I would have tossed it out sooner. Ryu Kaze 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Good faith" effort

Sorry if this has been brought up before; if it has, I've missed it. The mention of Bishonen's Law reminded me of a small question I've had regarding the FAC-instructions text for a long time: why "Nominators are expected to make a good faith effort to address objections" instead of simply "Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections"? What else could "make an effort" possibly mean? And why is linking to WP:AGF useful there? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. :-) Tony 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. Ryu Kaze 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

Now this is live, can I ask for comments on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/New_steps_to_FA (mainly on the infobox). The original idea was to take the sting out of FAC for new nominators, and although one of the proposals has been covered by the new Featured Article Criteria article, I think the "Steps to FA" infobox on the Peer Review page still needs some attention. Yomangani ^talk 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove all mention of applying for FA status in this list. Currently, it assumes that PR functions only as the handmaiden to FA nomination (is that right?). I'd have thought that PR ideally functioned to improve articles more generally.

If FA nomination is retained in that templated list, there should be more steps. Somewhere, there should be strong encouragement to actively seek out reviewers for PR (not to dump and run, and then complain later that it was ignored). Point out that there's a shortage of reviewers on WP, and that networking among like-minded people is one of the most valuable aspects of being a WPian. Tony 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, do you mean look into a related WikiProject or something like that? That sounds like good advice, if so. That can certainly help. Ryu Kaze 02:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Or just go to the WikiProject's own review directly ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree with any kind of "steps to FA" page because they (a) make it falsely appear as if those steps are necessary (they are not), and (b) they make the fatal mistake of assuming that peer reivew, wikiprojects, 'etc are functional (when, in fact, peer review is generally unhelpful and the majority of wikiprojects are inactive). Raul654 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood, Raul. They're just referring to that little "The path to a featured article" box on the Peer Review page. I doubt most of us would support a page on the subject to itself. There's been way too many FA-related articles created giving advice on the matter. Also, the changes for the box that Yomangani proposed emphasise that all those steps like GA and PR are optional, so I don't think there'd be any misunderstandings.

Or did you mean that you don't like the little box on the PR page either? Come to think of it, that box could give the wrong impression (that Peer Review is solely for getting an article ready for FA status). Ryu Kaze 03:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So, is there consensus for removing the pathways to FA angle? I'd certainly support that, and anything that discourages people from seeing FAC as an ersatz PR. Tony 03:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just removing the "Steps to FA" box wouldn't be helpful, as it would encourage editors to skip straight to FAC and use that for PR instead, but I'd support changing it to a "Purpose of PR" box (or somesuch)- giving possible reasons for listing an article for PR, and hence removing the direct path to FAC overtone while maintaining a connection. Thoughts? Yomangani ^talk 11:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the only issue here is the name of the chart. If it could be renamed to something that wouldn't suggest so strongly that PR is only for articles that are trying to get to FA, I can't see any potential problems with it. It's already better than it was before because it infers that FA isn't a simple process. Ryu Kaze 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Having had another look at WP:PR (and contrary to what I said earlier), I think the steps box could be removed entirely - the main text on the left does a far better job of explaining what PR is intended for and the alternatives. Losing the steps box would concentrate the mind on the lead text and address Tony's and Raul's objections to the over obvious connection between PR and FAC. Yomangani ^talk 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That might be for the best. Ryu Kaze 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)