Wikipedia talk:FAC

For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list
FACs needing feedback
Chiprovtsi Review it now
Frederick III, German Emperor Review it now
Faith Leech Review it now
Millennium '73 Review it now
Archive
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Short FAs, 32 Short FAs cont., 33, 34 Context and notability, 35, 36, 37
Shortcut:
WT:FAC

Contents

Yawn

Any chance of adding something to the nomination instructions suggesting that people might want to make their nominations engaging? They are so boring nowadays. "I'm nominating this article because I believe it is FA standard" No! Really?! "This article recently passed GA" Golly, how thrilling for it! "PersonX helped a great deal" Does anybody but PersonX care that you namechecked them? "This article was last nominated for FA 5 months ago" And last edited yesterday, don't forget that! "Part of a drive by Project X to get Topic Y to to featured standard" What's that? Advertising for the next instalment? These are all bearable as part of a nomination, but why do we hardly ever get any reasons why a reviewer might want read the article? Why should we be interested in [insert name of person/thing you've never heard of here]? One line to hook the reviewer, that's all I ask. Otherwise just put the article name and leave it at that. Yomanganitalk 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I try, myself :) [1][2]. And I usually try to put something in the edit summary besides "+1" and link to the FAC (which I really which everyone would do anyhow for practical reasons.) But is this really that big a deal? Most of the people here have no sense of humor or creative writing, but it's hardly in the job description :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yomangani- What did you have in mind as a hook? Can you give an example an FAC that has a hook?
Also, I've always felt some of the stuff you mentioned helps give background to the article, is a part of transparency, and introduces the people that will be addressing comments. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
Look at David Fuchs' above (although I hear naming names is suicide). And yes, some of the stuff does give background but it isn't a nomination in itself. Yomanganitalk 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Erm, it really doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Me neither. I usually leave my nominations blank :) Gary King (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Did I say it was a huge deal? Anybody who wants to go on stating the obvious as the entirety of their nominations is welcome to do so. Yomanganitalk 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could set up a featured "featured article nominations" nominations page. Hee hee. Sorry, couldn't resist. Wrad (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, instead of this, I'd like to see nominators pre-empting opposes in their statements. For example, with sourcing. Maybe examine the reflist, have the foresight to guess which you'll be asked to justify as reliable, and set out the rationale in the nomination statement. "And before anyone asks, here's why X, Y and Z are reliable." Steve T • C 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Jappalang's nominations are always interesting. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's a bizarre edit summary. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well everyone knows I have the best edit summaries [3][4] :P But to keep this topic relevant, Steve brings up a good point. Nominators should use the statement to help reviewers understand aspects of the article, or what parts of the article were specifically worked on, or how the nominator feels it meets criteria if on first look it doesn't seem to do so. But I still like the DYKs myself :D Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Preempting opposes is a good idea by explaining certain issues, although sometimes one is reticent to draw attention ot a potential problem (but they always find out anyway, I shoiulda learnt that...). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On the general issue of "boring" nomination statements, frankly, I'd rather write something bland and neutral than have to think up jokes. Some of the self-conscious attempted "wit" I read in nominations is a bit annoying, or embarrassing. And as for trying to preempt opposes, well how long is a nomination statement supposed to be? Best keep it short and to the point. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I do think the nomination should explain who or what the subject is, even if it seems blindingly obvious to the nominator. No jokes required as far as I am concerned. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite. They don't have to be witty, but to give the potential reviewer some idea of the subject matter and why it might might make interesting reading has to be a better idea than a statement that the nominator feels the article is FA standard. Maybe I want to look at the article's PR once my interest has been piqued, but you aren't going to hook me by telling me that it passed GA when I don't know what it is about. Yomanganitalk 15:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

The proposal is to experiment the Flagged revisions on FAs: Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions#Trial. Doesn't seem to be consistent with Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. -maclean 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The sooner quality controls on FAs are implemented, the better. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org links

Hi. I'm looking for evidence that we still endorse linking to web.archive.org within the "External links" section, in certain circumstances, for a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to archive where they are trying to eliminate all of them, again.

They've requested that I find a Featured Article promoted within the last year, that included a {{wayback}} template or similar links at the time. Can anyone help with that, or provide other advice? Much thanks.

(For context, the guideline mentioned the Wayback Machine from May 2005 (added by User:Kingturtle) until September 2008 when a small group seems to have decided to remove it despite objections.) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I hope this won't end up killing the articles' FA status.
Super Mario 64 promoted February 4, 2008: FAC and promoted version. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
Also, Final Fantasy promoted December 4, 2007: FAC and promoted version. The fourth must be a lucky day for me. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
And Space Invaders promoted September 29, 2008: FAC and promoted version. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
Whoops. I completely read over the part about it being in the External links. My mistake. :-p
The only one that used archive.org in the External links was Super Mario 64. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

We can still use Archive.org links in prose though, can't we? D.M.N. (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't see why not. I had never really thought about it, but on further pondering I have to say it makes sense not to have EL's pointing to the Wayback. Really, the purpose of external links is to provide further information on the topic beyond the scope of WP, and a dead site isn't the best way to do that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There are many FAs that include a link to the Wayback, such as Metabolism and Encyclopædia Britannica, and they are definitely fine for citations. When to use Wayback in just the EL section should be judged on a case-by-case basis. [As seen in the FAs linked, just because a site loses it's hosting, doesn't mean the information is disposable.] It's just a couple of hardline-exclusionists at WP:EL that continually try to "ban" certain groups of sites, that we're running up against here (more moderate voices would always be welcome at that talkpage). Thanks for the help. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That is another of the absurd but increasingly common issues coming up across many Guideline pages, that have caused me to stop trying to keep them in shape. Multiple decent guidelines recently have been picked apart to where they are no longer intelligible (a couple of my old favorites were WP:LAYOUT and WP:LEAD, now very messy compared to months ago and I gave up). And, a see a lot of editor names at those pages that I've never seen working on many GAs or FAs, so I'm unsure what they're basing their changes on. Marskell and SlimVirgin used to keep a lot of those pages in shape, and many are really declining now. That External link discussion is just random. I could give a lot of examples, but then, I could spend all day just trying to keep our guideline pages clean. Or not. The GA and FA communities should be paying closer attention to all of those pages. Should I point out that the Tourette Syndrome Association, for example, for years has had some volunteer juggling around all of their URLs once a month (not content, just changing URLs) so that the only way to avoid a headache with them was to link to wayback? There are many examples: these hardlines at guideline pages seem to be coming from editors who just haven't been involved in writing or reviewing a lot of articles and seeing all of the issues that come up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thoroughly agreed. So many issues, so little time to address them all. I try to participate cyclically - whenever feeling buoyant enough to withstand the siege-mentality encountered. (Eliminating/educating/changing a very small handful of people would do wonders, but RFCU's are depressing and ineffective, and the longterm hardliners usually know how to tread the fine-line of arbcom-proof behavior.) Ah well, back to articles... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting my conscience, Opposing Blancmange-like FAC.

This is blatant canvassing/forum shopping. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. We don't all need to know you are "voting your conscience". How is this relevant specifically? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
He's basically trying to compare my FAC to a start class article. As well as calling it "junk" and "high school" quality, he's attempting to sabotage the discussion with his POV. I'm not at all happy with this behavior. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ling.Nut didn't say high school quality, he said level based on readability, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The encyclopedia should be accessible and easy to read. Taking the reading age of three FAs at random:
The reading age for Mark Speight is about 16, this hardly seems extraordinary or a barrier to an article becoming FA. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm more worried about Ling.Nut's blancmange. It's not very good as a simile and it struggles to make an adjective (surely it must be Blancmangy, as in mangy). Yomanganitalk 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Comparing a cute blonde to a squishy dessert on a full moon night ... LOL. Sorry, it's been a 12-hour working Friday, dinner is still an hour away, can't resist. NVO (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: the article's nom has been withdrawn. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this thread. Ling, that's fine if you feel an article is not up to standards, and it's fine to oppose, but do we really need to hear about this on the FAC talk page? What were your intentions when starting a discussion here? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A while ago (archived now, I guess), when Ling.Nut brought up the issue of less than FAC grade articles being passed, SandyGeorgia said the problem was that no one jumped in to Oppose so she was left with no choice but to pass a less than worthy article because of previous Supports from none regular FAC reviewers. She also said something to the effect that to Oppose did not necessarily require writing a lengthy justification. She suggested more Opposes before the article reached the point of passing. It seems to me that Ling.Nut is merely following her advice. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah. Dear All, I'm not gonna keep chipping in to this thread, 'cause HDYTTO is clearly very unhappy. But my motives are spelled out extremely clearly in the Talk page of the FAC, specifically in my replies to Outriggr and Taxman. That's all I'm gonna say, not 'cause I'm taking my ball and going home, but because I sincerely think HDYTTO would rather that I not stand around commenting. So be it. I have midterms to grade. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I realize they are, Ling. I just wanted to repeat what I remember as the jest of what Sandy said. I can't find the thread in the archives as they are not completely arranged chronologically. She clearly said to Ling.Nut that she wanted Opposes to jump in well before she was ready to archive. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm really getting sick of this "There are problems, but I'm not going to talk about them" attitude. EIther say your full piece to the FAC audience on this page, or don't post these topics in the first place. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. I'm not thrilled with automatic archiving because it's hard to find things (that's why I manually forced the Short FA discussions to separate archives), but Mattisse is referring to the discussion about the Urgents template, that I was troubled that it was causing FACs to hang around for two weeks, and reviewers didn't jump in to oppose until a FAC came up on the urgents template. I don't know how reviewers can allegedly know when I'm "ready to archive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
... or even jump in to help until an FAC came up on the urgent list. I've been guilty of that myself. But then anyone who knows me in real life knows that I'm chronically late for everything. I perhaps ought to have been born Spanish; Mañana is soon enough. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ling.nut, your comments have really crossed the line. It could have been more WP:CIVIL; this thread was totally uncalled for including comparisons to Blancmange. If you had problems with short articles being featured, you could have commented there objectively, sans the fanfare and razzmatazz. I suggest you try getting a short article featured to see how challenging and difficult referencing is. You did raise a few pertinent points, but your did so in such a condescending manner. Uncalled for, especially your tangential justification. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is we never resolved the issue of "short articles" and "comprehensiveness" when the issue was raised a few weeks ago. It is still festering. It is not just Ling.Nut and it is not just this article. See the two roads FACs currently up, for example. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am gonna butt in here, Awadewit. Making a absurd stance against road articles is ridiculous. We may as well delete everything non-special topic related if we want to make Wikipedia what the FAC people want. This is getting as bad as RFA, bias, bad opinions, and over-obsession. No one is gonna be able to get articles on their favorite topics up if people like to be an annoyance and foil problems. I don't care if because of this that you oppose every road FAC I nominate, but as far as I concerned your personal issues, along with Ling.Nut's are gonna eventually hit a brick wall that you can recover from.Mitch32(UP) 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
FAC isn't about promoting articles on people's "favorite topics" - it is about promoting quality articles that adhere to Wikipedia's policies Moreover, I have been trying to find a compromise at Alt 40 so that the article content is retained - I have suggested a merger. I haven't suggested a deletion. Awadewit (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, but you seem to have this look like you're gonna eventually go after more. This is a fight you are not going to win. The roads that we choose to work is our choice and in retrospect, you really cannot stop us. There is bias in this cabal and no one seems to have made the effort to call them on it. Roman Catholic Church, U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge–Cumberland, Maryland) are examples of a complete bias against something. RCC is the higher one, especially that its been through 5 FACs, all of which have failed. I am sure more will eventually come up. Also, I will say that I have seen bias on this talk page. This includes comments like that if you don't review someone's FAC that they won't pass. This is ludicrous and really a bad look for FAC. Why do you people (not gonna call out names) continue to drive articles downhill and not help people any? Its a serious bias, like RFA, that needs to be solved.Mitch32(UP) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to stay on-topic please. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd to object to an article written to a US high school reading level. Many featured articles are at that level. I'm more concerned about articles at the other end of the readability spectrum: inaccessible to high school students. Gimmetrow 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Wikipedia:Featured short articles

  • Well OK, I said I wasn't gonna come back here, but Mitch's comments on my talk spurred me on.
  • What may seem worse (or better, depending on your view) is that after posting this, I am not gonna post a single word until everyone is done and we call for a !vote. In fact, I won't even have to !vote, 'cause I'm gonna tell you my !vote right now. :-)
  • I Opposed Wikipedia:Featured short articles for one and only one reason—but in my opinion, it is a truly powerful reason: We just don't have enough reviewers. Let me repeat, my sole reason for Opposing was that we just don't have enough reviewers. Was that clear enough?
  • As I said on my Talk, if the fans of short articles will step up and make a long-term personal commitment to two things, then I will Support:
    1. Personally commit long-term to being dedicated SFAC reviewers, and
    2. Commit to accepting input from other FAC reviewers.
  • That's all! I hope people will discuss. I'm not even gonna watch. if it comes to a vote, then remeber: if we have enough dedicated reviewers, then I automatically Support.
  • later! Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, judging by the fairly-recent surge of short articles at FAC, it seems highly unlikely that there will be a lack of interest, and in turn a lack of reviewers, for short FACs. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A process that depends for its launch on the personal long-term commitment of individual Wikipedians seems flawed from the outset. It would be better to build processes that work with the kind of resources we have. Mike Christie (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way a system like this can work without a word limit for featured articles. If no limit is established, the definition of what a "short article" is will always be open to interpretation. (Didn't look at the page, and therefore missed the 1,000-word part. Speight is about 1,700, for the record) I've opposed Featured short articles in the past for concerns about the number of reviewers, and I haven't see a bunch of new reviewers lately. I certainly won't have enough time to get heavily involved in a new process, and most of the other top FAC reviewers probably won't either. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Why can't it just be melded into this page, where people say: "I am nominating this as an FSA" and it is added to th FSA list if it passes? Wrad (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I worry that FSA would become a ghetto of short, poorly-organized and poorly-written articles. My evidence (below) suggests that articles are not failing because they are short, but for other reasons. Thus, I would still like to find a compromise position that would allow all articles to be judged using the same criteria. However, if this is not possible, I am certainly becoming more open to this option than I was before. Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree unreservedly. I have been against the idea of FSA right from the start, for exactly that reason. Featured lists are bad enough – anyone who thinks a featured list is in any way equivalent to a featured article needs to have their bumps felt. We don't need another shortcut to what is touted as being wikipedia's best. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Who has said that featured lists are equivalent to feature articles? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought they were both allowed the decoration of a bronze star on the article's main page, which I had assumed was reserved for wikipedia's best work. Silly of me, I see that now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Guys, hold on, let's just hold the featured list debate for another day, ok? Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I am quite able to hold two (on a good day even more) ideas in my mind simultaneously. My point is addressed towards FSA, which is relevant to the present discussion; featured lists is done deal, for better or for worse. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time right now to discuss this, and I haven't had a recent opportunity to get intimate with the details around the Mark Speight FAC, but I wanted to chip in to give my opinion, as it was asked in an email. In my experience reviewing and writing FAs and FACs, whether fair or not, my bottom line for supporting or opposing is asking myself if I want to see this particular article on the main page. The small articles are difficult. I supported Grass Fight because I thought it was a well-written and researched article, but the text itself says it didn't really affect much. When Karanacs' next article came around, another small skirmish in the Texas / Mexico series of battles Battle of Concepcion, I think, I didn't know what to respond. I'm not sure what I would think seeing that on the main page: a battle with no significant consequence. So that's hard to judge. Some areas of passion are relatively small in study and impact but for a few people. I think major roads should be featured before small ones. I don't quite understand the importance of professional wrestling. Having lived through a few hurricanes, I'm sick of all of them. If I just don't "get" the article, I tend to shy away from reviewing it. Maybe that's copping out and not opposing when Sandy says people should oppose. So, apologies for not having definite ideas. I guess I'm undecided. --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You were emailed? Who asked you to give input? – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi HDYTTO. Glad to see you adding comments. Sorry you took the FAC thing so hard; I won't bother you again. I still think you could've won out (or at worst, you had a pretty good chance of it) if you hadn't withdrawn. But anyhow, the answer to your question is: that would be me, trying to move the conversation forward. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To guess what happened, I've recently been working on an article that kept me from participating at FAC like I normally do. I assume Ling.Nut emailed me because I've been absent from the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Short articles - what are reviewers doing?

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive31, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive32, and Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

I have looked at a series of FACs from the last six weeks or so, from articles that could be said to fall into the "short" category for one reason or another:

  • New York State Route 28N - Commenter raised concerns about prose, summary style, lack of context on the route and missing information on its impact. Promoted.
  • Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) - Primarily copyediting and formatting concerns raised at FAC; Promoted.
  • StarCraft: Ghost - General concerns, including whether article could be submitted to FAC (a short discussion ensued on a talk page linked from the FAC), comprehensiveness, sourcing, and copyediting. Promoted.
  • Mark Speight - Concerns raised by reviewers were prose, comprehensiveness, excessive detail regarding death, lack of context for the reader regarding television show; Withdrawn.
  • Hurricane Kate (2003) - Discussion over which hurricane articles should be at FAC; apparently, some Wikiprojects discuss the topic themselves. Not promoted.
  • Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States - Reviewers question whether or not the article can be merged with parent article. Withdrawn.
  • Hurricane Hernan (2008) - Reviewers question the quality of the prose, particularly overly detailed meterological history. Not promoted.
  • New York State Route 311 - Reviwers question the quality of the prose, what one calls "padding"; one reviewer also points out details that were left out of the article because of incomplete research; Not promoted.
  • Space Science Fiction Magazine - Reviewers ask for context for the magazine; frustration that there isn't more information available to answer questions that reviewers have about influence, distribution, etc.; reviewers ask that more on content of magazine be added, such as titles of stories; suggestions for merger; Not promoted. In her closing statement, SandyGeorgia wrote: "As the discussion about short articles continues, I don't consider this a final sentence on this or any other "short" article"

The first thing to note is that reviewers are still concerned about the issue of "short" articles and they are trying to find a way to deal with them. We need to resolve this issue. The second thing to notice is that different reviewers are hitting on the same solution: for an article to be "comprehensive", it has to appropriately place the subject in context, it has to be well-balanced, and (interestingly) it has to avoid excessive detail. Two of these qualities are already clearly covered by the FA criteria, but the bit about context is not. I therefore propose that we define "comprehensive" as "neglects no major facts or details and includes relevant background information". Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is a "major fact"? Wrad (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That is already in the FA criteria. I suggest we stick to debating the changes right now. Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the addition of "relevant background information". To me, that separates short articles from short articles that deserves the FA star. In fact, I have a favourite short article of my own that I hope to be able to bring ro FAC fairly soon which I think demonstrates that point nicely. But then I would think that, of course. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Utah_State_Route_103/archive1 is another example. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Good proposal. Wrad (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate Awadewit's effort to re-initiate and focus the unresolved discussion; watching the FA community go at each other over this issue has not only been concerning, but I'm noting that this shadow of discussion, going back to last month, hanging over FAC is affecting our promotion numbers. I'm sorry that FACs are withdrawn, with hurt feelings, before the community really has sufficient time to weigh in on the nomination, and I hope that this issue will get sorted so that clarity about 1b will emerge and help avoid hurt feelings. The last discussion fractured too many different directions, so I hope efforts to move the discussion forward will be successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I am not sure what these terms mean. For example, the focus of the Mark Speight article seemed all out of whack to me. Would "it has to appropriately place the subject in context" take care of that? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Many issues were raised in that FAC: the lack of balance could be addressed (and was raised) using the summary style criteria. Other reviewers raised a separate point: readers would not properly understand the man's career without more context. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that our promotion rate is slowing. As a project, we've started to take a closer look at shorter articles, and are having trouble getting larger topics passed. When you eliminate them, how many articles are left? As for Awadewit's idea, she is on the money as usual. However, I don't think this should be applied to short articles only; it should apply for all articles that strive to be our best work. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear - I think this new phrase should be added to the FA criteria, which would apply to all FACs. Awadewit (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Would any recent FAs be under threat of a future FAR due to the change? Wrad (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but I don't think we should let that stop us even if that were to happen. We should decide on the criteria we want and think are the best. Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Inserting a couple more for archival purposes: the discussion of short articles began with Tropical Storm Erick (2007), which was withdrawn, and Utah State Route 103, also withdrawn. Also User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Question: if the clause is added to the criteria, what would be (or would have been) the effect on the short article FA/FACs above? I think we should have tougher criteria. Concerning Sandy's comment about promotion rate dropping: we should strive for quality and not quantity. If better quality, fully comprehensive articles are getting through and not-so-good ones are weeded out, then all the better. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what this proposal does? Add tougher criteria? Wrad (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the key issue is what we intend by saying an article is featured. I believe it originally meant "a subset of Wikipedia articles that are the best we have to offer and which are deserving of being featured on the main page". It still means that to many of us. The alternative, which I think some would prefer, is "articles that cannot be improved any further because they are as good as can be achieved". Obviously the latter interpretation allows more in the way of short articles.

My preference has been for the latter interpretation, mainly because I feel we need something that indicates that state, and "featured" is the closest thing we have. However, if it is to be the former, then I'd like to make that clear. If changing the criteria is the best way to do that, then that's fine. However, the argument against giving Space Science Fiction Magazine featured status that I found most convincing was that it should be merged to an article on the parent company, Republic Features Syndicate. I want to think about Awadewit's proposed wording a bit more, but I'm not opposed in principle. But would specifically allowing opposes at FAC on the basis that the reviewer believes the article should be merged to another article serve the same purpose? Mike Christie (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I commend Awadewit for bringing up an actual, concrete suggestion. I hope we consider adding Awadewit's phrase, along with a full discussion of the meaning of the "criteria".
Do we all agree on what the terms in the "criteria" mean? Yes, articles should appropriately place the subject in context; I see many articles passed where this is not done. I also see articles passed that are not well-balanced and that go into excessive detail. Many editors seem very clear on what the criteria mean. Do the editors' various versions of the criteria agree? I stare at the criteria frequently and puzzle. To me the criteria are vague.
Since I have only been on Wikipedia since April, 2006, I do not know what the criteria were in 2005. However, it is clear from looking at some FA's from 2005 that, aside from the footnote issue, articles were not required to be well-balanced then. It would be wonderful if we could clarify all this now. The words in the criteria, without clarification, mean little. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The FA criteria seem vague because some of the terms, e.g. "brilliant", "comprehensive", etc., are subjective. Awadewit's proposal to give a tighter definition of "comprehensive" is an obvious improvement. But I doubt that it will lead to any resoluton of the concerns about short articles, unless the concept of "notability" is also addressed. The Wikipedia notability bar is low – rightly so, to allow the widest range of articles to be included in the encyclopedia. But should the notability hurdle be higher for prospective featured articles? This isn't anti-short article, but a recognition that as things stand an inconsequential article with very little content can meet the criteria (even with Awadewit's added words) and be presented as an example of Wikipedia's best work. That, I believe, is the underlying concern behind this whole debate. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
That seems analogous to arguing that a large piece of jewellery embodies greater workmanship (our best work) than a smaller piece, when in fact the reverse is just as likely to be true. There are some subjects on which there is relatively little information available, and if they're historical very likely that no further information will ever be available. I don't see why that makes them "inconsequential", or unworthy of FA status. "Very little content" does not equate to short, in the pejorative sense it seems often to be used in these discussions, if that's all the content there can ever be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite. I had hoped we'd got away from using short as a synonym for unsatisfactory, but apparently not.
On Awadewit's proposed wording change: it tightens things up a little, but, just as now, reviewers must be prepared to object on their own interpretation of the wording if we are to weed out the articles that are somehow deficient. I don't object to it, but I don't think it is a particularly helpful in solving the problem (on the down side it could cause problems with "long" articles which may now have to include more background detail, forcing the size up further). Personally, I still think the crux of the matter lies in the ability (or willingness) of the editors to find sources. When the reviewers can identify areas in which an article is lacking, what is it reasonable to demand of the editors by way of filling the deficiency? At the moment it appears that a statement of "No sources are available which cover that area" is often taken at face value and the objection voided. Unfortunately, this topic brings us back to the straw poll which killed off the discussion last time. Yomanganitalk 14:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. If about ten erudite wikipedia editors (some of them professors and authors on the subject) come to a consensus after months of debate and research that the scope of an article is highly limited, the article can still be featured I presume? Can consensus among subject experts override reams of data that the "comprehensive" criteria usually demands? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I support Awadewit's clarification of "comprehensive" as I have felt some note on inclusion of context was necessary, especially for more esoteric articles. Am not sure about Nichalp's question above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To answer Wrad's question, I meant that the criterion should be even tougher than Awadewit's proposal. As I said (and Brianboulton stated as well), the added clause will likely have little effect on the short articles coming through now. I agree with Brianboulton that unless bar on notability is raised, we will continue to have this problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Then let's address these issues. I believe that if we are clear on the criteria, the issue of size will take care of itself. Perhaps, as suggested above, there should be a stricter requirement for "notability", just as FAC has stricter requirements for all the MoS nit picky stuff. Why should we fixate on MoS nit picks to pass an FAC article, when notability is so very easily satisfied and not really addressed? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The question is boiling down to: do we want every article on Wikipedia to have the potential to become featured? The idea that featured articles are the "best Wikipedia has to offer" suggests that not all articles can be contained within that category, so, in my opinion, it is fine to restrict the category in any number of ways. If we want to institute a higher notability bar than Wikipedia, that is simply another restriction. Clearly, for example, we are much more rigorous about prose, the MOS, and reliable sources than other parts of Wikipedia. Nothing is preventing us from saying "we don't think this is notable enough to be called the 'best of Wikipedia'". Is this what we want to do? Do we want to start drafting a notability criterion? Awadewit (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If an article meets WP:N, why can't it become featured? I stand by my previous statements (not from this particular discussion) that FAs are "Wikipedia's best work", not "Wikipedia's most important work". –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In answer to Awadewit, basically, yes, as far as I am concerned. And, pace Malleus Fatuorum and Yomangani, I am not against short articles. I am against inconsequential articles of very little content (and I could name some) that try to get featured because there's nothing in the present rules to stop them. Raising the notability bar for featured articles seems an obvious solution. Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:N intentionally has a very low bar so as to be as inclusive as possible. Why should FAC demand such a high bar regarding dashes, citation formation, linking, prose, etc. that certainly is not inclusive, yet have no bar at all, basically, for perhaps the most important aspect of an article, the notability of the content? I agree that attempting to set criteria for notability is tricky and that no particular topic should be excluded per se. However, this route seems preferable to me than discussions about article length. Can we at least discuss this? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The proposal ignores the discussion last time about unknown, and now unknowable, facts. Plato's date of birth etc. This has to be sorted. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the last discussion got bogged down, we are trying new avenues. Sometimes starting a discussion in a new direction is better than rehashing an old one. We never really considered the notability angle last time. I think we should give it a chance. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for that, although I can't see anything about notability in the proposal. Nevertherless the old issues don't go away. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The first proposal was to add new language to the criteria. The second proposal was to discuss/add a notability criteria. The hope is that the old issues might be solved with one of these new proposals. Let's at least discuss them. Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't changed my opinion on the likelihood of FAC producing a workable notability criterion from what it was when Ling.Nut raised in this discussion back in March. Mattisse's claim that the question of notability is "so very easily satisfied" sounds like wishful thinking to me. Yomanganitalk 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To quote from Yomangani in that debate, "we struggle to define a binary notability measure for use in AFD so trying to produce a graded one for FAC is highly unlikely to be successful". I think in principle a notability criterion for FAC might be a way to delimit "showcasable articles" from "articles that are the best they can get but aren't showcasable". I agree with Yomangani that in practice doubt it would probably not work. Mike Christie (talk)
Guys, this is a bit disheartening. We all agree there is a problem. Can we at least try, momentarily, to work through a solution? If that solution doesn't work, fine. But let's try first. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Broken record time, reiterating Awadewit's concern. WP:WIAFA, 1b currently says:

1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;

Does that need adjustment, refinement, or tightening? Even at AfD, notability is hard to pin down: examining what it means to be comprehensive for FA purposes is within FACs domain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The notability issue won't go away just because it's hard to pin down. But let's deal with Awadewit's proposal first. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To answer Sandy, I believe the comprehensive criterion is fine as it is. Adding Awadewit's context criterion is good, but it will not deal with the problems that we have now. IMO, we should try to address the notability issue first and I believe it will be a separately numbered criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Could be a long discussion: methinks I'd best start manually archiving the page again :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If it is an improvement, we should still make it, right? :) Even if there are issues to deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make this teensy improvement. Awadewit (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. I have a proposal for the notability criterion, but I will hold on until after the context criterion is done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit's "context" proposal

Awadewit's initial proposal that we add a context criteria is awesome and we should add it. Something like: "The article provides adequate background and context on the subject." Wrad (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, as she said, "neglects no major facts or details and includes relevant background information". Let's add it. People are already applying this criteria naturally, anyway, and that's how criteria should be born. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
@Wrad, Re: "let's add it"; the discussion is only 24 hours old, on a weekend. Last time, the discussions got sidetracked partly by moving too fast to polls before everything had been ironed out. There's no hurry; we should hear all voices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above was getting out of control, so I decided to refocus it in a new section with a more specific heading. If I had wanted it added NOW, I would have said "Let's add it now", but I didn't. I fail to see how I did anything wrong at all, so please don't chide me for trying to help when no one else seemed to be paying attention to what this whole discussion was originally about. I didn't start a poll. All I did was refocus things, so I really don't see what you're trying to tell me, here. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no chiding there, Wrad, although we're all free to let our imaginations run wild.  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no basis for disagreement here. The fact that this formula won't solve everything is irrelevant - it is a small step forward, away from stasis. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
When Awadewit compiled reviewers' complaints, she noted that 'for an article to be "comprehensive", it has to appropriately place the subject in context.' I think the word "context" is important to include. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a hard time imagining what sort of necessary background information would not fall under the existing requirement for the inclusion of all major facts and details. Requiring the inclusion of minor factors or minor details does not seem to me a good policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The new suggestion says nothing about "minor facts or details". We are simply elucidating on what we mean by "comprehensive", as this has been a problem recently at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It implies that minor facts or details may be required, since evidently the inclusion of all major facts and details - which is already required - is not itself sufficient. The other problem with your proposal is that it fails to address how much relevant background information is required - is it one cited fact? Or all relevant background information (which would create significant conflicts with the use of summary style)? Basically I am having trouble understanding what your addition actually says that is not already there. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Speaking frankly, there are competing visions of what should and what should not be permitted to become FA. The general idea is, are FAs Wikipedia's very best articles, or is any article that is as good as it can be eligible to be FA? In practice, this ideological cleft is being expressed in perhaps a couple different areas, but by far the most clearly delineated cleft is in the area of Short Articles. In response, some ideas have been proposed. The idea of two levels of FA has come up and... apparently it has also died for purely practical reasons (not enough reviewers). There is a related strand of thought, apparently manned only by Gimmetrow, that asks, "Should we leave WP:WIAFA alone & distinguish merely between what should and should not be allowed on the Main Page?" But that one also is not within the purview of the folks who are present. Raul and only Raul decides. And even if Raul did devolve that power out to the masses, this would generate a new process with new rules sucking up more and more time of a limited supply of reviewers and other contributors. So the battleground is WP:WIAFA. If I understand your point, it is a correct one: the current wording of 1b does in fact logically entail all of the new proposed text regarding background & context. But applying rules requires more than disembodied logic; it sometimes requires concrete guidance that instantiates and clarifies the perceived intent of the rule. Hence the new verbiage: it's an initiative from folks who think that short articles must be given concrete guidance on the question, "How short is too short?" An article is too short if it doesn't have background and context. Furthermore, the background and context must be fairly well-developed and adhere tightly to the unity of the topic at hand. Is that.. what you want to hear? :-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes to all of that, but I agree with Christopher Parham and Gimmetrow. I don't actually know yet what any one of the three versions of new proposed wording means operationally, how they solve the problems that have been mentioned, or how we will determine if objections on the basis of these proposals are actionable. In fact, they all could be interpreted as contradictory to crit 4, the need to stay tightly focused on the topic, by actually encouraging extraneous detail to be introduced into articles (detail that might belong better in sub-articles). I understand what you all are aiming for, but I don't yet see how any of these three versions accomplishes that aim; can someone give me an example of how these sample wordings would be applied, and what we mean by terms like "appropriate", "relevant" and "adequate"? If the goal is to say that we expect certain kinds of background info for bios, for example, I'm not yet seeing how this wording accomplishes that. If someone could give a concrete example, based on a past closed FAC, it might help the block I'm having at seeing what you all are aiming for here. I am not seeing what this wording accomplishes or what it changes, but I do see a potential problem in that it seems to call for info that might better be excluded per summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could look at the FACs that I listed above where reviewers asked for more context. I generated this proposal from what reviewers were asking for. I would like to point out that we are never going to come up with a precise definition of "relevant". Reviewers and nominators are going to have to come to a consensus about that. (You can't define "brilliant prose", either, for example.) Awadewit (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)The only rule that would speak directly to the heart of the Short Articles prob would be a hard-coded wordcount rule, coupled with vigilant enforcement existing rules or guidelines regarding coatracks, trivia, summary style, etc. But then we have other probs. Which tack seems better to you? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 05:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I suspect it can be done with wording and without hard-and-fast rules: I just don't see that the wording is doing it yet. Lacking is what kind of context and background is being asked for, so we're not violating crit 4, summary style, and tight focus. What seems better to me? I'd rather leave the wording proposals to the many pros on board: just saying I have the same issue that Gimme and Christopher Parham expressed, that I don't yet see what this wording adds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Two things: The "Short Articles Prob" is imaginary. Every time we discuss articles where we feel that promotion was or would be somehow be inappropriate people start trying to address length as if it is the problem, yet nobody has been able to specify why short articles are in themselves problematic. If you can bear to look back through the archives, you'll see that the proposal for a Short FA process didn't die purely from lack of reviewers. Trying to impose a solution that is length-based is lazy and won't solve the problems.
The criteria for the most part don't provide set boundaries. They are always interpreted by the reviewers and the editors. Their application varies from review to review and reviewer to reviewer. The 1(b) criterion as it stands already logically encompasses the proposed wording change it is true, but clarifying it by adding any of the proposed wording changes gives less wiggle room to those wishing to wiggle. I don't believe this really touches the problems in itself but it doesn't do any harm. Yomanganitalk 10:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. But what, in your view, is the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It might be a bit distracting to start expounding on that before we've sorted out this bit, but I'm more than willing to come back to it. Yomanganitalk 11:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Re, the "no harm" argument, I'm thinking of several FACs I've read where "background" information was requested in very long articles, when adding that information might trigger crit 4, length, tight focus on topic and summary style, and where it could very well be argued that the information better belonged in sub-articles. This is my concern: whatever it is you all are asking for, please make sure it's clear that it won't conflict with crit. 4. Imagine if you came to WIAFA with no awareness of this discussion: would you understand the competing requests of whatever ends up at 1b and what is now at 4? And, if words like "appropriate", "adequate" and "relevant" are added, is it possible to specify relevant to what, appropriate how, etc.? I disagree that the current criteria contain unactionable adjectives: a "brilliant" prose Oppose gives me no problem when four reviewers pop up examples of dull, prodding prose (it's usually clear). I don't yet know what is meant here by some of the proposed adjectives. The problem could be the lack of examples given in the disussion; I can think of concrete examples where the proposed wording would not cause "no harm", and could trigger unnecessary length, so it would be helpful to get some specificity in what you all are asking for here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the Space Science Fiction Magazine FAC was a very good example of an article where context was missing, that was pointed out, and it was added. But more generally, as with your example of "brilliant prose", if a reviewer is going to oppose on the basis of a lack of context, then that reviewer will need to at least outline what information is missing. In that sense "context" will be self-defining, and will no doubt vary depending on the subject area and scope of individual articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I also think Mark Speight was an article in which context was missing. It was "comprehensive" but it failed to put the subject of the article and details leading to his death into any kind of context. It was just a recitation. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well then that's three votes for "Your proposals are Mostly Harmless, but won't really help." At what point do we declare this issue sorted out? Just trying to help keep things moving along; don't want the conversation to die because everyone is waiting for everyone else to decide either to declare the context/background idea dead, or decide to keep it moving forward. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to point out that it is highly unlikely that there is one "magic bullet" solution that will solve all of the problems that people see with FAC. If this proposal improves the criteria, I think we should adopt it. Then we should move on to some of the other proposals people have. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Couldn't agree more. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse
  • Proposed 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and appropriately places the subject in context.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I like. Wrad (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too, "context" is a more succinct way of saying "relevant background info", but to me also really emphasises the duty of the writer to (a) supply/explain the connection, and (b) not have irrelevant stuff. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the wording I would prefer to see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I like this wording best. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I also like the "context" inclusion, but it should be explained that not only does it include background, but whatever lasting implications of the importance of the subject. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Do we need the specify the context? Should we say "background, lasting implications, etc."? Or is that too specific? Will later reviewers ask "what is context"? :) Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
To me, the dictionary definition of "context" at dictionary.com[5] is close enough. How do we know what "lasting implications" means? How lasting? The word "context" is concise, without being too specific. Context can be interpreted to imply background, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then I think we should use this wording. I only used "background" to avoid vagueness, but if "context" is sufficiently precise, I prefer that term. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
One small step for WP:WIAFA, one giant leap for FAC! Should "subject" be "topic" perhaps? Otherwise, this looks good: concise, and covers the bases Geometry guy 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me, operationally, upon application, the difference between:

  • it neglects no major facts or details and appropriately places the subject in context, and
  • it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, without wishing to put words in someone else's mouth, but doing so anyway, I'd hazard a guess that Tony would suggest that ""appropriately" in the first offering is redundant. But even if that wouldn't be Tony's opinion it is certainly mine. "Appropriately" is just noise. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that "appropriately" is redundant. Awadewit (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought of asking Tony, but well ... :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support removing "appropriately". —Mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It is now. I tried to think up a topical example (such as Barack Obama's presidential election) which might be placed appropriately or inappropriately in context, but ultimately I think any inappropriateness is ruled out by the other FA criteria. Geometry guy 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is the best wording for a change. Also agree with Gimme below that background is already covered in the current criteria. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you actually agreeing to here? What is "this" that is the best wording? Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy's wording ("places the subject in context"). It's now in the criteria, I believe. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit
  • Proposed: 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and includes relevant background information.
Wrad
  • Proposed: 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and provides adequate background and context on the subject.
One reason I chose ""background" instead of "context" was because it seemed that the kind of context reviewers were asking for was "background". Does "context" seem vaguer to people than "background"? Awadewit (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about 'adequate', on one hand I understand that if for example there's another article with similar information you don't want to go overboard with content from there, but it seems to me articles should be able to stand pretty well on their own, and I'm not sure 'adequate' is really specific. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In UK we tend to use "adequate" in the sense of "just about OK", the minimum you can get away with. I wouldn't want that impression to linger in this wording. If Wrad were to change "adequate" to "relevant", his is the version I'd go for. But they are all good, and I'd be happy with any of them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What difference does it make? Is "background" part of "major facts of details" already? In operation, what would this exclude? Gimmetrow 14:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ling.Nut (but I do not take credit for it)
  • Proposed 1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details, includes relevant background information and appropriately places the subject in context.
This is just Matisse's and Awadewit's joined together, word for word. I'm on board with those who dislike "adequate" for a host of reasons, the main one being that it shoots for a low-ball standard instead of a high one. I also wanna keep the qualifiers such as "relevant" and "appropriately" to have at least some sort of a cubbyhole in which to shelve arguments against WP:COATRACKs, WP:TRIVIA, and filler for shorter articles. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It may soon be three, because I'm about at the end of my tether as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
We could make it a party: throw enough F-bombs to make Scarian blush :-) OK, let's stay on topic here ... we write articles here, remember, the drama is over there LOL. I didn't say that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the result of this discussion? In my opinion, the first proposal (it neglects no major facts or details and appropriately places the subject in context) is a clear winner. I think that background information is susceptible to overbroad interpretations in contradiction to criterion 4. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the result of the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FA is not equal to TFA (?)

It is my understanding that just because something becomes featured, does not mean it will be shown on the main page. In fact, because we promote, on average, more than 30 articles per month, we are producing so many FAs that not every FA can appear on the main page. Thus, I think we should separate the discussion about FAs from TFAs. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC