User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content

Featured articles ( FAs) "are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", but more significantly "are used by editors as examples for writing other articles". FAs fulfill a vital purpose by serving as models for aspiring or new editors, whether by following usage and weighing of sources, prose and language style, editorial tone, placement of images, organization and formatting and Wikipedia's manual of style. Submitting prepared articles to Featured article candidates (FAC) allows one to learn new or improved wiki skills, while developing a network of collaborators who likewise aspire to generate top content.

Editors have different motivations when submitting articles to FAC; this essay focuses on the more common reasons, presented in the order of my own priorities, and focusing on my content area (medicine). I use the two most recent medical FAs, complete blood count (CBC, Spicy) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB, SandyGeorgia and Colin), as examples of how FAC works and why you should write a medical FA. Although both had primary writers, they each serve as examples of the collaborative effort necessary for writing at the FA level; the DLB FAC was a collaboration among about a dozen editors, and CBC involved at least 15 editors.

FAs are models of Wikipedia's best work for new editors
Producing (and maintaining) an article that can be held up for new and aspiring editors as an example of Wikipedia's best work is one of the strongest reasons for writing a Featured article. What better way to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia than by seeing an example, and what faster way to explain standards to new editors, than to present one? As examples, complete blood count contains a comprehensive history section, and shows how one might organize an article on a laboratory test, is fully cited to MEDRS-compliant reliable sources, and correctly cites page numbers for lengthy journal articles or books. Dementia with Lewy bodies is an example of how to incorporate secondary sources on caregiving, how to use secondary sources to account for due weight in a research section, and can be used as an example of how to avoid common pitfalls in articles about medical conditions, such as writing in a way that avoids giving medical advice.

In the medical realm, encyclopedic articles require a different tone than most journal publications, which use primary sources and give medical advice, or websites, which often advocate or give medical advice. It is usually very difficult to make that transition for new editors, or medical professionals and researchers accustomed to writing from primary sources. It is particularly difficult for student editors, as they are used to essay-style writing and trying to convince their readers. If one encounters a new physician-editor, they can be pointed towards Wikipedia's FAs at Buruli ulcer (Ajpolino), virus and introduction to viruses (Graham Beards), Chagas disease (Ajpolino and Spicy), or complete blood count (Spicy) as examples of the tone in encyclopedic writing and the correct use of secondary sources. In the neurological and neuropsych realm, dementia with Lewy bodies, schizophrenia and Tourette syndrome can serve as guidelines. In the anatomy realm, cerebellum and immune system can be presented.

Providing examples of "our best work" for new editors is the most convincing reason to write at the FA level, and is the most important reason that WikiProject members should work to assure that FAs within their realm remain at standard, and are submitted to Featured article review if they deteriorate over time or are out of date. It defeats the purpose to recommend articles with deficiencies to new editors.

FAs are often a uniquely comprehensive online resource
Many FAs are unique resources on the Internet because of their comprehensive treatment of the topic. In the medical realm, many lay readers do not have access to journal publications, or may not feel comfortable with the technical level of journal articles. Many websites that focus on medicine are either commercial, advocacy-oriented, incomplete, or too "dumbed-down" to serve the needs of an inquiring mind. A comprehensive medical FA can be one-stop shopping for both the reader who wants to explore a certain aspect of a medical topic and someone who wants an in-depth treatment of the subject. For example, there is no place on the Internet where a layperson can get a comprehensive overview such as at complete blood count or dementia with Lewy bodies.

One of my most enjoyable FAC experiences was the collaboration of a group of FA writers that produced Ima Hogg (Karanacs) for April Fools 2008; who knew she was a real person or that so much could be said about her? Early Netherlandish painting, which received an impressive grilling at FAC is another example; readers who know little of the topic can find a comprehensive article on the internet, that is also satisfying to art historians. (I cover more of the benefits of these FA collaborations below.)

FAs showcase some of Wikipedia's best content
If non-Wikipedians only encounter marginal content on Wikipedia, our reputation suffers and, other than the sporadic correction as an IP, editors may be disinclined to become regular Wikipedia editors, thinking it not a worth-while effort. Encountering top content, on the other hand, can be inspirational and help entice new editors. Seeing an FA can inspire a writer, who may say to themselves, "well, heck, I can do that"! FAs can help entice "anyone to edit", by showcasing quality work and indicating to professionals that engaging with Wikipedia is worthwhile.

Another benefit of achieving FA status is that the article you slaved over will be more widely read; that is, its pageviews will increase and it will become more widely useful. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, Wikipedia was positioned to feature a very useful introduction to viruses on its main page! On what would be the 70th birthday of Robin Williams in 2021, Wikipedia is positioned to offer dementia with Lewy bodies on the main page, as an example of our ability to feature top content on issues in the news.

FAs are not only showcased on the main page at Today's featured article. They are also linked via, are probably more likely to be translated to other language Wikipedias, and also more likely to be linked via external media or referenced off Wikipedia because of their quality.

Because FAs have been vetted in a community-wide review process, a provision at Wikipedia's policy on ownership encourages other editors to discuss changes on talk before implementing them. This can be helpful in explaining why only high-quality sources should be used in an FA, and can aid in keeping the article up to standards.

FA writing improves individual's skills and raises standards
Beyond serving as examples, why would most Wikipedians who are motivated to improve content not stop at the Good article (GA) level?

A good article "is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards ... [they]  do not have to be as comprehensive as featured articles ...: a comparison of the criteria for good and featured articles describes further differences." (Emphasis added.) The differences noted in the GA criteria highlight that GAs are best understood by what they are not. What will the extra push towards FA status generate?

Using complete blood count as an example of the most recent medical FAC may be instructive. With 5,500 words of prose, CBC was in very good shape when it passed GA based on a qualified editor's review in June 2020. Three months later, between the FAC and pre-FAC collaboration and participation on the article talk page, the content had grown by 45% to meet the 1b, comprehensive criteria, and had been looked at by at least 15 editors of varying specialties. Two non-medical editors had looked at it for jargon and comprehensibility to the layperson; three FAC specialists had looked at it for high-quality sourcing, source-to-text integrity, a spot check for copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns, Manual of Style compliance, and correct licensing of images; at least nine medical editors (including multiple physicians) had looked at the content; one medical editor had reviewed for accessibility concerns; and at least one FAC coordinator had made sure that all necessary checks were performed and that reviewers had sufficiently engaged the FA criteria.

Three months after GA, Wikipedia had a significantly improved article and a new FA. An already fine article got a thorough going over and was considerably improved. Now, there is unlikely to be any resource accessible to lay readers as complete and digestible as this article anywhere else on the Internet. Each editor who looked at a good article found issues to be corrected, as always occurs. Fifteen sets of eyes are likely to cover more than any one person can.

You may have heard that FAC is nothing more than unpleasant nitpicks of prose and inhouse MOS technicalities that add little value to an article. Or that broad and important or medical topics have difficulty passing FAC because of style and citation/sourcing requirements. Are these claims true, or just naysayers' memes? Neither the CBC FAC nor the DLB FAC showed excessive nitpicking of form and style; to any extent that they did, that would be because the important content and readability issues had already been ironed out pre-FAC via considerable talk-page collaboration. In other content areas, for example a topic like poetry, the main problems in getting articles to FA status—and keeping them there—often result from failing to adequately use summary style to keep the topic tightly focused. Islam was featured in 2005 by keeping it tightly focused at 5,000 words of prose and relying on sub-articles for detail, while Catholic Church sprawled between 10,000 and 12,000 words of prose and failed multiple FACs; the nominator refused to tightly summarize the broad topic. (Once Islam was allowed to grow to 12,000 words of prose, it was defeatured). Medical content FACs have rarely failed because of difficulty in writing or sourcing on broad and important topics. For example, both CBC and DLB are broad articles and major depressive disorder was a monumental undertaking whose FAC was difficult for other reasons.

Reaching FA status is rewarding


There are many benefits to the writer of FAs. Having your work exposed to a broader base of editors—beyond your usual group of collaborators and those with similar interests—probably means that you will learn things about your writing, or about best practices on Wikipedia, that you weren't aware of. Your writing is likely to improve, and medical content specifically always benefits by having layperson review for jargon known to us but not to lay readers.

Your Wikipedia know-how will also grow. An example at the dementia with Lewy bodies FAC is that, well, yes, every other content area has to provide page numbers to meet verifiability for lengthy journal articles, and so can you :) Once I realized it should be done, it took a day; had it been done correctly from the beginning, it would have been much simpler (as Spicy did at complete blood count). An example at complete blood count is the work by RexxS to make the tables more accessible to all readers (including those who use screen readers or have vision impairments).  This is an important consideration to which many editors are oblivious.  Similarly, you may not care about overlinking, or duplicate links, or know about the correct use of redlinks, or the difference between a hyphen, endash and emdash, but someone at FAC will, and usually can easily fix those technical things for you, while you are likely to learn other important and useful things to hone your Wikipedia writing skills, or at least come to know who to ask when you need more help.

This brings us to the benefit of moving beyond your usual Wiki-contacts to developing broader collaborations. With involvement at FAC comes the knowledge of what editors you can ask when you need advice. Exposing editors to others outside of their usual group is also a beneficial reminder that we are part of a bigger encyclopedia project. Who is most knowledgeable on image licensing, or citation formatting, or interpretation of policies and guidelines? Who are the best copyeditors? Who might best review a medical article for jargon and comprehensibility to the layperson? Who is good at doing source reviews? Both CBC and DLB benefitted from months-long collaboration on article talk among medical and non-medical editors before their FACs, where most of these kinds of issues were reviewed pre-FAC by bringing in collaborators. There are people who enjoy reading or reviewing good quality writing and supporting editors in their push towards FAC, so it isn't like you are being unreasonable in asking for help from others, though you may need to be patient.

Last but not least is the sense of satisfaction that comes from producing a unique resource on the Internet. For any editor, when you can put content that you labored over in front of a real-life acquaintance, and have them go "wow, I didn't know that" is satisfying; for a medical editor, it's particularly rewarding because you are often generating content that benefits people in difficult health circumstances. I still get a little feel-good jolt every time someone thanks me for what they learned at TS or DLB, and it happens often. That's not why I write FAs, but it helps make the extra effort worth it!

Advice for FA aspirants


One of the BEST ways to aid a successful FAC nomination is to engage with FAC as a reviewer well before your first nomination. You'll learn the standards, how the process works, and may form relationships with editors you can later ask for help when preparing your own article.

Before approaching FAC, first time nominees should:
 * 1) Review other FACs to build up knowledge of the process, credibility and goodwill.
 * 2)  Find an FAC mentor. One way is to go through recent FAs in your topic area; the FAC nominator can be found by locating the FAC in the Article milestones on the article talk page.
 * 3) Ask as many topic area experts to review your article as you can find. Most will be happy to have been asked, and a majority of previous FAC nominators will have done similar themselves when starting out.
 * 4) Get many people NOT from your content area to read through; it's common to "see past" text you have written and looked through over and over—new eyes will find and fix passages you did not know were unclearly stated or jargony.
 * 5) Ask a technical Manual of Style person to comb over the article, preferably in advance of the nomination. FAC should be addressing more significant issues than style issues, which are best worked out pre-FAC.

There are many regrettable examples of disappointed editors who presented ill-prepared FACs, and unfortunately peer review rarely gets enough interested editors to help prepare; realistically you will need to work off your own initiative to find collaborators and reviewers.

Once at FAC, remember that your fellow editors are also volunteers; treat them respectfully even when disagreeing with their suggestions. And for the love of all things good and holy, please do not use your FAC page as a discussion forum; lengthy FACS are off-putting to other reviewers, and a chore for the coordinators to read. Address the issues raised with brevity. You may get conflicting advice from different reviewers ("anyone can edit"); if this occurs, ask briefly for clarification. And don't become combative with reviewers, because your review may end right there.

If you've done all this, you may indeed find that your FAC experience is nothing but a series of prose and style nitpicks, because you presented such a well-prepared nomination that there was little else to add. The result will be an article with professional quality writing and presentation, written in a consistent house style, and accessible to readers with vision impairments—that last part alone always warms my heart.

FAC advice

 * Reviewers achieving excellence written in 2008 by Karanacs, Tony1 and SandyGeorgia, a short guide to FAC, with longer guides at:
 * User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates
 * User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
 * How to navigate an FA review by User:Nick-D
 * Interview of FA writers
 * User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
 * User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing
 * WP:RECEPTION, an essay on how to copyedit Reception sections

Scripts and tools you should run

 * Dashes
 * Dup link checker
 * Dates
 * Other

Medical specific

 * Sources in biology and medicine written in 2008 by Tim Vickers and Eubulides (with a combined 16 medical FAs between them)
 * Featured articles includes FAs such as bacteria, immune system and virus.
 * Featured articles includes anatomy, medical conditions and management FAs.
 * User:SandyGeorgia/FA growth shows the growth over time of medical FAs compared to other content areas.
 * Medical FA reviews needed
 * Featured lists
 * Featured pictures
 * If all else fails
 * An irreverent, insolent bastard's guide to quickie FAC success (not recommended, do not click this link)

About SandyGeorgia
Appointed in 2007, I served as what we today call "Coordinator" of the Featured article candidate process from November 2007 until my resignation on February 7, 2012. I have also been active at Featured article review since 2007, when we began to process through over 500 Featured articles that needed inline citations when inline citations first became required in 2006. In 2020, I coordinated the launch of Unreviewed featured articles/2020, to review the three-fourths of Featured articles that have not been reviewed for more than five years. During my tenure at FAC, I helped oversee, the Featured content dispatch workshop together with Karanacs. And with Gimmetrow and Maralia, I helped install templates and banners on over 1,500 Featured articles existing at the time, to tame talk page clutter. I mostly wrote FAs Tourette syndrome and dementia with Lewy bodies, and had significant contributions at Samuel Johnson, Early life of Samuel Johnson, autism and Asperger syndrome (the last two have fallen into disrepair since the departure of editor Eubulides). Tourette syndrome followed TimVickers' bacteria and DNA in receiving the fastest amount of unopposed supports garnered by a Featured article (five days to seven), and Samuel Johnson for the most supports ever (31). (Query "Long and short FACs" for promoted and sorted by Supports at the FACstats tool.) I try to check every FAC for my pet peeves:
 * Subsequently, however, in order to, in total, and also&mdash;almost never needed and almost always redundant. How about this—found once on Wikipedia: He was mortally wounded and subsequently died. No kidding !!!! The overuse of however is common on Wikipedia, but also and subsequently are fun, too; all of these can be indications of weak writing. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.