User:Tony1/Sandbox 3

WP.fr
The French WP has just three featured article processes, for articles, portals and topics, with a set of criteria for each. We examined only the FA criteria, which are closely based on the English FA criteria. Main differences:
 * All integrated into a single system.
 * Strict and highly regulated voting system. No delegate.
 * FAR [must be] less oriented towards fixing, more towards judging.
 * explicit wriggle room in a number of places, less strictly applied.
 * article size explicitly not an issue, including very small and very large nominations.
 * checklist for many of the points in the French manual of style, not mandatory, but intended to assist nominators. (NB the French MoS is a good deal slimmer than the English MoS.)
 * There's a "Reading Committee' and a ?copy-edit Workshop, not mandatory, before nomination.
 * The process: both levels (GA and FA) and all three types of featured content (articles, portals and themes) are dealt with in the same process. It's a voting system on the numbers, with strictly defined voting periods. A two-round system. First round (one month) at least eight votes and 90% gets immediate promotion to FA; at least 50% FA and GA votes, it goes to a second round (two weeks, down from a month since July 2009). In the second round, 75% FA, it's promoted; at least 66% it becomes GA. Reviewers must have at least 50 edits and may vote Oppose/waiting or Neutral or GA or FA. Same for portals and topics.

Criteria
Summary: An article quality must be reasonably close to perfect. It does honour to Wikipedia for its own merits, regardless of the topic.

For this, the following will be the case as far as possible.

1. It must be well-written, comprehensive, [verified?] and neutral. In this regard:
 * (a) "well-written" means that the standard of the language is correct [or desired], and free of stylistic faults; and that the spelling, grammar and typography are impeccable and consistent;
 * (b) "comprehensive" means that the article treats the subject in full and neglects no major facts or details; important information related to the topic is developed in any sub-pages or [related pages (limitation of red links)?];
 * (c) "verified" means that the facts are justified by specific evidence and reliable external references: this includes the listing of the sources (bibliographical or other), and/or quotations and Notes (see Wikipedia: Cite your sources );
 * (d) "neutral" means that the article does not lend itself to controversy regarding the neutrality and accuracy of the facts reported (see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view );

2. The article should conform to the Manual of Style, which requires the following elements:
 * (a) an introductory summary that identifies the topic and prepares the reader for detail that follows in the article;
 * (b) a clear division into sections, subsections, etc, and thus:
 * (c) a table of contents, without being too large.
 * A checklist has been developed to avoid many of the points that are often raised on nomination pages. Although the use of this checklist is not mandatory, it can help to show whether the article is ready for nomination.

3. The article should contain relevant images, with captions and a [description page containing a brief, acceptable copyright tag]. Nevertheless, images are not necessary if the topic does not lend itself to free media, or there are none.

4. The article should be of adequate length, staying tightly within the topic without going into unnecessary details. However, the article must allow a deepening of the themes, through relevant internal and external links and a bibliography. [When these are combined with external references sources of the article, the presentation must be adapted.?]

Note:
 * These are general criteria for supporting or opposing a nomination; individual nominations may require the more or less strict application of each criterion. It is always better for reviewers themselves to make minor corrections than to oppose promotion or support demotion.
 * Article size is not a criterion; nominations less than 10k and more than 300 kb have been promoted.

Notes (including German FACs)
English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria

German

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaturen_von_Artikeln,_Listen_und_Portalen/Kriteriendarstellung#Exzellente_Artikel

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AKandidaturen_von_Artikeln%2C_Listen_und_Portalen%2FKriteriendarstellung%23Exzellente_Artikel&sl=auto&tl=en

Excellent article [ edit ] French

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Articles_de_qualit%C3%A9

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikip%25C3%25A9dia%3AArticles_de_qualit%25C3%25A9

FAC

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaturen_von_Artikeln,_Listen_und_Portalen http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AKandidaturen_von_Artikeln%2C_Listen_und_Portalen&sl=de&tl=en

FAs German http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Exzellente_Artikel

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AExzellente_Artikel&sl=de&tl=en

French