User talk:Looie496/Analysis of FAC

I often disagree with the WikiProject ratings. For example Flag of Germany (FA) is rated as of Top importance to WP:WikiProject Germany. It isn't a top importance article for Germany though. No overview book on Germany spends any sizable amount of text on the topic of the flag. Tellingly, the Wikipedia article cites mostly primary sources: laws and the like. Too often the WikiProject importance ratings for FA-type articles simply reflect the biases of a few Wikipedians. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, FA-rated articles can be of pretty bad quality. The only two FAs I've read in depth, I've read because they seemed so bad from the start: cannon and battle of Badr. What most editors ignore is the fact that people who already know enough about a topic from what Wikipedia calls WP:RS seldom read the Wikipedia article on that topic, so aren't very likely to fix any issues. So it's quite easy to have sourced fringe nonsense in FA-rated articles. "Verifiability, not truth." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Back when I started maintaining WikiProject Neuroscience I paid a lot of attention to importance ratings, but I eventually realized that they just don't matter. I don't think I have ever seen an editor base a decision on the importance rating of an article.  Regarding the other point, the thing that bedevils Wikipedia in every respect is the small number of editors with both (a) expertise in a topic, and (b) good writing skills.  Until we can lure in more such editors, the only viable approach, I believe, is to grade on a curve.  It's better to have problematic featured articles about important topics than for all featured articles to be about trivia -- that's my opinion anyway. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that Boeing 777 is an article of great importance. This aircraft didn't have the revolutionary aspect of Boeing 747 or of Airbus A300 or of Airbus A320 family. It's market share and characteristics are pretty par with Airbus A330, etc. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A truly interesting overview article and indeed important to write to FA-standards would be wide-body aircraft. Fat chance of that I suspect though. Also, Competition between Airbus and Boeing is far more informative than any of the FA/GA-rated articles on recent aircraft which use narrowly (and deftly) marketing-construed firsts reading like "the first to clap his hand thee times in the air while doing a backflip". Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My view of this analysis is that the actual list of what constitutes an important article is less important than the finding that there are fewer and fewer FAs on big topics of unquestioned importance. Rather than arguing over what counts as an important article it might be more useful to talk about why these articles aren't being promoted, and how to address the problem. For example, have the de facto standards been raised too high? Are standards standards being enforced too tightly? Is there a lack of interest?
 * My guess is that some of the problem is with the requirement for FAs to be comprehensive. It's easier to write a comprehensive article on a species of beetle than on the nation of India, for example.
 * Another issue is that it is often easier to write an FA from scratch (which usually means its about a relatively obscure topic) alone or with another editor than it is to overhaul an established article with many stakeholders and passages that are the result of hard-won consensus.
 * What other impediments are there to bringing important articles to FA?   Will Beback    talk    19:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps logarithm should have been added to list of important articles promoted in 2011. I've looked at the discussion for that one. Far longer than the one for cannon, which was basically just a vote. I was surprised that so much could be debated about logarithm, a rather clear notion, but virtually nothing substantive was debated about cannon whose origins and early history are quite uncertain. So, there is perhaps a trend to FA discussions becoming much longer. Not all of it is bad though. Of course, my sample is rather tiny... Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can quibble about which promoted articles are of high importance. But more important are the articles that haven't been promoted, and why. Any thoughts on that issue?   Will Beback    talk    23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Only a hunch. Even an article like Windsor Castle has probably at most one expert on the topic on Wikipedia. Yes everyone has probably heard of it, but few are familiar with any details of its history or architecture. So, the FA review was mostly about formatting and minor prose tweaks, not a peer review in any substantive sense. However almost everyone knows something about logarithm, and most of the FA discussion was actually how to present the basic facts. I assume that explains the dearth of other math FAs on basic topics. too many cooks spoil the broth, maybe? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I stumbled on an discussion that basically confirms that. See the reciprocal threats to demote the article if one's favorite version isn't accepted . And then, mutual frustration . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And looking back through the archives there, a famous supporter of the "verifiability, not truth" paradigm argues that a Pulitzer prize winning book cannot be excluded from the article on evolution. LOL. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting examples.   Will Beback    talk    17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And my own experience with improving a top-level article . Can't be arsed anymore. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)