Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive 1

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
This is an article in progress, but it has already won acclaim from multiple news agencies (e.g., theUK Guardian, the ed-tech Insider). It manages to be npov despite a flood of potential scammers and conspiracy theorists, and is (I believe) more comprehensive than any other freely available overview of the subject. Well written, well illustrated, well linked to wikinews and other news sources. A model article. +sj+ 08:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Objection - Thanks, but it IS already in the current events section, so makes no sense to put it up as Featured as well. Maybe in a few years as a restrospective. -- Nils 11:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yahoo News is linking: see for instance http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041230/hl_nm/quake_disease_dc&e=14&ncid= and look in the left-hand-side menu under Related Web Sites. On the other hand, Nils has a very good point... featured article status should be to give prominence to very well-written articles that would otherwise be overlooked, and this article is hardly overlooked at the moment. -- Curps 11:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I saw that, we've been on their list of 'related links' from the very beginning. It is complimenting. Still, I will be seriously impressed once the BBC starts to refer to us. ;) -- Nils 21:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. This article cannot be comprehensive until the disaster can be properly assessed. Right now we don't even have a good estimate of how many are dead and not all places affected have been reached yet. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with Johnleemk. Way too early for featured article status. Dbiv 12:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. Much too early and still in flux.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 13:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object: I was going to nominate it myself in maybe two or three months but this is way to early, the article still has like ten edits an hour. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   14:51, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a very impressive article, a fine example of what Wikipedians can do. I reject the notion that featured status should depend on anything beyond the article itself, such as external events in the world. The most we can ask is that a featured article is of the maximum quality we can expect at a given time. Everyking 15:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object. Too many ideas are floating around about splitting, merging and rearranging the article(s). violet/riga (t) 15:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. This article shows off Wikipedia's value as a world-class resource for following current events.  The current state of this article rivals (exceeds?) the quality of any other coverage I've seen online. - Jpo 15:59, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Object - "Comprehensiveness" is not the issue here since we have featured articles on many topics that cover living nations and persons (that is we don't yet know all there is to know in the future about those topics so we must only draw upon info as it is uncovered through the news). The real issue is that this is a very rabidly changing article and this instability means that we cannot really vote on it yet since what we vote on will very likely be fairly different in the near future. I'm sure in a month or two things will have settled down to the point where a successful nomination could be done. --mav 17:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object - While the article is quite impressive, I'm inclined to agree with what others have said - comprehensiveness is a valid objection because it's still too early to assess the impact of the disaster; and (although it is not an explicetely stated FA criteria) the article is too unstable at the moment to have featured article status. &rarr;Raul654 17:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Conditionally Object - Agreeing with many other posters, I object to it because not only are details not fully known at this time, it IS too unstable. I would say, wait till about the 6-month or 1-year anniversary, and put it up then, when more is known and it can be done in memory of the victims.  Ral315 19:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree about this not being comprehensive; comprehensiveness is when everything that is known about the subject is covered, regardless of how much is known, and I think this article is close. However, I agree about the lack of stability. Object. Fredrik | talk 19:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object for now - too early and too redundant. But I would support it perhaps a month from now.  Terry 20:50, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object Fantastic article, just too early. When most of the information is confirmed and the body count finished, I would support it. 68.239.239.47 21:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Similarly. On the other hand, I'd like to see some way for us to feature this on the front page. Soon. Can we maybe make an exception to our usual policy? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:43, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * No. --Your humble featured article director.
 * I agree with Raul654 on this one, particularly after the long run of the "donate to support flood victims" bos on the main page, but feel free to seek out support for making an exception, Jmabel, if you feel strongly about it. --yet another wikipedian against dictatorship


 * Just keep it in the current news section where it is right now. That works fine. -- Nils 21:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article will continue to receive more attention than any other for weeks.  When it becomes stable, it will probably be considered the best article on Wikipedia.  What higher status could we give it?  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 10:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support It is my understanding (and I am relatively new, but...) that "Featured Articles" are meant to recognise articles of outstanding quality. Nothing more and nothing less. The 2004 Indian Earthquake article, in my opinion, exemplifies a high level of Wiki editing that deserves to be recognised. Even if it is a current event, that does not mean it is not a quality article and if that alone is what we should be judging...Then clearly this article deserves such status. Comrade Tassadar 22:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now It's a very good news article now, one I (as a minor contributor) am proud of. But it'll be even better encyclopedia article a month from now, and thus more clearly deserving of "featured" status. Tverbeek 23:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Object as for now. As many of the earlier contributors to this page I agree that having it as a featured article will only serve to be redundant. Even though I recognize that the article is of high quality it will be even better in a few months.--Dunord 13:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * comment "redundancy" is not an argument. If it is FA material, FA it. Nobody will be forced to make it FAotd anytime soon. That it is still an 'ongoing event' is a more valid objection, but I do hope it will be featured soon after the dust has settled somewhat. dab (&#5839;) 16:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now* There is no point on having this article be on both current events and featured article at the same time. Maybe once the event is not so current.--Hello5959us


 * Object. Article is changing too rapidly, and some areas (the external links section comes to mind immediately) still need work before it's really one of the best articles on Wikipedia.  Beginning 01:47, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is a miracle and shows the best of what Wikipedia means to the world.  Tom - Talk 16:14, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. How can this even be considered when the article is still changing every minute?  I agree with Beginning: work is still needed.  If anything, as I said on the article's talk page, some serious copyediting will be required once the commotion subsides and the text of the article "stabilizes".  A featured article should be about how good an article is technically, not about the concept of Wikipedia, as good as it may be. Redux 17:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. We've done a lot of structual work on the article yesterday and today and I think we're now on the final version, barring smaller on-going edits. Dan100 19:59, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. Looks great, but needs a lot of fine tuning.


 * Support The really final death toll will never known. The article is already very good. --ThomasK 04:55, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object
 * 1) Too early to become a Feature article as it it constantly changing
 * 2) Needs to go through grammar, spell, readability test.
 * 3) Is not complete, the death toll is not even near complete yet.
 * 4) Is already on the Wikipedia main page and has been like that for like a week. Making it a featured article and displaying it on the Main page is redundant.
 * 5) Even Raul654, the Featured article director says "No" Squash 05:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 3 The death toll will never known as complete.
 * 4 Yes, that is a matter to consider.--ThomasK 17:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object for now. Comment: On the other hand, I would like to read something like "The making of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article on Wikipedia". This article IMO shows the power of Wiki - the frenetic edit pace in the first 48 hours resulted in an article that was more comprehensive and more up-to-date than most of the news sources. (On a tangent, does this signify anything for the Cooperation vs Competition debate?) As time went on, the article evolved - the individual country sections were spun out, the emphasis shifted from the casualty toll and providing emergency numbers to discussions on rebuilding and rehabilitation. Quite symbolic, in a way. --Brhaspati 21:29, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is excellent, and shows how quickly and effectively Wiki can respond – its greatest advantage over other encyclopaedias and net resources. Don’t wait for it to be perfect, because you will miss the effect. Banno 07:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, Too early. Djadek 10:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It's nice to see so many people chiming in. I think this touches on some important confusions in FA selection. Please offer actionable  objections. "Too early" is not actionable; neither is "not comprehensive -- not enough information is currently available". I welcome someone to suggest a policy change that says that articles in flux or about rapidly changing subjects are not featurable -- a change I would oppose strenuously -- but until then, a brilliant article about a half-known subject should still be marked as brilliant. We are getting better and better at covering these fast-changing topics, and to me the purpose of FA is to produce a list of every article on WP that is guaranteed to take someone's breath away with its excellence, and make them tell their friends about it. This article, for instance.

Here's a summary of the objections mentioned above.

1. "already on the main page under Current Events; it would be redundant to put it there as a Featured Article. 1b. Wait until the 6-month or 1-yr anniversary, and then "put it up" when it can be done in memory of the victims.
 * Misunderstanding of what FAC is for. This process does not decide what will go on the Main Page at any particular time; it identifies excellent work.

2. FA status should give prominence to well-written articles that would otherwise be overlooked; this article is hardly overlooked at the moment.
 * Misunderstanding of what FA status is. It should identify all excellent work, regardless of its prominence.  Think of a "booklet of featured content," for instance; this should include all of the best work in WP.

3. Article is not stable, in flux; getting 10 edits an hour. What we vote on will be different in the near future. 3b. There are too many ideas floating around about splitting, merging, rearranging the article. 3c. ...even though this is not an explicitly-stated FA criterion
 * Not actionable; related to how actively people are working on the article, not how good it is. If the article fluctuates between good and bad, then there is reason to complain.  If people are constantly making it better at 10 edits an hour, and it's already featurable, that is not a good or actionable reason.  No featured article is the same six months later; but it is still featured and usually still of the same high quality.

4. Not comprehensive. We don't yet know the 'full' death toll. It's still too early to assess the impact of the disaster.
 * Not actionable. Inconsistent.  We can have a FA about the kennedy assassination even though we may never truly know what happened or how.
 * This is a strawman arguement. The Kennedy assassination is 40 years old, and yes, we *can* fully assess the impact of what happened, even if what happened is unclear. On the other hand, the tsunami is a week old, and no, we cannot assess what the impact is. You want a way to fix it? I say "Wait until we can and then add it" - this is, indeed, actionable. &rarr;Raul654 22:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * One can never perfectly assess the impact of an event. There's always more data to be gathered, current or historical, more statistics to be run, more cause-and-effect arguments to be analysed.  And just as we can put a large frame around the K. assassination and present what impact we know of, we can also put a large frame around what is known about the tsunami, so that the raticle is correct even while it has recognized gaps in precision.  Do you have a preferred metric for identifying when the impact of a disaster is "assessible"? +sj  +  00:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5. It will be even better a month from now.
 * Not actionable, save by protecting the article. True of almost every featured article.  FAs aren't perfect; they aren't even supposed to be the "top 1%" of articles; they are just the articles that rise above a certain high bar.  We should strive for every article in the pedia to reach featured status some day.

6. Work is still needed. Needs fine tuning. Copyediting; grammar, spelling, readability. see Talk: page.
 * Great points; the more specific and actionable, the better. Please clarify: where does the article need tuning, and what kinds of grammar and readability problems does it have?

+sj +  22:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

test