Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Redshift/archive1

Further comments on Strong Objection from Flying Jazz
I think there is (and if not, there should be) a certain intermediate level of obsessiveness in individual conflicts between users that should neither be punished nor rewarded. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but FA is not a reward nor a punishment. It is a way to improve articles. If you look at the progress that has been made since this FAC nomination was made in the editting of the article, I hope you'll see that it caused a lot of improvement. Please look at the articles themselves rather than the disputes on the talkpage to determine their worthiness for FA status. --ScienceApologist 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My meaning of "reward" is explained in my initial objection.
 * The article right now is the subject of a recent intense conflict between two people who seem obsessed with their opposition to each other in mulitple forums, and it seems to me that its nomination can easily be interpreted as just another tactic in that battle. People who seem to be on an obsesssional mission should not be rewarded in this way.
 * I don't know if FAC nominations are meant as a way to improve articles, but that's certainly a good side-effect for articles that could still use a lot of improvement. I don't think such articles should become feature articles until some time after those improvements are made so people are able to look at them. Flying Jazz 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand the motivation for "time", but I'm not convinced this is a reasonable criteria. If the article is good, why not let it be a featured article? If the article is one of the best articles Wikipedia has it should be a Featured Article. This doesn't mean that no one can change the article in the future, just that it represents good work. If it doesn't represent good work, it shouldn't be a featured article. --ScienceApologist 15:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also don't like the idea of painting a gold star next to this article until ample time has passed. -- I understand the concern about stability and that might not be applicable here, but I'm afraid you may be setting a fairly high bar here with your six months to a year criterion. Consider some FA pages like evolution which get many reverts a month. By your criteria, that article would be unstable and not worthy of FA status, wouldn't it? --ScienceApologist 07:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My initial objection was not based on stability but on the potential for the nomination to be misinterpreted and for its acceptance to be misused in light of statements that the nominee has made about another user. I recognize that I have turned the focus of the FAC process onto personal matters instead of focusing on the article, but my view is that the nomination itself appears to be the final act in a personal matter and I think that view is very relevant to Wikipedia as a community. If evolution was nominated under similar circumstances, I would have objected there also (if I had been aware of it). Of course, recent major improvements in the article also indicate stability issues. Flying Jazz 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of the personal matters involving the article is independent of the merits of the article itself. I suggest you rethink this position as it looks to me like you are promoting your own "act in a personal matter", that is simply opposing a nomination because of who nominated it rather than looking at the merits of the article in question. --ScienceApologist 15:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition to my initial objection which was largely based on talk page and user page comments, I also agreed with the comments of stillnotelf. Can talk page and user page topics ever matter enough to delay the FAC process? If someone read the Redshift article, was curious about who nominated it, and then saw what is written on your userpage about the article, is that Wikipedia putting its best foot forward and should this be considered during the FAC process? I don't mean to act in a personal manner against you. And I don't mean for those questions to be rhetorical. I honestly don't know the answers to them. You might be right, in which case my strong object would simply become an object because, as you wrote yourself, the FAC nomination caused a lot of improvement.  That indicates to me that additional moderate improvement is still possible. Flying Jazz 06:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Improvement is always possible -- even on Featured Articles. Unless you can point to improvements that should be made, this reason for objection is inactionable. There are specific criteria that determine whether an article should be featured or not. User:Stillnotelf at least had the courtesy to indicate which criteria were in question, and I have pointed out why I don't think those criteria qualify. There are no criteria that state that users shouldn't refer to a featured article page on their user page, nor is there any criteria that outline what the talkpage of a featured article should look like. This is beginning to strike me more and more like you are the one who is out to impose your own agenda on what you think Wikipedia and Featured Articles should be rather than taking a step back and looking at the article in terms of the article itself and what a Featured Article is. --ScienceApologist 15:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)