Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive1

Featured article candidates idea
The German Wikipedia uses a system whereby brilliant prose pages are first added to a page called Brilliant prose candidates, where people are requested to comment on the listed articles, similar to Votes for deletion, or Requests for adminship. Only if a nearly unanimous consensus is reached is the article actually added to Brilliant prose. I think this is a better solution than what we have now, because it keeps interest in the page alive, and people are actually encouraged to review the articles that are listed. It would also allow authors to list their own articles. What do you folks think? If there are no objections, I'll set this up. --Eloquence 20:12 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * good idea -- Tarquin 20:20 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, good idea. But I don't think people should nominate their own articles. --KF 20:23 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, we could technically allow it, but note that some people object to such nominations on principle. --Eloquence 20:24 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I immediately thought "good idea", and exactly because it would allow people to nominate their own articles. I've got a couple that I feel are bordering on brilliant, but I'd certainly feel entirely wrong adding them directly to the "Brilliant prose" page. And they're kind of off the beaten track, so not many people see them to get the idea in their heads that maybe it should be placed here. With such a page/process, I could at least see if other people agree, and it does belong here, or if I'm just completely full of myself. ;) -- John Owens 22:02 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a subsection of "Current nominations" for self-nominations, which have to be seconded, instead of just allowed by default after a week? -- John Owens 22:05 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I do think there should be some indication that something has been self-nominated. Otherwise, sooner or later, someone might come along, see something that's been nominated for a week, and move it over to "Brilliant prose" without realizing it's self-nominated. Should we just annotate it in the nomination, something like (if Eloquence had worked long and hard on same-sex marriage, which he hasn't):
 * Same-sex marriage and linked pages - seems fairly complete and accurate to me. Self-nomination. -- Eloquence 22:56 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * for example. Or, my above idea of a separate subsection. -- John Owens 23:03 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * P.S. Should we take this discussion over to the as-yet nonexistent Wikipedia talk:Brilliant prose candidates now? -- John Owens 23:09 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it'd be nice to have newly accepted brilliant prose articles on the main page. Thoughts? Martin 09:45 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like that idea. In addition and even better might be to have the nominees page linked of the main page, because that would increase traffic to those pages and also increase outside input on the brilliance of the articles, and so might be regarded as an especially valid sort of vote or evaluation. Plus, I imagine that it would help recruit people to the project, since every pop-up advertizer knows that people like to vote, and I imagine voting has a lower psychological threshold than clicking "edit" when you haven't explicitly been invited to and when the text can be perceived as "belonging" to someone else. Plus since the act of voting involves the same software functions as editing, new visitors would learn how to edit in the process.168... 21:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I find it xuriously straneg taht no-pne has nominated themselves for the honosr of veing lesetd here. Must hqvwe an extremely humple bunch of contributors. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 23:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * There...the page now has a self-nomination! I hereby forfeit any sense of humility I may (or may not) have had :)Adam Bishop 03:35 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There are a (small) number of pages -- backwaters, mainly -- on which I've been the main contributor, that I think -- if not quite brilliant -- actually pretty OK. I won't nominate them and, being something of a sporadic and solo contributor, don't know anyone who would be prepared to second such a self nomination. So I'm here to shill for one. Regulars: please glace at, say, Bob Dylan, Gram Parsons, Neil Young or Miles Davis. If you like them, could you add them to the real list of nominations, or inform me you'd be willing to second them. Cheers -- User:GWO
 * Hell, I'll second Bob Dylan. And though it smacks of tit-for-tat, you might take a look at Race (it's already nominated). JDG 20:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page has been up and running for a month or three now so I thought a quick review was in order. Basic conclusion: I think it is a good idea working pretty well. The only slight problem I can see is that if a) someone is present on WP and b) is knowledgeable about a subject, then they have probably contributed to the article on that subject. This appears to be leading to pages being listed on this page for way over the original mooted period of 1 week - perhaps people are afraid to second because they are trapped through lack of knowledge or being contributor. I see at least two possible improvements to the process -
 * 1) (not radical) Add a line to the preamble saying "It is not essential for you to fact check an article to second it. If you read an article and it reads very well and think you've learnt something then go ahead and second it. This is especially true of an article which has had plenty of contributors and discussion"... or something along those lines.
 * 2) (more radical) When an article is up for BP-hood, we (somehow) contact an external expert on the subject in question and ask for their comments. This may be a sneaky way of bringing experts to the WP table. We might not do this in every case, as obviously it requires someone to find out who to contact and how to contact that them, but it may create a win-win situation in some cases.

Pete 08:46, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I prefer the second course of action and have in fact been thinking about doing just that in some cases. Brilliant prose should be our approval mechanism so we should aim at high standards, IMHO.&mdash;Eloquence 09:43, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

(I am withdrawing Non-Indo-European roots. . . until I can find out a bit more about the substance of the claimed inaccuracy. I am preserving the comments from this self-nom here.)


 * Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages - I had a bit of fun writing this one. It comes across rather well despite being written in a modified form of constrained writing, except for the proper nouns.  -- Smerdis of Tlön
 * That is very interesting...I always wondered why a lot of Pokorny's IE roots didn't go any farther back than Proto-Germanic. Adam Bishop 00:17, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I would like to add my vote in favor -- An enlightening and very well-written piece! Polaris999
 * Oppose strenously on the present form of the article. The only factual point on which I can claim any knowledge on (derivation of "king"), was at best seriously misrepresented. The article may attain BrilliantProsehood, but it isn't there yet. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:48, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

I have always been puzzled why the threshold for brilliant prose is so low. I don't know of any other "candidates" or "proposed" page in Wikipedia where items automatically get approved if no action is taken. It takes majority votes to get a page deleted, a page undeleted or an admin promoted, so why is brilliant prose done the opposite way? At the very least, it should be called Prose with no objections or Unobjectionable prose, as not every item has been positively voted brilliant. Shouldn't this process change to better reflect 1) how other things are done in Wikipedia and 2) the title brilliant? Fuzheado 05:37, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the current process is very fair. If you think the article nominated is not brilliant, then you can rise an objection. The reasons of objection include not only NPOV problems but also the poor quality or the lack of coverage. But I agree with that brilliant might imply that writing is brilliant rather than the overall quality of the article. -- Taku 08:27, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * I would argue it's beyond fair -- it's too generous. It starts with the assumption the article proposed is brilliant (which in Wikipedia is ill advised) and requires people to not only notice it's been listed, but to disprove it in a seven days period.  The value of a list like BP is its exclusivity, but perhaps uses too inclusive a process.  Fuzheado 09:15, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Not long ago there was no candidates page at all. The BP page was open to all... so things are more professional/rigourous (or to put it another way less 'wiki') than they used to be. I outlined part of the problem about having a more rigourous approach. _If_ someone has a deep interest/knowledge of a subject then they have probably already contributed to the article, and thus can't readily act as a validator for an article.


 * I quite like that this page has a name with quite a lyrical flourish. Calling it 'Particularly good articles' or something just wouldn't be the same. Pete 09:25, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How long does a proposal with objections stay in this page? We have things here from October 5!! Muriel Victoria 10:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone knows how long they should stay - which is why nobody is removing them. Also, it seems to me that brilliant prose candidates is ignored by a huge number of wikipedians. Don't know why though. Anyway, IMHO it should be fine removing nominations with objections that are listed for more than a month. (But also make sure the point that was being objected to hasn't been fixed.) --snoyes 16:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually it would be best to put them in an archive. People can later use that as a way to find and fix articles that are almost brilliant prose. --mav 21:46, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I created a kindof archive for the "addition log" and the "objected log". But the page still looks messy. That's perhaps why people dont visit much... Muriel Victoria 10:45, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

i hate to be a burden...
I see Brilliant prose as our best foot forward. I like to imagine that a newcomer or skeptic could take a look at any article on Brilliant prose and be wowed. A member of the media could be sent there to poke around and be thoroughly impressed. This candidates-system was initiated in June of 2003 and has helped improve the Brilliant prose page.

The problem is there were already over 100 articles on Brilliant prose before the candidates-system was put into practice. And to be honest, some of them really shouldn't be there. For example, in their current states, for one reason or another, I would vote against any of the following articles from graduating to Brilliant prose: Geologic ages, Secure computing, Film theory, Three Colors: Blue, Freestyle music, Propaganda, Book of Mormon, Montreal Canadiens, Summer Olympic Games, Nude celebrities on the Internet, Political correctness, Sheepshead, Spacecraft propulsion, WikiProject U.S. States. These articles and others on Brilliant prose suffer from quirky formatting, mediocre writing, or sloppy editing - not our best foot forward.

I propose we create a process whereby each and every article that was on Brilliant prose prior to the candidates-system gets scrutinized, edited, and confirmed or denied. Kingturtle 11:45, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kingturtle. I was thinking of nominating Geologic ages out already. I propose a List of Articles in BP (the ones previous to the candidate system) on which everybody can vote KEEP/REMOVE. After say, a month, we can "refresh" the BP page. Muriel Victoria 11:48, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I third the suggestion. Tannin 12:30, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Hear hear, definitely overdue. We should start by laying down what type of majority/consensus is needed. Fuzheado 12:58, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yup, I considered this when setting up the system, but wanted to see if it works first. It's definitely a good idea now.&mdash;Eloquence 17:05, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, please. Many of these articles stood out in Wikipedia's first year, but they just don't cut it now. -- Stephen Gilbert 09:28, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It is quite interesting how what was brilliant 18 months ago isn't so brilliant anymore. It's like looking at the special effects in Star Wars, and saying to myself "THOSE were great special effects?!" Kingturtle 09:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to prepare the voting page... Muriel Victoria 13:24, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Voting now in:
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - Others
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - Science
 * Well I can't argue with having an audit now and then... just wondering if the voting format is quite right.. a couple of things to consider: "articles with no votes will be considered boring and removed" - this might be a bit harsh - there are lots of things to vote on - we don't know how many people are going to take the time to make a judgement on them thus a voteless article may not be boring. Any thoughts? Secondly can major contributors vote on their own article(s). Pete/Pcb21 21:30, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I should add that our general rule is that we don't vote on these matters, we need consensus. If there's only one person arguing to remove an article from BP, that should be enough to do so, and their concerns should be addressed if at all possible (i.e. if doing so would not violate our policies).&mdash;Eloquence 21:59, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Is it too late to change what is going to happen as a result of this vote? Proposed new resolution: All articles with any "not brilliant votes" are going to be brought to this candidate page for evaluation in the usual way. Possible variant: All articles with any "not brilliant votes" or no votes at all brought here. We these proposed new resolutions rules it is reasonable to suggest/insist people don't vote on their 'own' articles. With the current resolution I don't think it is reasonable.
 * Finally on a point of procedure (groan from the audience!)- the time taken from the first mention of a 'purge' to the vote being enacted was 26 hours. This is a bit short before deciding any issue needs a vote... anyone who took one day (shock! horror!) (in this case a Sunday!) off Wikipedia didn't get their chance to stick their oar in before a month-long vote was instigated. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:24, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC) P.S. Sorry Muriel I didn't mean this to detract from the effort you made in put together some well-organised vote pages... just I arrived to the party a bit late! Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

It didnt give loads of work, so dont worry. Anyway, i dont have any very strong convictions about this. I only think that some articles should be removed. As for the voting pages, they are just voting pages. We can see what happens there and meanwhile discuss what are we going to do with the results. Muriel Victoria 09:08, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Adenda: As for the harshness of the boring articles must go, that was mainly a joke to convince people to vote. But i actually think we must be severe in this matter. After all, the Brilliant prose page is what we are publicizing as our best: it must be our best. Muriel Victoria 09:13, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Ok that's fair enough. With that point on board it looks like the "Possible variant" I outlined above seems to be the way to go as it would be compatible with both your and Eloquence's views here. Others can of course comment further as the month progresses! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Having voted for/against a number of articles, I have just suddenly concluded that I should be doing no such thing. All the articles on these four voting pages should really just be moved to Brilliant prose candidates and go through the regular nomination/seconding process with requests for nominators posted on village pump. Also: is there any way to encourage people to second new candidates? Some of the candidates are not so new any more. Bmills 13:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cleaning up Brilliant prose candidates
I have decided to be bold.

Can I suggest a one-month cutoff for unseconded and disputed candidates?

I am about to post to village pump asking for seconders.

Bmills 15:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To clarify: one month limit is there already for disputed candidates, one week for undisputed. Only self-added articles currently need a seconder. I'd suggest that all articles should be seconded and that one week is not long enough to allow for objections. Bmills 16:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Review needed for
Digital Millennium Copyright Act was added on 3 March 2003 and has since been extensively reworked, with a portion removed from it and substantially expanded now residing at Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA). OCILLA tries a very tough job - to explain a complicated law and how to follow it in a way which normal people can understand. If it succeeds in that and as an article, it's a candidate for legal Brilliant Prose (as the primary author of the current revision, I'm not neutral). Jamesday 02:47, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Refreshing brilliant prose
Dear friends of BP. As of December 15, middle of the voting-refreshing process, and taking Refreshing brilliant prose - Others as an example, i can see six types of artcle-status. I have a few ideas to what to do with them, that i would like to share with you.
 * Consensus to keep (5 articles) - I say keep
 * Consensus to remove (8 art) - I say remove
 * Tie (3 art) - I say remove
 * Borderline keep (3 art) - I say remove
 * Borderline remover (15 art) - I say remove
 * Empty (no votes, 3 art) - I say remove

By borderline i want to mean articles with votes for both sides, or with one vote only. The consensus articles have more than one vote (to keep or remove). I say remove all in doubt because i think that less is more. This should also work as an incentive for people to work on these articles. This opinion may be harsh, but i think we must be rigorous in what concerns BP. Can i have your comments? Muriel Victoria 16:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My view is that any article with even one vote to remove should be removed. ALso, articles with no votes should be added to the Candidates page as a new category: pages now needing a seconder. Bmills 16:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * We are not going to have much BP left :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adding this from Village Pump history:

Brilliant Prose Voting
Decision time approaches. Lots of votes cast and the picture is a bit clearer. Here's a proposal:


 * All unopposed Keeps are kept.
 * All articles with one or more Remove votes go.
 * All articles with no votes are added to Brilliant prose candidates

Anyone got a better idea?

To view the votes so far:


 * Refreshing brilliant prose - Science
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - Others


 * All articles with 1+ remove votes are out? In my opinion too harsh. Why are remove votes weighed heavier than keep votes? Even the most excellent article will be disliked by someone. Tuf-Kat has voted about 80% of the articles out. Maybe limit votes per person to 10 items? Erik Zachte 12:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Erik - a single remove vote is far too little to justify removal, particularly if there are keep votes too. If there are the same number, or more, keep votes than removes then it ought at least to go to Brilliant prose candidates. -- Arwel 12:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the most reasonable compromise. Any differences of opinion can then be resolved on the candidates page, which, unlike the voting page, also requires a justification for an opinion.&mdash;Eloquence


 * My own view is that to keep something as Brilliant Prose, consensus is required. Anything that is removed can always be added to candidates for reconsideration. Bmills 12:38, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So how about:


 * All articles with at least one vote and no Removes stay.
 * All articles with at least one vote and no Keeps are removed.
 * All other articles go to candidates under the heading Moved after voting.

???? Bmills 13:51, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. As Eloquence says above, moving things to the Candidates page has the advantage that the opinions come with justification. Even an article that has one lone advocate against the world probably merits some statement of what the rejectors think needs to be changed, even if that turns out to be "Everything." Dandrake 00:17, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * London congestion charge has 7 votes to 1 in favour of keeping but under these rules will be removed... in the name of consensus! I don't really understand but would appreciate it if someone would tell me what to do to the article to improve it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Not exactly removed, but moved to candidates where it will sit for one week. Assuming no objections, it will go back, if there is an objection, it will have to be explained. Have you asked the user who voted to remove why they did so? Bmills 09:07, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no direct disagreement with any specific interpretation of the voting results, as long as everyone is allowed a reasonable time to switch their votes after the final method of interpreting the votes is decided. If any of the above interpretations are implemented, I will certainly be changing a couple of my votes... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:49, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Boilerplate
I think we should add a boilerplete text in the talk page of the nominees. It should go like...
 * This article has been nominated on Brilliant prose candidates. Please refer to that page if you wish to second or contest the nomination.

The purpose is encorage discussion and let know that the article was nominated. Thoughts? Muriel Victoria 10:27, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Muriel, can you look at the nominations that remain. Some are there longer than a week withouth objections, but as I am involved with the pages, I do not want to be the one to add them to BP. Bmills 10:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I like the idea too. Bmills - this is this main problem with BP at the moment - if someone is qualified to say "yes this article is very good/complete/etc" then they are very likely to have contributed already to the article because it is something they are interested in. No simple remedy to this is available.. though Eloquence and I muse on bringing in external "verifiers" at Wikipedia_talk:Brilliant prose. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if external 'verifiers' are required, unless it is for technical accuracy (including factual, historical, etc.). Mostly, the community is in a position to decide, and some users have probably got a track record that would allow their contributions to be taken at face value. The key thing is: would a person coming to an encyclopedia actually get anything from the article? Is the article well structured and grammatical? Does it explain? Does it do so clearly? Does it give a context? Are the links adding value?

The problem seems to be to get the community more interested in the BP process and outcome. Bmills 11:04, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recognition matters; it is hard to get people to think that a process here matters, if it gets picky rather than is by acclaim. Charles Matthews 11:08, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe the boilerplate would result in more articles ending up as candidates and this would drive interest? Bmills 11:27, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I came here to suggest the same idea for a boilerplate. I would further like to suggest that a different notice be placed at the top of the talk page if a page is accepted, so that viewers who are interested enough to check the talk can see that it is on the brilliant prose page.  Keeping a permanent tag there might puff up interest in getting pages on brilliant prose. Tuf-Kat 03:52, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)
 * I put the boilerplate at the top of the page I self nominated, just like a VfD notice. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't go to the talk page of every article I read, and we should be requesting participation from those who have used the article, not just those of us who watch this page.  After the appointment, I agree with Tuf-Kat that some kind of notice should go on the talk page. Gentgeen 08:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Please, not in the page itself! Its completely off topic with the article! I'm glad everybody agrees with the boilerplate. Unfortunately i dont have time to put them in the pages - Christmas holidays with internet only in mother's home :) Happy holidays all Muriel Victoria 15:55, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I boldly added something to this effect, deftly no-commenting on the issue of whether or not to place the notice on the talk page or the article. I'm don't really care -- I always check the talk page, but I'm inclined to think it should be on the main article.  It's only temporary, after all, and I don't think too intrusive.  Once it's been accepted, the notice that it is listed on BP should be moved to the talk page, of course, but not the nomination announcement could be in the article. We put NPOV disputes, factual accuracy disputes and VfD notices on it -- why not a positive notice in addition to these negative ones?Tuf-Kat

Since i'm out of here for a while, i think the BP refreshing will be taken care of in my absence. My feelings are: Happy new year and stuff for all Muriel Victoria 17:09, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * we should remove from BP everything except unanimous decisions to keep, stated by more than 2 users - because we must be strict. It is also in my opinion a way to encourage people to polish the removed articles.
 * the boilerplate should be always in the Talk Page - because its absolutely of topic. The VfD notice is not comparable because in this case the article is not in a life threatening situation.
 * if the boilerplate is agreed to be put in the main article, please - at the bottom!

Someone who understands what this page is about better than I do might want to write a summary of how it works at Wikipedia_maintenance. Thanks. Angela. 16:45, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do spell out some concise instructions. I wrote an objection to "concept album,"  then found that it had been revereted into oblivion (because I moved the listing?).  So I came back and replaced the objection, leaving it in the "uncontested section.  I come back today to see that "concept album" has been advanced to "brilliant" status, and my objection has been left behind, as if it were an objection to another page--alanis morrisette?--I don't remember.  So, as I newcomer, I don't get it, and I may not be alone.

Brilliant prose
From User talk:168...

''Please don't add that header to articles no matter how brilliant they are. It makes the article look ugly, and it is gloating on our part. Dori | Talk 18:13, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)''

''Gloating is fun and in this case I don't think it hurts anybody. It signals readers that the community considers the text a worthy example of a Wikipedia article, guides them and spurs them to do a good job on other articles, and hopefully deters them from making hasty edits to the "brilliant" one. The Brilliant prose candidates page invites people to put exactly that label in the article. That's what inspired me to do it.168... 18:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)''


 * There is no need to advertise this on every article in the main namespace though. It is enough to mention that there is such a list and where one could find the list. As I said, the articles would suffer from it. Dori | Talk 18:34, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the label isn't pretty. I think we should have an actual logo and a discreet and official spot on each page where, if an article has earned it, the logo should go.168... 18:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * How is the top of the article discreet, and besides it is POV to declare an article brilliant even if it is several editors that think so. Dori | Talk 18:43, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dori - it's ugly as it bumps the entire article down at least two lines, and leaves lots of white space. Even more important, I object to an article deemed "brilliant" being a implicit "freeze."  This is a Wiki after all and we should not be deterring editing just because of this designation.  The forward pointers from a brilliant prose list to articles are useful.  The back pointers from each article at the top is not.  If we do choose to put the label, it should be at the bottom, out of the way, as a footnote. Fuzheado 18:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to suggest a "freeze," but more of a cooling breeze for potentially hot heads. If people realize that the article they are poised to edit covers a subject they are not very expert in, and if they see that the article has undergone scrutiny and been judged as good, they may decide to proceed with more caution. Absent a label, I suspect many reasonably informed people will feel free to change anything in an article that strikes them as off, just based on what they recall from school or the newspaper or conversations with friends they consider educated. But if the people about to edit aren't experts, then their intuition is liable to be wrong. Perhaps if they see the label they'll be inspired to a little research before making their change, which they wouldn't otherwise have done. If so, that increases the odds that the changes they make will be valuable ones, and if it happens generally, it means that "brilliant" articles drift less rapidly than ones that we have not designated brilliant. That's what we want, right? We want articles to converge on something good, right? Or are they to drift about forever? 168... 19:03, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. although I described a scenario where the issue was knowledge of the subject matter, the same thing applies to neutrality and to good prose. A person may read an article and say "My God, that's biased!" and prepare to rain down edits upon it like fire and brimstone. But a "brilliant prose" label will alert them that the article has been deemed acceptable by many people and so probably from people of various perspectives. Likewise with the quality of writing. Everybody can benefit from an editor, but the corollary is that every editor's judgement can sometimes be faulty. It's more likely to be faulty when the would-be editor is poised to change an article that has passed a lot of scrutiny.168... 19:23, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that's the eternal question of the Wikipedia universe isn't it? You're asking for the solution to the Wikipedia 1.0 problem, which has been very elusive. Fuzheado 19:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Me shy away from elusive eternal questions? Never. Bring them on, I say. Tomorrow at 02:00 GMT I shall be solving the mind-body problem. Be sure to tune in.168... 19:23, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, 168 was just following the guidelines which says to put the "This is brilliant prose" message on the articles. However, I'd like to formally give notice of intent to get rid of the message altogether. Fuzheado 18:48, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article may well have been brilliant prose, but adding "This article is Brilliant Prose!!!!" brings the average down, so that the article just doesn't seem like brilliant prose any more... &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    19:01, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. This message should be removed ASAP.&mdash;Eloquence

What about labels like this one, which appears in the sample place across the top of DNA: For alternative meanings see DNA (disambiguation) That's ugly and not necessary there either. I'd love to see it go. But if we tolerate that kind of thing, I don't see what the fuss is over the esthetics of the currently proposed brilliant-prose labelling strategy. Anyway, as I said, the esthetics could be greatly improved without rejecting the practice in principle.168...

I'll weigh in to say I agree with the above comments by Dori and others. I don't think discouraging contributions is practice we should be fostering here, and therefore the possibility that a user might muck up a "perfect" article is not justification for the BP header. A logo would be excessive, regardless of its placement. The list of brilliant prose articles is easy enough to find: we don't need reciprocal links.

Aside from being uncomely, the header is also inappropriate and obtrusive from a user's perspective. Users are there to read the article, not a critique of its prose. A user simply wouldn't care what we Wikipedians think of an article, so why shout it at them?

As for disambiguation notices such as the one atop DNA, they're functionally appropriate. Someone directed to DNA shouldn't have to wade through the article to find the disambig page. Hadal 19:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "Discouraging contributions" is overstating the point. "Fostering careful contribution" is more like it. I believe we do want to discourage contributions from five year olds who don't speak English. At least, I do. We don't have to go out of our way to discourage these particular potential contributors, but that's just because they are naturally reticent. Doing nothing actively to discourage them doesn't make us open to everybody or especially virtuous. I believe we do have preferences implicitly, whether or not we choose to take a laissez faire approach to getting the outcome we like. Also as I hoped to convey in my other posts, I think the issue here shouldn't be seen as about label placement or looks, because those can be changed into anything we like, but instead should be about whether to place any indicator anywhere at all.168... 23:14, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * To weigh in as well, I don't like the "this article is Brilliant prose" label either, and have not used it. However, I do like the "this article has been nominated..." label, as I think it's important that those who use the article, not just those of us addicted to this page, get a chance to express weather a page is brilliant or not. Gentgeen 20:13, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Consensus seems to be to place the nomination notice on the article page, and the acceptance notice on the talk page, so I have updated this article to reflect that. Since some of the comments above are kind of ambiguous, I may not be reading everyone's opinions right.  If you don't think this is best, please explain what you would prefer and why. Tuf-Kat


 * TUF-KAT's reading is my interpretation too and i agree with it. And now...

What are we going to do with the poll results??? We should remove from BP everything except unanimous decisions to keep, stated by more than 2 users - because we must be strict. It is also in my opinion a way to encourage people to polish the removed articles. Muriel Victoria 09:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen the discussion on Village Pump????? Please add yout thoughts there, as I seem to be outnumbered. Bmills 09:33, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Refreshing: The final round
As I understand it from the "Brilliant prose voting" section, the old entries that didn't get unanimous approval are now in "Candidates from voting" for a second consideration. Any that don't get objections in a week will stay in Brilliant Prose. Objections will be detailed, not just a Keep/Delete vote, so that the pieces can be worked on just like new Brilliant Prose candidates that have been objected to.

Is this right?

This early in the process, there seem to be very few votes listed, but they seem to be simple Keep/Delete votes. Am I misreading something? Dandrake 01:45, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

This is right. I intend to come back early next week to a: remove all articles with no objections from this page and b: remove all articles with objections from Featured articles (formerly Brilliant prose). Objections should give some reason. Bmills 11:12, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile, please do not move any of these out of the with objections section. The full month needs to be given for people to raise further objections. Bmills 09:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I was just moving articles around and saw one in the with objections area that had the objection withdrawn.  I wasn't paying attention to which class of nomination is was. Gentgeen 09:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. The sooner the month is up and the page returns to a better size, the better. Bmills 10:28, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History of England appears twice on the list: once in the without-objections section (with 2 objections attached) and once in the with-objections. This is probably not right. Dandrake 21:10, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)