Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 9

Comprehensive and extra-short FAs
Some editors interpret 1b to mean the article covers all available sourced information, even when major facts and details about the topic aren't available.

GA was initially designed for short articles, but Wiki has moved beyond that concept. There are currently three articles nominated at FAC with around 500 words or less. If the intent of 1b is that our very best work covers articles for which there is little available information, there is potential for FAC to be flooded by super-short articles.

Is a change in the criteria needed to redefine what is meant by comprehensive and what we want to represent our very best work, or are 300-word articles within the scope of our finest work? If we are moving to 300-word featured articles, FAC isn't likely to be able to handle the increased load.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FA reviewers appear to be a finite quantity, and there is only one FA assistant director, who has the laborious and often thankless task of administering all of these nominations. She also has to deal with FACs which are proposed as part of the editing process ("let's take it to FA and improve it there") rather than the culmination of that process, FARs which are often contentious, demanding editors who want their FACs to be considered but do not pitch in to review others, and others who do not fully understand (and who does outside of Sandy?) how much work is involved.


 * I make no judgments here on present FACs or their nominators. But given the finite nature of the the resources available, FA criteria should be changed to require a heightened standard of importance beyond mere notability, and perhaps a length requirment (without excess verbiage in the article) to tie into that.  The FA process otherwise can grind to a halt, as the folks who spend hours a day handling that process will burn out.  Kablammo (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this very nicely written and persuasive comment, Kable. I'm working on a proposal now for an additional structural layer at FAC to encourage better prepration of nominations, shorter durations, shorter nomination pages, a shorter list, and faster throughput. This is in the light of the significant changes to the FAC environment over the past two years. As for the rash of stub-nominations, they should, in my view, be discouraged by additional text in the criteria.


 * 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details, and is generally significantly longer than 500 1000 words ;


 * Simple as that. The requirement that a nomination is "comprehensiv" and "exemplifies our very best work" both need to be satisfied. Just as FACs of gargantuan size usually fail the requirement for summary style and need to syphon off detail into daughter articles, nominations should fail if too small, since they cannot exemplify our very best work and there's always the suspicion that they're not actually comprehensive or the scope is too narrow. Analogously, they should be either (1) merged, (2) expanded in scope, or (3) not put up for nomination. The use of the word "generally" is on purpose, to allow the rare example through; but this should be rare indeed. A firm signal needs to be sent to nominators that collecting bronze stars on one's user page should not be pursued as a game that puts stubs into the "one in a thousand" status. Tony   (talk)  04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike Christie's asked me to comment here because my argument is that a length restriction is unnecessary since criterion 2b requires "a substantial ... table of contents" . Very short articles should have no more than one section, or no sections at all, or no table of contents, so they will fail on that basis rather than through the addition of an extra rule. DrKiernan (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems like rather a lawyerish way to interpret appropriate structure. A structure appropriate for a short article would not necessarily be appropriate for a long article, and vice versa. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's better to just set a limit of words/characters/kb. Likewise using WP:LEAD as an opposing argument (catching on at the short FACs now).  Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, Tony's suggestion works for me. A simple change that doesn't require any additional process-wonkery. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the number is raised to 1500 (as mentioned in WT:Featured article candidates), I would agree. 500 words is too close to a stub or DYK page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I too would be happier with a bit higher number, 1000 or 1500 (And I say this as a person with a LOT of short articles on her watchlist and improvement list) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a 1000- or 1500-word minimum limit. I just can't see anything shorter as being Wikipedia's best work. Karanacs (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to a 1000-word limit, but what would happen to the existing articles that fail that criteria? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually when the criteria gets stricter, older articles keep their FA status for now. They could/can be brought to FAR and be demoted, though, but at least there would be an opportunity to expand the article first. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm going to assume the same as what happened with the articles from 2004/2005 which don't have inline cites, grandfathered and eventually FAR if they aren't expanded. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not thrilled about a word count limit, though I understand we really need a bare minimum. I'd rather prefer to see something along the lines that if a short article can otherwise be covered at the same level of detail (which usually means that LEAD prose and the infobox can be dropped, but the rest of the prose and the references stay) in a larger topic without hitting WP:SIZE issues in the larger article, it should covered there instead.  The maximum size where putting the text into a larger article would become a problem would be around the 1500-2000 word mark (approximately 7-10k of data), so once past that, it likely cannot be done.  But anything smaller than that range should definitely at least be evaluated to see if it is possible to do so. --M ASEM  13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics; a 1,000 word cutoff is completely justified by our current statistics, as I can only find four of our 2300 featured articles below that cutoff. I'm fully behind Marskell's Excellent short articles, with a 1,000 word cutoff roughly enforced, and believe that option will go a long way towards resolving all of the current issues plaguing FAC (IRC fan support, too many FACs, and not enough indepth review time).  Just look at the Dr pda stats.  And I doubt we'd have to FAR anything; most of those articles would probably pad a few words given that I've made this suggestion.  They'll probably be over the 1,000 word limit by the time others check :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So how many of the 2300 FAs are below the 1500-word cutoff? While my original 500-word boundary was cleary a misjudgement (I've now raised it to 1000 pending further discussion), I'm concerned that only four existing FAs are below the 1000-word limit. This suggests that the process is successfully weeding them out, but I'm guessing that this is at much cost. Tony   (talk)  17:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All that is discussed at WT:FAC and we're waiting to hear from Dr pda. (The four is an outdated number because it was generated in June, and we've more recently seen a rash of shorter articles.  There may be over a dozen or so now that are under 1,000, and many more in the pipeline unless we decide how to deal with them.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To note here, I'm more inclined to accept a 1,000 word criteria if that excludes the lead of the article. The lead is a summary of the entire article (not containing anything that shouldn't already be present in the body), and thus including it in the word count means you're including redundant material. Since this part of the article literally repeats everything else, in summary form, it should not be included when taking word counts into consideration.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have a tool that separately counts leads; we'd have to do that manually. And short articles have short leads.  We do have data on entire articles that shows us that almost no FAs are less than 1,000 words; we can be consistent with that data and that tool.  Separating out the lead creates a new beast.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Creating a new review setting (Excellent short articles or whatever it is called now) would stretch the reviewer pool further, so I'd strongly object to that proposal on those grounds, without even having to consider my philosophical objections to denying any article that can survive AFD the chance to be an FA. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

comment - on the whole I don't care for rigid rules for something like 'featured content'. That said, perhaps two types of featured content? FAC for full luxurious long articles, and 'ESA' for excellent short articles for the good stuff that is under some arbitrary limit? Mostly makes more work for editors who don't have time for it, but might be a compromise between a comprehensive and 1,500 words NO LESS stance? I'm not really a fac regular so there maybe nuances to this that I don't understand. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the proposal at WT:FAC (to resurrect Excellent short articles), and like everything else at FAC, it would not be subject to a hard-and-fast literal word count cutoff, rather consensus and common sense. For example, if the cutoff is set at 1,000 but reviewers deem that a 975-word article represents our best work, it could still be FA; Short articles provides a place to send the recent rash of 500-word articles, and we're even seeing FAC submissions at 400 words now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy mentions 1250 words over at WT:FAC. Would "generally significantly longer than 1000 words" or "generally longer than 1250 words" be clearer?  I prefer the second, even if the number is changed; I think the "generally" gives us more than enough wiggle room, and will keep people from feeling like they got the rug pulled out from under them when they work hard, show up at FAC, and are told, "Yes, but it's not significantly more than x words". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to have a number, let's make it a simple one (e.g. about 1000). 1250 sounds incredibly specific, and I worry people will misinterpret that as a number to try and beat. Around 1000 would be better I think. I also mentioned on another talk page, the issue with articles on the borderline. People padding out with unnecessary words to try and gain full featured article status is a risk. -- how do you turn this on  18:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But you've got a fall-back: if a few reviewers think that it's borderline, then just punt it over to WP:FSA, even if it has 1750 words, and no harm done. It will still be eligible for the bronze star.  It won't be eligible for the main page, but only around half of FAs wind up on the main page anyway, and how likely is it that Raul would want to put something on TFA that people think is "too stubby", even if succeeded at FAC? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with focusing on a number until 1) we get a sense if the entire notion is going to fly, and 2) we get some data from Dr pda. The number will result naturally when we see data. But I am adamant that any number will only be a guideline, subject to consensus on any given FAC, just as anything else is. No hard and fast limits, no need to pad articles, common sense. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see this as the best solution to any of the problems it's trying to resolve. An absolute length requirement is unrelated to selecting articles that "exemplify our best work," in my opinion; an excellent, comprehensive article of 950 words isn't improved by adding 50 more words. Aside from being unrelated to the overall mission of the process, the change would be detrimental to the role of FA in Wikipedia as a whole as the status would no longer be a target for all articles but only for the subset of eligible ones. If in fact these articles overwhelm FAC, I think the problem lies more in the structure of FAC, which scales very poorly. Scale problems in the past, in my experience, have best been resolved by structural changes rather than altering the scope of the process. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ... in my opinion; an excellent, comprehensive article of 950 words isn't improved by adding 50 more words ...  Did you read that the proposal specifically is to avoid this, and not apply a hard-and-fast limit, rather use consensus and avoid padding? FAC doesn't even respect WP:SIZE; I would see this being applied similarly. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC):
 * Padding isn't the point; whether the rule is hard and fast or not, the proposal still presumes that longer articles better exemplify our best work. That presumption is wholly arbitrary. Making the criteria more capricious is not in my view a positive development and I think damaging to the role of FA within Wikipedia as a whole; this should be a status to which all articles can aspire. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea of a 1000 word minimum for FACs. I feel like the work of the FA writer is diminished when someone shows up with an article with five sources that can be read without scrolling.  1000 is not too much to ask (quite a few articles would be demoted with something higher) and it solves the new problem instead of trying to fix what was not considered broken a week ago.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  00:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossposting from WT:FAC; sorry if this is spam, but I thought that was where the discussion was, and now I find this page I think this is the most active discussion. Anyway, here's what I said over there: if I understand correctly this is a proposal for a separate process, which would hand out featured article status to short articles. The process would have its own page, director, review queue, and so forth.

If that's right, it seems to me there's a simpler and much preferable version. (And apologies if someone else already suggested this; I'm not sure I've read every discussion linked.) Make all these short articles go through the existing FAC page, process and director. At the end, a promoted article is allocated to be a "short FA" or an "FA" strictly on word count (1250, or whatever) unless reviewers specifically support a status one side or other of that line, and the FA director agrees. I'd assume short FAs could not go on the main page; that's Raul's call but I would think he'd listen to a consensus there. Advantages of this approach:
 * No need to get Raul's approval for another delegated director
 * No new process page; little to no new process
 * No splitting of the reviewer group into two communities
 * No need to have any separately maintained FA criteria.
 * No problems caused to an editor with a borderline article who doesn't know where to submit it -- they don't have to choose, fail to get promotion at one page, then go the other.

I don't really see a downside to doing it this way. What am I missing? Mike Christie (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are several different proposals. One is to simply put a lower bound on FACs; the other is to put a lower bound on FACS *and* create a separate process to recognize Excellent short articles.


 * I did not envision the Excellent short article process as producing "featured" articles, hence they wouldn't need a Raul-appointed director any more than featured sounds or featured pictures do; they're off doing their thing, unrelated to FAs. I don't believe the reviewer group would be split; there is a core group of editors who are interested in shorter articles (largely hurricanes, roads and music now, but that could grow), and a core group who does not have the same orientation; I think the Excellent small articles would generate its own staff and followers, as FLC has for example. I don't see any problem with not knowing where to submit; moving a trascluded file to the other page will be easier than what we're dealing with now with the volume at FAC. There is a very big downside to running what will become an increased volume of short noms through FAC if the criterion doesn't change and this trend takes hold; reviewer burnout, FAC backlog and decreased quality of our core FAs.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The criterion has been as it is for years and we haven't seen this "increased volume of short noms"; it's not clear why you believe that it is suddenly an impending wave. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This week, we had four submitted at once, and six (or seven) running at once. I hope that makes it more clear.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If four or seven extra noms is making the difference between FA being functional or broken, there are structural problems that will quickly emerge again as the process grows even if this measure is enacted. When that happens, I wouldn't want to have established the precedent that scale problems with FAC are addressed by arbitrarily disqualifying certain types of articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you weren't following the discussions as the suggestion came up to test the system with shorter FAs, and three new noms appeared instantly. Why would structural problems suddenly emerge again?  FAC has rolled along for years without anyone thinking to nominate 500-word articles; it was a new and recent hurricane and road issue and rather likely to be one-time issue that needs to be resolved.  I suggested resolving it by taking a closer look at 1b; we could still do that. At any rate, the issue of Excellent short articles has been bouncing around for years, so it was time to look at it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Christopher. If FAC could be broken by whatever increase in volume might come about with short articles going to FAC, then we need a fix that does not work by disqualification but instead expands the capacity of the process. Mike Christie (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. The focus should not be on how to restrict the list so a process that has worked for years, but is possibly outmoded, will not get broken. Considering the growth of Wikipedia, it seems strange not to at least consider how to expand the capacity of the process anyway. It only makes sense that with the greater volume of articles on Wikipedia, access to FAC should not be restricted by a system invented when Wikipedia was much smaller. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I contend that capacity is constrained now by two factors:  lack of reviewers, and reviewer reluctance to Oppose the ill-prepared noms.  How can we address those two factors? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Moving this to the bottom, since Tito raised similar.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I formally propose either of the following:


 * 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details, and is generally significantly longer than 1000 words ;

or


 * 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details, and is generally at least 1200 words long ;

I could live with either, but am leaning towards the 1200, given Dr pda's data at the bottom of this section. I no one objects, I intend to insert one of these in the next few days. Tony  (talk)  05:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be happy if either of those make it, but I do prefer the first one just because 1000 is such a clean number. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  05:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat here what I've said elsewhere: I Strongly Support a wordcount provision (prefereably 1200)... both on the (admittedly vague) grounds of notability and on the (more tangible) problem of potential flooding FAC with tiny articles. Next we'll have FAStubs? Leave short articles to GA; that's what it was originally designed for. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support 1,000; I don't want to go to 1,200 because several of those articles are fine, and I don't want to start sending existing FAs to FAR. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If this goes ahead, it should be added to 4 not 1b. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Drat. We've got a cross-posting issue now. I'll leave responses to the Featured short article proposal at WT:FAC.

As for this, the argument I gather is to simply have a word count limit and leave it at that. Only Titoxd raises the philosophical point: we would be saying that certain articles cannot be featured. Indeed, a majority of the articles on the encyclopedia if I had to guess. That doesn't seem right to me at all, notability issues be damned. All content should be featurable.

Anyway, I'll post over there. Marskell (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I support 1200 although I prefer 1500. Dr pda said that he had to manually do the work to count the readable prose as his script counts only wikitext. However, I assume he counted the lead section which does not provide any unique content. That can pad around 20% on the smallest article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a misunderstanding. He manually added word counts to the list (meaning he used the Dr pda script to check and add each article word count manually to the list page, because the other script, that generates the list, only generates KB size). Yes, his script counts the lead.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know he manually added word counts to the list. I am saying that since the lead section is counted, I support 1200/1500 rather than 1000. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what debate is happening where, but since word count is mostly being discussed here, I'll post here. I've no problem with a word count limit being used as a divider, but I would prefer not to see a limit on what can be featured.  I agree completely with Marskell; all content should be featurable.  Hence as it stands I would not like to see Tony's suggestion pass.  I'd be fine if it were combined with something such as a version of the short featured articles proposal, so long as the result was division of featured articles, rather than the establishment of an independent process. Mike Christie (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. This word count proposal is more revolutionary than it sounds. Sure, few FAs are below 1200 now but we have never said that categories of article cannot pass through the FA gate, which is what we'd be doing here. This needs to be combined with some version of recognizing short articles under the FA banner. Marskell (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is so sacred about every type of article that it must be capable of promotion at FAC? I say merge or expand a small article so it has sufficient substance to be among "our best work". In that respect, any article is potentially promotable material. It just depends on how it's packaged WRT scope. Tony   (talk)  11:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC) PS I agree with Dr Kiernan that Cr. 4 is a better place for it. Tony   (talk)  11:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Scope should be tailored to best meet the needs of the reader, not to meet arbitrary requirements at FAC. I also contest the notion that articles below a certain length aren't among our best work. What measure of value are you using to support that assumption? It's easy to understand why one would find a comprehensive article better than an uncomprehensive one; it's not easy to understand why, all else being equal, you would find a long article superior to a short one. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and not everything can be merged or expanded, hence the title of this thread: comprehensive and extra-short FAs. To use the animal example, editors do not merge species into genera. Red links are left on lists or stubs created (even bots have created Tree of Life stubs). So I take an understudied species, gather papers in the single digits, and sqeeze out 900 words. How would that be less worthy of FA consideration than 1900 words on a Simpsons episode? It makes no sense to me. Marskell (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Does that not fall under Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and has a notability guideline? – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  14:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd need to unpack what you mean a little more before I can answer. Yes, V has something to do with my argument: I can't verify what has not yet been researched. Marskell (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is that it has been repeatedly shown that getting an article to featured status is a strong incentive to improve the article. If you remove that ability for any subset of articles, then you are giving editors less of a reason to improve and maintain that subset, thus decreasing the average quality of the encyclopedia. Besides, this proposal doesn't do anything to solve the [hypothetical] "FA flood" problem that originated this discussion, as it just postpones solving FAC's existing scaling issues. These have to be fixed if we ever want to meet the goals of WP:100K. Aside from that, I personally prefer three small, high-quality articles than one incomprehensible rambling mess. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have zero-point-zero desire to meet the goals of WP:100K if they conflict with WP:I'MASHAMEDOFFAARTICLES. :-) Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I contend that capacity is constrained now by two factors:  lack of reviewers, and reviewer reluctance to Oppose the ill-prepared noms.  How can we address those two factors? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how we can address lack of reviewers, aside from randomly recruiting people. Unfortunately, that probably won't be a good idea because Wikipedia is, after all, a project in which people voluntarily perform tasks they like. However, adding a new review arena is something that would cause the reviewer pool to split even further, so I cannot support that. ESAC/FSAC or whatever it is being called now would meet a fate similar to WP:RFD: Rarely looked at unless there's something explosive going on. An alternative would be to institute a hard cap for simultaneous nominations by an editor or WikiProject.
 * As for the the reluctance to oppose ill-prepared noms, you have two problems here. You have nominations that are nowhere even close to meeting WP:WIAFA. These should probably be quick-failed in a way similar to how it's done at GAN. Then, you have nominations that meet WP:WIAFA sans one part of one criteria. Examples of this include articles that are properly sourced but require a light copyedit, or requests for clarifications during an FAC. These occur because there is still a lingering perception that WP:PR is not doing an adequate job in reviewing articles, so nominators just decide to bypass it altogether. To address this, we have to beef up PR, and maybe even make it mandatory prior to an FAC.
 * Eventually, though, some sort of devolution of tasks will be necessary, as centralized review processes have their limits. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Parham says:
 * "Scope should be tailored to best meet the needs of the reader, not to meet arbitrary requirements at FAC."
 * I agree, but this has no bearing on the notion of FA, unless you have some desire to see stubs promoted and held up as "our very best work (even though in their small frame, they may be good work).
 * "I also contest the notion that articles below a certain length aren't among our best work. What measure of value are you using to support that assumption? It's easy to understand why one would find a comprehensive article better than an uncomprehensive one; it's not easy to understand why, all else being equal, you would find a long article superior to a short one."
 * When the notion of "comprehensiveness" is satisfied not by integrating information smoothly and cogently into an article, but almost entirely by constricting the scope. All else is usually not equal at all, and there's now a cottage industry building to churn out bronze stars for what are quick, dirty jobs by identifying tiny topics that can get through the "comprehensiveness" loophole we currently provide. I might add a little to the essay on the sewer cover in front of Greg L's house and nominate it: we could add a small section on the vintage, manufacture and installation of the cover, and the tools required to prize it out, largely borrowed from existing articles, and there we have it, a spanking new bronze star. What is the limit? I could write a beautiful stub on my front doormat, too, but the same applies. Tony   (talk)  02:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate scope is certainly a problem, but the proposal you've made has to do with word count, not scope. For many topics the appropriate scope is obvious (for instance, most biographies have an obvious scope), and that scope may or may not result in an article of 1200 words when brought to a comprehensive state. I don't think your solution applies well to the problem you've identified. To your first point, stubs by definition are not comprehensive, so that concern does not worry me. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So you don't agree that size and scope interact in an undesirable way, especially when either is small/narrow? That was my point. How do you propose to deal with the increasing proportion of smallish FAs that are either uninteresting or unremarkable (to most readers, I make an assumption here). Do we want to damage the status of FA by admitting superb little articles on my front doormat? Or every little back street? Or every storm that has ever been? I'd be delighted if you could inject a more constructive layer into your comments; rather than sitting back and pot-shooting at good-faith attempts to address these issues, can you come from the opposite end as well? To start with, you state that "innapropriate scope is certainly a problem"; but since scope as such is almost impossible to quantify or draw a boundary for, the next best quantum is length. Since my point is that length typically does correlate with scope, it's the tool at hand. If FAs went to a panel of assessors who had ultimate and unbridled power to apply their subjective will, scope might be a functional issue. But this is not the case, and where there's a problem, we must make do with the best boundaries we have. Tony  (talk)  10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, pardon me if I am misunderstanding you, but would you explain the comment about your front door mat? Surely the notability bar would eliminate such an article?  And surely, if such a topic were in fact to be notable, you would not automatically oppose it at FAC if it were 3,000 words, though you might oppose for specific reasons?  So isn't your concern really about length, not notability and interest?  Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And Tony, a proposal has been made: take the small FAs to a separate nomination page. Marskell (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim, if you're referring to the proposal for a short-FA process, separate to the existing one, I'm sorry to say that I think it's the very worst thing that could happen: it would siphon off scarce reviewing resources, and give the imprimatur to the star collectors who want easy pickings. I have to oppose it strongly.
 * Mike, yes, you're right in a way about notability. I still want Parham's take on addressing the problem of short FAs on minor cyclones that might, strictly speaking, pass on notability, but are likely to bore the nuts off our readers (male, anyway), such as Tropical Storm Erick (2007) (I think it's still listed at FAC). Tony   (talk)  13:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, I think you're conflating issues now. You're suggesting there's necessarily a correlation between length and how interesting an article is. There isn't. Hundreds of the current FAs of every size bore my nuts off. It has little to do with length and everything to do with individual interest. If all of the cyclones that didn't make landfall in 2007 were grouped into, say, a 3000 word article, you'd still be bored with it—more so. FA has never had an importance requirement and you're hinting at introducing one; don't let the video gamers know.


 * As for a short article process, don't underestimate the degree to which it could bring in new reviewers, particularly GAN people who find FAC punctilious and intimidating. Given that Sandy is in favour of some form of it, I don't see why we don't do a trial. Marskell (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Marksell, I was in favor, but I think G-Guy's idea of accomplishing the same thing by putting a few Good Articles in the main page's WP:DYK section has the potential to reach a wider set of people in a more comfortable way, and over time, produce a lot of new FAC reviewers. I invite everyone to weigh in at WT:WGA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Scope in my view is already dealt with by existing guidelines including WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH; articles that reflect aspects of another topic should not be spun out of the parent unless the parent is growing too long. Looking through current FAs, I am not sure that some of these meteorological history article pass muster on that account. I don't think we need new solutions to address scope issues at FAC.
 * To answer your other point, we do want excellent articles on every storm that has ever been, at least those that pass our inclusion requirements. Part of the reason I offer few recommendations for changes is that I don't feel there's a problem in this area; if in the next year we create a thousand new storm FAs, we've added to Wikipedia a thousand comprehensive, well-written, well-sourced articles on notable topics. That's a great achievement. The fact that some readers, including yourself apparently, aren't interested in them is unfortunate - but I think that lack of interest has little to do with the scope of the articles, and it's hardly reason not to acknowledge their quality. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Break 1
If a very short FAC passes, it's going to cause trouble. Many people will believe that it was a case of clever wikilawyering to get around the rules that apply to everyone else, or a case of trading reviewing favors (which would almost certainly be an unfair suspicion, but the suspicion will certainly arise). Also, FAC has no mechanism for encouraging work on the pages that get read the most, and that's fine, we can build that mechanism into other review processes; but surely we don't want FAC to be discouraging work on the subjects that have the most coverage in secondary sources, by applying a double-standard of requiring these featured articles to be much longer than featured articles on minor tropical storms and roads. (This is not a criticism of these shorter articles, just a plea for fairness.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right: an important part of our admiration for an article—indeed any work of art or intellectual product—is that it was hard to do; this includes the amount of work involved. Similarly, the boundary between cleverness and diligence, between technique and artistry, has always been difficult to define. This is why very small FAs will undermine the status of the badge. Tony   (talk)  14:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Being bold
I read through the incredibly tedious stalled discussion above and it seems there is some degree of consensus that articles should be a certain length to the featured (since a comprehensive 500 word article simply can't be considered "our best work"). The exact length seems to be a point of disagreement, however. As most people seem to agree that articles should be at least 1,000 words, why don't we go ahead and add that to the criteria, and that should at least take care of the low hanging fruit. If the FAC load is still too high, or someone creates a Featured Short Articles process, we can reconvene and change it to something higher like 1200, or 1250, or 1500, or whatever. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that consensus, and think that stability on this page is particularly crucial. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert if you like. I should warn you that I have a boatload of comprehensive sub-1000 word articles I would love to see featured, however. I've never nominated them, however, since I always assumed there was an unwritten limit. If articles like Tropical Storm Erick (2007) pass FAC, however, I can't see any reason why I shouldn't nominate them all. Kaldari (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say if I agreed or disagreed with your view, just that I think it particularly important that this page reflect consensus and be stable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the discussion on this topic took place on WT:FAC (check the archives) rather than here. Also, if you have reviewed Tropical Storm Erick (2007) against the existing criteria and found that it satisfied them all, you may wish to support it on its FAC page (and I look forward to all your short but otherwise perfect FA candidates flying through on its coat tails). Yomangani talk 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the consensus either, so I already reverted that change. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording changes to 1b
As a result of many conversations, here, at WT:FAC, and elsewhere, I suggest criterion 1b needs some clarification. 1b currently says of a featured article that it is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details". The debate has been over whether "major facts or details" might include information which is not available in reliable secondary sources. One interpretation of 1b says an article fails 1b if it omits important information, even if that information is unsourceable. This interpretation implies that some articles are inherently not featurable. The other interpretation says an article that uses all reliable sources is by definition comprehensive and passes 1b. This implies that such an article might be very short indeed and still pass.

I propose that we change 1b to one of the following, depending on which is the correct interpretation.

Version 1: "even if"
 * (b) comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details, even if no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details;


 * -- or --

Version 2: "unless"
 * (b) comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details, unless no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details;

I phrased it as "thought to exist" to allow for reviewer judgement as to the existence of a source; if someone asserts that a bio of Magic Johnson doesn't need a birthdate because no sources exist, scepticism would be reasonable, and this phrasing allows for that.

I'm a proponent of the second version, so I am probably not the best person to make the case for the first one. In summary, I believe the case for "even if" to be that an article missing significant information does not represent our best work, and FA represents our best work -- a subset of all our work. The case for "unless" is that FA should represent the best that any tertiary source can do; there's no value in withholding FA from an article if it can't be done better.

I suggest a straw poll, with comments, to see if either of these can gain support. I feel either is better than the status quo.

Even if (version 1)
Change 1b to read "(b) comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details, even if no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details;"


 * Second Third choice. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Last choice. Prefer to have some reviewer descretion so that we are not cutting off our noses to spite our faces ... as this, on a strict reading, would severly hamper articles on ancient sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - clearly disasterous for articles on medieval & older subjects. We don't even know the name of the subject of several of the biographies I work on, in Category:Anonymous artists, but many have had several books written on them.  Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ealdgyth. Additionally, it sounds as if we're promoting the inclusion of unsourced material. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose If no sources are thought to exist they are not facts. Graham Colm Talk 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. third choice. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am a subscriber to the "unless" option - rst20xx (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as explained by Ealdgyth, Johnbod and doesn't resolve the current comprehensive issues raised. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This implies that all topics (in a given field) will carry the same weight, with all of the same things written about them. It also implies that if an editor feels that "Article X doesn't contain controversy Y about the topic," a controversy said editor identifies (but no one else) then that means that the article is not really comprehensive. It lends to the idea that editors can see things that have "yet" to be written about that, and that means that since the editor saw it someone else will one day and thus the article is not comprehensive. I disagree with this theory. "Wikipedia's best work" means the quality of the writing and the reporting of the information available. It has nothing to do with theorizing what facts a topic may or may not have, given that there are no sources available to prove such facts.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a good wording for this idea. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Confusing. Marskell (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I like the idea of this, but there are too many loopholes/necessary exceptions. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our mission as an encyclopedia is to document verifiable human knowledge. Any perceived lack of such-and-such unverifiable information should be absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia and to the featured article process. Just as crystal ballery doesn't belong in article content, it doesn't belong in the FAC process, either. In addition, if we applied this criterion to the letter, silly arguments like "Plato's precise birth and death dates cannot be verified" would waste the time of FAC reviewers. szyslak  ( t ) 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal seems remote from the discussion that I remember participating in - about whether ultra-short articles that technically met FA criteria could be considered as reflecting wikipedia's best work. I favoured the simple blunt instrument of a minimum word-limit, but the discussion grew increasingly complex and the actual problem, it seemed to me, got side-tracked. We ended up, after about 400kb of discussion, questioning whether there was a problem at all. Whatever the problem is/was, this isn't the answer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if (version 2)
Change 1b to read "(b) comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details expected in coverage of a topic of its class, even if no sources are thought to exist for currently neglected information, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to fill those gaps".


 * Second choice. Mike Christie (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First choice - Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - (ec) still seems to exclude Plato, and too convoluted. You can write an incomplete article on the grounds that at some point in the future better information will be available? Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't - that was the whole point of "expected in coverage of a topic of its class" (please see discussion below). Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is convoluted - I agree with that - I'm still trying to think of a better way to phrase it. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaning support, but I don't think the wording is quite fleshed out, and I'm not certain the wording resolves the issues that led to this discussion. I'd much rather see a discussion of the wording before a straw poll is launched; this poll was launched simultaneously with proposed wording.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. second choice. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am a subscriber to the "unless" option - rst20xx (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Johnbod. Also, see my comments below at the "Unless" section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Confusing. Marskell (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Awfully confusing wording!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See redraft below. Awadewit (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Redraft: "it neglects no major facts or details pertinent to an understanding of the topic" [Note: I think the caveat about sources is actually only necessary for those who want to claim that we only have to cover what the sources cover.] Awadewit (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose both drafts. Too verbose. Does not seem to support the inclusion of articles where secondary sources would be hard to find. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "hard to find" meaning what, exactly? Awadewit (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Second choice after the current version, which IMO says the same thing and is less verbose than this proposal (see also my comment below).--Yannismarou (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if no sources are thought to exist for currently neglected information, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to fill those gaps. If we think correctly that no current sources exist, what are these future sources? How can we be sure they will exist? If this is intended to cover such things as movies before release, where the data is still confidential, I'm not sure we should feature them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sept, comment also on the second version proposed by Awadewit.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It neglects no major facts or details pertinent to an understanding of the topic. as the whole statement, should be perfectly fine. Impertinent details should be neglected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to above: It is specifically to avoid incomplete article such as unreleased movies, which I agree should not be featred. They can become featured once the sources are produced. Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Too long. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? The length of the statement has nothing to do with its value at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. You know, I was thinking that it was too convoluted and with too many loopholes, but upon second reading, I find that this is the closest of the options to what I am hoping for, so I am switching to support.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/Request Awadewit, could you restate this in its entirety (with the revision). I think this is the closest to what I think 1b should be, but the wording is so confusing that I may be completely wrong: ...it neglects no major facts or details expected in coverage of a topic of its class, even if no sources are thought to exist for currently neglected information, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to fill those gaps".. As I read this: if future sources will appear, it is OK to neglect those major facts and details likely to be covered in the future. I can't believe that is what you meant. Should the "unless..." be "unless future sources are unlikely to fill those gaps"? or am I barking up completely the wrong tree? Yomangani talk 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The revision is "it neglects no major facts or details pertinent to an understanding of the topic". - I have dispensed with the whole "unless" and "even" bits because I feel with this definition, the caveats are unnecessary. With this definition, we are stating that the article must cover all the major topics expected in an article of its kind (this covers the "Plato" problem - we would not expect an article on an ancient person to include information on birthdates that will never be available). You are correct that it does not mean the article can pass FAC if it is missing material on crucial topics simply because no scholar has bothered to investigate those issues yet (this would cover Mounseer Nongtongpaw). We could add your version of the "unlikely" clause to the new draft, if you feel it is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can support this revised version. (NB this does not mean I withdraw my support for the version below; I can support both versions.)  Of course, there is still plenty of latitude for interpretation of what's meant by "pertinent to an understanding."  I argued, and continue to believe, that knowing his date of birth was not "pertinent to an understanding" of Peter Wall, for instance.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But the two versions represent fundamentally different versions of what it means to be "comprehensive". :) Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. Which reminds me that I want to beef up my comment below... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is precisely the problem - we aren't using a consistent definition when reviewing. We need to agree on one definition. Awadewit (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. I'm not saying we adopt both wordings.  Simply that I support both.  (If you like, that I support either.)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think without the caveat it is a restating of the criterion as it currently stands (although perhaps not how it is currently interpreted), but I'm not a fan of straw polls, so don't put it in on my account. Yomangani talk 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - on the same grounds as the earlier proposal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless
Change 1b to read "(b) comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details, unless no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details;"


 * First choice. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First second choice I can deal with this, as it allows reviewer descretion, but yet at least removes some ambiquity. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. NB however, I do think that this could should be usefully combined with a minimum length: otherwise we could have one-sentence FAs on Anglo-Saxon priests... (Have subsequently revised this to make the minimum length a requirement.)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Jbm Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, please explain why you have "opposed" at Featured article candidates/Space Science Fiction Magazine, then. I don't understand. You say that the article fails the "comprehensivesness" test there, but the article covers all of the published material on the magazine. This is precisely the problem I am trying to highlight. People are !voting for this definition, but when it comes to reviewing, they are using a much broader definition of "comprehensive". Awadewit (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the article was about a different subject, the publisher, as I explained there. It would make more sense re-purposed to that topic, where it would lack comprehensiveness. I still favour a minimum word count, but this seems a step in the right direction. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The unbalanced nature of the article is a direct result of the fact that so little has been written about the magazine. That concern would be amply dealt with using a broader definition of "comprehensive" but would not be addressed by a word count - a longer article could still be unbalanced and neglect to mention important elements of the magazine. Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is exactly what leads to incomplete articles that have been opposed such as Space Science Fiction Magazine and Peter Wall. I do not think that manifestly incomplete articles should be promoted as "Wikipedia's best work". Let's find a way to define "comprehensive" that is reasonable, not drastic. Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Adopting the proposal with "even" will lead to really bizarre results. So my choice is this proposal. Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support this I think that this is a good wording that ensures that objections on the basis of comprehensiveness will be actionable. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Ruslik0. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This one will be the fairest and not give rise to un-actionable opposes. Graham Colm Talk 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be the most reasonable option. --mav (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only sensible choice from those on offer IMO, although I can't really see it making much difference. My concern is that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, so this seems to put the onus on the reviewer to prove that available sources which contain missing major facts or details have been neglected, which seems impractical. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. first choice. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - rst20xx (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, rather than resolving the comprehensive issue, this option passes on the problem. I also oppose this straw poll as premature, as the wording on the other options hasn't been fleshed out yet. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also unclear, since this poll was launched rather quickly, if editors supporting this option understand that it endorses featured status to articles like Utah State Route 103 and Tropical Storm Erick (2007), or if the intent is to engage 2(b) when little of significance can be said about a topic. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I can't speak for other editors, but I have voted in what I believe to be a full understanding of the issues. One of which is that wikilawyering around a TOC requirement is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory definition of what the present requirement for "comprehensive" actually means in practice. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-checking, Johnbod's is the confusing one, as he supports this but opposes the magazine. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity's sake then, I have supported both this proposal and the magazine. Johnbod must of course speak for himself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reasons restated above. I don't agree this lets in the roads at all - as Eagylth points out, their project concensus that nothing not deduceable from a map need be said about the area traversed should not be accepted. The storms, especially if they don't reach land, may be more difficult. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - I think a better option would be to combine this one with the second version of "even if". In other words: "comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details, unless no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details and said sources would not appear within a reasonable amount of time." -- Basically, my argument is that you cannot say, "episode X airs on October 12, 2008...and is put up for FA November 1, 2008". There isn't enough time to actually show that the article truely is comprehensive, and if you give free reign to say, "Hey, there are no sources" then you're going to have articles at FAC that are barely a month old. This way, it gives to the possibility that there are going to be sources with a reasonable amount of time, and also means that there would basically be a time frame requirement for FA articles. If a topic is five years old, and you've exhausted all sources than nothing should inhibit you from being FA if you're comprehensive in what is available. On the other hand, if you've exhausted all sources and the topic is only a couple months old then you cannot legitimately say something is "comprehensive" when enough time has not gone by to create any type of historical presence.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The caveat overwhelms the primary point. The potential for weakening is great. Marskell (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Though clear in terms of wording (as opposed to the previous proposals), I am afraid that this particular proposal leads to the weakening of FA criteria, and not to their strengthening.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Addresses the need for short articles. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This may put the onus on the reviewer to prove that another source exists. maclean 15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Giano (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose since I do not want short articles to become FAs. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support I see no reason to object to short articles becoming FA, as such; reviewers may actually read them through and check the footnotes. Weak because thought to exist is a little weak: we don't want "I found one book, and I decided not to look further" to be the operational standards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I thought "thought" is not defined by the nominator, otherwise we will get 1k prose stubs through...  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 02:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; within the context or meaning the existence of a fact depends upon the existence of a reliable source for it. Any other interpretation demands original research. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but I think it could be worded in a way that addresses the general principles involved without the need for instruction-creepy "unless" clauses. How about, "...neglects no major facts or details, in the context of current knowledge about the article's subject". Of course, a proposal for entirely different wording might merit its own discussion. szyslak  ( t ) 10:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the upcoming Manhole Cover In Front of My House FAC Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is, more or less, the de facto interpretation of 1b. Codifying it and treating the criteria as if they are set in stone only invites Ling.Nut's riveting series of manhole cover articles (sorry if you are a manhole cover fan). Yomangani talk 14:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the caveat weakens it too much. Avenue (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes sense. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No change
Leave 1b unchanged.


 * Last choice. There's clearly ambiguity (just look at the tens of thousands of words of discussion on this topic).  We need to clarify this. Mike Christie (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second third choice, I'd rather take this choice than wade into waters where Plato can't become a FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. fourth choice. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice: first, because no problem has been clearly defined that can't be handled by 2b (substantial TOC), and second, because several of the options above haven't been thoroughly fleshed out or will not address the issues that led to this discussion. FAC is currently working fine, so unless we are going to make a clear improvement, we should leave well enough alone.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that the other options could lead to alot of discretion for reviwers and could lead to inconsistancy due to reviwers having different opinions on if there are any reliable sources around. This would be very hard to judge. Also a possible downfall of this also is that what if after an article is promoted and a new book/ internet source is made available but as the article is already an FA very little research will be done to find things like this out and it is unrealistic for people to look for things like this to overcome this problem. If this already mentioned sorry for bringing it up again if it has already been resolved as I have not read all the opinions on the subject as it is very long. 02blythed (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support; I'm in favour of using common sense and good judgement. Giggy (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support insofar as I feel this strawpoll is premature. We seem to have a pathological desire to waste words at the moment. Marskell (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Maskell. Nothing more to add!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as the second choice. The current version is still better than proposal 1. Ruslik (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral: This is the only option that I have not opposed in this polling section; I am not fond of it, but it seems to exclude short articles more than the other options. Oppose.  – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  18:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is fine because of the practical interpretation having the same effect as all the early ones.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 02:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's not have this discussion again; that's why we should change the language that provoked it. I observe that Plato now has a long footnote on what we do know about the birthdate; this is preferable to silence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - would prefer the "Unless" change. I think the Manholes scenario is unrealistic - rst20xx (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - This is not the way to address article size, if that is what is happening here. Ambiguity is much better than nailing down further how comprehensive an article must be. Unless brainless "comprehensiveness" is to be desired, more though needs to be given to the idea of "comprehensiveness". How does adding "it neglects no major facts or details, unless no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details" help in clarifying this problem? It just provides another line of argument: is a source thought to exist for those facts or details?  Editors in FAC are already obsessive enough  about including every known detail, leading to "excessive verbiage" and endless articles. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Some examples to consider: Space Science Fiction Magazine, Peter Wall, Plato, Mounseer Nongtongpaw, Barack Obama. While at the WT:FAC, reviewers overwhelming decided to define "comprehensive" as "all published material", when it came to reviewing, they started to oppose to Space Science Fiction Magazine because it simply did not contain enough information (despite covering all of the published material). The same happened with the Peter Wall article. So, while defining "comprehensive" one way on the talk page, many reviewers were actually using another definition in practice. I have long thought that it is a problem to promote articles that are manifestly incomplete (even if that incompleteness is a result of a lack of sources). "Mounseer Nongtongpaw" would be a good example - not enough scholarship has been written on this piece of literature to write a full article on its themes, genre, etc. Different problems arise with an article like Barack Obama, which is constantly changing. Should we promote articles which we know are incomplete in a substantial way? Obama's biography will change dramatically, especially if he becomes president of the United States. This article will not remain "the best of Wikipedia" as it changes every week. Further problems in arise in articles like Plato, however, which will always remain incomplete in terms of expected biographical information. The article will never be thin or short, but it will always be lacking information basic biographical information. The biggest problem I see here is separating the Platos of the world from the Nongtongpaws of the world. Nongtongpaw is waiting for scholarship to be done - Plato is not. However, how can we convey this difference in the definition of "comprehensive"? Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If something like "or are likely to exist in the future" is added, that would exclude Peter Wall, whose obituaries will presumably one day give secondary sources for the basic biographical information, but retain the medieval & ancient subjects. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try that. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is scholarship on Nongtongpaw "likely to exist"? How about on Space SF?  I agree, this does deal with Plato, so that's a step in the right direction.  "Likely" sounds like a case for reviewer discretion, again.  Is that OK?  Mike Christie (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We will always have some reviewer discretion and the entire point is that scholarship can be done on these topics and considering how much scholarship advances, I would say it is entirely likely. Awadewit (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Awa) Awadewit hit the problem on the head here. How do we make sure that modern timeframe articles get comprehensive coverage without drawing the criteria so tight that we can't cover antiquity and medieval time frames well? On top of her examples, I'd add New York State Route 174, where I tried to get some additional coverage on the surroundings of the road (something I would consider mandated by comprehensive) but was told by the nominators that it wasn't required. Or Alien (movie) which is at FAC right now, where it has garnered some opposes based on a lack of mention of it's feminist interpretations (I happen to agree that that if it's covered in significant feminist scholarly sources, then yes, it should be included. I couldn't possibly judge if it is or not, though). Those are modern articles, where Awa's points hold well. HOwever, it falls severely flat with the older historical articles. We don't know Plato's birthdate with any certainty. Or look at Stigand, we don't know much about him, but I think I've assembled every single fact available as well as most significant discussions of him. The problem came up at the FAC though, that someone wanted to give a guess on his birth year, but I couldn't do that because it's not something speculated in the sources, probably because most scholars assume we will do the math and get something around 1015 or so, so they don't discuss it. Do we shoot down the possibility of folks such as Stigand getting covered by an FA because one (albeit important) fact isn't covered in secondary sources? We obviously need to get a handle on things because not having a good working definition that all reviewers are following is definitely leading to inconsistency, but it's a hard problem to get a handle on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of this comes down to reviewer discretion - to fail an article as substantial as Stigand because of one fact would be absurd. We need some kind of comparative definition for "comprehensive" as well, obviously. What would one expect of an article of Stigand's kind, given the its timeframe, for example? I always ask myself that when reviewing, but that is a hard thing to define. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "it neglects no major facts or details for coverage of that topic; that is, the article must cover all expected areas for its particular subject - if there are insufficient published sources to cover all expected areas of the topic, the article cannot become featured" - would some wording like this work? Awadewit (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details, even if no sources are thought to exist for those facts or details, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to address those facts or details;"? The repetition of "facts or details" needs to be eliminated, but does that cover it? Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "comprehensive; it neglects no major facts or details expected in coverage of a topic of its class, even if no sources are thought to exist for currently neglected information, unless future sources can be reasonably expected to fill those gaps" (revise again, please) Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we cut "expected in a topic of its class"? Seems like that's automatically implied, and concision is good.  If you're OK with that I suggest we edit the section heading above with that wording.
 * Once that's done, is there any reason for me not to notify those who've participated in the various earlier parts of this discussion? I am optimistic that this discussion is the right one to have, so I think it would be good to maximize participation.  I'll drop a note on the talk page of everyone who has posted at one of the main discussion locations. Mike Christie (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to use that as a way to avoid the Plato problem - as a way to introduce sane comparisons. So, for example, we would not expect any articles about ancient people to have solid birth dates because it is impossible, however we would expect literature articles to discuss themes of the works because that is important to all literature. Awadewit (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, something like that is needed. Are we ready to change the heading? Mike Christie (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I decided it made more sense to make it another option than replacing one of the existing ones. Hope that's OK.  Any reason for me not to start notifying people? Mike Christie (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notify away. Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notify away. Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand $$\exists x s.t. \forall \epsilon>0 \exists N s.t. \forall n\geq N |x_n -x|<\epsilon$$, I'm having some trouble parsing the meaning of the new option. Can an article which needs (expected) future sources to complete it be featured or not? Is there a shorter and clearer way to word this? Geometry guy 19:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm encouraged that this discussion has finally come back around to the original issue raised:  a discussion of 1(b).  I'm concerned though that we've moved quickly to a straw poll without yet examining the link between 1(b) and 2(b) with respect to the issues that led to this discussion.  A "substantial" TOC has always been present in some form of this page; I'm concerned that a straw poll about 1(b) that doesn't also examine 2(b) may leave us with an unsatisfactory and uncertain conclusion.  A "substantial" TOC assures that there is enough material about the topic to write a significant article. (I've had equal concerns in the past about 2(b) overwhelming TOCs, as they can be an indication that Summary style isn't adequately employed.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering people are !voting to support the definition that is usually overturned in actual reviewing, such as Space Science Fiction Magazine and Peter Wall, does this mean the straw poll is meaningless or that our reviews are poor? :) Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the two things are inconsistent; and that that's because 1b is ambiguous. Sandy, I thought about delaying the straw poll but the !voter exhaustion that's already evident, plus the very extensive discussions that have already taken elsewhere, some of which directly addressed this point, seemed to justify a quick move. Mike Christie (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned that editors are already weighing in while there is still a "convoluted" factor in the wording; I haven't finished catching up on my watchlist yet this morning, but I haven't yet sorted what each option says. Might it be better to hold off on declarations until the wording is better nailed down?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean, not go at wiki-speed? Take several days to work out the precise wording of each option? Wow, that would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Sorry if this went too fast; I thought it was OK to do so -- see the note on my talk page for a response to Sandy on this.  In the meantime, I'll try to put a gloss together on the version Awadewit worked on; perhaps that will help.  (And Awadewit, I was careful to get a "Let's do it!" from you above before I started -- I thought we were close enough.)  I'll work on a gloss for the newest option. Mike Christie (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping more people would discuss. :( Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL ! Well, I woke up this morning and spent quite a while just sorting archives at FAC, my watchlist is going off like crazy because someone is notifying every editor talk page that I have watched, and I haven't yet sorted how any of the proposals above resolve the extra-short hurricane/road/music/album issues.  Can someone pass me a fast clue so I don't have to engage my brain?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like any of the proposals, so I'm abstaining. To Sandy: I can't give you an answer because one doesn't exist. Hence why I'm not voting for any of the above proposals. Tell me again why a minimum word count was a bad idea?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 20:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is arbitrary. It basically says "we don't like short articles therefore they will not be featured". There is no real argument there, I'm afraid. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on the albums one, it could be that we'd need more beefed up themes and reception sections. On roads, I'd start pushing for more inclusion of information on the terrain/etc. in the area. No clue on hurricanes, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, a word count doesn't have to be arbitrary. If a page is a little short of the minimum, Raul or Sandy can make a judgement call on it. I just refuse to believe that 400-500 word articles can represent our best work. My college essays haven't been any longer than that.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why concerns about short FAs are being addressed through changes to criteria 1b and not criteria 1a? Or am I missing the point entirely?  Plasticup  T / C  21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you have in mind here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the criticisms of short articles that I have seen are that their brevity does not give them a chance to exhibit "brilliant prose", to "engage" the reader, nor to establish themselves as "our very best work". I think this whole issue could be resolved through a stricter reading of criteria 1a: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.  Plasticup  T / C  23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see that at all, and I can envision Yomangani dispelling the notion by writing an absolutely stunning 500-word article on an obscure topic. Doesn't address the issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's the problem? If he does that very difficult thing, and produces a "jewel five hundred words long", we should feature it to encourage others to do likewise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then maybe I am talking about a different issue. I'll go back and read the whole page again.  Plasticup  T / C  23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The polling above reveals a very strange trend: the option garnering the most support is the one directly in opposition to FAC declarations and concern expressed at WT:FAC about ultra-short FAs. Have editors declaring here really understood the proposals and how they relate directly to the FACs that led to the concern? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly not. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the two are causally related, hence why I partially supported the third option. Meaning, you can have an article that is 50kb large and still be deemed "non-comprehensive". It merely depends on the information that is present. If all the information is from primary sources, and it's all encyclopedic information amounting to a large article, it can still be deemed to not be comprehensive. That is why I wouldn't mind an additional criteria about size being implimented.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My feelings - there is too much conversation and too much to keep up. I doubt I'll be able to find any responses if anyone bothers to say anything, but my feelings are thus: I don't think an article below 20k or above 100k really fit in the guidelines of comprehensive or summary style. Even if there are no resources to make an article above 20k, it means that the topic is not large enough to be fully comprehensive and should not be an FA. If an article is far above 100k, that means that it is not to the point about what is important. I believe that this 80k range is a magic number that should be used to define what can be a Featured Article and what does not deserve to be. Also, I feel that an article with less than 10 different sources is not comprehensive enough to be worth the FA status. I don't know how to vote above, as the language is far too confusing to put forth any options that I can see truly adequate, and I feel that a lot of the conversation is utterly confusing. However, I'm not part of the whole FA group, and my ideas on what is encyclopedic or not has always come in conflict with others, especially when it comes to size. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Words. Words, words, words! There's some great Pablo Neruda quote about loving words. It eludes me at the moment because I am beginning to hate them. Quickly:
 * Agree that people don't seem to be aware of what they are agreeing to in third option.
 * Agree that we need more wording options before polling them.
 * Disagree that "substantial" has a substantial bearing on this. It's lawyer-ish and I've never heard it invoked previously as a tacit length clause. Marskell (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent
Just a thought from an outsider: How about…


 * 1) *(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details that are pertinent* to a quality article.
 * * thefreedictionary.com: “Having logical precise relevance to the matter at hand.”


 * That’s my 2¢. Greg L (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "pertinent" is a good word - adopted above. Awadewit (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it self-evident that the the facts or details which should not be neglected should be "pertinent to an understanding of the topic"? I think the meaning of the sentence is already complete without the addition of the "pertinent" part.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I believe one can omit major facts on a subject and it can still be a quality article; an article doesn’t always have to be comprehensive to be good. But I accept that my proposal didn’t fly well here. Greg L (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Another dimension
Some thoughts. I believe this straw poll was triggered when it was noticed that Peter Wall failed on the comprehensive criterion and that perhaps a tweaking of that criterion was in order. But I believe that criterion is fine. FAC worked fine with Peter Wall and the candidacy failed. The original problem as mentioned by Sandy was the hurricane and road articles which attain FA and I assume more will come in other subject areas. These articles are "comprehensive", but they are extremely narrow in scope. And the potential is there to become ever narrower (e.g., an article on a truck stop area on a road). Unfortunately, there was a little sidetrack on short articles because no one could come up with good criterion on scope. Anyway, I don't like word-counts either although I accepted them as compromise. So perhaps someone should try to come up with a good scope criterion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a solution to that: Tony's manhole cover isn't notable, and an article on it should be deleted for lack of notability whether it is put up for FA or not. On the other hand, if we are going to have articles on things which are narrow but notable  (on, e.g., every highway in North America), we are better off, however slightly, to have great ones. Note also that an article written to a cookie-cutter formula, like the bot-written American muncipal articles, fails criterion (1a), by hypothesis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FAC worked fine with Peter Wall No, it didn't; that review began with "Oppose, this article has no info-box" and went downhill from there. The appeal to irrelevant and immaterial standards is one of the banes of FA. In an effort to salvage this absurdity, the opposer leapt to the (quite true) assertion that several of the standard items in a info-box are not in Peter Wall, because Peter Wall's early life is somewhat mysterious. This does happen from time to time; Trollope would suggest that it is particularly likely to happen with nouveau riche financiers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanket oppose&mdash;to me, the proposed wording changes are either redundant and/or excessive. &mdash; Deckiller 05:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org links
Hi. I'm looking for evidence that we support the use of links to archive.org within the "External links" section, when helpful, for a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links where they are trying to eliminate all of them, again. They've requested that I find a FeaturedArticle promoted within the last year, that includes a wayback template or similar. Can anyone help with that, or provide other advice? Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive33 and EL thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 3: "must"?
Consider changing cri 3 to:


 * Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status, and non-free images or media within it satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content using appropriate labels.

or any other way which removes the "must" (I'm not sure about my proposal's grammar). All of the other criteria here (and in WP:WIAGA) simply declare what an FA (or GA) has (e.g. it has) instead of prescribing them (e.g. it must have). Its GA analogue says "" as of now.

(I won't be bold with criteria so highly visible.) --an odd name 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'll change it myself after 21:14, 17 December 2008 if no one objects here. --an odd name 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Lacking feedback, I changed it as planned. For reference or reverting, the prior version. --an odd name 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice from Wikipedians
Might want to look through User:Juliancolton/FA writing links and see if there's anything suitable for WP:WIAFA. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Near-verbatim copying of cited source
I have recently opposed an FAC as it seems that parts of it, at least, consist of selections from source material, copied, minimally modified, and pasted into the article. The material is not quoted but is cited, and I have not claimed plagiarism. It seems to me however that unquoted material should not adopt the structure, phrasing, and wording of the sources, even if cited. It leads to an inconsistent writing style, and in particular to abrupt changes from more vernacular prose to technical language. Thoughts would be appreciated on the degree to which FACs should be judged on their inclusion of near-verbatim unquoted but cited transcriptions of source matter. Moreover, at some level a close transcription of source matter implicates copyright, as adverted to in this discussion on translated text. Kablammo (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a clear tension between the increasing tendency to require citations for even the most trivial of facts and avoiding the appearance of plagiarism. There are a limited number of ways in which a three-word sentence can be reworked, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 08:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But as we know, many articles, from DYKs to FAs, contain whole clauses, sentences, and multiple paragraphs with trivial changes in punctuation, arrangement, or words, but which still mirror or repeat verbatim copyrighted text. Such articles should be quick-failed, as discussed elsewhere.  Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensive? Special?
There seems to be a new standard for reviewing FAC’s that does not have any base in the criteria. People now seem to think that an article should be “special” for becoming a FA. It is no longer enough that the article is notable and comprehensive. Recently, you can see this in Featured article candidates/The Day the Violence Died and Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter. I don’t think these are actionable objections.

Speaking as a Simpsons editor I realize that the episode articles can never become very long, but that doesn’t mean that they are not comprehensive. We have over a 100 Simpson episode GA’s. We only select the best for FAC. Featured article candidates/The Principal and the Pauper/archive2 was not promoted with the only objection being that the article should be over 20 KB in size. Where can I find that in the criteria?

I think we should either rewrite the criteria or start following it. --Maitch (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any reviewer comments that do not adhere to the criteria here are disregarded when making the decision whether to archive or promote or a nomination. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for The Principal and the Pauper, maybe SandyGeorgia et al. were invoking one or both of the "consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information et cetera" points; there were lots of comments but only one clear Support from Matthewedwards, so I guess the FA people felt an "on the fence" vibe even with all the resolved issues. From a quick skim, I think it might get more support in a third FAC; of course, reviewing for FAC is not about quick skims, so I might be wildly wrong. --an odd name 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles are generally not promoted with only one support, even if all comments are resolved. If an article has been nominated for some time without several supports it is usually archived. Karanacs (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never even passed an FA, so I'm not going to be the one to actually change the criteria. That said, there are a number of unwritten rules that will kill you nom.  I think the best thing to do would be for the closer to write a few sentences on why the close happened the way it did.  After a while, we can look these over and bring the criteria into line with reality. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic relevance
I propose a condition is added concerning encyclopedic relevance. New York State Route 382 is now a FAC. It most probably does or will fulfill the criteria. But their is a fierce debate on whether this phenomenon is sufficiently notable. It seems to me that there is a proliferation of FACs on subjects that are not very noteable at all. I also think that it is currently easier to create a FA on a very narrow subject than on a broad. The FA phenomenon in itself should be designed to spur the writers to writers to create valuable material. The current criteria ensure high quality but do not in themselves stimulate creation of articles that are of value to many. --Ettrig (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you paid the writers of these articles they might feel more inclined to produce material that you feel is "encyclopedic", instead of encyclopedic material that interests them? --Malleus Fatuorum 07:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant to an FAC whether an article's subject is "encyclopedic" or interesting. The only thing that matters is whether it meets criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ettrig, you may not think this is particularly important, but the been a spurt of "uninteresting" nominations in a couple topics means that Wikipedia's overall coverage in that area is good. I would defy anyone to find a better online source for roads or tropical cyclones than Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Serves the needs of the expected readership
Surely this is the most important criterion for any article yet it is not mentioned in the FA criteria. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive is the most appropriate measure that we have. Most articles have no easily defined "expected readership" group.  Articles can be viewed by everyone from elementary students to experts in the field.  If an article is comprehensive and written in an understandable format, it should be able to meet the needs of most if not all of the potential readership. Karanacs (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, people still oppose when they feel that the article's subject does not "deserve" to be featured, anyways. Gary King  ( talk ) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain my edit of January 9, 2009
In the edit summary I wrote "test with broken references problem". I called it a test, because I wasn't sure that I had found the cause of the problem, but now, after having made the change, I see I did.

The project page Featured article criteria included the line " blablabla ", creating a reference.

The project page was in its turn included in the template grading scheme which was part of article WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment/Category header which was part of 28 category pages.

These were 28 of the 33 subcategories of Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. So that's why. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ambiguous phrase: "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge
This phrase is ambiguous: "...accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Does it mean that the article should accurately represent the facts or the quality of the scholarship? If strictly the former, then I propose new wording to ensure that sources do a fairly good job of reflecting the quality of the scholarship.

Metroid Prime is not John Wilkes Booth; the former topic is covered by few academic-quality references (or more likely, none). The latter is a topic of great interest to historians. I think WIAFA should indicate that standards of sourcing should reflect quality of scholarship. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree, better references should be used where possible and phased in for older articles. Too many articles just use tourism websites and whatnot.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest merely adding five words,"accurately represents the facts and quality of the relevant body of published knowledge"  but the words should be carefully selected. The words "facts" and "quality" are a bit imprecise. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "relevant" cover quality? You leave out the beginning of the phrase in your quote above: "claims...accurately represent the". The criteria page doesn't read, "the article should accurately represent..." So if you include "facts and quality", then it reads that the claims should represent the facts and quality, which is a bit odd. The claims should represent the sources; relevant is there to imply that the sources should be of high quality. Budding Journalist 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with BuddingJournalist in this case. The existing wording seems to cover quality. For example, there have been noms where people have opposed because the author(s) used an unfavorable source over a better one because the former wasn't taken too seriously in the field. The claims in the article were backed up, but not by the best quality sources. I don't think anyone argued the current wording didn't cover this scenario. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(UNdent) Stroll over to Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, which has supports from some regulars at FAC and other familiar faces. We do need more clarity on this issue. Perhaps no one is using the current wording in their args because they are assuming it reads only regarding facts? ...After all the whole %##%$# clause is labeled factually accurate in BOLD Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a wording change would bring clarity here though. People there (including me) seem to be having a disagreement over what constitutes "the relevant body of published knowledge". If we changed it to include "quality" somewhere in the criteria, we'd be disagreeing over what constitutes "quality". Shrug. Budding Journalist 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, you should probably flesh out the reasoning for your oppose. :) Budding Journalist 03:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's quite possible. I'm thinking in particular about the infamous Roman Catholic Church FAs. I dare not delve into that morass to find diffs, but there was a point early on when there was significant opposition because the best sources were not used to write the article. Some people disputed this point, but never was it disputed that it was a legitimate reason to oppose. The fact of the matter is, there are very few people around who bother to find out if that requirement is being met. When someone does, the reviewers need to learn not to ignore the sourcing issue just because the prose is good, for example. Do you think that's really an issue of WIAFA clarity, or an issue of reviewer behavior? -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WIAFA exists to guide discussions. It is not currently doing so. Reviewer behavior remains unguided on this issue. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit of both, perhaps. I've been guilty in the past of supporting articles in which I hadn't really done a thorough vetting of the sources; too trusting perhaps? Now I try not only to go through the sources but also to verify claims in the article against the sources used. It's actually kind of disconcerting to see how many articles at FAC I've encountered that for some reason or another don't actually represent their sources accurately. Budding Journalist 03:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and so WIAFA needs to be clarified, in order to offer better guidance. If we change 1(c), then we need to change the BOLDed words to reflect the change. Another option (my preferred) is adding a new 1(f). Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking about it a bit more, I think it's more reviewer behavior and demographics. We often lack reviewers who have access to the sources used and are willing to conduct a review that verifies the statements in the article. This is covered fine by 1c) in its current form. I think your qualms about quality are covered by "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Budding Journalist 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a linguist, I say "No, no, no, no, and no". Relevance theorists (and followers of Grice) would be keen to argue that the BOLDed factually accurate overrides any logic you would offer to say tat the current wording suggests that the best sources should be consulted. So, NO. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ling.Nut. This part of the criteria is ambiguous. What ends up happening is that we have editors saying "these sources meet the reliable sources policy, why can't I use them in the article?" and we have other editors saying, "this is supposed to be a featured article, you need to choose the best of the best". We specifically say that prose should be "brilliant" and "professional" - why should our research standards be so much lower? I think we need to somehow indicate that, when possible, the best sources, the most reliable sources, should be used. Let's look at an example. I'm currently working on the article Charlotte Turner Smith. At this time, it is sourced to two encyclopedia entries. These are technically reliable sources, especially since one of them is a specialist encyclopedia. However, in a year or so, after I have done more research on Smith and read a complete biography of her, I will rewrite this article with material from the biography and make it comprehensive (and in the process replace these encyclopedic sources). If this article were to appear at FAC sourced to encyclopedia entries rather than a scholarly biography, that would be an example of using reliable but less than ideal sources and I would hope that someone would oppose it on that basis. FAC should require the best sources. Usually, less than ideal sources are popularizations or condensed versions of longer items - that sort of thing - and they can be avoided. Let's make sure that there is some quality control when it comes to the research in these articles. Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm convinced. I've objected to articles over time because the best sources weren't used, but I don't think that happens nearly enough. What, then, is the suggested wording? -- Laser brain  (talk)  07:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we say "highest quality sources available"? Awadewit (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the definition of available comes in. People will argue that unless the reviewers point out better sources, the ones in use are the best possible, thus throwing another job on to the reviewer. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see sourcing standards above the minimums of WP's policies, I'm just not sure how to work it so that it doesn't make more work for reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Do we want to do nontrivial surgery on 1(c), including rewriting its BOLDed beginning, or make a 1(f)? I strongly suggest the latter for two reasons: quality sourcing and factual accuracy are separate (though obviously related) issues, and also a 1(f) would be a more recognizable/memorable way to express the idea in reviews. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 07:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a 1f is the best way to go - it would also force reviewers to look more closely at the sources. Awadewit (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer sourcing had its own criteria section (be it 1f, or whatever...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

← Unless there is good reason to believe that "the very best sources" would be in disagreement with sources which are good enough, is there really an issue here that needs to be addressed? Not certain I see the problem ... --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the problem is that if you oppose a nom because the best sources aren't used, you are potentially alone in doing so because other reviewers may not recognize the severity of the problem. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be alone, because I don't recognize the severity of the problem either. Good enough is good enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ling.Nut and Awadewit. Using mediocre sources result in a mediocre article. Not a great example of a FA. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying it's so doesn't make it so. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I already provided an example above. Would you like another? Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example. The current TFA was once submitted to FA using old sources and old encyclopedias as sources (see here). It was opposed only on the basis of poor sources which then resulted in arguments on whether the article was comprehensive enough. Adding the criterion will help reviewers and bring up FA standards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Corny refs, even if the raw data is the same, tends to cause the article to be written in an odd style and unstylish feel, from my personal writing experience, if nothing else. I used some books from an author I found out to be a bit of an idiot and I think it helped to make the article feel less learned.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for 1(f)

 * This is an outcome of the thread immediately above, but logically it should have its own thread.
 * Proposal for 1 (f)
 * 1) *(f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive literature search of the topic area, and relies primarily on sources widely recognized as offering the most stringent standards of accuracy and impartiality that the current status of the industry or field has to offer.
 * Any and all comments solicited and welcomed Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Slight rewording: (f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic..." Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I feel this is already accounted for by WIAFA, trimming some redundancy would yied:
 * *(f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic, and relies on sources representing the most stringent standards of accuracy and impartiality in the industry or field. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not trying to water the criterion down, but trying to be more concise: how about "...and relies on the highest quality sources in the industry or field"? --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure; unclear what exactly we're aiming for, since "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge", WP:V and WP:RS already cover what the additional wording seems to be saying, AFAICT. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Aiming for "WP:RS isn't good enough; need to use the best reliable sources (as opposed to "merely reliable" sources) as much as possible. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think "relevant body of published knowledge" covers what this 1(f) proposal is aiming for. Also, there's some overlap with 1b at the moment too ("reflects a comprehensive literature search of the topic area"). I question the use of "impartiality" to describe the sources one should use. If I were to try to bring Mozart to FA status, I'd certainly rely on Solomon. I wouldn't call his biography "impartial" though; its whole purpose is to tear down the myth of Mozart as "eternal child". Budding Journalist 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. When 1(f) is finished, it may create a need to tweak 1b very slightly. As for impartial, I'm trying to rule out gaming magazines that pump their own products, religious presses that elide the uncomfortable bits of their denomination's history, etc. Tks again. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that covered by WP:RS though? Budding Journalist 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. This proposal reaches much further than WP:RS; it's saying it's not good enough to use reliable sources. You must use the best sources. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia's RS policy is actually quite weak. It sets the minimum of what can be used as a reliable source, explaining when blogs and whatnot can be used, etc. However, for FAs, we should require more stringent standards. Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is simply no way that we can require a "comprehensive survey" or "comprehensive literature search". There are many articles for which any comprehensive knowledge of the literature is literally a life's work. It is already difficult enough to make any article on a 'big' subject an FA. There would be simply no chance of (say) World War I ever becoming a featured article if this criterion is adopted, unless a multilingual team of professional historians decided to come and work on it. I understand the idea to require 'good' sources not just sources, but there are some subjects which have so many significant works written about them that requiring 'comprehensive' coverage is an impossible task. The Land (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The criterion is not demanding that all those sources be used—just that they be considered. If you were going for FA on any topic, I certainly hope you would survey the available literature to make sure you're using the best sources. I don't think it would take too long to figure out which sources of WWI history are considered the best in the field. A 5-minute conversation with a historian in that field would probably do the trick. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way I'd be remotely capable of comprehensively surveying the literature on a topic the size of World War I is if I spent a year doing a masters' degree on it. A five-minute chat with a historian would give me a list of three or four good books to go and read as a starting point. If what you mean is "1f. The article is based on several reliable sources which are well-regarded in the relevant area of study, and which adequuately reflect differences of opinion present in literature of the matter."; then that is fair enough but there is no point disguising it under misleadingly strong phrases like "comprehensive survey" or indeed "stringetn standards of impartialy"... The Land (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask for a couple hypothetical examples on how to determine what are the best possible sources, because I'm interested in the proposal. If I tried to take Babe Ruth to FA, would quality books be expected as sources, since so much has been written about him over the years? By contrast, if I became interested in working on Paul O'Neill, a lesser-known player in the big picture, would newspaper and magazine profiles be considered the best possible sources, since there are no books about him? (He did an autobiography, but that's a primary source that should be used carefully.) The thought behind the proposal is correct in my mind, but I want to make sure that I know what we're getting into.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Giants: see the thread immediately above. My reply starts with "Metroid Prime is not John Wilkes Booth". The Land (Share the Land): WWI would require a group effort, and would require weeks if not months. That's just the way it is. See Roman Catholic Church. Thanks Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After re-reading this thread it seems clear to me that one or more folks simply have not grasped the fact that WP:RS is not sufficient. It is not strong enough. We need to have higher standards than WP:RS. The highest standard of reference available should be used as much as possible. These standards do not apply to all Wikipedia; they only apply to FA articles.Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS is a guideline. WP:V is policy; I believe it's clear on standards of sourcing (that is; opposes on inferior sources are respected and addressed by the current criteria per policy).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Ling.Nut's addition of this criterion. 36 hours of discussion of a change this serious is not enough. I do not see a consensus that any change is needed, let alone that this change is agreed on. The Land (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like this.... so now reliable sources are not good enough... we now must have sources that "offer the most stringent standards of accuracy and impartiality that the current status of the industry or field has to offer" - and what if they don't exist exactly; but reliable sources do exist? And are we planning to go through every single FA to see if 1(f) is matched? If not does it go to FAR? This seems poorly planned out IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * @D.M.N: Please do read all of the above, and read 1f itself carefully. Note the words "available" and "that [it] has to offer". See the multiple previous relies to this question, esp. the one about "Metroid Prime is not John Wilkes Booth". besides we are already checking for this; this codifies standard practice.
 * I don't see the word "available" in your opening post. If they are not available, then what? The FAC fails? D.M.N. (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the sources used in the article meet RS, if there are no "better" ones available (such as for wrestling, where there are few scholarly articles on the subject of wrestlers) then everything would be fine. The main thing this is trying to adjust is for something like... oh... writing bald eagle only using kid's books and the discovery channel website. While both types of sources would meet RS, obviously there would be better sources available, and they should be used instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * @ The Land: You seem to be vastly outnumbered. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support 1 (f). As I understand it, it is asking editors to use the best available sources instead of reliable sources. Where a reliable source would be another encyclopedia article, the best would be a print biography. If there are no print sources, such as often happens for video games and popular culture topics, they just don't exist. I think the criteria is asking editors to look for the best, use the best if available, and if not, rely on what there is. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo! Give that editor a prize! Land, your minority status is becoming ever clearer. Please reconsider your revert. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Land's revert for now. Come on Ling...you know that this discussion has not had much of an audience yet. Let's get some more eyes on this before modifying the criteria, yeah? I still am not convinced of the necessity for 1(f). As it reads now, it duplicates 1(b) ("it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic") [two editors have had issues with this wording, and yet you ignored them in your haste]. No one yet has given me a good argument as to why the current wording of "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" (relevant being the key word here to refer to highest quality sources, where available) does not sum up what we're trying to do here. If the problem is with this phrase, then why can't we just modify that wording instead of adding to instruction creep and duplicating criteria? Budding Journalist 14:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do once there has been more time for people to think about the matter. 36 hours is not long. To my mind while there is clearly a view we should be more prescriptive about sources, there isn't a consensus abouta particular form of 1f, and there are several people who have raised points that haven't really been dealt with yet. My own included. The Land (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * An RfC would give this a wider readership so more people could chime in. I agree that a proposal should be discussed for at least a week before becoming policy or guideline. --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC is needed (it may only bring in editors unfamiliar with WIAFA and FAC in general), but as I've said elsewhere, there is no need for hurry and 36 hours discussion is not enough to change a page that has long enjoyed stability and broad consensus. I can't ever recall seeing WIAFA destabilized before, I'm still unsure how this new wording will affect anything in practice, and time can be taken to develop a broader and wider consensus.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I echo sentiments above that this is redundant. The comprehensive criteria should take care of the "well-researched" bit, and I'm not convinced that we should be trying to create a super-duper strict version of WP:RS. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just had an idea: what about changing 1(c) from factually accurate to well-researched and tweaking accordingly? The majority of stuff included in 1(c) could stay, and we could tweak "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Budding Journalist 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the proposal's criteria is already covered through the combo of (b) and (c). Additionally, I believe there have been no problems regarding quality of research thus far: it represents instrction creep. I'm a little more open to BuddingJournalist's idea though. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what "it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic" says that isn't covered already by 1b "comprehensive" together with 1c's "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Also, "sources representing the most stringent quality standards available in the industry or field" isn't well worded -- sources (other than ISO documents) don't "represent" quality standards; they conform to them. Wrt previous wordings, "comprehensive literature search of the topic area" and "widely recognized" were too onerous on mere mortals and there is no requirement on WP for our sources to be "impartial" (the finished article must be NPOV but the sources might not). Also "accuracy" is not the only aspect we expect from the best sources and is difficult to measure for some.
 * To overcome the general feeling that WP:RS is too lenient for FAC, I think we can achieve the desired improvements by simply tweaking 1c "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources" by inserting "the very best" in front of "reliable sources":
 * 1c factually accurate: claims are verifiable against the very best reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge...
 * It is always a judgement call as to what is the very best. Colin°Talk 17:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "it reflects a comprehensive literature search of the topic area" - This is indeed a very strong demand. There are scientific methods to determine this. Actually, if you do this at the level as it is stated in this proposal each and any FA needs to be at a level of literature research that it is inherently publishable as a literature review in a scientific journal (I have actually published such reviews). This is in my view unrealistic for any encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not exception.
 * There are multiple reasons for this:
 * a) Reviewing all sources of a big topic is a lifetimes academic work in itself (WWI is laready mentioned)
 * b) More practically, such a review is only possible if the involved editors have access to all relevant scientific sources (de minimis the majority of relevant scientific journal AND access to the relevant search databases such as Web of Science and Scopus). None of these are free.
 * c) Competence to conduct a scientifically rigorous literature review. While I would applaud this and we should aim for this level, it is not as easy as it seems; and if we meet this standard our Featured Articles have enough quality for publication in a scientific joural.
 * d) Unless you adopt an academic, formal literature review methodology in the article there is no way to provide evidence the comprehensive literature search has been done adequately. Providing such methodology inside the article is inherently non-encyclopedic as it hinders reading by the general public (our target readers). Hence this criterion creates a catch 22 situation where fulfilling the new criterion 1f would automatically disqualify the article on 1a, 1b and 2b (and vice versa). Arnoutf (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In brief I think this is not a realistic demand, and I think less than 0.01% of the current FA would meet this demand (i.e. implementing this in a fair way would eliminate all but a handful of all current featured articles). Do we truly want to set that level? Arnoutf (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that just requiring sources to be stringent leaves some harder-to-source featured articles with zero reliable sources. How about just "the most accurate possible source" instead?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this criterion is redundant.-- Patton t / c 23:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm deeply concerned about "comprehensive literature survey"-type language. That's a surprisingly radical expansion of WIAFA.  I don't think doing the research required of someone writing a book with an Academic Publisher should be necessary for every encyclopedia article.  It would 1) ensure that the rate of FA production is slower than it needs to be with very little benefit 2) ensure that Wikipedians without access to oodles of leisure time and access to a university library are effectively barred from substantive topics (even in their area of subject expertise) and 3) lead to opposes based on "I don't think you did a comprehensive literature survey" rather than content-related opposes.  If there is a problem with non-comprehensiveness, it's sure to be covered by the content-related criteria ie "a significant body of literature says Equiano wasn't born in Africa."  Not, "You didn't read every book ever written on the subject and you used a newspaper article for one sentence, and although I have no reason to doubt any of the content, I must oppose on hypothetical grounds." --JayHenry (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm firmly with you Jay; we're not writing a peer-reviewed academic journal. Sources need to be adequate to support the claims being made. The more non-intuitive the claim, the better the source needs to be, but good enough is good enough. If there is good reason for a reviewer to believe that a more authoritative source disputes any given claim, then that's the issue that needs to be addressed during the review. Not "have all the best possible sources been employed, even they all would have agreed with the sources actually used?" Good enough is good enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, see this is something that I can support. JayHenry you may be the editor that has captured my thoughts and put them into an eloquent style. This whole "new" criterion seems not only redundant, but fairly eseless, from my point of view, which seems to show that "the rate of FA production is slower" and "Wikipedians without access to a university library are effectively barred from substantive topics". I am just a student, but I write with the best I can find, not all of which can still be found in print. In fact most of which has come from the internet, albeit the National Archives. No one, and I mean no one can read all of the books on a given subject, so no article can be fully done.
 * Example: Article "$$X$$" is about an ancient ritual that was only recorded on three stone tablets, one of which has been stolen and never recovered (no proof of what was truly written on it), the second was broken irrevocably, and the third is so broken down that it can no longer be read in its entirety. What does an editor do about this, they rely on the internet and previously recorded copies, not any article/book/printed source. What does that editor do to fulfill 1 (f)? T ARTARUS  talk 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with several of the comments above; Arnoutf probably summed it up best. I agree that the best sources should be used but in practice WP:RS seems strong enough, and the wording suggested here seems much too strong. It is worth noting that WP:RS already allows for degrees of reliability and expresses a preference for the most reliable sources available. Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a certain elitism evident as well. Which is the better source? An opinion expressed by a reputable academic on a web page or the same opinion expressed by the same academic in a learned journal? Depends on what's meant by "best". I might be inclined to argue that the "best" source was the most accessible source in that case, the web page. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE- there's already too much work involved in getting an article to FA, without then having people turn around and say "Oh, you don't have a personal reference library of expensive specialist books or access to a University library? That's too bad, don't try and get any FA articles promoted since you're wasting your time." Wiki is, IMHO, rapidly approaching the point where contributing here is getting bloody close to "Work" and not "A way to share our knowledge with people". We're not getting paid for this, and Wiki is generally verboten as a reference at University level anyway, which makes this insane insistence of in-line citations and obscure specialist texts silly, frustrating, and counter-productive. Your "Average Reader" really doesn't care about this sort of stuff, anyway, and I think we need to remember that- as another editor said, we're not a Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal and we're not the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and we certainly shouldn't be trying to make it harder to get FA articles promoted, unless we want most of our editors to give up in frustration and leave. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I struggle to see how aiming for high-quality articles is a sin and aiming for mediocrity is a virtue. Budding Journalist 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As a rule of thumb, I try to push myself to absolute limits of what I can contribute with everything from school to writing to the 'pedia.  To me, it's always come across as common sense that, if working on..say..World War II, and you have the option of using "a beginner's guide to wwii" or John Keegan's World War II masterwork, always pick Keegan.  I don't have a private library (though my collection of books is quite extensive).  I am privileged enough to have access to two university libraries (courtesy of my parent's acting as sessional instructors at two universities), but it always just comes across as common sense.  Use the best sources you can.  To settle for less is to settle for a less than FA quality. Cam (Chat) 07:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great for those of you with access to University libraries. Do you know how many University Libraries there are around most places? None, or nearly so. Personally, I think as long as the information is sound it doesn't matter which (reliable) source it's from. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cam - Yes, I would take a book by someone like Keegan as a starting point for an article on World War II (or World War I), and I would oppose FA candidates which used "The Illustrated Companion of World War II" or "World War II for Dummies" as sources. However, "use good sources" is a very different instruction from "conduct a comprehensive survey of the academic literature on the subject"... The Land (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Up until now, people have complied with reviewers' demands to find better sources&mdash;I suppose because they felt they had to. But here we are setting a precedent. Now that this debate has taken place, they will point to it and say "Fuck you, I want to use  children's books for my FACs about Geronimo and George Custer, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. They are RS." Our current wording is not strong enough. The very idea that we would spend time arguing about using the best available sources speaks volumes about our lack of professional standards. we are, as I said on the Booth FAC, the laughingstock of academia. Do we want to pass out bronze stars (or for some voters above, do we want to collect them), or do we want a quality encyclopedia.? ..I'm suddenly seeing MILHIST editors (not reviewers on FAC) showing up.Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The world is best seen in shades of grey, not black and white; why set up strawmen? It's not a matter of children's books vs academic sources; it's a matter of reliable sources which adequately support the claims being made. A reliable source need not necessarily be the best possible source, even assuming here could ever be agreement on what that best possible might be. It simply needs to be reliable. The job of reviewers is not to point out that there are "better" sources claiming the same thing, but to point out that there are better sources claiming something different. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The language in the proposed criterion is I think missing the point. In the field of film, there are many sources of great accuracy and impartiality including peer-reviewed journals. However, I think it would be difficult to write an article about, say, Transporter 3, that relied on such sources. The requirement should be to use the best sources covering the topic (as Ling.Nut says above, the "best available sources"), not sources reflecting the highest quality within the field - those sources may simply not cover many potential topics. That said, I don't think this adds much to the existing criteria. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reverted 1f did include the word available: here. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I again bring up my query that has yet to be addressed: why does "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" not cover what you're worried about, Ling? Surely if you're going to take Shakespeare to FA, a children's biography, for example, is not in the "relevant body of published knowledge" that should be used to construct that article. Budding Journalist 03:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See the very long thread immediately above this one: "accurately represent" is inarguably ambiguous. Does it mean "accurately represent the quality of the body of literature", or does it mean "accurately represent the facts presented in the body of literature"? And in addition to being ambiguous, it is framed within the context of 1c, labeled 'factually accurate, which predisposes the latter interpretation. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The current phrasing implies both, no? Again, you leave out the beginning "claims". "Claims...accurately represent" == facts; "relevant body" == quality. If people do think this is ambiguous though, then I think changes should start here, rather than jumping to a new 1f. I did also propose that if factually accurate is not the right frame for 1c, then perhaps that could be changed (to say, "well-researched" or something equivalent). Budding Journalist 03:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Pointless instruction creep for common sense standards which are already imposed. If you're going to use "reliable" children's books, as User:Ling.Nut suggests, for an article on John Wilkes Booth, you're rightfully going to get the crap shouted down from you.  This already happens.  By trying to codify common sense standards, you're just going to end up with pissing matches over what the best source is, when in fact, either will do. - hahnch e n 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Solution in search of a problem - maybe I haven't scanned enough FACs recently, but is the use of weak RSources to the exclusion of good ones a problem? Has someone tried to bring an article to FAC with a scattering of children's books and second tier websites, saying that it was just too hard to find those darn NYTimes articles with their google searches?  I mean, generally editors try to base their articles on the best sources possible, if only to avoid other people arguing with them, if not becuase they want the article to be the best possible. -- Pres  N  04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, recently we've had folks hammered for just this problem, and they complained & held their ground. If this fails&mdash;and with the sudden arrival of so many faces plus the silence of folks who supported above, it now seems likely&mdash; the trend will worsen. Some folks just want their damn bronze stars, as some of the Opposes above come very close to saying explicitly.. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 04:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let them complain and hold their ground. If it's that bad, and a few editors agree, Sandy can lay down the law and fail it. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - This smacks of elitism and a way of bypassing WP:RS saying that a reliable source "really ins't reliable". じん  ない  07:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well - per PresN and Jinnai (good reasoning, guys), and thank goodness for The Land seeing this. As side notes to Ling: 36 hours is not long enough to build consensus, especially becuase this affects all of WP so greatly. Also, we want more than just 'FAC regulars' here, for the same reason. Lastly, consensus may be starting to turn against your proposal, so you start complaining that more "faces" are arriving? Seriously. Were you expecting this to pass with only 3 people seeing it or something? This isn't a well-watched page, so give it time; wide community input for a controversial amendment is a good thing. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And a question: why has a RfC not been opened? We are talking about amending the rules for the most important things we have (FAs), and yet the community isn't invited to give their opinion...? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support and RfC being opened to evaluate all of the FAC criteria (similar to whats happened recently with RFA and ARBCOM). D.M.N. (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No way. The existing text of WIAFA has existed forever; no existing text needs to be examined. An RfC would be a pointless madhouse populated by... people... who.. don't have any idea what's going on.... and just want bronze stars. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - the FAC criteria should be agreed upon by the people who participate here. Awadewit (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Ling, it's just a patently silly idea that you tried to force through on minimal discussion. Get over it! Physchim62 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, how did all these people hear about this? IRL Chat? Is that WP:CANVASS? I'm not clear on this. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I left notes at FAR, MILHIST, WP Tropical cyclones and WP Video Games. Seeing as a combined 577 Featured articles (nearly a quarter of the total output) come from those three Wikiprojects, it would not make sense to leave them out. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two important elements to this debate, in my opinion. 1) If thorough research is not undertaken, the article will not be comprehensive. To uncover whether or not an article is comprehensive is actually very difficult for reviewers. However a survey of the research will actually lend hints. If the article is sourced to websites and encyclopedia entries (even if they are technically reliable sources) when there are entire books available, it is a good bet that the article is not comprehensive. However, it is difficult for a reviewer to object based on comprehensiveness unless they themselves have read all of books. Under this system, they could object to the research methodology. 2) Part of Wikipedia's reputation rests on its sourcing. If we allow "the best" of our articles to be sourced to substandard sources, we have no chance of being taken seriously (people like me will continue to mock Wikipedia to our colleagues and students). Thus, this criteria enhances our legitimacy. We should replace websites and children's books with scholarly books, not only because they are more accurate and more complete but also because it bolsters Wikipedia's reputation. Awadewit (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How many Wiki readers (not pedantic editors with lots of spare time, but "normal" readers) actually check the references to see what they're like anyway? I personally suspect it to be somewhere in the region between "No-one" and "Hardly anyone". The reference requirements don't need any more tightening unless you don't actually want people to contribute to Wiki, of course. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * People can contribute without making featured articles if they really don't want to bother with perfecting the cites (or the proper dashes for that matter), but if it's a FA we really shouldn't accept anything but the highest standards. Without a demand for high quality sources it becomes a bunch of people on the interweb repeating what someone else made up.  SDY (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, without sources it becomes "a bunch of people on the interweb repeating what someone else made up". There's a difference between unsourced (or poorly sourced) articles and ones referenced by someone using the best materials they have available; not necessarily the best ones in existence. This new proposal would basically make them all equally as worthless, which is a giant Middle Finger to the majority of Wiki Editors who don't live in a University Research Library, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be taken to ridiculous extremes, yes, but the world will not end if wikipedia does not have an FA on a topic and users do not have a "Jimbo-given right" to create featured articles. If a user does not have the resources to meet the demands of a featured article, then they will have to be satisfied with simply writing an excellent one that will have to wait for someone who does have those resources.  For the record, I have no access to a university research library and have only limited access to some online journals, so I'm screwing myself by supporting this if I ever wanted to write an FA about anything outside of a very narrow field.  I'm okay with that.  The quality of the article is more important than any individual user.  SDY (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at, but my point is that if this proposal is instituted, it's just going to discourage people from trying to get FAs. I know I'd certainly consider it more trouble than it was worth, and I don't think I'm in the minority. Commander Zulu (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Break 1

 * Interestingly, I have never come across a professional chemist who complains about Wikipedia for it's poor sourcing. On the other hand, we do get complaints about long, intricately sourced sections which are simply not representative of the subject of the article. We also get complaints about things which are simply wrong, and occasionally that's because our source was out of date or simply wrong itself. To complain that sourcing is the most important problem in quality control is a little bit self-serving when it comes from people who spend much of their WikiTime source checking! Physchim62 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Literature professors constantly complain about the poor sourcing on Wikipedia - many literature articles here reference SparkNotes, for example, if they are even referenced at all. The problem with most literature articles is that they are usually just plot summaries, character lists, and popular culture trivia. They do not represent the scholarship in the field in any way. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good example; while the use of SparkNotes may be a problem throughout Wiki, a FAC opposal on the basis of SparkNotes as a source would not result in an FA promotion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Slightly confusing wording there; I take it that means it would result in a non-promotion, since it's a valid objection? Mike Christie (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry; that was convoluted. Objecting because SparkNotes was used as a source would be a valid oppose, and the article would not likely be promoted.  Again, it may be a Wiki-wide problem, but I don't see this as an example of a FAC problem.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Physchim62's point above was about Wikipedia in general, so I thought it important to respond in kind. Awadewit (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already supported this idea, and I would continue to do so. I don't know how this "smacks of elitism". Accuracy is what we're going for in FAs. Wikipedia is already maligned too often for being sloppy in writing and clarity, and playing loose with facts. We have the ability to change that by producing work that not only rivals similar "legitimate" encyclopedias, but surpasses them. Yes, I have access to a university library, but I'll wager everyone has access to a regular public library and I wonder if those opposing this because it will be too much work actually employ all the facets of the library at their fingertips. And anyone can walk into a college library and read their books; they're not going to chuck you out on your rear for wanting to educate yourself. Further, if folks don't use actual primary scientific sources—the ones the scientists use or write—then...please don't write scientific articles. The article for AIDS could be written using pamphlets given at the free clinic according to WP:RS. I'm also embarrassed to see FACs with sources that point to GoogleBooks (another of my pet peeves) that, when they are clicked on, show the search parameters of the person who was trying to save time.... I'd like to see dedicated FA writers who save "good enough" (Malleus knows how I love him) for GA, and decide that FAs should be extraordinary. What are we being constrained by? I don't feel like doing it? It's not that necessary? If you're so turned off by work, should FA be your goal in the first place? It's just as much work keeping an FA as it is getting one. --Moni3 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's elitism because you, the FAC community, are calling into question any source that meets the WP:RS into question that doesn't also meet your (as a group) personal "best sources". That's elitism because you make a judgment call that goes above and beyond what the rest of Wikipedia requires. じん  ない  23:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we're relying on scholarly standards, not our personal standards. And FA does go "above and beyond" the rest of Wikipedia - that is the point of the designation. Everything about the article is supposed to be better than the majority of Wikipedia articles. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, your saying it's "your scholarly standards" because you can go and pick and choose which sources meet your criteria, not WP:RS or WP:V criteria. You are essentailly saying to screw WP:RS/WP:V because it's not good enough for you and are thus trying to overturn the a core Wikipedia policy and guideline. Moreso, just because it's scholarly does not meet its accurate. A lot of what is reviewed is, but not everything. You are thus introducing bias into the selection of sources.
 * Finally I believe this will result, whether intential or not, into "No scholarly reviews? Auto-fail." because it's quite easy for anyone to intrepret "best available" as "needing scholarly reviews" and thus a backway to exclude 99% of pop culture or niche articles. じん  ない  04:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is getting weird. I don't believe for a moment that scholarly sources are inherently more biased than tertiary internet sources, and that argument is just...bizarre. Look, it's quite simple. If your topic has 10 books at the library and 3 websites that summarize those 10 books, then go to the books and read them instead of relying on someone else's interpretation of what the 10 books said. Go get the actual books instead of the parts of GoogleBooks you can see in one search. Be your own good judge of sourcing, instead of bringing an article to FAC with sources that are juvenile nonfiction or other encyclopedias. If all you put in your article is what you can find from the internet, readers can do their own Google searches and get the same thing. So offer them something they don't have access to. The designation of an article as an FA points out that the article itself is elite: brilliant, extraordinary, the best work on Wikipedia. There's a cognitive disconnect between wanting your article to be considered elite, then disparaging editors for trying to improve the criteria for consideration. I can't speak for Ling.Nut, but I am not supporting this in order to exclude your article(s), but to make them better. To make Wikipedia's showcase better. --Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Break 2
Pulling out Colin's suggestion, which got buried above, for further discussion. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To overcome the general feeling that WP:RS is too lenient for FAC, I think we can achieve the desired improvements by simply tweaking 1c "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources" by inserting "the very best" in front of "reliable sources":
 * 1c factually accurate: claims are verifiable against the very best reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge...
 * It is always a judgement call as to what is the very best. Colin°Talk 17:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I think better sourcing could benefit FAC, I again thinkn this suggestion is not practical. It is for example likely that the very best source on e.g. a medieval French topic will be in French; with a goo but not very best being available in English. Also the very best source is not so easily established for topics with different opinions in the scientific community. Arnoutf (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is just the point - you can't really write a good article on French literature without consulting French sources. In my field of eighteenth-century children's literature, for example, there is only one book on French children's literature that has been published in English. To write an article on the topic, one would have to read French. There is no way around that fact. We shouldn't avoid the problem - we should find ways to facilitate article building between people who know languages. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If French children's literature were to be nominated, and you were to oppose on the grounds you give, I would think it would be a valid oppose using the existing criteria. The case Arnoutf describes is where there are good sources in both languages, but not everything exists in English.  Deciding whether to oppose in that case is a judgement call for those who know the sources, but even then an oppose does not seem to require 1(f) to be treated as valid.  Mike Christie (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose completely redundant; every part of it is redundant to some other criteria currently used.-- Patton t / c 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To some extent, I agree. I always felt the lead requirement of "our very best work" gave reviewers the scope to object on unsatisfactory aspects even if they were not explicitly listed in the criteria. Sometimes a little redundancy helps emphasise things we all agree on, like sourcing must be better than just acceptable. Colin°Talk 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And on the other hand, I don't think this criterion is overly strict. the policy specifically states no original research.  I'm not going to go delving through box after box in some dark archive at the Canadian War Museum when there's perfectly reliable academic literature that has already done so. I've only had sourcing issues come up once in my three FAs, and I was able to fix them relatively quickly.  It is common sense, but I do agree that the redundancy of adding it in might change it from an implicit requirement to an explicit requirement.  It's currently an unspoken rule, which means that there's some leniency with regards to it.  Make it written, and we can eliminate that problem. Cam (Chat) 16:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what if reviewers oppose on the basis of mediocre sourcing even if the criteria are not amended? I've done it before. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2 by Colin
An alternative minor tweak to that proposed above ("the very best reliable sources") would be to add "sourcing" to the lead sentence: "features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing". Would this satisfy Awadewit's concern that we are using amateur-style sourcing. Colin°Talk 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification of new proposal: to change the current
 * A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation.
 * to
 * A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support this. Budding Journalist 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would supports this suggestion by SandyGeorgia Colin as well. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not my suggestion: it's Colin's. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this concept. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also be fine with substituting research for sourcing ("features professional standards of writing, presentation and research.") Budding Journalist 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is necessary (either wording) but I would not oppose it. Mike Christie (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been following the above thread. It is hard to make substantive change to guidelines as mature as the FA criteria. However, proposals for substantive change can point to good incremental change and clarification of emphasis. This may be an example. FAC has had a reputation for concentrating on style issues. There's no point in having professional standards of writing and presentation if the research and content underlying them is weak. Some mention of research, sourcing, or content would make a good addition to the first paragraph. Geometry guy 21:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly happy with this. 'Professional' research/sourcing is plausible, even for big topics, in a sense which a 'comprehensive survey' isn't. So I am unopposed to it. The Land (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support this. Gives reviewers something to stand on when something like the John Wilkes Booth thing happens, but doesn't get so specific as to tie them up if no better sources exist.  -- Pres  N  16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the 1f proposal doesn't have enough support at this time, I would support this particular clarification of the standards. Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this, but in my opinion additional clarity is needed by adding another criterion (1f) or a modified one (1c) to solve the problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks good. (Sourcing rather than research). Fainites barley scribs 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of the problem?
Is there a promoted FA for which the suggested 1(f) criterion would allow an oppose that would not otherwise be made? John Wilkes Booth was not promoted; two of the opposes effectively made this argument though I don't know if Raul would have promoted the article even without those opposes. Without a visible problem to be solved I feel this may be unnecessary instruction creep; that essay explicitly says that to change instructions there should be "a good indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem)". Mike Christie (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Benjamin Harrison was promoted, although the nominator and primary editor of the article admitted to not having read the standard biography of Harrison in full. I was going to go to the library to see if anything was missing from the article, but I did not have time during the FAC. Such research requires time. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is an example (common) of reviewers failing to oppose (an indication they don't think the issue worthy of holding up promotion). Again, not an example of a FAC problem, rather reviewer behavior.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the FAC was promoted one day after this was discovered - we need to give people time to respond. "Wiki-time" is totally unacceptable in these situations. I was fully planning on opposing after I went to the library, but the FAC was promoted anyway. I was really shocked, since there was clearly ongoing communication between myself and the nominator. I'm glad that this is all my fault. Awadewit (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I opposed Jackie Robinson and Virginia for these reasons. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And they were not promoted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the point I've been making since Ling first mentioned this to me; it seems like a behavior issue and not an instructional issue. Reviewers who are inclined to oppose because ideal sources are not used are going to do so regardless of what action results from this discussion. Reviewers who are inclined to disregard sourcing problems are also going to continue. I don't see this changing anyone's behavior. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not just about reviewers - it is also about article writers. It lets them know what we expect. Awadewit (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just basic operant conditioning. Writers learn to do whatever it is that gets their articles through FAC. It doesn't matter what the criteria say, so nothing to be gained by making unnecessary modifications to them. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But we should make our expectations clear - not fail articles which don't meet some unwritten standard. That is part of what breeds ill will about FAC. Awadewit (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanding on my (oft-stated) point: without reviews, Supports and Opposes, all of this discussion is moot. I typically spend 8 to 12 hours at a sitting to read FAC (in addition to usually keeping up with it daily); at the end of that, lately I find that most FACs can't be closed one way or another because they are lacking reviews. I'd be so happy to see all of this effort go into reviews :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I look at the added criterion as preventative medicine. If writers know what would be expected in terms of high quality sourcing, that would reduce the stress on reviewers. Opposing a badly sourced article is a curative solution, not preventative. IMO, this is not a reviewer-behaviour problem, it is a nominator-behaviour problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have to ask ourselves why we receive so many poorly-researched articles at FAC. That should not even be an issue at FAC anymore, as solid research is the foundation of any decent article. Why isn't this more clear to nominators? 1f will help make it clear. Awadewit (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting example: in May 2007, Samuel Adams was promoted to FA, over the objection of Awadewit, who told the editor, "I urge you to only rely on scholarly works when writing the page". Unbeknownst to other reviewers, but perhaps suspected by Awadewit, the article had major errors and omissions because it was written using bad web sources and one superficial popular biography. The primary editor "fixed" some of the sourcing by apparently googling some books and adding footnotes, but unfortunately the books often didn't actually agree with the statements. When I recently starting looking at this article, I initially thought the editor had misled people in order to get the article promoted, but now I think the editor was probably doing the best job he knew how to do. He—and we—would have been better served by featured article criteria that spelled out more fully the kind of research that needs to be done to write a featured article. And that would have saved me the trouble of having to rewrite the entire article. :-) —Kevin Myers 05:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another example, hot off the presses. William Henry Harrison was just promoted even though Awadewit and I pointed out that the editors had not consulted most of the scholarly literature on Harrison. These objections were ignored or brushed aside. The editors and supporters of the article are well meaning, but I suspect they aren't aware of the differences between scholarly and popular works, not to mention secondary and tertiary sources. And so we have a brand new featured article that cites a children's biography more often than the standard scholarly biography! Using a hyphen instead of an en dash will stop a featured article candidate dead in its tracks; using a juvenile biography instead of a scholarly one will not. Some folks clearly don't have a problem with this, but to me it suggests that our priorities are misplaced. —Kevin Myers 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandy may correct me here, but my impression is that those opposes are valid, and the promotion was not because the criteria do not permit the oppose. It was promoted because too few reviewers chose to oppose.  I suppose it can be argued that the criteria need clarification, if some reviewers did not feel able to oppose on that basis; however it may also be that the support comments did not assess the article on that basis, or did not share the concerns.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you. I don't have a beef with Sandy or the reviewers; the consensus was clearly to promote the article. I don't mind being in the minority; it all pays the same. But if we want higher quality featured articles (and not everyone does), I think we should have criteria that helps editors and reviewers understand what it takes to research a truly excellent encyclopedia article. —Kevin Myers 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I always thought the idea was that one substantial oppose was supposed to be able to outweigh lots of supports - that is why this is consensus and not a vote - it isn't by the numbers, it is by the quality of the arguments. That is why I have problems when things like Harrison are promoted. I feel like the arguments being put forth are disregarded by both reviewers and Sandy/Raul. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The issues being sorted here are not made easier when FAC promotions are misrepresented. Harrison was promoted with five unanimous Supports. When a convoluted and lengthy FAC is restarted, it gives reviewers the advantage that they can clearly restate any remaining issues, with clarity and without the lengthy trivial items that may have been present earlier, allowing for better focus on major issues. In spite of a week, there were no Opposes registered; the article was promoted with clear consensus. Once again, this is not about WIAFA; it's reviewer behavior. The problem at FAC is lack of reviews; the criteria are clear. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There was nothing convoluted about it - there were simply people opposing. It is tiring to keep opposing. I have noticed this pattern before - people tire of repeating their opposition and just refuse to keep repeating their detailed opposes. Restarts are a convenient way to keep supports and tire out opposers. Once again, I would like to point out that when we, the reviewers, have pointed out problems but the article is promoted anyway, I don't think we need to point to reviewers as the problem. I'm tired of hearing that refrain. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Copying forward or clarifying or restating an Oppose when it's important should not be hard and will help refocus the FAC; there is no goal to tire out opposers, rather allow better focus on major issues (AGF pls). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tiring out opposers may not be the goal, but it is the effect. Restating "support" is always much easier than elaborating an oppose. The pattern is obvious from large FACs like FCC and small FACs like this. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (aside) Damn, I should have kept a closer eye on that one; I missed the restart. I had some qualms about the level of research undertaken. I don't really think this is Sandy's fault, though; it's not incumbent on her to inform everyone who has commented that a restart has occurred (though if a bot did that, that would be nice). Budding Journalist 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That being said, I still think some sort of well-researched modification would improve the criteria...still pondering the options Awadewit laid out below though. Budding Journalist 20:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is not Sandy's fault or problem; she's right that this is a problem with reviewer behavior. I think reviewer behavior is a symptom of the root problem: editors and reviewers not knowing enough about high-quality sources. The problem with the WH Harrison nomination was by no means a lack of reviews: five reviewers voted to promote the article even though they knew that it ignored certain scholarly works in favor of a juvenile biography. This is a reviewer problem if ever there was one. I think it probable that if the criteria placed more emphasis on research using high-quality sources, reviewers will be better prepared to make informed decisions about the quality of the article. —Kevin Myers 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Reviewer behaviour will change (and perhaps more people will be encouraged to review) only when the criterion is changed (i.e., made de jure rather than the current de facto). --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

repeat myself
1(f) is intended to say that folks should use the best available sources. Individual video games have no (or almost no) articles on JSTOR etc., therefore they do not need to use that kind of source. I say that again : Video games etc. are not required to have academic sourcing; just "the best the industry has to offer". Topics that have been covered in books and journals that have high standards should be *required* to use them as much as possible. Why oh why the torches and pitchforks? This is merely a codification of common sense. It offers a few things:
 * 1) a convenient system of notation for a concept that already exists and already is enforced;
 * 2) a convenient way to reduce the volume of argument about or against (see the arguments above) that commonsense idea, and
 * 3) a explicit statement of what should be a rule of thumb to help us maintain our quality encyclopedia. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:NPOV since scholarly reviews tend to have a certain slant to them that non-scholarly reviews don't. じん  ない  04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, so a professor trumps the TV science show which says that centripetal forces are in the tangential direction of motion.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, there wouldn't be any WP:VG editors here complaining if you had actually said available in your original proposal, and defined what that meant. You included the word when you tried to edit the criteria itself, but not when you proposed the change.  The VG editors are here because they felt that the criteria would be interpreted as "The NYTimes has reviewed games before, so why does your article only use VG review sites?" I understand now what you meant- editors should do an exhaustive search for sources, and make sure to include the best ones, rather than just the easiest to find.  That's cool.  Your original proposal was easily interpreted as requiring all FACs to have sources from academic sources, whether or not they existed.  After all, this is FAC- you should have expected editors to pick apart what your sentence actually said, not just what you meant it to say. -- Pres  N  04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained it repeatedly. The English words were right there for all to see, both in the text of 1f itself, and in the explanations. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lord, read what you write! Even in the dif, you don't say "the best sources available", you say "sources representing the most stringent quality standards available in the industry".  This leads directly to reviewers saying that since there are better sources in the industry in general, they're opposing because your particular sources aren't of that level, even if better sources don't exist.  I'll say it again: The actual text of the proposal doesn't say what you think it does.  -- Pres  N  15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with PresN...when I first read the proposal, my assumption was that it was a backdoor way to eliminate pop-culture articles. There will never be sources for most of those topics that represent the best standards in the relevant fields. For instance, I would challenge you to find an article about Marina Sirtis that represents the most stringent quality standards in the field of biography. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can change the wording of 1f to make this clearer and gain your support? Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Awadewit's question; it's an important one. My (small) comment is that "available" means "available". It means "what can be found", not "what exists in theory". I think everyone assumed it was anti-Pop culture simply because it was written by Ling.Nut. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is "No", at least in my case, as this policy is going to result in people fighting over whether or not sources are "The Best Available", with one editor saying they've never heard of a book regarded by another editor as "the definitive text on the subject". FAC talk pages would very quickly start to sound like a wiki-wide game of Mornington Crescent, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Break on Paleolithic diet

 * What about the misuse of reliable sources, as I fear has happened with Paleolithic diet? Should not that be addressed? That troubles me more.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference, when it comes to medicine are of the utmost importance. If the article is not based primarily on peer reviewed, reviews published in well known journals than the topic doesn't have enough evidence to justify it being a FA.  I do not think all topic can be FA and yes it is work.  But some of use like work.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that why separate guidelines such as WP:MEDRS exist? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't help if the reviewers don't know the difference and pass the article as FA anyway. Plus, this turns out to be a  fad diet and not a genuine medical article, so the references were only so much hocus pokus. That is why I say more attention should be paid to how the references are used. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree and moreso because the number of editors for FAR is so small compared to those who look at WP:RS it will tend to become more subjective over time. Furthermore, the problem with using "best available" is that it may not always be right or may be biased itself. Remember everyone who publishes something is human and everyone has an agenda. If we go with "best available sources" we run a serious risk of introducing systematic bias into our the articles we hold up as our best of the best because other "lesser sources" disagree with the "best avaliable" sources, they are outdated or they have genuine misinformation.
 * If, when going through a review, the reviewer comes across a source they feel could be better, I think it's best to do this on a case-by-case basis to let the nominator actually have a chance to defend their source and why it might be better than what the reviewer thinks. じん  ない  05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "best available" prevents your concerns above being addressed Jinnai, on a case by case basis. Fainites barley scribs 10:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

new proposal for 1(f)

 * There are already fights on the minimum-level standard of what is considered reliable sources. I think that will occur much more often than fights on the higher-level standard of "best available" sources. In any case, there is an added benefit of the higher standard reducing the number of poorly-sourced articles coming to FAC. Ling.Nut, perhaps you could come up with improved wording for 1f? --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic, and relies primarily on sources representing the highest standards available in the industry or field.Fainites barley scribs 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two general proposals here that have some support; I would suggest using them both:
 * 1) Change the intro text to "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing."
 * 2) Create some version of 1(f). Fainites' version (above) simply replaces "the most stringent quality standards" in my version (reverted by The Land) with "the highest standards". The meaning is essentially the same. The word "available" is readily apparent in both versions. The problem at hand is to write a 1(f) that makes it painfully clear that its text does not preclude a pop-culture article from becoming FA based solely on lack of academic sourcing. Placing the word "available" before "literature" is logically redundant, but pragmatically it makes the whole idea of "available" more salient. Thus we have:
 * 1f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic, and then relies primarily on the highest-quality sources
 * This leaves out "industry or field", but those words were simply my earlier (unsuccessful) stab at making it plain that pop-culture articles were not excluded (via the word "industry" as in "recording industry" or "video game industry"). I think "industry or field" is both unnecessary and restrictive. It's too limiting because someone might need to draw from more than one field (e.g. Waiting for Godot). It's unnecessary because "available" is placed so prominently at the fore of the rule. Finally, I like using both instead of either for two reasons: The intro is merely a summary, and the redundancy is a good thing in this case. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 11:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that both should be used. I support this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think wikilawyers may have a field day with available literature. How about saying the literature and putting available at the very end as in it reflects a comprehensive survey of the literature on the topic, and relies primarily on the highest-quality sources available. Fainites barley scribs 12:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you put "available" in the head or the tail; the very word itself creates a (small) opening for wikilawyering in the form of "But I don't have access to JSTOR, sniffle, sniffle." But the word "available" has some real pragmatic value here, as all of the above wrangling makes plain. Since we have to put it somewhere, preposing it makes it relatively more salient. If someone wikilawyers, we respond with WP:TROUT. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Something along the lines of "highest standard available for the industry or field for the topic", or "highest-quality source for the topic.", as to stress that the "quality" measure is a function of the article's topic, not an in-general qualification. --M ASEM 13:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or change "and" to "then", to make the chronological/logical relationship more explicit. I changed it above. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Crap no that sucks too. How about:


 * 1f) well-researched: it relies primarily on the highest-quality sources found after a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic
 * Maybe : "the article is a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic, relying primarily on the highest-quality sources in the industry or field of the topic."? --M ASEM 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1f) well-researched: it reflects a preference for the highest-quality sources available, based on a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic
 * I prefer Ling.Nut's original formulation and the use of "and":
 * 1f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic, and relies primarily on the highest-quality sources
 * Using "then" makes it sounds as if it is defining a process. We just want to raise the standard. But I would support in either case.--RelHistBuff (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Modifying 1c

 * I still think that this largely duplicates what 1c is saying ("relevant body" == the high quality sources that one should use; relevant helps distinguish between, say, the sources to use for video games and Shakespeare). Why not change 1c) instead of duplicating criteria?
 * c) well-researched: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to the relevant body of published knowledge; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * This takes care of the fear that "accurately represent" means that one can use lower quality sources as long they reflect what's being said in the higher quality ones. The problem I have with "relies primarily on the highest-quality sources" or similar phrases is that sometimes the highest-quality sources that address the topic may not be relevant to building the article. Say, for example, I were to try to bring a film to FA status. After doing my comprehensive research, the highest-quality sources that I find are a few published journal articles that dissect its themes/motifs/symbolism, etc. While I would certainly rely on them to build an Interpretation section, I wouldn't want to rely primarily on them, nor would I want an article to reflect a preference for them. I would want to use the "relevant body of published knowledge". A magazine article, while lower quality, might discuss the production of the movie in more detail than say a scholarly book that discusses the films of the director and only skims over the production. In an FAC, if I choose not to rely on the journal articles, then reviewers can rightly oppose on 1b). If, for the Interpretation section, I choose only to rely on webpages that address the topics covered by the journal articles and only squeak by WP:RS, reviewers can rightly oppose on 1c) in that these webpages are not in the "relevant body of published knowledge"; the journal articles are. Budding Journalist 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll note that I changed "primarily" to "preference". This is far from a trivial change. It gives you a little wiggle room (only in cases such as you described, when the best sources cannot be "primarily" used), to vary the quality of the sources... In addition, the presence of some verbiage indicating the conscious selection of and preference for the best available sources is the whole point! Your change is (very arguably!) a logical equivalent of mine (I do not think it is, but apparently you do).. but as I said before, logic takes a distant second place to pragmatics. The whole point of 1f is to emphasize the fact that we want to choose the best sources. The point is to write that fact in the sky in big bold letters (sort of) that people cannot avoid and cannot easily misinterpret. 1(f) also offers the three advantages I listed above, which I'll copy/paste here in case you didn't see them:
 * a convenient system of notation for a concept that already exists and already is enforced;
 * a convenient way to reduce the volume of argument about or against (see the arguments above) that commonsense idea, and
 * a explicit statement of what should be a rule of thumb to help us maintain our quality encyclopedia.
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the whole point of 1f is to emphasize choosing the best sources, can't you accomplish all this (including the three points) by modifying 1(c) and thus avoid duplicating criteria? My proposal changes the big bold letters of factually accurate (which all articles should be) to well-researched (which is what we emphasize at FAC). Thus, reviewers who feel that an article is not well-researched can cite 1(c) and point out what's wrong. If people do feel that "high quality sources" or similar wording is necessary, then we can tweak "relevant body of published knowledge" accordingly. Budding Journalist 22:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed in addition to adding very probable outcome of systemic bias by "primarily" relying upon "best available sources" (as defined by the narrow number of people who regularly review FAR), it also adds excess bureaucracy to FAR. じん  ない  23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no bureaucracy in FAR, it's quick and easy because most articles are so bad. As for the sources on pop culture, time to get out of the toilet. The definition of RS in there couldn't get any lower, really  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this? It seems like you're arguing that people who rely on the best available sources are inherently skewing their articles. I don't understand how you could possibly come to this conclusion --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Yes. My head hurts. My eyes are watering. For two reasons: first, the argument is based on language already dropped (dropped "primarily" in favor of "preference for"). Second, what Moni just said. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 23:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems there is still strong support for "primarly", however if it is "preferences for" then I would be fine on that point as long as there was clarification within it or as a footnote that this does not mean if a certain quality reliable source doesn't exist, then it won't automatically fail as I feel that without such clarification it will eventually turn into "if a certain quality source doesn't exist, it fails". I understand that is not your intent, but the best of intentions always tend to go astray and clarification here I think is important for the long-term.
 * Also this still does not address the fact that 1f would be excess beuracracy that could be achieved with rewording 1c. じん  ない  00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a !vote then

 * Note that Colin's suggestion for the intro was non-controversial and so should be adopted:
 * A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing.


 * The additional options for !voting, then, are as follows:
 * 1) Create 1f (first version):
 * f) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic, and relies primarily on the highest-quality sources
 * 1) Create 1f (second version):
 * f) well-researched: it reflects a preference for the highest-quality sources available, based on a comprehensive survey of literature on the topic
 * 1) Modify 1c (read carefully, please, and compare to existing 1c)
 * c) well-researched: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to the relevant body of published knowledge; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

Current 1c: "1*(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a 'References' section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"


 * (edit conflict) Comment I disagree with a vote yet. I am worried about the long-term impact of the change, irregardless of the intentions of the proposal since interpretation over time could very likely twist the meaning without clarification to not include anything from pop culture.
 * As I said previously, I am not saying this is your goal, but it is at risk of happening with any of those 3. じん  ない  00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1F has already gailed to gain consensus; I can't see the difference in 1c. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The 1c proposal is meant just to change the emphasis from ensuring that an article is factually accurate (all articles should be, not just FAs; factual accuracy is the most basic of requirements) to well-researched, which is what should be emphasized at FAC. The slight rewording is to emphasize the use of the "relevant body of published knowledge" (high quality sources, where applicable). See above. Budding Journalist 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The complaints about bad sources can just be doen piecemeal. A few people use it at FAR, complaining about 90% websites, and some saying that the source used doesn't have many citations from other work and so forth.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 00:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A theoretical 1f has not gained consensus. At most a need to clarify what the intent for sourcing for a FAR is has done so, but the methodology has not. じん  ない  00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1f has not failed to gain consensus; it has two people (Budding Journalist and Jinna1) arguing against it. sandy, have you been reading? Even FLPres agreed it's OK. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the very few people here and the large impact this will have on the whole of Wikipedia, I do say it has not gained consensus because the number of people is too small for the overall impact. じん  ない  02:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ling, am I missing something? Higher up on this page there are many people opposing 1f -- myself, Arnoutf, sillyfolkboy, Patton, JayHenry, Malleus, Tartarus.  Maybe more, I stopped reading when I found that many people opposing.  I haven't read every line of text on this page between there and here but I didn't see anything on a skim through where it appeared those folks have changed their minds.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)  P.S. Plus I think Sandy meant to say "failed to gain support", just above, not "gailed"; I don't see Sandy supporting 1f anywhere.
 * I am opposed too. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. Just more to discuss/argue about with no obvious benefit. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to it; Something this important needs Wiki-wide discussion, not a stealth passage/implementation by five people with plenty of spare time and a general disdain for the rest of the Wikipedia Community and their contributions. Commander Zulu (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think the rain of Opposes in the early going was an indication of the fact that many people had no clear understanding of what they were supporting or opposing. Once we pointed out the word "available" two things happened: most folks went silent, and a few said "Oh, if that's what you mean, it's fine." The proposed 1f merely gives emphasis (and a new, convenient notation) for an existing idea: do your research, and use the best sources available. It emphatically does not mean "all pop culture articles are disqualified because they do not use JSTOR or books from some academic press." In fact, the truth is, this new clause has almost no effect on many if not most pop culture articles. They already draw the preonderance of their info from websites. SO long as no other info exists, and so long as the websites are scrutinized and consensus holds them to be RS, they're fine. I see two and only two folks who have maintained the argument; sorry if other folks were silently opposing. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know full well that my opposition to 1f has nothing to do with being opposed to the use of high quality sources, Ling. Your characterization of me is disingenuous and hurtful. Budding Journalist 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my silence. I am opposed to it and, like BuddingJournalist, it has ''absolutely' nothing to do with being opposed to the use of high quality sources. --JayHenry (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just about Pop Culture articles; I'm active with WP:MILHIST and I do a lot of work on military firearm articles. What, exactly, does available constitute in this case? A lot of the Specialist Reference Works are shockingly expensive and not the sort of thing any library is likely to have a copy of. The books exist, and they're available in the sense that you could buy them from, say, Amazon, for a huge sum of money, but no library is likely to buy a copy and they're not really "available" in that almost no-one really has access to them. Then you've got people arguing over which book is the better source (Poster A: "Author X's work is full of errors!" Poster B: "No more than anyone else, and he's a prolific writer on the subject and this is the best source I could find!" Poster A: "No, Author Y is much more reliable!"; and so on. Basically, the current system is fine and not in need of any tinkering- and even if it was, there needs to be a LOT more discussion; this issue affects everyone on Wiki, you know. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything is subject to WP:COMMONSENSE. Everything is open for discussion; everything is settled on a case by case basis. If Specialist Reference texts are both ungodly expensive and unavailable at most libraries, then the subject of their use is extremely unlikely to ever even come up. We are volunteers. We should not and cannot be expected to shell out big bucks for the articles (if anyone wants to, then God love 'em, they're saints). we don't need to spell out every single detail that's dictated by WP:COMMONSENSE. We do need, however, a codified reminder that the better references should always be preferred to the lesser lights, to the degree that they are publically available. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be covered under WP:COMMONSENSE as well? Commander Zulu (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * People apply different thresholds to commonsense. The threshold contained within your example (Specialist Reference texts) is, at its base, money. To get the darn thing, most folks would have to spend money&mdash;perhaps lots of it. I think everyone could agree that's unreasonable for volunteer labor. However, some folks draw the line at going to the public library and or doing some research. There are a few folks who have no access to English libraries (believe it or not, I am one of them). But most folks do have such access, and if you wanna get a bronze star, you should at least be willing to schedule a couple hours on some weekend afternoon or other to do so. But some folks wanna hide behind RS and go with websites even when good academic texbooks exist. Others wanna hide behind RS and use a coffee table  book even though books by academic presses may exist. It needs to be spelled out plainly: RS is the lower limit, not the upper one, of acceptability. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why this needs a wider discussion. Your interpretations Ling are not the same as everyone elses. This also ins't something like WP:Wheel War which only affects a small group. Every non-list article in Wikipedia is potentially affected by this change. じん  ない  06:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think "1(f)" is needed as it's a solution to a non-existent problem. The thing is, any article that is using poorer source material than is available is highly unlikely to pass FAC anyway, as a consequence of the fact that they aren't using the best sources. Those using the best sources will have a better article and will not miss out important information. The source situation of this proposal (the Wilkes Booth FAC) has failed, thus suggesting that FA criteria are fine. Give me a good, current example of an article that passed with said poor sourcing and I'll change my opinion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heaps. Iqbal and Syed Ahmed Khan mostly use government PR pieces, most articles in WP:INFA have an extremely heavy reliance on websources. See the commetn I left on Ling Nut's talk page, there's a link to a discussion on WT:INB where some of them show a negative attitude to looking up proper books instead of just googling.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) There's nothing in the FAC criteria that says or even suggests that the best sources should be used. The FAC criteria stop at the threshold of RS; all barriers beyond that level are purely socially enforced. What we have are a small number of cranky (often reviled, always under-appreciated, accused of being "elitist")  FAC reviewers who insist that such be used, even though they have no cover or protection from WIAFA or any Wikipedia rule or guideline, and a FAC deputy or whetever who follows the lead of the reviewers in this matter. Essentially, no one has had the balls to stand up and say without falter or fail, "Show me the policy or guideline." Several people have argued at length with the cranky FAC reviewers. I don't wanna name names; old sores need to heal. Many many pixels have been killed and much time wasted trying to explain a rule that simply does not exist. Much grief has befallen FAC reviewers as they beat their heads trying to persuade people. Give us a simple 1f. Then we don't need to persuade or cajole. Then we won't be as naked before sour-grapes charges of "elitism." It will save much time. It will save much stress. It will reduce the load on overworked reviewers. And it will prevent the as-yet unseen day when someone says to FAC: "Show me the rule." Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 10:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe there is no community support for going beyond the requirements of WP:RS. Have you ever even considered this possibility? After all, FAC policy on image copyright is just the bare minimum to comply with WP:NFCC. It would save much WikiStress if those FAC reviewers who are currently trying to impose their own criteria outside of any guidelines or control were simply to shut up and use their considerable skills for improving encyclopedic content, instead of concentrating their time on a tiny number of articles which are often of no use to anyone except their authors. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "impose"? "tiny number of articles" that are "no use to anyone"? Hmm... --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of evidence for each of those accusations, yes, if that's what you're trying to imply. For "impose", you merely need to read the above. for "tiny number of articles", let us not forget that featured articles are less than 0.1% of Wikipedia content; as to "no use to anyone", one-third of all featured articles are currently classified as  on the WP:WP 1.0 scale. Physchim62 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, do you realize that not all projects use the importance parameter? (340 FA's from MILHIST don't use it, and I doubt that we are the only ones) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but please take a long look at the section title. No one has the power to "impose" anything. Could we get back to discussions and drop the accusations? --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but the threat of vetoing a FAC on the basis of not using a FAC reviewer's prefered sources is coercion. じん  ない  04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No reviewer has the power of veto; even the FA director and his delegates don't have that power. Any objections to the quality of sources have to stand on their merit, as do any rebuttals to those objections. It really makes little practical difference whether or not this proposed new/amended criteria is adopted, so I don't see much reason to get too excited about it one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was if I had one reliable source saying X and you had another saying the something very similar or exactly the same, then by that criteria I would be compelled to use your source. For something like that, even though mine is still reliable. Furthermore if my source disagreed, then just by naming a source you "perfer" the onus is on the nominee to dispute that claim rather than being a more impartial one because of how 1f (or the proposed rewording of 1c) is worded. Therefore that is why systematic bias is introduced. じん  ない  04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A scholarly book trumps a tabloid any day.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What about a scholarly journal? Or a SPS by an epert in the field? What you are doing is trying to use extremes to show your point, of which many tabloids might not even be entirely reliable. じん  ない  05:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording should be changed, or the criteria should be adhered to. I ran into this problem with my Jackie Robinson FAC. It will be a long time before I ever go back to FAC, if ever. I did 8 hours of MOS and copyediting per initial comments, then was told, basically, all of that was pointless because all of the references, and therefore the associated text, needed to be replaced. If the sources must be of the "highest quality" or "based on a comprehensive survey", that's fine. But don't let it be some unwritten rule that wastes people's time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you should put this on WP:CENT. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think we should agree on a proposal before we go to CENT. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 10:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the "current" proposed 1f is version 1 above, I still think the proposed guideline is poorly written and doesn't achieve what the proposers want to achieve.


 * "it reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic". How do you propose to test this? We already require the article is "comprehensive" and "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" and WP:NPOV ensures we accord appropriate weight to the various worthy opinions. So what does this additionally catch? I would like to know if this clause is testing the content of the article body, the list of sources at the end or requires FAC reviewers to enquire after the contents of the editor's library. The first is redundant because we amply cover it already, the last is inappropriate, which leaves us analysing the sources cited. If I have books A, B and C that are all excellent sources, but find I can source everything to A and B, is someone going to complain that I didn't cite C? Surely we only care if the article is comprehensive, not that the citations reflect a well stocked library?
 * "relies primarily on" implies to me that the core or the majority of sources must be "the highest-quality" but others need not. How many weak sources are you allowed?
 * "the highest-quality sources" It is all well and good to say we want "the best", but we don't want petty disputes over scholarly text A being better than scholarly text B, when both A and B are excellent, equivalent and support the article text. Surely when a source reaches the standard that a "professional" would consider using, then that is good enough? Do we really want FAC to be discussing journal impact factors or comparing the number of papers published by two authors to see which is a greater authority?

If both the extent and quality of the sourcing is of a standard that a professional would be satisfied with, is that not sufficient for FAC? Would demanding more than this improve the quality of the body-text (which is ultimately what counts)? I'm not opposed to making quality sourcing an explicit criterion, or amending one of the criteria to include "professional standard" somewhere. The 1f changes proposed so far just don't work for me. Colin°Talk 19:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blink break
I'm blinking here because I really don't understand opposition to an effort to make the criteria stronger. I'm stymied by collective satisfaction with being stuck. What happens to creativity when it meets an obstacle? By the course of this discussion, the energy is shifted into lowering standards. I am an amateur on everything I have written about, and I am not that special in what I have access to. However, I started out thinking I didn't have to do much because I was not required to do it. Now I am able to see the potential of this website as a tool, and I don't understand why other FA participants are so limited by bumps in the road. This is a clash in values and direction about where Wikipedia is going, because in terms of legitimacy FA writers lead the way on this site. It is something quite extraordinary to the small handful of people who realize what FA writers do; it could be that amazing to the rest of the world if they could get off of Essjay, John Seigenthaler, Jr. and Sinbad. Most of us have the capability to provide the best resource on almost any topic in the world, free, available to anyone with a computer and a modem, in quality that far surpasses anything else they can find in less than 20 keystrokes into Google. And selflessly, as we do this mostly anonymously. I find it incredible that an opposing argument here is that finding resources for a potential FA would be too much work. I don't even know how to respond to that. I have opposed articles with sources I considered substandard. If the criteria is not amended, it hurts nominators when they get the shock at FAC to learn their article is built on a house of sand. I will continue to oppose articles that have mediocre sources when it is obvious better ones are available, and it will cause all kinds of chaos when the nominator does not understand why, and considers me unreasonable. The bare minimum is not sufficient for FA, not for what is possible, and FA participants need to make a decision about their time spent here: is this going to be a slacker's paradise or a way to revolutionize information? --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's quite some speech Moni3, very stirring. Although I'm not altogether abandoning my previously stated "good enough is good enough" position, I'm beginning to accept that FAC's expectations of what can realistically be considered "good enough" perhaps need to be made clearer to nominators and writers. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "I find it incredible that an opposing argument here is that finding resources for a potential FA would be too much work. I don't even know how to respond to that." Yeah, I found that argument incredulous as well. My opposition to 1f is not because I'm opposed to using high-quality sources, but because of its wording and its duplication of existing criteria. I suspect I'm not the only one. No one yet has given me a satisfactory reason as to why modifying 1c to read well-researched cannot accomplish the same thing as a new 1f. Budding Journalist 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to making the criteria tighter. However, I think we need to be careful about it. A badly-worded change to the criteria, like the initial proposal, would have all sorts of unanticipated consequences. The Land (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Well-researched" is obviously open to interpretation, since individual editors' ideas of how far they will go to get a source varies due to experience, ability, and access to information. Some may consider "well-researched" to include an exhaustive GoogleBooks search. Others may consider the term to mean anything available on the internet, local library, or bookstore. And others may try to hunt down every source they can find. I think what would be an integral improvement to the criteria is to explain that FAs take a different level of work; the expectations are higher, and editors who undertake a nomination should realize this. What's available on Guitar Hero and what's available on Shakespeare or bacteria are miles apart. The simple truth is that people do not go the distance until pushed to do so, until the distance is shown to them. Once editors get an idea of what is expected of them in terms of sources and research, they can make the decision to see the nomination through or leave it for someone else. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? I don't really understand your argument. The 1(f) proposal uses "well-researched". Are you opposed to 1(f) as well? "comprehensive" is open to interpretation. "well-written" is open to interpretation. Like I've been saying throughout this discussion, if editors believe what follows my 1(c)'s "well-researched" (e.g. "the relevant body of published knowledge") is not strong enough, then that can be tweaked. Budding Journalist 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about your question. It deserves some thought. Didn't want you to think I'm blowing you off. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking only for myself, Moni, I disagree with your framing of the question. I don't think the proposal really makes the criteria stronger or the articles better.  Stronger and better articles might necessitate a more difficult FAC process.  But it does not, therefore, reason that anything that makes FAC more difficult, tedious, unmanageable, is therefore something that improves articles.  Part of my concern is that you don't seem to be acknowledging the potential for ludicrous overreaching in the criteria.  If you were aware of the potential harm from overreaching, then I'd be less concerned since it's something we could all be vigilant about.  You don't even seem to admit the hypothetical possibility that this concern could be valid after a tightening.  I'm saying it's already a big problem. --JayHenry (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This expresses my concern also. I agree with JayHenry's comments. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (undent) BuddingJournalist's 1c, if I'm not mistaken, reads as follows:
 * :''c) well-researched: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to the relevant body of published knowledge; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * I'm deeply puzzled. It is not substitutable for 1f in any way, shape or form, or in any portion, or in any reading or interpretation of the text. They are apples and oranges. Yours makes no mention of preferring the highest standards available. It makes no mention of conducting a thorough search... You would say that the bolded text "well-researched" suggests a thorough research must be carried out, but that is an unlikely  reading of your own text. In fact, your text starts with a label, "well-researched", and then goes on to define "well-researched" as being "supported by citations to the relevant body of knowledge"!  It makes no mention of any goals at all of this discussion. It is completely non-substitutable for either of the two suggested wordings (see "first version" and "second version" far above) of  1f. Color me deeply puzzled. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel like a broken record; if "supported by citations to the relevant body of knowledge" is inadequate, substitute it for something you feel that is. Off-the-top of my head (which probably isn't reflective of what you want): well-researched: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to high-quality sources; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; The reason I'm proposing a change to 1c is because we can kill two birds with one stone and avoid overlapping criteria. Factually accurate is weak; all articles should be factually accurate. We should require well-researched articles. Budding Journalist 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a viable alternative either. The entire point of 1f is that it sets a higher standard for sources than RS. Just as 1a sets a higher standard for prose, we need to set a higher standard for research at FAC. I find it astonishing that there is resistance to this idea. Only the prose has to be professional? Not the research? The research can be shoddy? Awadewit (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, you know that most of the resistance to 1f is not due to editors being resistant to a high standard of research at FAC. No one here is arguing that research should be shoddy (see the consensus for and recent addition of "sourcing" to "professional standards of..." in the first sentence [I actually preferred "research"]). I challenge you to find one review I've done where I imply that the "research can be shoddy". Budding Journalist 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can set the criteria as high as you like but they will still be useless unless they're enforced. The prose criterion at 1a is a good example of a criterion whose enforcement is patchy to say the least. Nobody is seriously suggesting that "Wikipedia's best work" should have shoddy research: to pretend that is simply to set up an Aunt Sally to knock down. The question is "will the proposed criterion 1f do anything to improve the current situation?" On that, I have to say that my opinion is NO. Indeed, I can think of a hypothetical example where the proposed 1f would make things worse. Imagine an article which comes to FAC sourced entirely from press reports. Most on-the-ball WP editors would be wary of such an article at first sight, yet if 1f were passed there would be no way of stopping it from becoming a featured article, if one assumes that the press reports were "the best sources available". What starts out as an honest attempt to improve standards actually ends up forcing people to pass articles which they wouldn't want to! Physchim62 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly, I already support many articles I don't think should be featured. :) That is not the issue. We need to make it much clearer to nominators that we expect serious research - exhaustive research. Explicitly stating this will help both nominators and reviewers. Right now, the criteria outline a vague idea of this, but nothing explicit. That is one reason why I think an addition would be helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never supported an article that I dont think should be featured, but perhaps you mean featured on the main page rather that FA? In any event, my chief objection to this proposed change is its black and white dichotomy in setting the very best possible against the rest. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant what I said. There are lots of things we feature that I don't think should be featured. Ex: biographies of living people. However, I know that there isn't community support for an "oppose" based on the grounds I would use. So, I support based on the criteria. I'm not sure what you mean by "black and white dichotomy" - could you expand a bit more? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little puzzled as to why you would support an article you didn't think should be featured though, which is what I understood you to be saying; in cases such as you mention I would simply not offer an opinion. To answer your question though, the dichotomy I'm afraid of is the binary choice between best possible sources and the rest. It's just not that simple. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I am capable of reviewing based on the FAC criteria and not on my own personal criteria, so why shouldn't I? We are sorely lacking in reviewers, and I feel this is something I can contribute. 2) Why shouldn't we use the best possible sources? What is the argument against that? (Deciding what those are might, at times, be difficult, but that does not seem to be the issue you are raising.) Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

← (outdenting reply to Awadewit) Would you like the short answer or the long answer? I'll give you the short one anyway. There is an issue of morality, beyond rules, which ought to prevent you from supporting articles you believe not to be worthy of being featured. As for the quality of sourcing issue, who's to decide what the "best possible sources" are? You? Me? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with all of the criteria, but I doubt anyone who votes here does. That should not prevent me from voicing my opinion. You are arguing that since I disagree with the process, I should not participate in it! Eh? Silence myself? I don't think so! Usually people try to alter systems that they have a problem with. That is what I am doing now, for example. Trying to change something I see as deficient in the process. The moral thing to do is not to remain silent but to agitate for reform. Awadewit (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's to decide what brilliant prose is, either? Most of the criteria are subjective. If I submitted Frankenstein sourced to whatever criticism and analysis I randomly dug up, most people could see if it was "well-researched" but wouldn't know if I used the best sources. Awadewit would, in this case. So, she could oppose on 1f but maybe couldn't oppose on 1c. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge of two proposals
Ling.Nut proposed a new 1f criterion. BuddingJournalist proposed a modification to 1c. How about merging the two? For example: I don't know how to fit in the words "relies primarily". Some tweaking would be in order. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * c) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against the highest-quality reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to the relevant body of published knowledge; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * I think is a very good proposal. The only question I have is about the phrase "specific evidence" - how is that different from citations? Awadewit (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That has been there for a while; I found myself questioning what that meant as well when writing up my 1c modification proposal. I think we can safely lose it. Budding Journalist 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The merge idea seems a good one. I don't know how anyone would assess a "comprehensive survey of [the] available literature" any differently that they do at present: if you know something that's missing, you should shout about it! However, if that is taken as a statement of intent rater than a strict criterion, I can see its validity. I still have more serious problems with the "highest-quality reliable sources": highest-quality according to whom? This seems like a trapdoor which would let more crap articles pass and fewer good ones through. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Physchim62, let me offer you a comparison: Mary: A Fiction and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I worked on both. Mary is much better than Jonathan Strange because there is only one piece of academic criticism on Jonathan Strange right now. If I were to nominate Strange for FAC, its crapiness would have to be chalked up to the fact that there are no better sources available than book reviews and interviews with the author. As a community, we have decided there does not have to be academic criticism on a topic for an article to be featured. I have mixed feelings about this, especially after writing Strange, which is indeed a "crap" article. However, it is quite clear that there are no better sources available. If you believe it should not pass FAC, we would actually need a radically different set of criteria than the one we have to exclude it, though. This proposal would ensure that at the very least articles like Mary would be forced to use the academic sources available and articles like Strange would be forced to do a comprehensive survey of the book reviews that are available. Awadewit (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this contains the phrase "reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature" I would be very strongly opposed to it. The Land (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Please explain the problem with that. Awadewit (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria&diff=prev&oldid=271858529 - to which there has been no satisfactory response. One editor suggested somewhat a 5-minute conversation with a historian would provided the required 'comprehensive survey', which is to suggest that 'comprehensive' in this setting means 'cursory'. Another suggested that this would be solved because large articles would be 'a team effort', as if smaller articles weren't.
 * I reiterate for anyone who can't be bothered to click through the link. 'Comprehensive' is a very strong word indeed and there are many articles where a 'comprehensive survey' is almost impossible to achieve. The proposed wording means that a subject like World War I cannot be a featured article without a team of Ph.D. students working on it. There are a huge number of relevant sources and many of the key secondary sources are in other language. If this result is not the intention of the proposed wording then by all means change it but I think calling for a 'comprehensive survey' is a very serious mistake. Regards, The Land (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A 5-minute conversation with a historian does not mean cursory. It means that someone who is not a trained historian can ask a trained historian for a "required reading" list and the trained historian can provide one in five minutes. I can do this on several topics I have studied. I agree that larger topics will have to be team efforts, particularly if no expert is available. What is wrong with that? It would be great if all articles were really team efforts, but we don't have the resources for that. I have to disagree with you that we don't want to achieve the level of "comprehensive" you define for the WWI article. Without a real survey of all the relevant material across all languages, the article will be deficient. In the end, we either need the help of academics or we need seriously dedicated amateurs if we want to have high quality articles. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's really the idea then I am very strongly opposed to this immense tightening of the Featured Article Criteria. The Land (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on what reasoning? Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasoning I have been posting on this page since this discussion began. The Land (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a monumental task for many articles, but this is as it should be. Large, important topics with lots of scholarly work will require reading and synthesizing the vast amount of literature out there. And it's been done before. See William Shakespeare, Hamlet, King Arthur—three articles that are the pride of Wikipedia. We should be concerning ourselves with the quality of articles, and we should not be content with lower standards just because of the difficulty in achieving high-quality articles. Budding Journalist 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "... topics with lots of scholarly work will require reading and synthesizing the vast amount of literature out there". Not quite right I'm afraid, see WP:SYNTHESIS. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus, you're smart enough to know that that's not the type of synthesis I'm referring to. Budding Journalist 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too am opposed to the "comprehensive survey of available literature" phrase. At least with "relevant body" for the article-comprehensiveness, we had the ability to choose of which kinds of literature were appropriate for the subject. In medicine, for example, we are usually only interested in recent secondary literature and WP:MEDRS strongly discourages editors from conducting a comprehensive survey of the primary literature. There are over two million papers on "cancer" in PubMed (of which a quarter of a million are reviews).
 * I feel that you aren't going to achieve consensus on an elaborate definition of "well researched" that is suitable for all FAC subjects. Keep it simple. Avoid adjectives that demand perfection (highest). I'm uncomfortable about losing "factually accurate" from the list. How about keeping 1c to worry about source quality and stick something like "high quality" or "superior" in front of "reliable sources". Then have simply "1 (f) thoroughly researched." and leave it at that. Colin°Talk 18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that clearly many editors think "thoroughly researched" means "what I can find on the internet" and other such ridiculous definitions. We need to be clear about what we mean. There are many poorly-reserached articles at FAC - we need to make our expectations clearer. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think factually accurate is weak though; all articles must be factually accurate, not just FAs. Above, I did propose well-researched: claims are verifiable against reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to high-quality sources; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;, although Ling did not respond to this particular iteration. What would go after your 1f? Budding Journalist 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing after my "1 (f) thoroughly researched." That's the point. We can agree they should be thoroughly researched. Quite how to define that, for all article types, is too hard and unnecessary. Wrt "factually accurate", you could argue "neutral" is redundant to policy too but I think it is worth repeating. We've had medical FACs that appeared well researched (lots of quality citations) but the text didn't actually match the sources. Let's not drop this important aspect. Colin°Talk 19:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that an article mispresented its sources is a totally different issue - a serious one, but a separate issue. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of the other commentators that expressed some reservations some sections above about "available". I'd be much happier with "relevant" instead ("it reflects a comprehensive survey of relevant literature on the topic ", although this still somewhat overlaps with 1b), but then we'd have to tweak "citations to the relevant body of published knowledge". Budding Journalist 15:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, without "available", the people who write pop culture articles won't understand the criteria (see ginormous misunderstanding above). What do we think about "published" as an alternative? Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "published", but we're approaching the "the relevant body of published knowledge" in wording. By the way, I'd still argue that "relevant" is a better, more concise way of saying "on the topic". Budding Journalist 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we could just move some things around: c) well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of (the relevant body of published knowledge / the relevant published literature). Claims are verifiable against (the highest-quality / high-quality) reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; Budding Journalist 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would object to "highest quality" and would prefer to see "high quality". Who's to be the judge of "highest"? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, see my comments above. Colin°Talk 18:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "High quality" is fine. It is less argumentative than "highest quality" and should achieve the main goal. That was one of the 2 main objectives I had with the earlier proposal. じん  ない  20:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Highest" implies some sort of absolute standard. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 21:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To provide an example of how "highest" is ludicrous overreach, rather than an improvement of standards -- for a lot of information about financial markets the highest quality source would be a Bloomberg terminal. Access to a Bloomberg Terminal costs $1,750 a month.  People pay this money because, well, it's worth it.  It's really without question the highest quality information.  People in certain lines of work can easily get access to Bloomberg Terminal data.  I recognize that not everyone has easy access to this type of information.  The type of information you can get with just a little bit of work is perfectly adequate for Wikipedia.  Requiring "highest quality" serves to exclude certain editors from a topic -- it does trivially little to improve the content, and in aggregate it would harm the content by preventing people from even trying to push against an impossible and unreasonable standard.  I recognize that the actual highest quality information on financial markets is difficult for, say, some grad student at some random university to get their hands on.  It would be nice if there was some recognition vice-versa. --JayHenry (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) The other thing to bear in mind is that there are often surprisingly few editors working on a particular subject. It's all well and good to say that "If you don't have access to certain specialist references we don't want your contributions" (actually, it's not well and good to say that, but that's not my point), but then all that does is doom entire topics to "start" class because the editor in whose field of interest the article lies hasn't got the money or ability to go and check the Definitive Text, although they may have access to lesser works that are still perfectly sound references. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should make a distinction between articles that have been thoroughly researched and are sourced to the best sources and those that have not. There are lots of impediments to thoroughly researching an article: educational level, access to the internet and research libraries, personal finances, language skills, etc. However, none of those are the issue here. The issue is what we want a featured article to be. I see no reason why we should not encourage editors to use the best sources available. Lesser works are indeed sufficient for the beginnings of an article, but why would we want to advertise that the best of Wikipedia is based on this kind of reserach? That seems quite strange to me. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided an example above of why requiring best instead of perfectly good is counterproductive. --JayHenry (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To add another example to the Bloomberg one JayHenry gave earlier, for many technical subjects the "best" sources are quite likely to be company confidential. Standards that may arguably be applicable in the narrow field of 18th-century literature cannot reasonably be extrapolated across the whole of wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is in Bloomberg that we don't need? Why is it so unnecessary? I am a bit worried that this discussion is getting side-tracked. Some of the FACs that ignited this discussion had problems much more serious than this - children's books as sources, for example. We were never discussing "good" vs. "excellent", etc. The bigger problem is that nominators can say "it technically fits our reliable sources policy, so why can't I use it?" What is the answer to that question? Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not at all unnecessary. It would be nice to have, in fact.  It'd be great to see a table of the CDS spread on businesses mentioned in an article about a crisis, for example.  Or ETFs for any contemporaneous article about an industry.  But if it's well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable then I'm not going to object because you didn't even look it up on a Bloomberg Terminal and so clearly didn't do the highest standards of research.  As for the use of children's books, that easily falls under 1c and I'd argue WP:RS.  (If you need help with the children's books in FACs pandemic, give me a holler and I'll help make the case it's 1c and WP:RS.)  I'm worried about how the criteria will be overused to comical and ignorant effect and will drive away many reasonable writers while in many cases providing marginal or no improvement to the content.  Since I'm not seeing acknowledgment that there needs to be vigilance against abuse of a new 1f then I can be almost certain that abuse will occur. --JayHenry (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not very happy about the proposed changes, because as far as I can tell there are no examples anyone can point to where the new criterion would allow an oppose that would not have been allowed under the existing criteria, and where that led to an arguably incorrect promotion to featured status. Can someone cite an example of a problem such as this, please?  Mike Christie (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * John Wilkes Booth, Thomas Cranmer, and William Henry Harrison are good examples. To oppose these articles on comprehensiveness, one has to know exactly what is missing from the article (often this requires hours of research on the part of reviewers, if they are not already familiar with a subject matter). However, one can also see that Booth and an earlier version of Cranmer (see first FAC) could have been opposed based on the research alone - even if you don't know all of the details of these people's lives, you can tell from looking at the sources that the article does not do an adequate job of representing these men's lives. Harrison is still one I'm trying to figure out and is an ongoing case. I think it is interesting that the most detailed oppose there, based on comprehensiveness, was not enough to fail the article yet; the nom has been restarted for some reason. Considering that comprehensiveness is certainly one of the things most difficult to fix at FAC, I fail to see the point of a restart in that case. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's self-evident that I agree with any opinion here that states clarification of the criteria to tighten "well-researched". Well, I do. Part of the problem is that we're trying to amend a bare-bones description—a start class description of sorts—to explain how to write a Featured Article. "Brilliant prose" is so abstract Tony1 had to write an interactive essay on how to achieve it. And after an editor goes through it, it's still somewhat abstract. We seem to be trying to rewrite the criteria based on using as few words as possible. Is this being done for simplicity's sake? The grey areas that are left, that we seem to be fussing about, are a product of lack of clarity. This is a whole new can of worms, but what if we expanded the criteria to say exactly what we mean? Would we just be back here forever arguing about it? Or might it help an FA newbie who is interested in participating? --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is trying to explain "well-researched" to someone who does not already know what that means. We are splitting hairs above about what consitutes the best source when many articles come to us manifestly lacking basic research. However, clearly the editors think they have done the research. That is the real problem here. How, for example, can we convey in the criteria that one should not even think of nominating a biographical article without incorporating information from the major published biographies on a person (be they online or not)? Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not splitting hairs to raise perectly reasonable objections to an amendment demanding "the highest-quality reliable sources", and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Drawing on Moni3's point, why doesn't someone write an essay on sourcing? We have several top editors here who are capable of offering advice on researching history, literature, biography, etc. I repeat that the currently proposed text fails for several article types, such as science and medicine. There is a big difference between encouraging editors to use the best sources available and making "best" or "highest-quality" the threshold. This is the difference between offering advice and making a law. The latter is very hard and why I suggest we just have "Thoroughly researched" as the 1f criterion (along with the lead text "professional standards of ... sourcing" and "exemplifies our very best work"). I do not think that one can define "thorough research" in half a dozen words in a way that applies to all FA topics. Let's have an essay like Tony1's "brilliant prose". Colin°Talk 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By all means, there should be an essay on sourcing like Tony's on prose. But there should also be the equivalent raising of standard, not just a simple encouragement. The prose standard is "brilliant" or "professional" according to 1a. The sourcing standard should be "high", "highest", or "best available" in 1c. Mike Christie asked for examples of "incorrect promotion" to FA if we did not have this higher 1c standard. To Awadewit's examples, one should add the wrongly-promoted Samuel Adams mentioned above by Kevin Myers. But as I stated previously, the higher standard would not only help us to correct such a problem but also to avoid problems. It is a direct signal to nominators that a high-level of research is expected. The Jackie Robinson nominee, Peregrine Fisher, mentioned this advantage. I can even mention my own experience. I was fortunately made aware of using the best, modern sources during the peer review of one FAC. I was simultaneously researching for another FAC, Huldrych Zwingli. I had downloaded several 19th century sources from digitised libraries on the web. If I had written the article with these so-called reliable sources, not only would there have been gaps in the scholarship, there would have been several false statements. I luckily avoided what happened to Peregrine Fisher. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with adding a quality adjective in front of "reliable sources" in 1c. But not "highest" or "best". The point of a "threshold" in a set of criteria is that one can meet or exceed it, not that it is an ideal to be aimed for. Colin°Talk 08:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite. The Featured Article Criteria are not a description of the Perfect Article. The Land (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true and something that should be kept in mind during these sorts of discussions. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"High-quality" vs. "Highest-quality"
''well-researched: it reflects a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with specific evidence and citations to the relevant body of published knowledge; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;''

How much support would this proposal get if we said "high-quality" sources rather than "highest-quality"? Could this be a compromise? Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with high-quality. Budding Journalist 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As am I. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me too. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I'll leave this discussion open a while longer to see if anyone has any objections. Assuming none in the next few days, I'll go ahead and add it. Raul654 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I remain opposed to the words "comprehensive survey". "Survey" would be fine, but comprehensive is a step too far . The Land (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To survey means "to view or consider comprehensively", so, in reality, the word is redundant. The idea of it is inherent in "survey". If you are opposed to "comprehensive", you are opposed to "survey". Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (editconflicT)Yes, you're right, I am opposed to 'survey'. The bibliography of Niall Ferguson's "The Pity Of War", which is a survey of the sources on World War I, runs to 41 pages. This proposed criterion means that World War I can never be a featured article until Wikipedia editors track down those 41 pages' worth of books and papers in University libraries, learn the relevant languages, and digest them. And that's an easy topic. Someone said in the course of the debate above that there are over 100,000 published papers in the subject of cancer - if one only pays attention to review papers and analyses, and ignores the 2.4 million primary research papers. I'd add that none of my FAs have reflected a comprehensive survey of the literature on the subject, and indeed I have probably omitted to read several hundred relevant books and papers on the subject of battleships. As Wikipedia is intended for the general reader, I think the articles are no weaker for this. The Land (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still pondering this wording but I'm not convinced by your comment, Awadewit. As a datapoint, I should say that not one of my Anglo-Saxon history FAs was written after a comprehensive survey, and that if anyone were to take one of them to FAR on the basis of this new criterion I would find it hard to defend the article.  (I am very much an amateur in A-S history.)  For the science fiction FAs, where I am still an amateur but feel much more in command of the literature, I might make a reasonable defence but I am aware of sources for some of them that I did not consult.  This is not an argument against the criterion, merely a comment that including the word "comprehensive" does, I think, strengthen the FA criteria a great deal.  If my articles should not be FA then that's fair; if they should be then it is too strong.  There's no question that I would like every FA to meet this criterion; I'd like every FA to be perfect in every way.  I'm not yet convinced it's the right thing to do.  A separate way to look at it is that this codifies content expertise: one cannot comprehensively survey the literature without being a content expert.  The criterion legislates that FAs must be properly reviewed for content, but can legislation change FAC behaviour?  Or would we simply nod at 1f, as some of us nod at content criteria now, and say "Well, I don't know the field so I can't judge that criterion"?  Perhaps that's not a reason to set high standards, though.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. One more quick point: I don't like a criterion that specifies editor behaviour; it should specify article content. As written, it says "reflects" a comprehensive survey; if an article was written without actually consulting them I would prefer a criterion that specifies that the reviewer can find fault if the article fails to contain material it should contain.  Mike Christie (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding what this "survey" would entail. I did not read every book about Mary Shelley to write that article, however and I established what books were important to read by looking at the bibliographies of important books, seeing what was listed in "recommended reading" lists about Shelley, and consulting Shelley scholars (neither of us is a Shelley expert). You don't have to read everything to conduct a survey - you have to know what to read by looking at the literature. The key to this is that articles are not based on a random selection of materials (what is available at one's bookstore, what is available on the internet, etc.), but on a careful selection of reliable scholarship. In other fields this is done entirely differently. In science, for example, there are review articles to guide researchers. Awadewit (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is the problem: the phrase will not be understood to mean what you intend. Wrt the point on science, the purpose of reviews is not "to guide researchers" to the literature, though they no doubt do so. They are written for experts so that those without the highly specific expertise, time or facilities to perform a "comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic" can understand what those experts consider the state of the knowledge base to be. That is why we (as a tertiary source) cite them rather than use them as a bibliography of research papers to read and cite instead. This isn't something that can change if we become more professional in our research, because policy forbids the necessary original research needed to join the dots. Colin°Talk 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to PS - Actually this is exactly the point. Sometimes reviewers don't have enough knowledge of a topic to oppose on grounds of comprehensiveness, but it is clear that the article must be lacking because the research methods underlying it are shoddy. This is a legitimate reason to oppose the article, but up until now was difficult to justify based on the criteria. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think this might lend itself easily to frivolous opposes though? The kind that says "you didn't include sources X, Y, Z; not a comprehensive survey" even if there may be perfectly valid reasons why the sources weren't used? Budding Journalist 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would then expect to hear those reasons. The reasons should be something like "that book is no longer respected", "that book replicates material in Book X", "that book uses outmoded methods", etc. I would not expect to hear "where did you find that?", "my local B&N doesn't have that", etc. Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Awadewit) I did not consult Ashley and Tymn's Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Magazines for any of my science fiction FAs, because I don't have a copy. I spotted one yesterday in a bookstore and realized it's a top-quality source (though I didn't buy it; it was $75).  If someone had responded to one of my FACs that they were concerned it had not been consulted, what should have happened?  Is that a legitimate reason to oppose?  Glancing through it I found that one of my FACs might have benefitted from it, but one other seemed adequately covered by the sources I had used.  What about the other half-dozen?  Should they have passed without the use of this source?  If someone were to find material in this source that I should have used, that's absolutely a reason to oppose.  But the lack of an easy way to funnel content expertise to FAC should not lead us to allow suspicion of flaws as a reason to oppose, simply because there are no experts available to indicate whether the suspicions are founded.  For the objections you want to make, it seems to me RS suffices as it stands. Mike Christie (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it surely isn't enough to just look on google books for a few searches, grab some information out of some older books that are given in full on google books, check to see if there are any newspaper articles in the New York Times and call that enough research? For your Anglo-Saxon FAs, check with the sources used for the ONDB, that usually gives you a good bibliography that is relevant to the subject. I am not saying that a complete multi-year research project needs to be undertaken, but neither is a quick google search enough either. The problem is striking a balance between the two extremes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I see two legitimate and persuasive arguments here. On the one hand, tightening the criteria as advocated above may lead to opposes based on hunches that the article is not comprehensive as Mike points out. On the other hand, keeping the current criteria allows the passing of non-well-researched articles that say, rely entirely on readily available newspaper articles/websites (that may all meet WP:RS) instead of scholarly works, because reviewers aren't willing to spend hours to research that should have been done by the article authors. Which is worse? I lean towards the latter, but am sympathetic to nominators who would be caught in the former. Budding Journalist 18:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The place for articles that are not all that well-reseached is GA, right? :) Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We know for sure that the latter is already happening and fixing that is the goal of the proposal. As for Mike Christie's comments on the new criterion's effects on current FAs, I am prepared to fix the ones that I worked on to the best of my ability and if the community feels that they are no longer worthy of being an FA, then so be it. The bronze stars are not for the individual editors; they are for everyone. The clause "reflects a survey of available literature" seems fine to me. Ditto with "high-quality". --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Available" vs. "Relevant"
Available vs. Relevant Forgot to add that I remain in favor of either "the relevant body of published knowledge" or "the relevant published literature" instead of "available literature on the topic". Budding Journalist 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Available" was added for the pop culture folks, who feared we were tightening the criteria to include only academic sources. I kind of think "relevant" is implied, but perhaps it needs to be stated? Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the pop culture folks were worried about the lack of scholarly works on their topics, right? If so, then to me, "relevant" seems to be a better word choice; "available" has the added meaning of able to consult (as in, "if it's not available online in Google books, then I'm not going to use it") rather than simply existence. Budding Journalist 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but they were confused for some reason. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree available is too vague. If I don't have a hardcopy in my home and there is no free internet access it is right now not available to me. Hardly decent research though; I could at least wait untill libraries open again tomorrow. Arnoutf (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "available right now, this instant", it says "available". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither is "available" synonymous with "available to me". Would this discussion be easier if we could all agree on what words like "comprehensive" and available really do mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem. Awadewit reads a "a comprehensive survey of available literature on the topic" and sees "a careful selection of reliable scholarship" (where the selection is done with the aid of bibliographies, reading lists and consulting the work of topic-scholars) which sounds absolutely fine. But I read it and see something entirely different and unwelcome when considering a medical article. We have to find a phrasing that isn't open to wildly different interpretations. I'd be quite happy with "a thorough and careful selection of reliable scholarship" instead, if this is what is intended. Colin°Talk 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement. Which is why "comprehensive" is entirely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thorough and Careful Section of Reliable Scholarship is much better IMHO, but still doesn't take into account there may not be that many sources- or one Definitive Source and a few Not As Definitive But Still Perfectly Acceptable Sources. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like some better understanding of how it would be applied. A while back I became very interested in F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald and so I spent a great deal of time researching them and their writing and the scholarship surrounding them; after thorough research I carefully selected the best scholarship and purchased about a dozen of the best books, containing the perspectives of dozens of the most highly respected scholars in this field.  I felt at the time this would clearly be sufficient, by any reasonable interpretation of standards, for FAC.  I realized, however, after doing the first article in the series that if I arrived to WP:FAC with F. Scott Fitzgerald I would be welcomed with an oppose citing the number of references in the MLA database, ignoring any actual "careful selection of reliable scholarship", and sent packing.  Are we saying that this proposal from 1f would protect nominators from reviewers who are making the process unreasonably cumbersome? --JayHenry (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like everyone thinks we are after them and "their" articles. This is so bizarre. Jay, you would obviously be able to respond with intelligent answer about your research methods. However, I have been at numerous FACs where I have begun with the question about the MLA database and received the answer "what is the MLA database?" That is when the problems arise. The problem is not with someone who has "carefully selected the best scholarship" and can defend their selections but with someone who has no idea that such a selection is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of those who responded "The ML what?" But forthwith did I get to the library and see what it was, milk it dry and leave it feeling used and cheap. It's probably a good idea to have an essay that correlates to Tony1's "How to Satisfy Criterion 1a" that explains what high quality sources are by FA category. I'm willing to start it, but I need help with writing the medical section and some other stuff... --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Converging proposal
I think we are down to one clause left to define:

c) well-researched: it reflects . Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

where there are three four proposals for : I still favour clause 1, but 3 is also acceptable for me. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) a survey of available literature on the topic (modified Ling.Nut proposal)
 * 2) the relevant body of published knowledge (from BuddingJournalist)
 * 3) a thorough and careful selection of reliable scholarship (from Colin)
 * 4) a survey of relevant literature on the topic (BuddingJournalist's modification to Ling.Nut's proposal)
 * The problem with #3 is that it implies that we will only accept scholarship, so what about topics that scholarship hasn't reached yet? Awadewit (talk)
 * Yes, that would pose the same problem to the pop culture articles as mentioned earlier. #1 seems the best, but others have disagreed. I forgot though that it was also discussed to replace "available" with "relevant". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it as 4. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then option 3 is too narrow for subjects lacking scholarship, and option 1 is too wide for subjects with scholarship but an over-abundance of literature that is neither necessary or desirable to cite. Option 2 is no different really to the current text of 1c jumbled about. Option 4 will just cause arguments over what "relevant" means (who would use an irrelevant source anyway). Plus 1c has now had the following removed from it "factually accurate: ... accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge ... with specific evidence ... " I'm not happy about insisting on a first class References section, when the actual article may bear little resemblance to the "body of published knowledge". Colin°Talk 13:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take a look at the previous threads. The change to "well-researched" was already discussed. The "relevant body" part is still under discussion. The "specific evidence" part was discussed and agreed that it could be dropped. The converged proposal is a distillation of all the discussions. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any significant discussion let alone consensus support for the dropping of "factually accurate" in favour of "well researched". BuddingJournalist has proposed that phrase several times, some as 1f, some as 1c. Most times the phrase has been considered are as 1f. When I first questioned it he responded briefly with his opinion. I have now questioned it a second time. Nobody else has indicated support for this change. I fear everyone is so focussed on coming up with wording for source quality that we have sacrificed an even more important quality simply because 1c is over-long already so something needed to be cut. If one wants to go down the "well, that's policy anyway so we don't need to repeat it" argument on the WIAFA criteria, then we can take a knife to most of 1c, all of 1d, everything in 2 after "It follows the style guidelines" and most of 3. IMO "factually accurate" and "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" are as vital to an FA as neutrality and comprehensiveness. Colin°Talk 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there certainly is no overwhelming consensus yet, but to say that "Nobody else has indicated support for this change" is inaccurate; see the first few postings under "Merge of two proposals". It's not that "factually accurate" is already policy anyway (it isn't), but that I think we should be aiming higher than just "factually accurate". To me, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" implies factually accuracy. However, would explicitly including factual accuracy somewhere in that phrase cover your concerns? Or are you more concerned about losing it as a bolded criteria? Budding Journalist 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will assume that #3 is withdrawn as Colin has agreed with its difficulties. I just wanted to point out that the #1 version is very close to the version mentioned two sections above. The only difference is that the words "comprehensive" and "specific evidence" were dropped in response to comments. Some people supported the previous version including Raul. IMO, #1 or #4 addresses the problem that originally triggered this discussion (the Booth FAC) and includes all the inputs given so far. BuddingJournalist would you accept #4? --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support #4 as being (close to) what is done at the moment and also as being all that FAC reviewers could reasonably hope to achieve. The term "relevant" is very important for scientific projects, as there is so much literature out there that it is already difficult to keep appropriate weight to articles well below FA/A-class level in the face of well-referenced PoV-pushers. Proposal #1 would leave us defenseless against this at FAC-level, and it would simply be ignored lower down the scale. Physchim62 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to think "relevant" would help but a PoV pusher would consider his fringe theory to be relevant because it is about the topic. Neither "relevant" or "available" add anything here since the opposite of "irrelevant" and "unavailable" are ridiculous. Colin°Talk 09:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * # 1 is still better. #4 implies that just because it's available, it's not neassarily relevant, which is what WP:RS takes care of as well as the general idea of "high-quality". As to what to expect of users, the closest thing to a guideline we have is WP:EL which deals more with external links (though it does somewhat carry over to citing since many sources use external citations). From this we can use #6 and #7 of links to avoid to get a relative idea of what kind of threshold should be considered "reasonable" for non-internet sources, specifically from #6, "payment". じん  ない  05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) it preserves the quality control of information by evaluating and selecting sources based on a reasonably diligent review of the body of relevant knowledge. Knock yourselves out. ;-) Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically I'd say if someone can get the item for free, even if it requires going to a library or takes some time, it should be fine. If it's something that cannot be assumed the average user could aquire for free within that kind of reasonable search, it should generally not be something that would fail an article if it lacked. じん  ない  08:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree, and this is going a little off topic. Many sources that are essential to many FA topics would only be found for free in a university library of a major city, which is hardly within reach of an average user. Perhaps if this merits further discussion, a new section could be created. Colin°Talk 09:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've noticed #1 has lost "comprehensive", it isn't saying much at all. It doesn't say what quality of "survey" is performed. Even an inadequate survey would, strictly speaking, be acceptable here. A Google search is a survey, albeit a limited one. How about:
 * 5 a thorough and careful survey of literature on the topic.

Colin°Talk 09:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the discussion above, Awadewit mentioned that a survey implies that it is comprehensive. I don't think it is necessary to be too prescriptive. No reviewer would be able to minutely examine the amount of work done by a nominator, but he/she could get an indication by looking at the sources and citations and then form a question backed up by the criterion. I am also persuaded by Physchim62's argument concerning the term "relevant" for the science articles. I switch support from #1 to #4. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I support #4 + Colin's adjectives, plus change "reflects" to "characterized by" to be more clear..."it is characterized by a thorough and careful survey of relevant literature on the topic.' Need the words thourough and careful. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These are criteria, not guidelines. They need to be prescriptive. I support Ling.Nut.Public's suggestion here. Colin°Talk 09:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I would like to see a higher standard in some form, I would certainly support Ling.Nut.Public's version as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose any version that has majority support; I trust the FAC process to work out any slight bugs in the wording. However, I'm still unable to see what oppose could be based on these that could not be based on the existing 1c and the recently added "professional ... sourcing" in the general description. Awadewit listed some articles with problems for which the revised criterion would allow an oppose; if the sources have clearly been skimpily surveyed that that is not professional sourcing and the body of the article is unlikely to "accurately reflect the relevant body of published knowledge". My previous opposition was based on a concern that the criterion would be used to justify a fishing expedition -- "go look at these sources", without knowledge of whether they're truly relevant; and also because some wordings addressed editor behaviour ("do a survey") rather than article contents ("contain accurate and relevant information"), and that seemed to me to be less desirable. I've been convinced by this discussion that the intentions are in line with a reasonable usage of the criterion, so this is just to say that if anyone is keeping track of who supports what I'm withdrawing my opposition to these changes, even though I don't see the need. Mike Christie (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable accessibility to sources
To quote myself: ...[I]f someone can get the item for free, even if it requires going to a library or takes some time, it should be fine. If it's something that cannot be assumed the average user contributor could acquire for free within that kind of reasonable search, it should generally not be something that would fail an article if it lacked. I changed "average user" average contributor".

The point here is that while we expect high quality sources, failing an FAC because it doesn't have several specific soruces on someone's list that cannot be obtained by a reasonably for free, then we shouldn't require them to pass an FAC. If they have them, that is indeed a plus. The reasoning is that we cannot assume that users have money to spend. Time, yes, because they are here editing articles, but money, no, because Wikipedia is free and therefore failing a nomination the average contributor could not aquire is biased against the very nature of Wikipedia being open for anyone to attempt to get an article from stub to FA. じん ない  09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I use as an example again the Huldrych Zwingli FAC, but this applies to nearly all the FACs I've worked on. The best biographies on Zwingli (one by a German historian, the other by a Sheffield University professor emeritus) are both out-of-print. My university library had one but not the other. I decided that if I could not get both, then reaching FA would be impossible. However, I was fortunate enough to find a used copy of the missing book for a moderate price. If we used the argument of "money limitations" to pass a FAC, then someone else may use the free downloadable 19th-century biographies, make a mediocre article on Zwingli (including gaps and wrong statements), and then get the article promoted. But surely this is not a representation of one our best and anyone familiar with Reformation history would laugh at Wikipedia if he/she read this mediocre article. The raising of our FA standards is really for the credibility of Wiki. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything stricter would violate some of Wikipedia's core policies on resouces such as WP:NPOV and more directly WP:Editing policy the first statement which links to "is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date." (underlining is my emphasis). じん  ない  10:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal does not violate the policies. There is no policy that says you must use freely-available sources. Almost all sources, even out-of-print ones are accessible (through libraries and even if you do not have access to them, others might). The policies apply for all articles including stubs and start-class. The FA criteria simply raises the standards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you have access to it, does not mean it is "accessable. JayHenry pointed out such a sitution earlier in this page where demanding such a source would contermind WP democratic principle and why we should not hold articles hostage at FAC for specific references (better overall is different). じん  ない  11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the bizarre part of this is that if someone has not read a number of key texts, and does not have them available to them, then why do they try to take that article to FAC? Perhaps all this criteria rewrite is entirely in vain; it's pretty clear that the nominators who have necessitated this change have not read the criteria anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * it's also for educational purposes. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is totally absurd - freely available sources are not always up-to-date or reliable. We should use the best sources, not the ones published most widely. For example, Google Books has made available many 19th-century history texts. However, these are all out-dated. We should not rely on them - we should rely on modern historical scholarship, which is much more difficult to obtain because it is under copyright and because it is expensive. That editors have to go to libraries to obtain this material is perhaps unfortunate, but we should not compromise accuracy for some illusory idea of accessibility. Awadewit (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quit twisting my words. I never said the sources has to be available on the net, but if it's not available at a library a reasonable person can access (which includes the possibility of the library requesting it from another one), it is probably too exclusive and not widely avaliable. じん  ない  12:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Too exclusive!? Jinnai, this is ridiculous. Quality trumps accessibility when it comes to sources. "very nature of Wikipedia being open for anyone to attempt to get an article from stub to FA." Anyone can attempt to do so; not everyone can achieve an FA. This is the nature of FA. If editors are unable to consult major sources on a topic, then they won't be able to write a comprehensive, well-researched article. This notion that an article should be allowed to achieve FA just because the nominator tried hard in writing the article with inferior sources is absurd. FA isn't A for effort; it's a measure of quality. Budding Journalist 13:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki. Collaborate with others to obtain information from hard-to-reach sources. There is no requirement to do anything by oneself. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Returning to Huldrych Zwingli. I take the point that in some cases it will be necessary to consult obscure sources because they are the only ones with a decent account. However, I am concerned that we might end up failing FACs which have not consulted obscure and expensive sources, even if those sources have little to add compared to more modern summaries of them. To take the example of Dreadnought, there are at least four very significant works I did not consult because they were only available in research libraries. However, reading other articles and books by the same people, and reading modern coverage of the same topics that referenced those works, made me convinced that it was unnecessary to go away and read them. The Land (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you used some solid sources and a few were missed, I think a reviewer would have a hard time justifying an oppose. I don't think anyone here is seeking perfection. However, I could foresee a problem if one or two of those missing books are the leading or outstanding material on the subject. If someone wrote an article without those exceptional sources, then the oppose could be justifiable (there is an example of this in the first FAC of Thomas Cranmer). If you feel that some of those significant works are absolutely mandatory, then the solution would be to work collaboratively with someone who has access to the material. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that we are requiring FA writers to have access to sources, whether it is a vast library, or lots of money to buy materials. But we are also requiring FA writers to be far above average in language skills. It takes a certain tenacity and resourcefulness to go after all the citations and images necessary for an FA, because an FA is and should be extraordinary. I personally believe folks who aren't motivated by near or all-out obsession probably should not try to write an FA, because the lack of perfectionism will be apparent in the article. I do not see a way to accommodate an editor who is so isolated he is unable to obtain books that a public library should have, or could easily get. I would still oppose an article at FAC where the editor nominated and said, "Sorry. I know other stuff is out there, and it's important, but I just couldn't get it." --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well-said. Not everyone has the resources to write an FA, period. Many are impossible to research correctly without buying books. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people should ignore Jinnai. If we use discredited sources, obviously it violates NPOV.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said to use discredited sources. I am getting tired of people twisting my words around to suit their purposes. じん  ない  03:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposal
Based on the short discussion above, we have so far the following results:

c) well-researched: . Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

where two proposals are left for :

1. it reflects a survey of relevant literature on the topic (BuddingJournalist's modification to Ling.Nut's proposal)
 * Supports from Physchim62, RelHistBuff, Awadewit

2. it is characterized by a thorough and careful survey of relevant literature on the topic (Ling.Nut.Public's modification to Colin)
 * Supports from Ling.Nut.Public, Colin, RelHistBuff, Awadewit

3. it evaluates and selects sources based on a thorough survey of relevant literature on the topic
 * I felt buyer's remorse re: #2, which does not mention evaluating or discriminating among sources. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "careful" takes care of evaluation and selection and doesn't over-emphasis this aspect. Some FACs become tedious discussions of the finer comparisons between several first-class sources. Plus the wording doesn't work. The actual article doesn't "evaluate and select sources"; that's what the editor(s) did. Colin°Talk 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what we have for the consensus. Please support/oppose one or both. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "C) well-researched: Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate"? Seems to hit all the bases to me. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That contains nothing (other than the "well researched" bit) to indicate that an appropriately thorough selection of sources were consulted, merely that those cited are reliable and support the text. There's too much lost from 1c and too little added in return. If we simply wanted to say "well researched" somewhere, we could add a new 1f and just say "well researched" or "thoroughly researched" -- something I proposed a while back but nobody ran with it. Colin°Talk 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to the insertion of "high quality" into 1c before "reliable sources". That seems to meet with consensus approval already. Colin°Talk 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm as unclear on how "high quality" is being defined as I am on how we determine if someone has done a survey on the literature. (I certainly didn't survey the literature on TS: when I wrote the article, I had ten years of reading everything available, and know which authors are top-notch and which not to even bother with.) I'm not seeing how any of these proposals are measurable; they aren't looking at article content, rather editor behavior, that we can't measure.  (But then, I'm still not aware of any problem with the current criteria that can't be addressed by reviewers using the oppose button.)  I'm also still not clear on what problem we're fixing, since an oppose on sourcing will cover anything these proposals are aiming at.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Opposes based on the quality of sources come up at FAC all the time. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The definition of "high quality" is subjective, just as "brilliant" as applied in 1a is subjective. The goal here is to say that the minimal standard of reliable is not good enough for FA. I also believe the criteria cannot or should not be "measurable", in that an exact threshold is defined (e.g., 25% high quality sources, 1000 minimum word limit). The determination of a subjective threshold has always been done through consensus discussions during the FAC. As for the claim that the proposal is affecting solely editor behaviour, that is not true. The proposal is making a requirement on the quality of the sources which in the end affects the content of the article. As for what we are trying to fix, the proposal is meant to clarify the sourcing requirements, otherwise the problems of Samuel Adams (low-quality article passing as FA) and Jackie Robinson (nominator feeling that he was misled by incomplete WIAFA criteria) will continue. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly it's a bit of an eye-popper that the bolded "factually accurate", which sucks in any number of ways, has stood unaltered for so long. First, accuracy is a result of being well-researched; the title describes a second-order effect. Second, "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" is ambiguous&mdash;and as I have said ad infinitum, the reading that "the data is factually correct" is made more accessible than the reading that "the sources represent the highest quality available available for the topic" by the bolded "factual accuracy". The point here is that nowhere do the guidelines state (or even suggest, to my mind) suggest that a responsible writer will attempt to find qualified sources who can speak authoritatively and honestly. An irresponsible writer will copy/paste from another Wikipedia, or rely on children's books, or any number of shortcuts that skimp on quality research. I hear you saying that those two FACs failed; but the point that apparently has not soaked in is that such examples often fail only after painful, fumbling attempts to explain what these guidelines do not now and have never made clear (see RelHistBuff's Jackie Robinson example, forex). The guideline should help nominators understand what they should do; it does not. It has no language&mdash;no clear and explicit language&mdash; that says folks should use the best available sources.  Nothing anywhere speaks to the authority of the sources. Sandy and Malleus are reading logical inferences into the text and coming out with the conclusion that sourcing should be high-quality. That inference is a possible one, but it requires some squinting and straining and peering through colored glasses. Inference is not an evil thing, but it is an inadequate thing. Why do we want guidelines that require the reader to make an inference about the existence (not the nature) of a fundamental requirement? ... Finally, the problem with simply changing "factually accurate" to well-researched and leaving the trailing text unaltered is that the trailing text will then define "well-researched, and do so in a highly misleading manner. I wonder whether  Colin's suggestion for a 1f that has two words&mdash;well-researched&mdash; accompanied by an essay written by Awadewit, RelHistBuff et al might be the answer that we can agree on. It isn't my first choice, but it's better than guidelines that comprise an insider's  guessing game. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's going to have be an essay written by myself, RelHistBuff, Colin, and someone else familiar with scientific and medical research! :) This is not my first choice, either. We should make an attempt to define well-researched. I feel like we should be able to say what this is, not retreat to "I'll know it when I see it". Awadewit (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it's an intriguing idea to have a two-word criterion and an associated essay, I don't think it would have much support here. The reason is that some may claim that the essay then becomes the de facto criterion. The essay might get a bit long as well. Much better would be to finish agreeing on the 1c criterion (one of the proposals above) and then have several essays giving specific interpretations. For example, someone might make an essay on research and sourcing on humanities topics, another essay for science articles, another essay for pop culture, etc.. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles, whether stub-class or FAs, should strive to be factually accurate at all times. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and therefore, saying FAs need to be "factually accurate" does not add any useful FA-specific info to the requirements. It's also vague, and at first glance might clash with our mantra about "verifiability, not truth." Info about quality sources is not present; info about factual accuracy is redundantly redundant. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't support that and I doubt many in the pop-culture section will because it doesn't qualify high-quality per the relevent field. It just says "high-quality reliable sources" in general. It could very easily be abused to exclude almost all pop-culture items as it is worded now. じん  ない  03:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In no way is that the case. "High quality" relates to the field. Please read carefully. Awadewit (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To you, but that is not what it says. "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations". Nowhere in there does it disallow someone to say "your source doesn't have scholarly reviews which are only real high-quality sources." to every pop-culture article that gets posted here. Per 1c as that is written they would be within an interpretation supported by the text as written. じん  ない  23:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part of the definition is going to read something like "it reflects a survey of relevant literature on the topic", so that will be covered. This is a non-issue. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposal (again)

 * Current 1c: "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"

What support is there for the following proposals?

1) The addition of "well-researched", so that 1c reads "factually accurate and well-researched: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate" 2) The redefinition of 1c to mean "well-researched", so that 1c reads "well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;'' 3) The redefinition of 1c to mean "well-researched" and the retention of "factually accurate", so that 1c reads "factually accurate and well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"
 * Oppose - does not raise the standard beyond "reliable" sources which means juvenile books are equally acceptable to scholarly books. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - RS policy is not strict enough for FAs; we need to make it clear in the criteria that we expect thorough research to provide a solid foundation for featured articles Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support- Covers everything more than adequately, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not specific enough for FA standards. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This change would be pointless. All it does is make the criterion wordier without fixing the issues that have been raised.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * +O See eight million posts above for reasons. I think my position is clear. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - raises standard noting high-quality sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - contains "high quality" phrase, which emphasizes to nominators and reviewers that sources should go above and beyond RS policy; it also notes that "survey" of published material should be "thorough and representative" - this means that major works on the topic need to be consulted, but not all works Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - makes the standards higher without being impossible to meet. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice - Best of the three, if we agree that a change is needed. The "high-quality" part is subjective, but what criterion isn't? A pretty good way to improve sourcing standards in our best work.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Best of the three; "claims are verifiable" covers "factually accurate" for our purposes. Should help writers and reviewers avoid promoting inadequately researched articles. —Kevin Myers 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Kevin Myers above and Giants2008 below. If folks feel there is a significant need for "factually accurate" to be explicitly laid out, perhaps we can work out a compromise that adds it to the non-bolded part of this 1c. Budding Journalist 02:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per above  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * +S Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - raises standard noting high-quality sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - emphasizes both the high-quality of research expected as well as the need to be accurate Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm ok with either of these wordings. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice - The reason I have this below the second proposal is that I'm not a fan of jamming two thoughts into one definition. I would hope that our best work wouldn't be filled with inaccuracies. Maybe find a way to work "factually accurate" in another way?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Much mroe reasonable than original proposal, which I disagreed with.-- Patton t / c 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second choice I never dreamed I would become a sock puppet of Giants. But here I am. Besides, as i said before, factually accurate is redundantly redundant. But even this wording is... not intolerable. ;-) Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

4) Keeping the current 1c: "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;" Please list your support and opposition, with reasoning. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * + YMBKR (you must be kidding, right?) Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - After seeing all of the options together, I believe that 2 and 3 are stronger. In fairness, most concerns about sourcing quality are considered actionable under the current criterion, but I think clarifying what is expected will benefit reviewers and nominators.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I'm impartial to 2 and 3. While I think 3 might be useful for some cases as a clear indication that we want stuff that is accurate and backed up by sources, it may look like instruction creep and extra bureaucratic wording to wikilawyer over. Therefore I don't really support one over the other. じん ない  07:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FA criteria changed
I have replaced 1c with option 2 above. Awadewit (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

3 Images [At Waiting]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#No_one_cares_about_accuracy

The change is this:
 * "An article does not need to have any images. If it does, it has images.."
 * WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If we want to be a bit clearer on this, a much more succinct option (if a little more awkward than the current criteria) would be just to reorder "where appropriate". "Images. Where appropriate, it has images that follow the image use policies and other media,..." I actually think it's probably time we change this to Media rather than Images. Budding Journalist 00:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To WhatisFeelings?: Please do not forum shop and keep the discussion in only one place. Since the discussion started on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#No_one_cares_about_accuracy keep the discussion there and end the thread here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with BuddingJournalist. I suggested that the discussion be moved here, not conducted in two places. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "where appropriate" is supposed to indicate that images and other media are not required. Awadewit (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Literature" -> "information"
In criterion 1c, shouldn't "literature" be changed to something like "information" or "sources"? There are other sources besides written works (i.e. documentaries, video interviews, and so on). Also, I disagree with the inclusion of "high-quality" reliable sources; if consensus feels that a source is "reliable" enough for Wikipedia, then that should be enough. We're not writing a thesis. "High-quality reliable sources" is far more difficult to distinguish, and it could cause a serious bottleneck at FAC by bogging down excellent articles with needless debates about whether the author of a source has spent enough years in a lecture hall. Now, I do believe that a FA should use the highest quality of sources available... &mdash; Deckiller 11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this:

(c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough survey of information on the topic. Claims are verifiable against the most reliable (or highest quality of) sources available and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

It eliminates the needless debate, removes redundant wording, and broadens the "literature only" notion. Not sure if I like the fluffy "it is characterized by" either, but that's perhaps too much of a nitpick. &mdash; Deckiller 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will make the change in 24 hours, unless I forget. &mdash; Deckiller 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disgaree whole-heartedly with this change. It is unnecessarily confusing "most reliable (or highest quality of)" and we specifically did not say "highest quality" in the change we made to accommodate objections raised above. This change has no consensus - please do not make it. Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think changing the word 'literature' to 'sources' is all that significant (provided that's the only change). Raul654 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't - we currently have "Claims are verifiableagainst high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" which Deckiller wants to change to "Claims are verifiable against the most reliable (or highest quality of) sources available and are supported with citations". We had a protracted debate about "highest" vs. "high" - I would hate to start that all over again. I think nobody responded to this intial post because they were exhausted with the debate. We reached a consensus. Awadewit (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that was what was being proposed. No, I don't think rehashing that debate is a good idea at this time. Raul654 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should remove "high/highest" altogether and simply go with "verifiable against reliable sources". I think that "high" is actually more subjective than "highest available", as it may alienate articles that may not have a huge amount of book sources (and you know how bookworms are). "Highest available" simply doesn't discriminate, as it simply encourages use of the best available sources for the article without blurring the line between what is a "high-quality" reliable source and what isn't. I just forsee people opposing articles just because the topic doesn't have a ton of book sources around.
 * Does anyone disagree with broadening "literature" to "information" or a similar word? &mdash; Deckiller 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel like "information" is a much broader word. I'm not sure I would endorse it. I do not think that reopening this discussion is a good idea. We had a very long debate on the rewording of this criteria. Let's stick with the version we have for a while and see how it works. If we need to change it, we can revisit later. Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I wouldn't mind revisiting the bulk of the debate at a later date to see what the hands-on application will be like. However, I am strongly opposed to "literature", as it leaves out a ton of sources. Would replacing "literature" with "sources" be a more reasonable compromise? &mdash; Deckiller 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what "ton" is being left out that is needed in an FA. The word is extremely specific and refers to the body of published work on a topic. Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, it leaves out published works in non-book mediums, such as magazine/newspaper articles, published interviews, etc. &mdash; Deckiller 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't - the body of published literature on a topic includes books, journals, magazines, websites, newspapers, etc. See definition three. Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; let's just hope that nobody starts a "book sources only" campaign at FAC. &mdash; Deckiller 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it has a musty, old fashioned, rather elitist implication. Somehow the definitions from the dictionary are not all that reassuring, using definition three out of seven definitions. Let us hope no one takes it too seriously. I rather think no one will, and that it will not be a problem. Else the criteria will quickly go.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would lead the campaign against the "book sources" only people, as would the science editors, I'm sure. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As would the video game editors. With this said and done, I agree that it may be best to wait and see how this version works. &mdash; Deckiller 00:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My only problem is that the word is not the best one to "communicate" the intended meaning to the growing legions of younger and more global editors. The word is employed by a limited, rather insular group, so the use of the word in the criteria misses an opportunity to inform more clearly.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my original thought, as I am one example of that younger group of editors (just turned 21); it took that dictionary definition for me to "get it". Perhaps we should consider a preemptive word change after all? &mdash; Deckiller 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem choosing a less precise word - we should not be vague. Considering the word is defined this way in the dictionary (and dictionary.com at that), I'm really failing to see a problem here. Awadewit (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no problem. Anyone unable to understand the meaning of the word "literature" in the context of formal writing ought not to be writing anything else until they do. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset)&mdash;that's quite a bold statement, Malleus. Before this conversation, I had never used or heard the term "literature" applied to anything beyond published books and novels. Some of my (college-level) friends were surprised that the term could be applied to all published sources. &mdash; Deckiller 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really bold at all. Way, way back before this conversation I understood while at university that a "literature search" didn't mean find all the published books and novels on this subject that you can. In fact it generally meant find all of the published papers that you can. I'm rather surprised that your college friends don't understand that as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be a regional difference in terminology, or perhaps the term has phased out in the last few years. In high school, our source search was simply called "research" or something along those lines. My girlfriend's school (Saint Francis University) divides sources into literature, journals, and electronic media: . Heck, even my school(s) felt internet sources were a separate entity from "literature", and I guess that's where my concern lies: people may see the criterion and conclude that a FA should not use or should neglect internet sources (or whatever they perceive as "literature"). We can't expect everyone to know every use of every buzzword; to avoid redundant discussions and whatnot, we should strive to use culture- and time-neutral words. &mdash; Deckiller 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a regional difference and everyone I know in academia and journalism uses the term this way (that includes people in Britain and Australia). I can't help it that you personally do not know it. The fact that it is in the dictionary means it is extremely common. Note also that you are completely misunderstanding the use of the term in the above link. "Literature" in the above link means "relating to literary works" (the category of reference works relates to "Literature") but Gales' Literature Criticism, for example, is an electronic database, so the distinction you've drawn is a mistake. Awadewit (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I'm grasping at straws, I'll drop the issue until it is raised again. &mdash; Deckiller 05:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Drive by comment) Deckiller, my friend, I have heard and use the term "literature" to mean published works in general; it's quite common to do so. Hope all's well. Budding Journalist 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All is indeed well &mdash; nice to see you around the FAC room. I've done some other "questioning" regarding the term, and it's 50/50. It was a foolish debate for me to spark in the first place; please note that I am not usually this...uneducated ;) &mdash; Deckiller 05:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

articular referencing
What percentage of referencing does an article need to meet these criteria? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 20:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Percentage of what? Have you read the criteria? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Percentage of the article, that is, how much of the article's content needs to be cited to a reliable source to be considered for featured article candidacy. The appropriate criterion only says "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations" without regard to the comprehensiveness thereof.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything that is likely to be challenged should be sourced; there's no magic percentage. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If material is challenged, but a majority of involved editors agree that it doesn't need or warrant sourcing (a local consensus, if you will), will that confound FA candidacy? —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 100% of the article's content needs to be cited to reliable sources, but some things are self-evident (like the fact that most human beings have five digits on each hand), and so don't need to be cited. Do you have a specific example of what you're asking about in mind? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeking Assistance
I'm interesting in improving a GA article to FA status and am looking for someone to review it and offer advice on how to improve it. Simply put, peer reviews haven't been helpful in the past for finding reliable help, so I came here on the advice of another user. Would someone be willing to look over the article and help me bring it to FA status? I'm not looking for someone to edit the article itself (though that would be nice), simply someone to look it over and collaborate with me on improving it. The Clawed One (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What article is it? Lots of FA writers specialize, so you might have better luck if you mention your topic. :) Awadewit (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, a Playstation video game. The Clawed One (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to specialize in reviewing and assisting with video game FACs, but not so much anymore. I'm not sure who is active enough to help, either. &mdash; Deckiller 06:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look for active users on Peer review/volunteers who've declared an interest in video games and try pinging a few individually. Taking a glance at the article, I think that a copyedit would be helpful. In 2006 and 2007, I used to copyedit a bunch of film- and VG-related articles, but, since returning from a year-long wikibreak, I've scaled back on random copyediting to research and expand articles. However, I'd be happy to run through the article if you give me a few days. — TKD:: {talk}  12:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful if you could, as I said peer reviews have been of minimal help to me. What is "copyedit" anyway? I keep hearing it but don't know what it means. The Clawed One (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See copy editing. Basically, in the terms of FAC, it entails improving the text to meet criterion 1a: brilliant, professional prose. An important (and often difficult!) part of this process is finding and eliminating unnecessary words. As Strunk & White put it in The Elements of Style, "Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise." — TKD:: {talk}  14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for ideas on how to get an effective peer review.  may be interested in helping.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also request assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Numerous editors have that page on their watchlist; many are willing to work on potential FAs. &mdash; Deckiller 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources and 2000 year old historians used in FA/A class articles
I know it is quite common even in Roman/Greek A/FA articles, but what is the rationale for using primary sources/chronicles or ancient historians as sources? Why are they apparently exempt from the general reccmmendation against relying on them, especically as moedern histroians can read the chronicles and rework them into modern works in conjunction with archaeological material etc. eg, Epaminondas currently on FAR.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea - I think this is ridiculous and tried to argue against it over at DYK, without success. Since I read newspapers, histories and other "secondary" sources from the eighteenth century, which are not nearly as old, I realize how absurd it is to rely on sources produced before the advent of modern journalistic standards or modern historiography. I think we should rely on the analysis provided by modern historians - if they use a bit of Herodotus (or whatever), so can we. However, we should leave that decision up to the experts. Awadewit (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I know that John K Whitmore, a leading expert on Vietnam before European intervention, his PhD thesis was based on reading palace chronicles, officially commissioned histories etc written in the 15th century by ancient historians, eg reading the likes of Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, "Dai Nam Thong Nhat Chi" and putting them together etc. If these works were considered secondary sources, then surely a rehash of secondary sources would not be allowed for a PhD thesis at Cornell. Especially as in the old days, even 100 years ago, almost all history books, or any book written, would refer to people from different countries/races in a condescending/patronizing or flagrantly xenophobic and tone with much nationalist bias as well.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The passage here "... characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" should be enough to prevent this in FAs. The problem is there is no "general reccmmendation" against this on WP; many people think WP:OR has one, but it doesn't, as discussed elsewhere. There are many PhD's on topics of historiography; that is neither here nor there. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that aged sources are ok to use if one is simply trying to mention the basics of an event, person, thing, or historic place (as long as no later sources refute its accuracy). However, when it comes to analsysis of the event/person/thing/historic place and its significance, I think that job is best reserved for modern interpretations from credible modern scholars. My take on it.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 04:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you except that I think too many people don't do the adequate research to determine that the "basics" have been refuted. It amazed me in researching Battle of the Alamo how so much of what was written just 50 years ago has turned out to be flat-out wrong (or is at least the subject of heated debate today) in the face of newer research. I think if I were using more ancient sources for some of these older topics, I would be very, very careful to attribute in the text which information came from those ancient sources. Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - see the other discussion. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think more than one concern has arisen in discussions about this sort of issue. I engaged briefly with this debate in the context of DYK nominations. My thoughts are that the age of the source is essentially not relevant. In this debate, age is a proxy for concerns regarding reliability. The discussion is best focussed directly on the question of reliability. The next step is in general to say two things:
 * How should primary sources be used in articles?
 * How should ancient historians' works (or other old texts - 50 years perhaps, in the case of Battle of the Alamo, as mentioned above) be used?
 * What is the role of these works at A class / FA level?
 * 1) we should make contributions based on what we can get access to. We should assume good faith on the part of past scholars as we do about present editors: unless we have a specific reason to doubt the reliability of a source, we should use it. Unless another editor has a specific reason to doubt that reliability, the contribution should stand. What do I mean by a specific reason? Either a consensus at WP regarding a particular source; or an editor's knowledge of other sources that are reliable (in the usual WP sense) and call the first source into question. If the editor has that knowledge, then they are able to use it to improve the article. In fact, on occasion I have seen editors, piqued by something they doubt, swing into action and improve the article about which they are concerned. Just another way to achieve a better Wikipedia! :-)
 * 2)When it comes to FA level, the story is a little different, but existing policies - including improvements facilitated recently by Awadewit and others (see recent discussion above) - should assure this is addressed. At this level, we expect an article to be comprehensive in its treatment of a subject. I would suggest that, in respect of ancient historical figures and events, such comprehensiveness absolutely necessitates historiographical awareness. It would normally involve the article discussing differences and ambiguities in sources, and differences in interpretations by sources - regardless of age. As an example, I am currently reviewing Siward, Earl of Northumbria for GA. It has its minor issues, but it already demonstrates this reflexive historiography (I just had to put those two words together, sorry): the consideration of sources is itself integrated into the treatment of the subject.

When this was discussed at DYK, the gist of my views was that, bearing in mind these are typically start-class articles, and the editors have to comply with both WP policies generally, and the need for key in-line cites in particular, we are better off using the opportunity to give editors a pat on the back for getting a new article started on something WP hadn't covered at all, than challenging the article on the basis that the source is old. Unless, as per my comments above, we have specific reasons to doubt the veracity of the source. I know we all see content that bugs us that we aren't going to have the time energy or sources available to fix, but that is the point where we have to go back to WP's roots, and our own inner calm and remember what WP is not: it isn't a peer reviewed academic journal, it isn't a university, it isn't Brittanica etc etc. One day, with hundreds of thousands of editors working for decades, it may be better than any of them; in the meantime, some articles are going to be very average. And they're going to sit there for a while, still average. Their sources are going to be patchy. Their referencing is going to be uneven, inconsistent and - yes - occasionally unreliable. But hey, we will always be able to get the latest info about Championship Wrestling moves :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that age is not an issue, or "a proxy for concerns regarding reliability". The sources available to modern historians are often radically different - usually there are more, but sometimes, as in St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, actually fewer. It was gradually accepted during the 19th century that the two fullest "insider" accounts there were actually later fakes. Needless to say, they are still all over the internet and many popular history books. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that, for improvements, in start-class articles, we should not be harsh. However GA / A / FA articles are a different matter, and  YellowMonkey  are justified often enough for to require post-1900 souirces for anything we state as plain fact, rather than e.g. "X wrote that ...". I don't know other ancinet cultres, but the ancient Greek and Latin historians were limited by: the relative newness of historiography in their cultures, which made them rather uncritical of information they passed on; political; / ethical bias / pressure / (self-)censorship; lack of decent sources for their own work, including lack of a science of archeology. -Philcha (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel we're making an artificial storm in a teacup. Damn right the old chroniclers were biased, whether out of nationalism or wanting to make their yarns extra-rippin' (seems like all those Persian battles have the troop counts inflated by a factor of ten at least). But it's up to the editors to have half a brain. They are often the best sources out there, and often discussed in length about why they might be wrong/slanted, etc. I'd be surprised if ancient history articles treated a lot as fact (Ealdgyth's British bishops come to mind as excellent articles where doubt and contradiction is spelled out). -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably agree, but I would prefer to continue to talk about reliability. Why post-1900 after all? For example, contemporary understandings of the scientific method rely to a great degree on the philosophical advances of Popper and Kuhn in the mid-20th century. Works pre-dating these developments are often unproblematic in regard to the reporting of facts (taxonomy is a particularly important example of this). However, when it comes to how they treat and report on hypotheses, that is another matter, and one on which they must be treated with greater caution. Conversely, are contemporary historians any more free of their own ethical biases or agendas than those of past times? Of course they like to say so. However, whatever ones view on the subject, surely the history wars are evidence that this is open to debate in every era. I do not wish to overstate this - I do not doubt that certain aspects of modern disciplines, including the formal development of historiography, the advances of archaeology, and the advent of peer-reviewed publication as a cultural norm, have changed things enormously.
 * I think we essentially agree, in that it is often desirable (though sometimes stylistically challenging) to write "X wrote that". My point remains that we should always use that sort of approach where there are differences between sources or where there are known limitations or concerns about the one source used. I just do not think any tinkering with WP policy is called for to keep things on track.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think a change of policy is suggested. I interpret  YellowMonkey 's original post as a complaint that current policy is not followed. --Philcha (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (interjected) Although, except for FAs, that clearly misunderstands what the current policy is (ie there isn't one on this). Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, hamiltonstone, for that, as I agree. Often very recent sources reflect a different sort of bias, as when a figure is caught up in the throws of celebrity and temporary fame. Sometimes a few decades must pass before that figure is put in historical perspective. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new criterion: importance
I would like to propose "importance" as a new criterion for FA status. Statement would read something like: 1g) "article is of significant importance to a civilization, culture, or society." TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. FA's are our best work, not our most interesting work. Besides, that wording is much too vague. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. Besides, what I think of as being of "significant importance" may not always, or even ever, match what you think is. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a reason the notability threshold is set by sources rather than importance; the latter is irredeemably subjective. Even if it weren't,there would be no reason to omit top-quality articles on minor topics, as Dabomb87 notes. Skomorokh  12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea has some merit, in all honesty. The wording is a bit vague, but the general idea is certainly worth discussing IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that "importance" is much too subjective to be able to evaluate or even reach a consensus on. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what would this extra criterion be intended to achieve? It wouldn't improve the quality of articles. Nev1 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not needed for FA reviewing. It is a good concept to have for the Today's Feature Article selection, but in no way should impact the general improvement of articles to FA. --M ASEM (t) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this criterion for getting an FA. Smaller, simpler articles are much easier to work on to get to FA than larger concepts, that are often very tendentious. Editors new to FA would almost certainly face an insurmountable task in getting a core topic to FA before a calmer, smaller, and related topic. I can only imagine the opposes, too, after working for months on an article: not notable enough. Jiminy, what a fuss I would raise. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the same thoughts as Moni, with this additional thought: who decides what is "important"? Was USS Nevada (BB-36) important because she made a famous sortie during the attack on Pearl Harbor? This is too objective. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  13:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed importance is too subjective. This would unavoidably increase the (already clear) dominance of US, technology focussed articles (no complaint there guys but most of you are from the US and like technology). Obscure, but highly important, cultural icons may well be deemed less important than indeed USS Nevada BB-36 because of the biased body of editors. So no. Arnoutf (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that. The most likely targets, and those that have been queried in the past on these grounds, are surely the minor US highways, and those stiff breezes off Florida, so the US would surely be the main area to suffer. But this won't work, perhaps unfortunately. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps US articles would suffer a lot (perhaps they should), but so would a lot of Medieval Muslim playwrights and others that are important cultural icons but not in the association mind of the modern young male technophiliac wikipedian (excuse me stereotyping here). Anyway, I don't think mixing importance and quality is a good idea at all. Arnoutf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An aside: my current project involves your home country, Artnoutf&mdash;see Design 1047 battlecruiser. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) Can the supporters of this give reasons as to why this should be adopted? I just see a lot of "good idea" and "we should" rather than "this is why we should adopt 1g: _____". — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We did recently try to come up with a notability criterion that was stricter for FA than for the rest of Wikipedia - that failed to gain consensus. Any new proposal would have to be quite specific to have a chance, I think. There was a lot of resistance to this idea. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I supported the idea of a stricter notability criterion at the last debate but I don't, now. I was persuaded by the counter-arguments, both on the merits of the proposal and on the sheer impossibility of getting a consensus for it. I don't think it realistic or desirable to raise this again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we can get around it by AfDing it or objecting if the sources are to close to the gutter. Anyway, oppose "importance" it would be a mess.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I support an "Importance" criteria because there are, IMHO, too many Featured Articles on irrelevant trivial crap, and the time spent getting featured articles on US highways or what have you to FA level could better be spent on topics of greater importance to everyone. A featured article on an obscure Moorish playwright would be of more cultural benefit than a featured article on the I-405 between Nowheresville, AZ and Fuqari, NM- at least IMHO. I realise most people don't agree, but there's my reason for supporting such a criteria all the same. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, your goal is worthy, but most people here either prefer the status quo or believe the goal is impossible to reach. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Commander Zulu) I respect your views, but: 1) It would not be viable to implement such a criterion simply because it is too hard to objectively judge whether something is "important"; 2) FAs are our best articles; even if they are not interesting, they are still models of high-quality work. Yes, we have too many articles on hurricanes and roads, but is that bad? Wikipedia has probably become the most comprehensive online source in those areas. We shouldn't punish editors just because we don't think an article's subject merits a mention. Now, whether these articles should end up on our front page is another matter. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Forcing voluntary editors to work on other projects will just cause them to do other stuff, not suddenly decide they want to go through hell to get the important articles featured. Doesn't work that way, and as such ixnay the importance criteria. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose an importance criterion, as per Dabomb, Fuchs and others. Much as i don't want WP to become known as the place to go when you want to find out about World Championship Wrestling celebrities, this encyclopedia will be here, a century from now, by which time it will be the place to go to find out about everything. Let people contribute to whatever they want to work on. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I propose listing this proposal in WP:PERENNIAL. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about length of FAs
Does anyone know what an acceptable upper limit tends to be nowadays for length of FAs &mdash; just the text, not counting footnotes and references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)
 * 10,000 or so words (by Dr Pda's tool) is the guideline, but there are a number over that. Somewhere there is a list of FAs by length... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured articles/By length. :) D.M.N. (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, yeah, a number are over 10,000 words. I'd think you'd need to show that the subject of the article is so sweeping that going over is a good idea, but it's obviously been done. Byzantine navy just passed in March and it's 13,000 words. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also a list of articles sorted by their readable prose size (as opposed to the wiki text size used for Featured articles/By length) at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. 60K of readable prose is approximately 10,000 words. Dr pda (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: New criterion to address plagiarism
Having just beat the drum against process creep in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, of course I now propose a new FA criterion.

In almost every article I review--most of which are written by relatively conscientious editors--there are multiple instances of inadvertent plagiarism. I am convinced by the evidence of my experience, and the attestations of other reviewers, that many articles are being promoted with a considerable amount of plagiarism. We know that it is simply impractical for reviewers to eyeball anything close to every single source cited in every single article. There is probably no practical way to eliminate the problem, but there is certainly something practical that can be done to mitigate it. And that is to add something like the following to our criteria: 5. Original composition. The entire text, except for quoted material, is composed specifically for its appearance on Wikipedia. Content derived from external sources is adapted and paraphrased in order to avoid inadvertent plagiarism. Such a criterion would bring the issue to the attention of nominators on a formal, rather than ad hoc basis, and--for those who bother to read the criteria--an a priori, rather than a posteriori, basis. A few weeks of immediate !votes should drive the point home quite effectively
 * Oppose Fails 5.

Please note that our criteria's introductory proviso--"In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles"--does not address this issue. The "requirements for all Wikipedia articles" are our policies. The explicit directive against plagiarism is merely a guideline. In that light, I hope we can agree that, even if it is merely a guideline-level matter for the rest of our encyclopedia, it should be made clear that plagiarism, of any sort, is absolutely unacceptable for Featured Articles. Indeed, my proposed wording for a new criterion is rather more gentle than the matter really deserves. Frankly, if one...oh, hell, let's be forgiving, two unambiguous cases of plagiarism are detected in a nominated article, it should be immediately archived and barred from renomination for, say, three months. A few impositions of such a rule would truly go a long way toward addressing the problem. DocKino (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how adding this to the criteria will any way alleviate the problem of plagiarism on Wikipedia. There's no chance in hell that an article with _known_ plagiarism/copyvio issues will pass an FAC. It's really up to reviewers to be vigilant in their reviews. And really, it's quite easy to spot plagiarism... I'm also curious in your statement that many articles are being promoted with considerable amount of plagiarism...if this is indeed the case, surely the first thing we should do is put those articles at FAR, no? Budding Journalist 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "No chance in hell"? Now that's optimism. As I said, I find multiple cases of plagiarism in almost every article I look at, and it seems clear that I'm among the few reviewers who looks out for it. Certainly, I've found plagiarism in articles that have already been vetted and passed by multiple reviewers. You think there's no chance in hell? To the contrary. It's happening all the time.


 * You say, "It's really up to reviewers to be vigilant in their reviews." Well, I and a few others are vigilant, but we're underarmed in this battle. There's no support from the criteria. Surely you don't suggest that reviewers eyeball every single source in an article that may have more than 100 of them, do you? No, it's really up to nominator/writers to be much more vigilant and to learn that they can't bring articles with plagiarism to FAC. A criterion, again, won't solve the problem, but it will help shift the onus where it belongs and do much to mitigate the problem.


 * Finally, you claim that "really, it's quite easy to spot plagiarism". Really? Care to test that on a real example? Here's an excerpt from an older version of article currently at FAC (and this was, again, submitted by a relatively conscientious editor). This older version contains plagiarism (now addressed). I found it not because I suspected any plagiarism--I stumbled across it checking on a factual matter. But according to you, it's quite easy to spot. Tell us how easy:


 * Robinson was born in Cairo, Georgia in 1919 during a Spanish flu and smallpox epidemic. He was the youngest of five children, after siblings Edgar, Frank, Matthew ("Mack"), and Willa Mae. His middle name was in honor of former President Theodore Roosevelt, who had died 25 days before Robinson was born. The Robinsons were a family of sharecroppers, and after their father left them in 1920, they moved to Pasadena, California.   Raised by his mother, Robinson grew up in relative poverty and joined a local neighborhood gang that his friend Carl Anderson eventually persuaded Robinson to abandon.


 * In 1935, Robinson graduated from Dakota Junior High School and enrolled in John Muir High School ("Muir Tech"). There he played on various Muir Tech sport teams, and lettered in four of them: football, basketball, track, and baseball. His older brother, Matthew "Mack" Robinson, inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics. Jackie played shortstop and catcher on the baseball team, quarterback on the football team, and guard on the basketball team. He was also a member of the tennis team and the track and field squad and won awards in the broad jump.


 * In 1936, Robinson won the junior boys' singles championship in the annual Pacific Coast Negro Tennis Tournament, and earned a place on the annual Pomona baseball tournament all-star team which included future Baseball Hall of Famers Ted Williams and Bob Lemon. The next year, he played for the high school's basketball team. That year the Pasadena Star-News newspaper reported on the young Robinson.


 * Don't even spend time checking the refs. Just identify whatever leaps out at you as plagiarism. (By the way, after the nominator became aware of the problem, he went back and found 15 cases of plagiarism in the article. I warrant that level of problem is much more common than this nominator's unusual effort to correct it.) DocKino (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice my wording. I said "_known_" cases of plagiarism. It could very well be that reviewers may be missing plagiarism in their reviews. "I find multiple cases of plagiarism in almost every article I look at" - so you're saying that you find these cases, you oppose, and these articles are still passing? I really find that hard to believe...
 * It's up to both. I'd rather the criteria focus on things that make a featured article "featured" (so yes, I'm not that content with the current version of the criteria...but that's another issue). "learn that they can't bring articles with plagiarism to FAC"... Writers shouldn't be plagiarizing, period.
 * My intuition from looking at the phrasing of the short excerpt red-flagged "inspired Jackie to pursue his talent and love for athletics." Just didn't fit with how the rest of the prose was structured. Lo and behold, I was correct. And where there's smoke, there's usually fire...if I were to have found this when reviewing, I'd certainly spend extra time reviewing sources. Then again, when I review an article in-depth, I always check against the sources. It's part of a thorough review. "Surely you don't suggest that reviewers eyeball every single source in an article that may have more than 100 of them." I certainly expect those who lodge supports to have at least done a cursory check against sources. Ideally, we'd have enough reviewers looking at sources so that when an article passes FAC, we can say with confidence that it's using its sources correctly. We're not there yet though.
 * And just to nip any characterizations in the bud, if you think I'm one of those folks who does not believe in vigilance against plagiarism, think again. See my numerous FAC reviews. Budding Journalist 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is entirely in good faith, DocKino, but I fear that plagiarism is more complex than this. The SIgnpost article in ?April showed just how multi-layered it is. Paraphrasing itself raises issues, and is different from copyright violation. Another matter is that writing this into the FA criteria may, just may, encourage people to see a lower standard as applicable in normal articles. Tony   (talk)  08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope this proposal passes: it will be yet another example of how FAC is of no use to the encyclopedia, how it is just a little game where people tell their best friends how wonderful they are and how horrible everyone else is. Wikipedia is not a class assignment, "plagiarism" which does not violate copyright is a meaningless concept – a little bit like the "absolute quality" criteria that FAC promotes. More omphaloskepsis all round, more resources wasted which could have been used to improve the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Physchim62's comment is brutal but cotains a valid point - could the editor-hours be better spent on reassessing old FAS and improving / delisitng them? --Philcha (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Without getting into any issues on multiple layers of plagiarism, I'd just like to note that copying free text (not not not copyvio) is perfectly acceptable so long as the copying is prominently noted. And I'd further note that the proposed noticetext in the upcoming transition to dual GFDL/CC-BY-SA licensing only specifies a note in the edit summary to indicate incorporation of other people's writing - which is a concern to me.
 * From the FAC perspective (yes, I've never commented here before) if free text has been incorporated with appropriate notice, then if it represents "the best content that Wikipedia offers", promote it. We are free to incorporate everything, that's the whole point. (As long as it's free) It doesn't matter who wrote it, as long as it's clear exactly who wrote what. Obviously it has to meet all other FAC standards. Franamax (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In spite of all appearances otherwise, plagiarism is less my area than copyright infringement. But I believe that whatever the fate of "The entire text, except for quoted material, is composed specifically for its appearance on Wikipedia", "Content derived from external sources is adapted and paraphrased in order to avoid inadvertent plagiarism." seems useful. While consensus at this point seems to be that free text can be liberally copied on Wikipedia so long as it is identified, inadvertent plagiarism in improper paraphrase is a problem, particularly since it quite often goes hand in hand with copyright infringement. The difference between an inadequate paraphrase that is morally objectionable and an inadequate paraphrase that is legally objectionable is a tricky one for laymen to determine. It's a tricky one for lawyers to determine. I'm all for anything that helps our contributors to be aware that using a thesaurus to cherry pick replacements for words in sources will not do. The question of original composition seems to me to come down to whether FAC has different standards than those of the encyclopedia in toto. The Plagiarism guideline used to note that free text was frowned upon in FAs. I'm not sure if that was removed because it did not support consensus or simply because it didn't belong in that guideline (which became quite bloated for a bit). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I believe incorporating free text as such isn't frowned upon here. One case I recall was Featured_article_review/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens/archive1, where substantial copying from a USGS source was acknowledged at the FAR and in the references section of the article. -- Avenue (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern with "inadvertent plagiarism in improper paraphrase" is that sometimes there's only a handful of clear concise ways to describe something, and sometimes only one. This most noticeable in the sciences, e.g. "taxon X therefore appears to be paraphyletic". Academics and their journals are very particular about plagiarism but don't bother about phrasing that's simply clear and concise. Where there's only one clear concise way to describe something, we should apply the "not obvious" criterion used in patent law, in other words simple, concise clear phrasing cannot be plagiarism. OTOH re-using a vivid turn of phrase without some sort of attribution and without quote marks is plagiarism.
 * Note the phrasing "without some sort of attribution and without quote marks" - it's grossly impractical to list in the main text all the authors of an article or book written by a committee, for example articles on molecular phylogenetics and on fossils from China quite often have 6 authors, and IIRC I've seen one with 20. --Philcha (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Proper paraphrase, including the quotation of apt phrases, is addressed somewhat in the plagiarism guideline under the "common knowledge" exclusion at Plagiarism. We also have an essay on Close paraphrasing that addresses this under "When is close paraphrasing permitted?" I agree that it's a difficult concept to explain, much less skill to teach, but my experience at the copyright problems board suggests that many of our contributors simply have no clue. I don't recall that I've seen many (if any) FA contributors there, but I've seen a number of GA contributors brought up for examination with good reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely in good faith, DocKino, but I fear that plagiarism is more complex than this. The SIgnpost article in ?April showed just how multi-layered it is. Paraphrasing itself raises issues, and is different from copyright violation. Another matter is that writing this into the FA criteria may, just may, encourage people to see a lower standard as applicable in normal articles.
 * I'll start by responding to Tony, who summarizes two main points of opposition to the proposal. Here is his comment:
 * (1) The proposal does not presume that plagiarism is a simple matter. Its simplicity or complexity is rather beside the point. The proposal addresses an objective fact: plagiarism is a major problem in articles coming to FAC. Because plagiarism is such a complex matter, it is not plausible to imagine that a criterion could be crafted that would eliminate "all" plagiarism. But let's not allow the perfect to defeat the good--a sharply crafted criterion would go a long way toward reducing the problem of plagiarism.
 * (2) I wonder what your evidence is for suggesting that writing an anti-plagiarism measure into the FA criteria might "encourage people to see a lower standard as applicable in normal articles." The history seems to indicate quite the opposite--that FA criteria (citations, comprehensiveness, etc.) eventually become the norms for Good Articles and in the long run raise the standards for the encyclopedia as a whole.

I hope this proposal passes: it will be yet another example of how FAC is of no use to the encyclopedia, how it is just a little game where people tell their best friends how wonderful they are and how horrible everyone else is. Wikipedia is not a class assignment, "plagiarism" which does not violate copyright is a meaningless concept – a little bit like the "absolute quality" criteria that FAC promotes. More omphaloskepsis all round, more resources wasted which could have been used to improve the encyclopedia.
 * And now a response to Physchim62:
 * First, thanks for using this discussion as an opportunity to grind a worn-out ax on FAC--that's real helpful, mate. Second, your central point--"'plagiarism' which does not violate copyright is a meaningless concept"--is senseless and uninformed. The notion of plagiarism predates that of copyright, and relates to creative credit rather than property rights. Must I provide Webster's definition of the verb to plagiarize for your benefit? Fine: "to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source." In the immediate context, when we present someone else's unique phrasing as our own, we plagiarize whether that unique phrasing is under copyright or not. Plagiarism is unethical and brings our encyclopedia into disrepute; it is, in a phrase, very bad. DocKino (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Having found copyvio, not plagiarism, not in a gray area, in two featured articles, present at the time they were promoted, I agree with the proposal. Yes, they were older - if Doc Kino could post links to the newer articles with this problem, that would lend support. Novickas (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per CREEP, since its obvious. There is no room on Wikipedia for copyvio articles, be they stubs or FAs, so why repeat this in FAC guide? We may as well add a note that Featured Articles should be encyclopedic, in English and licensed under GFDL/CC3.0 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet another case of confusion between copyright violation and plagiarism, which is difficult to comprehend as the difference has been spelled out quite clearly above. Once again: Copyright violations and plagiarism are two different things. The former is covered by policy, the latter is not. The breadth and intractability of this confusion is yet another argument in favor of a criterion to address plagiarism. DocKino (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it just a sign that many editors see "plagiarism" as a complete non-issue (or at most a non-priority) for Wikipedia. If you shove your ideas of "ethical" down my throat, I'll shove my ideas of "riduculous, pathetic waste of time" down yours! Physchim62 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doc, WP:PLAGIARISM is now a guideline; does that not make it policy...? Please correct me if I am wrong... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, see Policies and guidelines. Budding Journalist 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let's make it a policy :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording needs to be adjusted to incorporate the fact that the incorporation of appropriately licensed free content is generally acceptable, under the guidelines described in the plagiarism guideline. Additionally, content created by editors for other purposes should not be excluded. The fact that Wikipedia can and does repurpose outside content is one of its strengths. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in images
Now that the Wikimedia software supports alt attributes in images, and the WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:ALT guidelines recommend alt text, should the featured article criteria also mention this? Something like the following change, perhaps?
 * "Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, useful alt text, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."

Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No further comment, so I installed that change. Eubulides (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a well-watched page; perhaps you should bring this up at WT:FA or WT:FAC. For now, in the absence of consensus, I'm going to revert you, although I really have no opinion either way on the matter. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I just now brought it up at WT:FAC . Eubulides (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you and extra thanks for not getting mad :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  01:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We had quite a discussion at WT:FAC  and I just now installed a revised change that I hope reflects consensus. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question on the wording Why "brief"? The examples given at WT:FAC seem to suggest that good alt text need not be exactly brief. Also what does "when feasible" mean? "feasible" implies that there may be cases where one is not capable of putting in alt text, but I don't think this is what the intent is here though, is it? Do we mean "where appropriate" or "where applicable"? TwilligToves (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Brief" because Graham87, who (I guess) can't see the images and actually uses the alt text, requested "brief" in WT:FAC. "Brief" is a relative term; I just now reworded the longest alt text on that page to make it briefer, and I hope that suffices. "When feasible" is intended to cover the case (mentioned in that discussion) when a template won't let you specify the alt text. Removing "when feasible" would be OK, I expect, as it's not that hard to fix the templates. Eubulides (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "peer review" to "internal review"
This post is a notice for a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. Since our review process is a step in writing featured articles, editors interested in the FA criteria might also be interested in the name of the review process. Please participate in the discussion at the link above. Thanks! Ecto (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
Apologises for this, but I just want to clarify something. Does an FA have to have images? It was just that I was wanting to nominate an article which has none. ISD (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not required, but it'd be a bit unusual. Most readers like to see articles with pictures. Some readers don't read English well; for them, images can be exceedingly helpful. Eubulides (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I just ask because the article I was wanting to nominate is a radio show, so obviously there are problems getting images. ISD (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Criteria on high-quality sources
This new criteria was enacted after a lot of fuss, so I think it should be enforced properly, especially at WP:FAR in my opinion. At the moment I don't think it is being enforced by reviewers. I am hesitant to shut down a FAR and delist an article citing bad quality sources, if nobody else has brought up this fact at all. I see a few articles on very prominent figures where being selective on sources can bee applicable  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Crit 2
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
Who controls the material that appears on the the main page of featured articles? It doesn't seem possible to edit it (understandably). I noticed on the FA for Fri, Sep 11, 2009 on the Diocletianic Persecution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution that the information displayed on the main page actively distorts the content of the actual article. To wit, ''The Diocletianic Persecution was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman empire. In 303, Emperor Diocletian and his colleagues Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding Christians' legal rights and demanding they comply with traditional religious practices. Later edicts targeted the clergy and demanded universal sacrifice, ordering all inhabitants to sacrifice to the gods. The persecution varied in intensity across the empire—weakest in Gaul and Britain, where only the first edict was applied, and strongest in the Eastern provinces. Constantius' son, Constantine, on taking the imperial office in 306, restored Christians to full legal equality and returned property confiscated during the persecution. The persecution failed to check the rise of the church. By 324, Constantine was sole ruler of the empire, and Christianity had become his favored religion. Although the persecution resulted in the deaths of—according to one modern estimate—3,000 Christians, and the torture, imprisonment, or dislocation of many more, most Christians avoided punishment. The persecution did, however, cause many churches to split between those who had complied with imperial authority (the traditores), and those who had remained "pure". Modern historians have tended to downplay the scale and depth of the Diocletianic persecution. (more...)'' The irony is that the introductory article itself downplays the scale and depth of the persecution, and focuses primarily on the aftermath - hardly a fair and balanced presentation of the persecutions themselves. The casual reader will only get a sense that the persecutions were no big deal. Furthermore, it actually changes the facts from those reported in the article itself. (..."on taking the imperial office in 306..." is a misleading editorial cut of what is actually posted in the article, for example.

Since there's no point in posting that on the article page, I'm asking here. '''So who does that editing??? '''

62.63.87.161 (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New-look Manual of Style
A few weeks ago there was extensive discussion on FAC talk about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style, which concerns the FAC process through the operation of its criteria. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:
 * it is often wordy;
 * it provides more examples than necessary;
 * it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
 * it is a little repetitive and disorganised.

As a service to nominators, reviewers and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:
 * 1) brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
 * 2) new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
 * 3) the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
 * 4) the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including Blason;
 * 5) the addition of a Currency section, summarised from MOSNUM.
 * 6) improvements in structural organisation;
 * 7) the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.

Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified here, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page. Tony  (talk)  02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1‎
A test of the "high-quality" RS change. UN committee reports vs academic works.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of these things being descriptive...
...can I propose changing criterion 1a? While most of our featured articles are pretty well-written, only a tiny minority (and I don't include any of mine) exhibits prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Actually adopting that standard would slow our promotion rate to a trickle, so I don't support that, but I do find it slightly embarrassing when people point to a featured article and as "Really? That's what you consider "brilliant" prose?  Have you ever read anything written to a professional standard?" I don't have any particular replacement wording in mind; I thought I'd float the idea here first before putting more work into it. Steve Smith (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt the word "professional" should be retained, as we can rely on published manuals of writing for a definition of "professional". Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quality of prose goes beyond what can be objectively measured by published manuals of writing. Besides that, do you believe that anywhere near half of newly promoted FAs meet whatever standard might be set out by these manuals? Steve Smith (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, but it is helpful to have something to point to when nominators whine that reviewers are being subjective in their evaluation of prose. Many times, the issues raised are not subjective all. Whether or not FAs meet these requirements is not really the issue here - if they are not, that is the fault of reviewers for not pointing out the problems. Awadewit (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Awadewit on "professional". I strongly support keeping "engaging". To quote Arthur Christiansen (who was writing about newspapers, not Wikipedia), "It is our job to interest [our readers] in everything. It requires the highest degree of skill and ingenuity." An FA that does not engage our readers will not be read. I'm less sure about "brilliant". It seems to be more of an aspiration than a threshold. Colin°Talk 08:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Colin that "engaging" is more important and realistic than "brilliant".
 * I disagree with the checklist approach, and I agree that "Quality of prose goes beyond what can be objectively measured by published manuals of writing" (Steve Smith, 05:30, 26 October 2009). --Philcha (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To those who think so lowly of FA prose, or review!  I don't think criteria 1a says that all (or even most or many) articles will be "brilliant, and of a professional standard", because an "even" modifier precedes them.  (At least, it precedes "brilliant".)  I think it does say that all FAs are (should be) engaging, though—featureds should certainly avoid repetitive and derivative prose and flow smoothly (given the constraints of section headings and such).
 * If we get "brilliant" and "professional" prose, great. If not, at least we made it not look like some bot-generated output. :)  --an odd name 13:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "even brilliant" qualifier is brilliant. It's exactly right: it says it's OK if the prose is brilliant, and we should expect the prose to be brilliant sometimes. The qualifier reminds reviewers that they shouldn't object to prose merely because it's worded outrageously cleverly. I'd leave it in. Eubulides (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see "even brilliant" removed. If the standard is "engaging and of a professional standard", then of course some articles may be brilliantly written. Thus, "even brilliant' is both redundant and potentially misleading. &mdash; Deckiller 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "brilliant" is largely a historical holdover from the time that this process was called "Brilliant Prose." I support removing that word, largely due to the fact that it is so darn subjective. "Professional" and maybe "engaging" are enough, IMO. --mav (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support removing this qualifier. The only FAs attaining the "brilliant" standard are a couple FAs (all by one editor) on painters. Not requiring "brilliance," when none is usually had, will not detract from the overall high quality and excellent research that has gone into most FAs before they reach the main page. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In case other readers are puzzled, I think you'll find the painters you mean have been delisted. As far as I can see the only FA artist biographies now are El Greco, Caspar David Friedrich, Henry Moore, John Michael Wright, Robert Peake the Elder, and El Lissitzky. All I think are by different people, or teams, and the list perhaps provides an illustration of the increasing disappearance of large or important topics from FA lists. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. It was the El Greco article I was talking about. At the time I read the article, I thought the editor who had done most of the writing had written at least one more FA about a painter. I cannot from the history see who this editor is and whether or not he/she had other FAs. I did read a couple of other articles he/she was invovled with, though. I could not remember which painter it was, and I appreciate the opportunity to reread this article. Thanks again. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * El Greco is essentially by User:Yannismarou, who I think has other FAs, but not on artists. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eubulides. We need "engaging" and "professional": "even brilliant" goes a step further and prevents objections being made on the grounds of idiosyncratic writing. It signals that one size doesn't fit all, that quirky is good, so long as it's engaging and professional too. SlimVirgin  17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FA Main Page Images
I would like to see more care put into the images on the main page for the day's featured article. In Hepatorenal syndrome the FA image was of two micrographs juxtaposed by the article's main contributor. That wikipedia editor had seen such a juxtaposition in a professional journal article, and used similar reasoning for including and for captioning the image. The images do not include scale, the information that they were both from human biopsies was omitted from the caption, the stains used for each image were different, and, confusedly, the stain used for the kidney section was a common liver stain, raising additional questions about the micrographs. There are other problems with the images. However, as the editor who selected the micrographs did not have the medical or technical expertise to answer questions about the images, it remains unclear to the reader how the images are related and why they are juxtaposed. It is original research of the most damning kind: it leads to possible questions and conclusions--the liver stain was used on purpose to emphasize a relationship--that serve only to confuse the reader.

I believe that images in featured articles, particularly when they wind up as the image selected to highlight the article on the main page, should be encyclopedic images vetted for their appropriateness to the article and for giving accurate, reliably sourced information to the reader. The primary editor on the hepatorenal syndrome article is adamant that the images are appropriate and should remain on the main page (at that point) and in the article (at this point in time). This is primarily due to wikipedia's lax standards on images in articles, that they are not held to the same standards as article content, in particular "no original research". However, I believe different standards for image appropriateness, quality, and reliability (original research) could and should be adopted for wikipedia's most visible articles.

Is it possible to change the guidelines to include something to the effect that main pages image in FAs cannot include original research contributions? The image used to illustrate the hepatorenal syndrome article could have been of a pathological liver, rather than the effort put into finding two images to join together as had been used in another research article.

--69.226.100.7 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia policy on original research clearly applies to images. It even has a section on images (WP:OI) that applies to this particular case, assuming that the case is correctly described (I haven't looked into it). No change to the guidelines or policy should be needed; all that should be needed is to apply WP:OI correctly. Eubulides (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem then appears to be, according to Eubulides' added information, that guidelines exist but are not followed.
 * Is it possible to change the guidelines for FAs to see that the guidelines for FA images are followed, particularly with the main page image? --69.226.100.7 (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concern (right or wrong) over *one* image does not mean guidelines are not being followed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed up on this at Talk:Hepatorenal syndrome . Eubulides (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Eubulides, for removing the images from the box. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the guidelines were not followed, in part because the discussion about the featured article makes no attempt to discuss what appears to be the obvious OR of the juxtaposed images. The image discussion includes only requirements that alt text be added and a comment that the image review is complete. The text to the images is not otherwise discussed. The appropriateness of the images is not discussed. The alt text itself should have been a clue that the images were problematic, "Two part stained slide of cells. The top cells are labeled "alcoholic cirrhosis" and the bottom "normal kidney"." It is not a "two part stained slide of cells," it is two differently stained slides of two different tissues. The alt text contradicts the text of the image box itself, if one is to read the image text as if they are two different micrographs. The different sources of the images should also have been a clue that the images required more than the rubber-stamping they got. The images are an editor-writer's original research.
 * It would be more helpful to explain the guidelines to me in a way that indicates they were followed, or to comment on the content of what I said, rather than on my saying anything, or to make suggestions that would show how to make sure the guidelines are followed. Seeing such a poorly developed image montage as this one on the main page of wikipedia is unusual. But the very low level of this main page image suggests to me that the concern should be raised to prevent it from happening again. That is why I choose to raise the issue. It is an attempt to prevent a repeat occurrence.
 * You may be looking at this from the viewpoint of an editor of FAs. However, I am looking at this form the viewpoint of a reader of wikipedia FAs. A lot of casual web surfers enjoy reading Wikipedia FAs, myself included. Occasionally there is a real gem, like the one writer who does write "brilliant" prose. Some FAs are better, some are worse. All are worth reading from beginning to end, every day. Overall, regularly reading FAs is a treat that has never included anything of this level that I recall. I would like to discuss the issue to allow me to go back to being a casual reader of interesting articles on a great variety of topics. I would like to not again be stopped dead in my tracks, almost deciding to not read an article, because an image is so awful one turns to wondering how it arrived on the main page rather than reading the information in the article.
 * It raises completely unnecessary questions such as, "Is there anything else in this article that is OR? Do other wikipedia FAs contain such OR?" FAs on wikipedia have very high web visibility. I believe it is not asking too much to request a check of policies when a problem of such magnitude is present in a Wikipedia FA. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there was a screwup in this case. But it's just one case. Screwups happen. I wouldn't worry about it unless the problem was systemic. The fact that this case struck you as unusual is a good sign, as it suggests that policies are normally followed far better than this. I have no doubt that FA reviewers sometimes fail to spot original research, and that other FAs contain it; but I don't see why it will help to add to Featured article criteria (WP:FACR) an explicit prohibition against original research. WP:FACR already clearly states that FAs must follow the List of policies, one of which is No original research; and this policy is well-understood by reviewers. There is a cost to adding wording to WP:FACR, as that would make people's eyes glaze over and miss the important stuff in WP:FACR that is not policy. I expect that this cost would exceed any benefit. Eubulides (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The FACR says that images must follow image guidelines and image guidelines don't state that original research is not allowed in images. In fact image use guidelines don't deal at all with whether or not the content of the image is suitable or accurate. They deal only with technical and licensing aspects of images on wikipedia. This is the same as FA discussions that I see, the image discussion are about technical aspects and licensing and alt text, not about whether the image belongs to begin with.
 * Yes, the screw-up is unusual. But it does not appear to be unusual due to a lot of care being taken in deciding the suitability of images in FAs, if current FA discussions are anything to go on.
 * There appears to be high resistance to a suggestion that FA images should be scrutinized at a high level, just as FAs are. Why? --69.226.100.7 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates  and feel free to add to the discussion going on there about that very topic. Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is resistance to modifying the criteria, for the reason Eubulides gives above: we don't want to make people's eyes glaze over. In addition, it may well be that some reviews are too light on images -- I have no opinion on that -- but the answer in that case would be to change reviewer behaviour, not the criteria.  As Eubulides says, the criteria do include a ban on original research, and regular reviewers understand that. Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC on additional wording about citation templates
I've moved it here. Tony  (talk)  03:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unit conversions
Some discussion has occurred on the WP:Ships talk page on the use of conversions for units of measurment. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. There is little doubt that repeated conversions into two or three different measurment systems makes text denser and more difficult to read. See version when promoted to FA of North Carolina class battleship. Editors have been told in the past to use more conversions.

The Manual of Style states:"When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs."from Mosnum (emphasis added). The use of "topic" here is unclear but the intent is not-- conversions need not always be provided.

There is no reason to repeat conversions for each use of, for example, a 16" gun. Nor is there any reason to have conversions to short tons where displacement measures are stated in long or metric tons.

I would go further: where the unit is clear, is there a reason to (for example) convert nautical miles to statute miles and kilometers? In the interests of catering to make it easy for those who use different systems, we are making it hard for everyone to read text.

But if that goes too far, can we at least agree that conversions, once given, need not be repeated? And that opposes based on failure to included conversions at each instance are not actionable? Kablammo (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I agree, but good luck getting any changes through MOS; that's always fun :) Ship articles can be torturous reading because of all the numbers and conversions, and this would be a welcome addition. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sandy. I read the existing MOS language to allow converting at the first instance and not thereafter (like wikilinks).  Kablammo (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But if you post that simple observation over at MOS, you may find yourself engaged for months in what should be a simple matter, and find yourself branded a MOS warrior. YMMV :) If Karanacs and other FAC regulars agree, we can certainly apply common sense to this MOS matter at FAC: I usually do anyway.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We already follow Kablammo's interpretation for articles on American football and other sports. I don't see any problem with extending this to articles on ships - convert on first use only. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this ought to be a simple matter, and I MOS:NUM to try to make this clearer (and shorter). Eubulides (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * It is unclear whether the participants in this conversation would like to see the first instance of each number-unit combination converted, or just the first instance of the unit. For example, if an article contains "16 in gun" and later a 5 inch gun is discussed, is another conversion required?
 * There is a tradeoff between making the article readable and providing easy access to a familiar unit. I would think that articles with many measurements should only convert the first instance, or provide a conversion factor, but articles with few measurements should convert all of them.
 * SI is the only international system of units. No one should be expected to know any non-SI customary unit (but they can be expected to use a conversion factor or look back in the article). The only possible exception is the ton; people not familiar with customary units will probably get that this is about the same as a tonne. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the five-inch gun would be converted on first use as well, but any subsequent use after the first would not be converted. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it depends on how far away they are: if they're in the same sentence, anyone will understand that 5 inches is slightly less than one third of 16 in; otherwise I agree with you. ― A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 08:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So why hasn't this change been updated in MoS main page? Tony   (talk)  10:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or here's a radical idea: instead of converting just the first appearance, put a footnote to the first use of the unit. The footnote would say "The yard is a topic-related customary unit (= 1.xx metres)." I'm frankly tired of conversion clutter on WP. Tony   (talk)  11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tony. That is particularly helpful for less well-known terms, such as chains or fathoms.  But a wikilink to the unit may also suffice.  As the MOS now says, . . . possibly giv[e] the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote . . . and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs.  If we link to the units used, those unfamiliar can click to them.  But now, folks are being asked to provide conversions which really are not needed, sometimes based on a misunderstanding of terms which wikilinks could mitigate.  There are a number of examples of such confusion. Kablammo (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I find links to units particularly unhelpful. Have a look at a few of the unit pages: they do not offer helpful information. If you want to move forwards on that count, we need a Units conversion page, set out nice and easy with visual aids; not the history of the blessed metre, puhlease. Tony   (talk)  03:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FAs that are copies of other sources
I just came across USS Bridgeport (AD-10), which is an FA that includes almost the full text, with barely any paraphrasing, of this DANFS chapter; the DANFS text makes up over half the FA. The only citation is a footnote at the end of every paragraph; there are no quotation marks and no indication given that the FA actually lifts all the language and structure of the DANFS text as well as the ideas. How can such a lazy piece of writing possibly be a featured article?

I was about to take it to WP:FAR but I wanted to see first if there are some existing guidelines on whether use of PD text like this is acceptable in FAs. I'm sure there are lots of other WP:SHIPS FAs just like this, and I don't want to be accused of being POINTy (as I do have strong opinions about use of PD material and have expressed my distaste for WP:SHIPS practices before&mdash;for goodness' sake, they even have instructions for how to plagiarize DANFS material). Is there any guideline or precedent saying there's nothing wrong with wholesale copying like this? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not. It's a difficult issue because as a project promoting free content, incorporation of free content should be part of our mandate. In my view, it's somewhat antithetical to our founding principles to state broadly that an article incorporating significant amounts of free content can't be FA. It's obviously an area where there's quite a bit of disagreement, however. My personal feeling is that we don't currently do enough to credit these outside sources at the moment, but I feel any article following normal practices in this regard should be eligible for FA. And this article does appear to obey normal practices, with the standard DANFS template at the bottom. If there are problems with neutrality or reliability stemming from the reliance on this source, that's another matter. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an inherent problem with incorporating PD text, other than the obvious fact that it's often antiquated prose that should be nuked anyway. For example, there are a lot of opera article that incorporate PD synopses—and I wouldn't keep a single one. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. In fact in the article Rjanag's drawn attention there's some dubiously archaic phrasing, such as "Late in the morning watch on 15 April, Bridgeport sailed for the Azores as part of a goodly company of ships". A "goodly company of ships"? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting side note to that example, Malleus: the sentence was actually brought up during the FAC. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hundreds of articles have been created out of DANFS and some sort of recognition has been given for them. The creators of those articles were simply following common practice. Our standards continue to be refined, however, and we should consider whether "A featured article exemplifies our very best work" means that work in fact has to be "ours". Kablammo (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The use of PD text and the recognition of it for GAs & FAs are different things. I grudging accept that articles like this are ok for DYK but that should be as far as it goes. Or should we set up a new DANFS-FA star. Johnbod (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This dispatch discussed plagiarism and gives reasons, other than copyvio, why plagiarism is wrong. It seems to say that even if material is PD, it can be plagiarized, so that quotation marks should be used, say for material from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.  — Mattisse  (Talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With some articles (not FAs) that would mean the whole thing would be in quotes, which seems rather silly. By that strict interpretation of plagiarism one would also have to put quotation marks around any text copied from one wikipedia article to another, say from here to here, which would be absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * - @Mattisse - of course, many on the talk page of that dispatch believed that the article took an extreme view on plagiarizing... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point, Matisse's interpretation of that article doesn't reflect common Wikipedia community practice, which I think should guide the FA process in developing policy in this area. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just offer that signpost as a suggestion. I guess all of you disagree regarding its applicability to FAs. Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the list of authors I'd say it's a flat out impossibility that "we all" don't agree it applies to FAs. Are you just looking for another argument Mattisse? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you disagree regarding the applicability of signpost to FA articles? I have not read talk page discussions of the issues, so I don't know what the common thinking is. Seems like it is against.   — Mattisse  (Talk) 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Actually, I agree with Matisse here. I realise that most others don't agree, but not using quotations around exact wording is plagarism in most academic and publishing circles. Whether that's something that is absolutely necessary for PD text is a bit grayer, but if we want FAs to be our "best" work, I'd think we'd prefer to see better practices than just what is in a gray area. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree with you assertion that "all of you disagree". In fact you have no idea what my opinion is on this matter, as I have not yet expressed. Suffice to say that it is none of the above. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Mattisse and Ealdgyth. We shouldn't be offering other people's work as candidates for featured articles. The solution is not to add quotation marks, but to rewrite the material so that it's ours, just as we do with any other source material, or demote it. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I agree also. Our work should be our work.  Look at the first line of the criteria.  I do not suggest wholesale delisting; time should be given to encase needed PD text in quote marks, or to rewrite it.  But new candidates should not contain unquoted PD text.  There are a lot of talented writers here; why should the words of others be used?  Kablammo (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Count me in, too. FAs that are found to have plagiarism should be rewritten immediately and if not done, should be taken to FAR. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The alternate perspective is that being free content is part of what really makes Wikipedia special, and showcasing that capacity very effectively represents us at "our best". The project doesn't characterize itself as being written from scratch or promote such an expectation so it's not clear why the incorporation of free content is sub-optimal, assuming that there are no other issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's one thing for me to knowingly contribute "free content" and know that anyone can do anything with it, and quite another to take out of copyright information and treat it the same way. When I press "save page" I'm agreeing that a hyperlink/url is sufficient attribution, but most of the PD works were not written with that understanding, and thus it's ethically iffy to not attribute that text clearly as written by someone else. The 1911 EB isn't "free" it's "public domain" which isn't quite the same as "Wikipedia-free". I personally do not feel that a template at the bottom is ethically enough to show that information within the article came from a public domain source. Obviously, others differ in that interpretation. Given the ethical issues, along with the problem of the out-of-date florid writing style, wouldn't it just be better to rewrite and use the PD source as a source rather than just copying it verbatim and slapping a small template at the bottom? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point about the intent of the original author is a fair one, and I think applies to many works that are free by coincidence, such as federal government material; that said, how do you feel about the incorporation of work that IS free, in the same way as Wikipedia is free? Surely it's still plagiarism for the same reasons? Either way, I think these points belong in a discussion about modifying community practice in this area. I believe it sets a bad precedent if an article which adheres to the relevant standards applied by the broad Wikipedia community is disqualified for FA because the editors of this page have splintered from the broader community and recommended different practices. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the publishing world, you can't appropriate public domain text like that without better attribution than we currently practice. If I tried to reprint parts of the 1911 EB as "my work" by just putting a source citation on it without also indicating I had copied it verbatim, I'd be accused of plagarism. Don't confuse the two issues of copyright infringement and plagarism, both are wrong, but you can do one without the other. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (out) In my original post at the top of this thread I didn't express any concerns about copyright issues, so I think the discussion about PD-ness is irrelevant. The issue is not copyright, the issue is quality, which is what featured articles are supposed to exemplify&mdash;they don't just show the quality of an individual article, but they are supposed to showcase the quality of Wikipedia. An article that has just lifted the text wholesale from something else doesn't say anything good about Wikipedia, it makes us look more like an aggregator of sources than an encyclopedia.
 * My reading of the above discussion is that there is some support for delisting, or at least very critically reviewing, articles that rely so heavily on copied PD material. Personally I think that's enough to take this ship article to FAR straightaway, but since such a decision might have an effect on similar articles as well I'll wait to see if some sort of consensus forms here&mdash;rather than doing a mass of FARs at once it would probably be better to first see how the criteria will handle them. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec2) I don't see any problem per se with including public-domain material in featured articles, so long as it's properly credited. If there were consensus on prohibiting public-domain material in FAs, we'd have to remove a ton of images and this would greatly hurt a lot of articles, particularly historical ones. It may well be that public-domain material should be rewritten on other grounds, such as its being dated, but that's an independent issue. A line at the bottom saying that some of the material was taken from an old public-domain source constitutes sufficient credit. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica was written under the understanding that the material would become public domain after the passage of many years. Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between displaying an image and copying text wholesale. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But we don't throw fifteen pictures, one of which is PD, on a page and only say at the bottom of the page "some of these pictures are from pubilc domain sources" ... we link each picture individually to a page that gives the source and status of the image. If an FAC doesn't have all that information on each image, it's going to face issues, right? Why is it right to throw some text up that's copied verbatim from a PD source, and throw one citation on it and call it "attributed"? We're much stricter with public domain images and their attribution than we are with public domain text. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Images also are often so old they cannot be reproduced or taken by an agency like the US government or NASA in situations where it would be impossible for most of us to go out and get images ourselves. With writing this is not the case. Any of us can paraphrase a source. It's just a matter of doing it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this discussion in two places now, so throwing in a comment or two. Why, for the purposes of FA, does it matter whether I me myself wrote "a goodly number of ships" or I copied it from a public-domain source? If it's bad writing (florid prose in this case) then shoot it down, who cares where it came from? However if you judge that "goodly number of ships" represents the "best" of Wikipedia, then !vote me in. If I say "I copied this from here" it's most definitely not plagiarism. I would favour, and have long advocated, better means to pin down exactly what-was-copied-when-and-how when it comes to PD sources. But I don't understand why the original authorship would affect the judgement on whether the article has achieved excellence. Our mission is to be free, why is free (PD) material excluded, so long as it is properly attributed? Franamax (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In academic/publishing circles, "properly attributed" doesn't mean that you copy verbatim and then slap a footnote/citation on it, to copy verbatim you must use quotation marks. It doesn't matter whether it's PD or non-PD text. There are already good practices on incorporating public domain texts (such as Shakespeare) when you quote it and cite it .. not just cite it. When you put a footnote/citation on something you aren't saying that you "copied this from there" you're saying you "got the information from there". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me put this another way. Featured Articles are described as being "Wikipedia's best work". How much work goes into pasting an entire article into the edit window?
 * Again, the point is not about attribution (although I do agree with Ealdgyth that quotations belong inside quotation marks, no matter where they came from). The point is that pasting someone else's encyclopedia article into Wikipedia and calling it a new encyclopedia article is not good encyclopedia writing. If people must do wholesale copying like this to quickly and expediently expand the encyclopedia, then so be it&mdash;but call it "quickly and expediently expanding the encyclopedia", don't call it "featured article writing". <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Well I realize that Wikipedia exceptionalism often gets short shrift, but my approach is definitely exceptionalist. We simply are not an academic environment (pace to the many dedicated academics who work very dilgently here). We are a free environment and that carries a different connotation. No-one expects clear authorship of anything here, though GFDL and its extension through page-history do indeed provide a means to pin down who ever added anything anywhere (contrast with GFDL's "five principal authors") Quote marks around everything PD would be great, except we expect that material added here will be mercilessly edited. No-one (or at least not me) should expect that when they add text it will remain forever inviolable, unless it's a quotation from a non-free source. Consider 1911EB, all that text was imported with the explicit intention that it would be improved over time. Same with DANFS. The issue is not how much PD content has been incorporated and subsequently modified, the issue is whether it has been properly attributed. Now I'm all for better attribution, but in the end, if you're judging FA criteria, if it's good writing, it's good writing, right? As to whether someone should get a shiny star for copy-pasting that they can put on their own user page (and sometimes use as a weapon to dominate others), different story, but actually judging an FA should really only depend on the quality of the article - shouldn't it? Franamax (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess there's just a difference in what we believe Wikipedia's priority is. Your belief, it seems, is that Wikipedia's top priority is to be free. Mine is that Wikipedia's top priority is to be good (albeit while remaining free), and that under that priority, "but it's free" simply isn't an acceptable rationale for lifting whatever we want and copying it into an article. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We may not be academic, but we are "publishing" and even newspapers/magazines and other publishing houses outside of academia recognize that definition of plagarism. It's brought down more than one reporter. FA criteria aren't just the writing, there are standards of research, attribution, presentation, etc. that also come into play. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a question of establishing standards for FA. How high are these standards? Is there disagreement when it comes to FA articles? It seems like there may be. Perhaps this should be clarified in the FA criteria.  — Mattisse  (Talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a discussion from WT:Plagiarism from a while back: . For "attribution templates", substitute "quotation marks" and maybe you will see what I'm getting at. Should Anadyr River have kept quote marks around the verbatim 1911EB text with newer wordings above and below it, or should it be what it is today? It's about the same topic, but it's been reworded almost completely. Would that article be excluded from FA consideration because it has the 1911 template on it and still contains the word "reindeer"? Franamax (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles that just cut and paste a few web-encylopedia articles, eg the former FA Mujib or Ziaur Rahman, would fail on being thoroughly researched, and if a FA was 50% from just one article and barely paraphrased, it would probably fail the content criteria in any case if people looked for sources. The sources may also be outdated, although raw data about boats is not likely to  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  00:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And likely a mimic-job of only 1-2 sources is hardly likely to satisfy NPOV either if it includes things that aren't just cut and dry like a data sheet  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) In that case, no, it would not, as long as there are only occasional co-incidences of words. Honestly, if that was the case, it wouldn't need the 1911 tag on it either, as nothing would remain of the original copy-paste, except for the occasional word. This would presume that the content has not only been reworded, but also the order of information has had some change along with additons of new citations. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 1

 * What Eubulides and YellowMonkey say. In principle, FAs should be treated like any article in this respect. But the crux is that I've rarely seen a text that shouldn't be improved; that is our task in preparing FA nominations. (On a related matter, this is often a reason to paraphrase more and directly quote less: so often, quotations need to be edited.) Tony   (talk)  01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with most of the sentiments above, except the characterization of the instructions at WP:SHIPS, it doesn't say "please plagiarize DANFS", it says the opposite: "Most of DANFS is written in a very terse style; we aim for flowing prose and accessible language." - Dank (push to talk) 05:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our goal here is and always has been to improve the material we have. The mandate is verifibility, not truth; DANFS is verifable. The mandate is to use reliable sources; DANFs is a reliable source. The mandate is to gain consensus from the peers that these articles satisfy the above criteria; and so far the number of FA-stars on the articles indicates a clear and present consensus that there is nothing against DANFS material in the articles in a copy/paste sense. The article talk pages all note that the material comes from a public domain, so there is no question as to where the original source of the material is. For all this, we have NO mandate governing plagerism. None. Therefore, absent a sudden shift in consensus, there currently exists no grounds for the dishonorable demotion of any aritcle built to rely on DANFS material. If you wish this changes then it must come through an RFC so everyone with a stake in the matter can be aloud a chance to sound of the practice. To quote two pieces of outstanding milhist advice, "The status quo is generally a stable position, if nothing else; maintaining it for a while longer is unlikely to be as controversial as changing it," and "Act carefully; while almost any action can be reversed if needed, it never hurts to ask for objections before doing something." TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "It never hurts to ask for objections before doing something"&mdash;why do you think I started this thread? <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With all respect Tom, there is not a "clear and present consensus that there is nothing against DANFS material in the articles in a copy/paste sense". In fact, from what I've seen the opposite is now the case, and articles which go to A class reviews which are based heavily on DANFS have encountered hostile reviews. Given that DANFS is written by the US Navy about itself, I personally don't regard it as a very reliable source; while the information it provides on the basics of ships' careers (key dates, etc) is normally OK, the articles generally exclude anything controversial about the ship (just look at the entries of the ships involved in 'Bulls Run' at the Battle of Leyte Gulf for example - they treat the incident as a success and don't note that this deployment left the amphibious forces dangerously exposed) and there can be serious inaccuracies in the information they provide on non-US forces (eg, casualties from ships they fought, foreign ships which cooperated, etc). Many of the DANFS entries are now also very dated, and do not reflect modern scholarship and attitudes. As such, I think that heavy use of DANFS in articles for verification or text can potentially violate FA criteria 1(a),(b),(c) and (d) and there's merit in sending FAs which draw heavily from this source to FA reviews. As rjanaɢ notes, there's no suggestion that hasty action be taken. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't now about DANFS, at large, but it was used for the seven boats above, and it seemed that all the other USN sources cited in the articles copied each other but it misspelt the boats named after Pham Ngu Lao, Ngo Quyen, Ly Thuong Kiet, all ultra-famous Vietnamese generals who commanded the whole army and repelled Chinese invasions, as "Tham Ngu Lao" "Ly Thoung Kiet" and "Ngo Kuyen" (there's only one spelling possible), which seems very slack, if they can't get the title right. [I know that a lot of first-year uni students can't spell nowadays in the computer age and write "Consavation [sic] of energy" in teh top of their practical books, but a student lab-book isnt a RS]  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  07:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, point 11 of the WP:SHIPS advice on using DANFS explicitly states that it needs to be checked against independent sources and gives some examples of inaccuracies. As such, it shouldn't be characterised as simply "instructions for how to plagiarize DANFS" and makes it clear that the project doesn't regard it alone as being a suitable basis for high quality articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we (as in the Ships project) are reading too much into this. Sure, older FAs may have DANFS text, but I don't think that requires a FAR. Newer FAs should not if my experience was applied to other articles as well (I had to rewrite text in North Carolina-class battleship so that it was away from the wording of DANFS). I don't think that this is a big deal unless there are mass FARs based on this single point... — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (after) - I agree with Nick's entire post with the exception of the "there's merit ..." part. I think that should be done on a case-by-case basis; for ships like Bridgeport, DANFS may be one of only a couple sources that mention the ship in more than just passing. On the flip side, if something like USS Connecticut (BB-18) was heavily sourced to DANFS (it's not, but pretend), then we would have a clear problem. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  07:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree wholeheartedly with ed on this one. In one sense, to say that any copied text is bad is just not thinking.  At FPC one doesn't make somebody touch up a Nasa picture so it can be featured, do they?  Yet an article is different, and case by case is the best way to go. <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 07:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to suggest that all FAs which use DANFS be subjected to FARs; rather, that only those which rely heavily on this source need to be reviewed. While I'm not sure that the FPC-FAC comparison is necessarily a good one, featured picture nominees which are poor quality PD images don't pass their reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PLAG, "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit."
 * It also states:
 * "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. The text may be treated as copyright material in which case attribution should be made in the same way as it is for copyrighted material. But the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies. If this is done then be sure to cite the source, and attribute the work through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page."
 * As far as I can tell, all the DANFS material used in FA articles meets these requirements. Thus it is not plagiarism. And thus WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions is not "instructions for how to plagiarize DANFS material", as claimed in the first post. If you disagree with the WP:PLAG guidelines, then that is the place to start if stricter guidelines on using PD material verbatim are desired. The reliability of DANFS content is a separate issue, and rightly jusdged on an individual bases at each article. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, actually, these articles do fail to provide adequate credit. They only credit the source of the ideas, and they don't give adequate indication (quotation marks) that the exact language has also been copied. That's plagiarism. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, irrespective of DANFS or any other encyclopedia/tertiary source being reliable or not, or being public domain or copyrighted, and whether it is then paraphrased or cut verbatim, illegally or otherwise, the FA criteria do talk about RS, high-quality and all that, and those pages say that WP should be based on that secondary sources, ie reading in-depth textbooks and journal articles and getting all teh angles and details, or lots of newspaper articles and summarising it, rather than getting a short summary piece(s) and just doing a basic mixing and paraphrase. Some former FAs such as Iqbal, Mujib and Ziaur Rahman were of the latter sort, basically a few official govt bios, Banglapedia articles, and some CIA Factbook history overviews cut and pasted from a website, merged and paraphrased. Although the articles were failed for incomplete referencing, poor research could also have been legitimately raised on those and other FACs/incumbent FAs' FARs. No change in the criteria needs to be legislated to enable people to do this, and it applies for any FA or FAC candidate. In many book reivews in journals and the like, the reviewer often associates "poor research" with a rip-off/mimic of a pre-existing work without adding anything new, and this would apply to the FA criteria of research, although obviously nothing new can be added because of NOR.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  07:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I think direct use of PD sources in FA articles is not ideal, I don't think there is anything which specifically prohibits its use. One thing that is worth remembering is that whenever one paraphrases, there is the possibility of the introduction of inadvertent errors from misreading or misunderstanding the source, which is a problem avoided when the text is quoted verbatim. As to the reliability of DANFS, it's by no means 100% reliable, but then very few sources are. The age of some DANFS articles is not an issue in my opinion, since I'm sure there are plenty of FA's with sources just as old or much older.

I think the bottom line is that FA's are supposed to have high quality writing. If DANFS text is well written, it should meet the criteria, if not, it should be tweaked appropriately (as per the discussion about "goodly number of ships" above). Certainly though, overreliance on any one source is not good. I always prefer to see articles sourced to multiple references, particular on important points, which should be readily available from such. Gatoclass (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO: as long as the text is carefully and rigorously scrutinized, and paraphrased in certain areas to clear up any confusing statements, there's no reason why we should prohibit or discourage the use of reliable PD material into our articles. Agree with most of what Gatoclass says. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 2
Im not sure if anyone else has brought this up or not but this is a broader prblem than just DANFS. There are several other sites that this could apply to as well. I deal mostly with Medal of Honor recipients and from a ship point of view probably couldn't tell the difference between a port and a starboard but here are some example of how this applies to bio articles as well. The Marine Corps who's who, US Army, [White house press releases], etc. There are plenty more that I can think of quickly but my point is, although in my opinion its ok to use PD text, it should not be used in an article above GA. In fact many moons ago when I first started editing WP several users called me out to not using copy pasted text from these sites eventhough it was PD, it was as one editor put it, just bad form. Anyway thats my 2 cents. --Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I haven't looked lately but there used to be whole articles that were lifted from the National Register of Historic Places.  — Mattisse  (Talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And National Institutes of Health (I was guilty before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written ... and until recently, it had misinformation on Tourette syndrome, incorrectly identifying the first physican to write about it). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And United States Geological Survey. (But at least those two are theoretically kept up to date ... )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears a very large number of USN ship pages (& perhaps others, I haven't seen any) are verbatim lifts from DANFS. Forget copyvio & getting sued (which appear to be the main concerns of editors who've commented elsewhere when I've raised the issue). Plagairism is simply not OK, IMO. Would you do it anywhere else? If not, why is it OK here?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> any time you're ready, Uhura  20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can fairly call it plagiarism unless we are making a claim of authorship, and nobody is that I can tell. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with calling it plagiarism. We can do better but don't. It should not be a part of Featured Articles in any way. It does not show our best work. It shows our mediocre cut and paste methods. I have no problems with opposing an FAC that has copied information, even from a PD source, and I have no problems with articles at FAR that do the same. I don't understand the ambiguity presented in this discussion. It should not be allowed, very simply. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not make a proposal to disallow it at the relevant page? I don't see why you would expect an article to be failed because it doesn't conform to your personal preference, when it does conform to every established practice in the Wikipedia community. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)(reply to Moni3 above) There is no ambiguity, alot of people simply do not share your view. You can count me among those. My opinion on this issue is based on a couple of facts: first, plagiarism consists of passing off someone else's work as your own. When you provide attribution you cannot, by definition, be committing plagiarism. Second, when an author chooses to create a work they are de facto accepting the social/legal contract that regulates Intelectual property, in other words, they are accepting that after X number of years, depending on jurisdiction, their work will become public domain and open to all sorts of appropriation. The only expectation is that of attribution, which we provide. If the author does not agree with those terms then they are free not to create their work in the first place. Third, Wikipedia is part of the free culture movement, which means that we should both encourage the reuse of our material and set the exemple by incorporating free material generated elsewhere when that material fits our porpuses. Also, I have created the article Granat which is mostly based on a NASA PD source. If it were ever to go to FAC and you opposed on the grounds that it incorporated PD material I would mark your opposes as unactionable since theyre are based neither on WIAFA nor on WPs policies or guidelines but simply on your personal preferences. Indeed, the guideline that covers plagiarism specifically allows the incorporation of PD or other compatibly licensed free material as long as attribution is provided. It should also be noted that the signpost article accounts for the opinions of its authors only. There was widespread concern at the time (see the articles talk) that some of its positions did not reflect current practice or consensus Acer (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times this will need to be repeated before people get it, but "when you provide attribution you cannot, by definition, be committing plagiarism" is wrong. Putting a footnote at the end of copied text without indicating that it's copied is plagiarism; you've attributed the source of the ideas without attributing the source of the wording. It's quite disheartening to see so many people involved in FA-related discussions who clearly don't know what plagiarism is. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are completely misrepresenting my position. I was not referring to footnotes but to atribution templates. Fotnootes are used to attribute ideas not text (with the noted expection of quotations which whould be inside quotation marks.) Please don't put words into peoples mouths. My position on this issue has been consistant for the longest time Acer (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if all you do is footnote a verbatim copy, that is plagiarism. It's the addition of the attribution template with "includes text copied from..." that relieves the concern, because you explicitly say you copied it. We have discussed at WT:Plagiarism adding a note in footnotes to indicate direct copying and somewhere else I can't remember adding a field to attribution templates to show the &oldid where the text was added. Would either of those make you feel any better about this? Franamax (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What an interesting FAC that would be. I could not disagree more with just about everything you posted, so I'm not sure what else to comment on here. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly the article is not at FAC level nor can I take it there as I lack the qualifications and I also don't speak russian, I was obviously talking of a hypothethical future scenario. Its very easy for you to disqualify me, but where I live I have very little access to free library material and I cant afford payed subscriptions. Perhaps, instead of pointing your judmental finger, you shouldve done a little reasearch. If you had done that you'd seen that although based mostly on a PD source, the article goes beyond it in many places, perhaps you'd seen that, at the time, a 17 year old kid, compilling information from a number of sources, created the best summary regarding that satellite in English anywhere on the net, that in the process of compilling that information, a number of factual errors on the orginal NASA material were found and reported back to them, who then proceed to fix those mistakes, perhaps you shouldve considered that if not for the article here on WP those mistakes wouldve probably not been found. Perhaps you shoudve considered that eversince the article was created in english its been translated to a number of languages, including french and, amazingly, russian, spreading information to people who woudlve been unable to access the NASA material due to language barriers. Perhaps you'd consider making arguments, instead of attempting to disqualify others. Acer (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Acer, the point is surely that it's not our best work if it's copied from someone else.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing my judgmental finger, eh? You should see what I deleted before posting. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well go ahead, do elighten me Acer (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Naw, it was not constructive and what I posted made the same point. Suffice to say I find this a black and white issue. Don't copy. Just don't do it. It does not belong at FA. --Moni3 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for whats its worth, I also see some issues as black and white. For instance, that noone has the right to impose their personal views on others. If you really feel strongly about this and beleive others do too then take the issue to the village pump or start and RFC. If consensus swings your way then I'll abide. Acer (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Acer, in your first post above you talked about the rights of the original authors, and the fact that they don't mind their work being used after it becomes PD. Comments like this are, I think, representative of a misunderstanding that many of the people in the above discussion have made. I don't care about the rights of the DANFS authors and I didn't start this thread because I want to protect their rights. (Well, I do care about their rights, of course, but that's immaterial here.) What I care about is improving the quality of Wikipedia, and I care about FAs not being junk. I believe that copying and pasting writing from somewhere else, no matter what its copyright status is, is junk writing; it may be acceptable for the encyclopedia in general, but it should not be acceptable for what we call our "best" articles. Judging by the comments above, several of the best article writers in this community agree. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why this should be obvious. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. It's not an exercise in writing pretty prose or churning out brand-new text. Finding, incorporating, and improving high-quality public domain text is a useful contribution to your project; I think the insistance that it can't be representative of our best work is as unhelpful as the view that video game or pop culture articles can't be FA. It's an ivory tower mentality. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're confusing Wikipedia with the FA WikiProject. Yes, the goal of Wikipedia is to make a free encyclopedia using whatever we can get. The goal of FA, though, is more than that, and its standards should be higher. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this is a higher standard. It's just an different standard. It doesn't advance any of our stated community goals. It actively denigrates one of our central principles. It doesn't help ensure that "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." This standard arises from nothing except the personal prejuidices of the people on this page - it's turning FA from "Wikipedia's best articles" to "here's some articles people liked" if the standards by which the articles are judged have no relation to the project of which we're a part. Hypothetically, if I showed you two versions of Autism, one originally written here and one copied over from an NIH page with a template at the bottom, what argument would you make that the second version does less to advance Wikipedia? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take Tourette syndrome instead, from the NIH, and I'll rip it up :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think trying to pass a demand for quality work off as "personal prejudices", as several commenters above have done, is pretty immature. Frankly, it's pretty surprising how eager some people are to defend the laziness of writers of copy-paste FACs. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know of another description than personal prejudice. You are saying that two articles identical in every functional aspect should be judged differently because one exhibits "laziness". But work is not a value this project is intended to advance. On the front page, we mention the number of articles we have, not the number of man hours we've consumed. Articles should be judged on whether they educate the reader, present facts neutrally, and are written elegantly. You're introducing a value scale that has nothing to do with the project's goals - it is precisely a personal prejudice. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) While there is a dispute as to whether it is plagiarism, does not the existence of that dispute indicate that we should aspire to the highest standard, and not the lowest? "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. So let's meet those aspirations. Kablammo (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 3
Lots of feedback here; is it time for a "vote"? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First do we need to come up with a specifically-worded proposal? <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will leave that to the experts, but I was thinking we'd see if there's any consensus before trying to hammer out wording. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, a vote sounds fine to me; I can leave a message at the Village Pump once it starts. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we want to word the RFC (maybe that's what you meant to begin with)? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know that we were voting. Or what on. Ok to cut+paste in FAs? Support or Oppose? --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should avoid framing it in terms of the plagiarism issue, and just decide if FAs need to be original writing rather than lifted from PD sources? Focus on if we want to add something to the criteria.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) That all text in Feature Articles which is copied verbatim from other sources, including those in the public domain, be encased in quote marks or blocked-and-quoted, with specific citation to the source. Kablammo (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, don't start "voting" on this yet, folks ... per Rjanag, let's try to get some agreement on what we're voting on first. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if it passes, we don't want to flood FAR, so just as we allowed time when inline citations were added, we'd want to be sure to allow time for older FAs to come into compliance. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Help us out with your vision here, Sandy. What do you see happening in this section? --Moni3 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WHOA. It has been one day. Can we please discuss an issue as complex as this one for a little longer before any voting takes place? Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure that wording is what everyone above is talking about. The issue, at least as far as I can see it, is not just that copied text should be quoted, but that featured articles should not be copied from somewhere else in the first place. Perhaps a better wording should be something along the lines of "that FAs should not incorporate a substantial amount of text copied verbatim from other sources, and that text that is copied like that should be in quotation marks". Or, something that captures both of these two points would be something like "for the purposes of FA, text from other sources&mdash;even PD text&mdash;should be treated like copyrighted text" or something like that. The point is not about copyrighted vs. free text, it's about text that comes from outside the article. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (another ec) It's been a day, but the issues are all pretty well on the table, I thought ... I don't have a vision, Moni ... just as Awadewit, I don't want us to start 'voting' unless we know what we're voting on ... and wanted to focus the discussion on that. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We should not combine questions. Separate them.  Kablammo (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I reckon they could already go to FAR citing cut and paste FAs as poor reserach  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever we pass needs to (in my opinion) only have FA and maybe GA in scope. I have no objection of PD text being substantially (even more overwhelmingly) used in stub/start class articles. <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's already the consensus above. We're talking about FA standards, not the encyclopedia in general. (Notice the name of the page at which this conversation is happening.) <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take a step back and, as Sandy suggested, first just vote (or whatever) on whether or not there is a consensus that copy-pasting large amounts of PD text is a problem in the first place. If there is a consensus that there's a problem, then we could put our heads together and try to come up with a wording for the criteria. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 06:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your earlier suggestion of "FAs should not incorporate a substantial amount of text copied verbatim from other sources, unless the text that is copied verbatim is in quotation marks" (reworded by me) captures the essence without loading the question. Franamax (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These are two questions: (1) whether FAs should incorporate a substantial amount of text taken verbatim from outside sources, and (2) whether any text (substantial or otherwise) taken verbatim from other sources must be specifically quoted and attributed.  Kablammo (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting addressing the first question since it's within the purview of the FA project to decide. The second question you moot seems much broader and has (and should be) discused in other fora. Franamax (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It can (and should) be decided here as a matter of FA criteria. If we were only to decide the first one, "insubstantial" amounts of text could still be added to FACs without specific quotation and attributions. It is clear from comments here that many would oppose that.  Kablammo (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FA criteria need to obey the guidelines of the general community if the featured article process is to be part of the project. There's an existing community consensus in this area; if some participants here disagree with that consensus, the appropriate course of action is to change it, not to just declare that FA doesn't follow community guidelines. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not have unnecessary walls around it
In rereading the above discussion I see signs that the proposal has not been thought through well.

First, the issue is not limited to public-domain sources. For example, suppose I copied the high-quality Scholarpedia article on Zaslavsky maps to a new Wikipedia article Zaslavsky map, making the minimal edits necessary to conform to the featured-article critera, and putting a 1911-style note crediting the text to the article's author, who happens to be Zaslavsky himself. Suppose I get permission from Zaslavsky to make this copy on Wikipedia (this is plausible, since the Scholarpedia article is published under the GFDL). The proposed version on Wikipedia would be be giving the same sort of credit to Zaslavsky that Scholarpedia does in its version of the article. Is there anything really wrong with that?

Second, I saw multiple claims of the form "this sort of thing is not done in academic/publishing circles" that are simply not true. It's routine in academic publishing to see notes like "Portions of this text are adapted with permission from XXXX". That is perfectly adequate credit in scholarly publishing, and academic publishers don't put quote marks around such adaptations.

The proposal as stated would be a significant barrier to collaboration between Wikipedia and similar projects. We Wikipedia editors are rightly proud of our creation, but let's not let our heads get so inflated that we assume that all work done outside Wikipedia must be inferior, or that we must reinvent wheels so that an article is "ours" rather than "theirs". Nothing in the Five Pillars says that articles should or must be written by Wikipedia editors themselves, or that content should be rejected or disparaged merely because it was published elsewhere first. Let's think twice before creating an artificial barrier against collaboration with outside authors who are willing to provide material that can be licensed under Wikipedia's terms. Eubulides (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Two points. First, we cannot here address anything other than FA criteria, which suggest FAs be our best work, not the best work on Wikipedia. Second, the very quality of outside public domain sources should mean that we honor those sources, by specific quotation and attribution, rather than incorporating and then debasing the text while still suggesting (by general attribution templates) that it is still the work of the original authors.  Kablammo (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is exactly this possessive notion of "our" that I am objecting to. Too much is being read into the phrase "our work" in the FA criteria: certainly that phrase does not mean "work owned by us Wikipedians", and arguably it merely means "work that we Wikipedians publish". The idea that other authors' work is "debased" by editing it is contrary to the third Wikipedia pillar, which is that no editor (and by extension, no outside author) owns any article. A general attribution template need not say or suggest that an entire article is the work of the original authors; it can merely say that portions of the article are, and there is nothing misleading or dishonorable or unusual about this kind of attribution. Try for a minute to put yourself in the shoes of an outside author: you're told "it's OK to republish your work in Wikipedia, but we'll never let it appear in a featured article." Is that really an open and collaborative and welcoming approach? Eubulides (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "our" is in the very first phrase of the criteria. If we're going to dispute it, let's engage it directly.  Either follow it, or change it, but let's not ignore it.  (And Eubilides, you're the first one who has responded to the point, I believe.)  Kablammo (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the other point, it is doubtful that outside authors whose work for the federal government (or other public-domain source) appeared in Wikipedia and thereafter was changed, would be happy with the processes that allowed that while suggesting it was still that author's work. I suspect that if their work were to be republished they would prefer it to remain their work, if they were being credited (or blamed) for its final form.  Kablammo (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And as a taxpayer paying for that work, with the joint understanding among all parties including the author that the work becomes part of the commons, I'd prefer it to be open to use in subsequent derivative works - a central premise of the free content movement. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To Eubulides: I can't imagine a situation in which an academic would copy large amounts of original writing from another academic's work, without quoting and without a footnote, but with only a little disclaimer at the end that would be easy to miss (unless you're talking about something in the sciences where you reproduce the details of an experiment).

The proposal is not to build walls around Wikipedia, but around its FACs. You're implying that, if The New York Times were to make one of its issues PD, and I were to copy word-for-word the most neutral article from that issue, written by one of its finest writers, I could submit it for FAC and collect a star for myself as an example of Wikipedia's best work, so long as I'd added a little disclaimer to the end of the article that people might not even notice. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 09:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * <See there's the rub, you presuppose that a star is awarded to the (so-called in this case) wiki-author and this has some sort of significance. But isn't FAC about articles rather than editors? Franamax (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Franamax made the point faster (and better) than I could. Going back to the attribution point: academics operate by different rules: their goal is to gain fame, and they can't do that simply by reproducing portions of others' work. In contrast, our goal is to produce the best free encyclopedia we can. I agree that in academia the "portions of this article are taken from elsewhere" notices typically refer to papers the authors have written or cowritten; still, the point remains that this sort of attribution is common and reasonable. Eubulides (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Franamax makes the point well. FA is not an award for effort. There's no points docked for "laziness" or lack of originality. The point is to create great articles to advance the cause of creating a great encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me get this straight. Let's imagine that, as an experiment in the open-source culture, the New York Times magazine produces a PD edition one week. In it, there's a beautifully written article by Philip Roth, one of the best living writers in the English language. It just so happens that it's very neutral and policy-compliant ,and he sites all his sources. I cut and paste it into an article, with just a tiny note at the bottom that it incorporates text from, blah, blah. It takes minutes. You're saying I should be able to submit that at FAC as an example of Wikipedia's best work? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Acer (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends how we see ourselves: as encyclopaedists or as electronic photocopiers. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I've always thought of this project as a free knowledge disseminator. Acer (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're back to this again. While Eubilides' posting that other Wiki projects may want to do something on Wikipedia deserves some more discussion--I am largely ignorant of other projects besides Commons and how they may work with Wikipedia to do something--the discussion has come back to the philosophical difference between copying and creating original material. The same players have engaged this and it is unresolved. Suffice to say there are editors who feel strongly about both. Must we start this again or can we move on to actually achieving some kind of resolution or understanding? --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if you believe that Wikipedia's mission is to offer to the world an encyclopedia full of beautifully written, neutral and policy compliant, well-cited articles. To me, that is the meaning of "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Christopher Parham (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the principle "Wikipedia should not have unnecessary walls around it". In addition to walls external content, WP has a habit of creating internal walls that make content editing unnecessary difficult. Some difficulities can be reduced by included checklists that make it clear that the simplest and commonest cases are not obstacles, e.g. at PLAGIARISM.
 * However, I don't think Scholarpedia article on Zaslavsky maps is a good example as a basis for discussion:
 * It would need significant formatting of citations, wikilinks (it has done), "related pages / articles", etc. The modications might not be a copy under the GFDL.
 * A mathematics article is not a good example, as mathematics is perhaps the most difficult for non-specialists to understand at well. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Zaslavsky map article would need significant reformatting. But the result would still clearly be a work derived from Zaslavky's Scholarpedia article, which is the sort of thing that this proposal is all about. (And yes, the math is over most peoples' heads; sorry, it was the first Scholarpedia article I found, since I happened to be looking at Scholarpedia in reverse order.) Eubulides (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't see why people see copying-and-pasting as the only solution to dealing with PD content. If a source is so good (like the Scholarpedia article you're talking about), why not use it as a reference like you would any other sources? You call writing encyclopedia articles in our own words reinventing the wheel; I call it not being lazy. And again, as I have said above, I'm not saying no one on Wikipedia should ever copy PD text; I'm saying articles where it's done should not be considered for FA status. If someone wants to copy a PD source to create a new article, that's fine: they can do it, and give themselves a pat on the back knowing that they've just expanded the encyclopedia. But then don't let them bring it to FAC, for goodness' sake. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjanag, could you please word your proposal for WP:WIAFA and add it here as proposal 2 (see Kablammo's proposal 1 above)? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Franamax's version of my proposal is pretty good:

(2a) FAs should not incorporate a substantial amount of text copied verbatim from other sources, unless the text that is copied verbatim is in quotation marks.
 * or simply

(2b) FAs should not include text copied verbatim from other sources without quotation marks.
 * <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I misunderstood-- I thought your proposal was different (not to do it all, rather to use the PD source as a reference). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why using a PD source like any reference would be a problem. (i.e., putting it in a footnote when you're saying something that is supported by that source.) The direct copying of text is what I think is the problem. For example, in this ship article that started this discussion, they could use DANFS just like they use the other sources in that article, instead of copying and pasting its full text. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

* I too cannot see the point in prohibiting the use of PD sources in articles of any kind, whether they are stubs or FA. Just because a source has entered PD doesn't mean it becomes irrelevant or unreliable. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (probably should have a citation on that) As with every source, the information from a PD source must be verifiable, which means finding additional material that verifies the source. A recent example: I included a statement about Michel Ney in an article that is now at FAC. A reviewer questioned whether or not I could find the same statement in a more recent source. But I had attributed the statement to its source. To remove a PD source from the array of materials editors can consult for articles seems pointless to me.
 * The second issue is using that text verbatim. If a student handed in a paper that he/she had copied verbatim from a PD source, and only attributed it generally to that source, I would fail the student on the assignment and report him or her to the panel that handles academic integrity. If a student copied verbatim from a PD source, and placed a citation after each paragraph, but no quotations, I would still fail the student, but I would also review the section of my course where I discuss with my students the difference between plagiarism and paraphrasing.  Paraphrasing a source, and citing it, is far different from using the exact words and citing it (but without quotes).  Even with a cite at the end of the sentence/paragraph, the writing is expected to be the editor/writer's.
 * It seems to me that guidelines should make it clear to editors first, that paraphrasing of PD sources is expected and second, that a citation is required. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have qualified this with if a student handed in anything that they copied verbatim from any source, PD or not, that student and I would have a conversation about paraphrasing, plagiarism, and honesty. Although this is not academia, if we are presenting something as our work, whether individually or collectively, then we should be honest about it where it came from and who wrote it.  Of course, in most of the encyclopedia articles I've written (not here, elsewhere), we don't cite everything, we simply provide a list of sources.  I realize the problems of not attributing things here, but shouldn't we bear in mind that this is a indeed a special kind of encyclopedia?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From my point of view if this proposal is accepted we will be making harder our highest aim which is building an encyclopedia. If there is a free text which is as good as we can do we will be simply stupid in not using it. An extreme example: I usually work in medicine FA such as multiple sclerosis. In this article I used almost a hundred times a given refence, since it is a really good material. It is not likely to happen, but if that article would have been PD the article would not have been worse by copying it verbatim (on the contrary it would have been much better). As a rule it really does not make much sense. What we should ask ourselves is: copying a given PD text verbatim improves equally, less or more a given article than different the combine effort of several editors? If the answer is that it improves it less then in the FA proccess we should point it out, if it improves it the same or even more we should give blessings for having it in the public domain or a compatible licence. --Garrondo (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally it is a contradiction that we that are making an open encyclopedia decide that we can not use that same kind of free text in our best articles becouse it is of "lowconer quality"...What is it? Do we think ourselves the only capable ones of creating free, reliable, neutral materials, high quality materials?--Garrondo (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Auntieruth55's "If a student handed in a paper that he/she had copied verbatim from a PD source, and only attributed it generally to that source, I would fail the student on the assignment and report him or her to the panel that handles academic integrity" (19:52, 4 February 2010) shows a common and damaging confusion in discussions on WP:PLAGIARISM etc. In students' assignments and examinations part of the objective is to see whether the student can understand and express the issues, and hence the standards on plagiarism as stringents. WP is not a set of students' assignments, it's an encyclopedia, and the standards are different - to present the issues as a clear and efficient as possibly, within the constraints of relevant law. --Philcha (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've expressed that well Philcha. The phrase "our best work" seems to have been commandeered by those who believe that an FA ought to represent the blood, sweat, and tears of its author(s), as opposed to simply being an excellent article. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I am also persuaded by Eubulides, Franamax, Acer etc. and the arguments based on the Five pillars. Are FAs a walled garden, a shelter from  the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? — Mattisse  (Talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Garrondo, I have said this repeatedly above, but again: we are not trying to set a new standard for the encyclopedia, only for FA. People don't need FAs to build the encyclopedia, and thus, raising the bar for FA doesn't run counter to building the encyclopedia. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're not proposing "raising the bar" in the sense of improving the quality of the end result. Instead you're proposing an unnecessary handicap for FA editors: that free source material can only be incorporated in a very specific way, regardless of whether it would improve the article to do otherwise. -- Avenue (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy-pasted stuff from 1-2 sources shouldn't pass FA anyway, under current criteria on research, and POV. Other encyclopedias are not usually NPOV and the author doesn't have to present a survey of every view if they don't want to, although the NPOV policy on Wikipedia can be more about theory than practice  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Binguyen, correct me if I'm wrong, but have you been pretty much consistently saying all along that any work that relies on a single source (i.e. a verbatim PD copy) is likely going to fail on the many other FA criteria which already exist? If so, is there any compelling reason then to construct this particular extra hurdle? Franamax (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Break for a discussion on the psychology of FAC
Garrondo above brings into focus a feeling that I've had about this discussion right from the start. Sure, proper attribution of material is important, whether it's PD or not, but I don't really see anyone arguing that it isn't, just on what the style of attribution ought to be.

Would it be too fanciful to suggest that, at least in part and at least in some editors' minds, there's a certain amount of resentment (for lack of a better word) that some are able to produce relatively large numbers of FAs almost to order in a particular subject area, by making use of free and easily available sources, while others of us have to do it the old-fashioned way by visiting libraries and begging, borrowing, or stealing whatever more obscure sources we can get our hands on? And of course having to write the whole article ourselves, often after having to work out an appropriate structure for it. Articles on hurricanes, roads, and I dare say ships, for instance, have a well-established structure and methods of sourcing that permit a somewhat formulaic approach to their construction, but there's nothing wrong with that per se. There are no extra brownie points for working your butt off, and last time I checked nobody was getting paid by the FA produced. All that matters is the end result, and that's what we ought to be judging at FAC, not its manner of production. So what if editor X has two or three times as many FAs as I do, for only a tenth of the work? Good luck to them, and keep 'em coming I say. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel any "resentment", I just honestly believe copy-paste articles are bad, as I've said repeatedly above. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But if they're bad then they're bad, whether they were copy-pasted or not. Same with good. You're confusing the means of production with the end result and I'm wondering why. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try telling that to all the people above who would, if presented with "Oppose, copied almost entirely from somewhere", would respond "but there's nothing in WIAFA saying I can't do that!". It seems that it needs to be made explicit. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If any of them try to oppose an FAC on that basis then I most certainly will. The FA criteria are quite clear, and that's what FAC ought to be judged against, not personal preferences or prejudices. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It turns out to be suprisingly hard to submerge the desire for recognition of individual achievement within a collective enterprise. They tried that once. :) As someone who is laughably far away from ever getting a FA promoted, yes, I would like to provide special recognition to those of you who "do it the hard way", and I'm often awestruck at the quality of the work that some individual editors seem to conjure up. But I do think that recognition of that kind of effort should be decoupled from promotion of "our best work", which work happens to include the incorporation and promulgation of free sources that meet our general criteria. After e/c and heavily ironic, seeing Malleus' nod to the "means of production". :) Franamax (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am by no means a Marxist, but I did choose the phrase "means of production" quite deliberately, well spotted. I don't bother to keep count, but I'd hazard a guess that I've helped far more articles through FA than I've ever been credited for writing. And you know what? I couldn't care less. This project isn't about me, you, or anyone else; it's a collective endeavour that none of us could hope to undertake on our own. That some editors get credit for individual FAs is neither here nor there so far as I'm concerned. We each know what we've done, or failed to do, and that's all that matters. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is doubting that, Malleus, and I'm not sure why you want to paint some editors here as being "resentful" or greedy when really we're just concerned about quality. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying it as I see it, I'm not saying I'm right, just what it looks like to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Malleus, I can only repeat what I said above, a point that no one's addressed. If someone else wrote it, it isn't ours. It isn't our best work. It isn't something that one of our volunteers wrote, structured, polished, polished again, then polished again; slaved over, dragged herself to libraries over, prostrated herself for free images over, fussed over, fretted over, lost sleep over, argued over, got angry over, and therefore&mdash;therefore&mdash;took justifiable pride in. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 12:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know why our articles avoid making references to Wikipedia specific contexts? For example: "In this webpage" or "On this site" etc.. Its because when an article gets published here it's no longer "ours" or "yours", its everybodys. They're meant to be reproduced, everywhere, as much as possible. On other websites, in paper form, books, magazines, audiobooks, the more the merrier and in as many languages as possible. And guess what? They are! I don't care how the text came to be, if you paid someone to write it for you, if it happned to be your master thesis and you copied it over or that you found it in some obscure goverment website under a free license. I do care that it is informative, factual, referenced, that it follows policy and is properly attributed, whether to the wiki editor who wrote or the place where you got it from. Acer (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's true that we licence our work to be used elsewhere by others, so long as they acknowledge it. It's not true that, in writing here, we cease to exist. Someone else mentioned the Marxian idea of the means of production. Another Marxian concept is that of "alienation", how in industrialized societies workers come to feel alienated from their work product, receiving little or no credit for it, often unable to afford to use or buy the thing they've helped to create. This is generally seen to be a bad thing, part of the fertile soil from which revolutions explode. Its not a good attitude to carry over onto Wikipedia, where we're not even wage slaves. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair point, and if we want to convert FA into a process designed to award excellent editor contributions that's a valid idea. It might even be a lot more useful, in that it would better motivate editors while dropping a feature perhaps most readers don't care about or even understand. (Are people really browsing the Featured articles page and reading WP with that as a starting point? I doubt it.) However, a process rewarding editors for outstanding contributions and a process recognizing excellent articles may not be the same thing; we should be clear about which is the primary mandate here. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjanag, the author above explicitly disclaimed the word-choice of resentful ("for lack of a better word"). Don't you think that focussing on that word may detract from the tenor and goals of this conversation? Franamax (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Franamax, regardless of the word he chose, the fact that right after that he left a long message about editors being over-concerned about individual credits is evidence enough of what his message is. If anything is "detracting from the tenor and goals of this conversation", it's painting the editors who make a proposal as greedy and jealous rather than discussing the proposal itself. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point me towards where I used the words "greedy" or "jealous" and I may consider your unwise remarks to be something other than mere projection. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of paraphrasing you. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't take any more such liberties in the future. Try to confine your remarks to what I actually said, not what you "paraphrase" me as having said. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjanag, I have to balance your statement against the, ahem, once or twice where I've seen FA-stars trotted out as a very significant weapon. Sometimes it goes to a ban, sometimes it goes to a stalemate, nevertheless acievement of those twinklies is certainly a factor in the wikipsychology of this site. Pointing out that the phenomenom exists by no means equates to labelling any particular editor as suffering from that syndrome. Franamax (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see, then, how that is relevant to the discussion at hand. Use of FA credits to strong-arm other users is a problem, but not one that's part of this discussion; Malleus' message was, as far as I can tell, essentially saying "the people who are concerned about copying PD text are resentful of other editors who have more FAs than them", which does not look very constructive about me. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider this your last warning Rjanag. If you're determined to turn this into a personal battle, then you'll get far worse than you ever bargained for. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey both of you, have you ever learned the words to "Time to shut my mouth"? It's an awesome tune, really. We're talking about ideas here right, not individuals? Franamax (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, Sir, he started it. But if it doesn't stop I'll be finishing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's over now. Awadewit (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Free content
Wikipedia is supposed to further the goals of free content. I would therefore expect FAs to do the same and not restrict the ability of editors to migrate PD and CC-by-SA materials into the encyclopedia. It seems to me that Wikipedia and other web enterprises are changing what it means to plagiarize, for example, and the free culture movement itself sees texts quite differently than someone like me, who depends on owning her own writing and ideas in order to get a job. We should ask ourselves whether we want FAs to push the envelope when it comes to these ideas or not. Restricting the use of copy-and-paste articles would be the more traditional approach and one I am comfortable with and the one which is consonant with traditional publishing - it is not the frontier of copyright and free culture, however. I would be curious to hear other people's ideas about the relationship of free culture to FAs in particular. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, I don't see this as an FA issue. If it's an issue at all, then it's a wikipedia-wide issue. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the above suggestion was about adding a restriction specifically to FAs, which makes it an FA issue. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It did, but that was for reasons other than the ones you're expressing now, at least in my opinion. I do think that you've raised some interesting points, but I'd prefer to see them decoupled from this FA criteria discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the crux though. Should FAC adopt a stance which is at variance with the goals of the community? I'm not sure there is a way to do that which would permit the FA process to survive. The more narrow question of exactly how much verbatim unquoted properly-attributed free text is acceptable in a FA, sure, that can be decided here. The much broader question of whether and how to properly incorporate free content, ATM is a done deal, alhough it could always use more attention. A related issue is how exactly to recognize the efforts of individual editors. But at its heart, the question seems to be whether or not the work of others who have never logged onto this site should be eligible as representative of "our best work" - or not. Franamax (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Big questions that need carefully considered thought, without the usual shit-flinging I see has started above. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (to Awadewit): To answer your question above: the nature of a FAC nomination has changed over the last few years. It is now expected that the nominator be a primary contributor; in the past this wasn't so.  Under the old rules, it would be a little easier to imagine an article reaching FA status that consisted of free content from another source.  The current consensus at FAC seems to me to be not "the best work on Wikipedia", nor "the best article that can be written", but "the best work of Wikipedians".  I don't think it would hurt FA to change to one of the other definitions, but if there is a consensus that it's the work of Wikipedians then FAs with free content should be excluded.  If the definition is "the best work that can be written" then I think it would be consistent to allow free content.  I'd be unlikely to !vote on this in either direction, as I think either approach is fine.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do people think all verbatim text on FAs from outside or PD sources should be somehow quoted and specifically sourced? Would the design of some new template (for encasing the text), to avoid a big obnoxious blockquote help resolve this? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the (one of the) problem is that we explicitly, as a community, encourage the incorporation of external free/PD text when it's attributed in an acceptable way. Following on that, we accept, expect and encourage that the incorporated text should be mercilessly edited like any other text, it becomes part of what makes "us" us. It's easy to pick out examples of entire huge sections copied in, it becomes much more difficult with articles like Anadyr River which had their genesis in a PD source but are now easily distinguishable from that source. No-one has yet told me whether "reindeer" needs specific attribution there, it did originate from 1911EB after all. Franamax (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A solution would be to add a new template that duplicates the verbatim copied text and gives the source (and most probably the date or version of addition) at the end of the article (maybe after references?). In that way the text in the article may be further modified but we would always be able to know what had been copied verbatim, from where and when: We would always adequately source text without making it harder for editors to edit it. Only main problem I see to my proposal is that it would take articles heavily based on verbatim copies longer times to load. These should be done not only on FA but on all kind of articles.--Garrondo (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, that's no sort of "solution" at all. Wikipedia already has a policy on the re-use of PD text, and we don't need solutions to issues already resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It became apparent to me while chatting with Awadewit last night that there are battling abstract philosophies about this, none of which are very clear, and that the folks participating in this discussion may not all be discussing the same thing. There does not appear to be one single problem or question, but a collection of questions.


 * 1) In the free content issue, as I see it, there is PD text, which I'm gathering people here are saying Wikipedia has a responsibility to pass on as it is also free, and that PD text and Wikipedia are part of a revolutionary movement to provide free information to the world. However, another part of this revolution, and in my opinion and much more radical aspect of it, is that Wikipedia, unlike the other PD sources, is produced by an army of volunteers. This is also a part of free content. The idea that an encyclopedia much larger than Britannica that has put Encarta out of business, all produced by volunteers, is incredible! Not all these articles are good or even readable. A lot of them are trash. But FAs demand so much quality that they rival professional and perhaps academic sources. In this lies the question of which revolution we have to support in this discussion: passing on PD text or creating something professionally and originally written because we are volunteers.
 * So, more concretely, is the issue of how to incorporate PD text into articles. How much copied information are we talking about? A paragraph, uncited, with a general "Some of this text comes from a PD source"? Half an article? The entire article? If passing on PD text is part of our responsibility, once it gets edited to turn into something else, it's no longer that PD text. Is our responsibility to pass along the PD text in its pristine form? Surely it's not our responsibility to pass along PD text so that it gets vandalized and degrades when the primary editor takes an extended wikibreak. What if there was another Wikimedia project just for PD sources, so they could remain in their intended forms? For example, Britannica 1911 is an historical document. Since I write about social and ecology issues, none of Britannica's information is relevant to the articles I write, but it's a fascinating look at what the authoritative sources said about the world in 1911.
 * 1) And just to make it super concrete, what if none of this gets resolved? How will FAC delegates handle opposes for copied information? Then the subsequent and inevitable fallout? --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree when you talk of the free content revolution and of the volunteer revolution. I just don't see how, from there, you conclude that they are, somehow, incompatible? The pratice of incorporating external open sourced/PD material goes back to the origins of the project and so does the concept of volunteer work. Both have co-existed, evidenced by the large number of articles that were copied from somwhere else and then expanded by.. volunteers. This expanded article is open to use by anyone, including the creator of the original free licenced /PD material. I also don't see the incompatibility between incorporating external material and FAs, and what better proof than a number of FAs that have originated from these external sources? Changes to the FA criteria in the past have been meant to enforce stricter stardards so the end result would be a better article. So I ask, how does banning the incorporation of text results in better articles? No one has answered this question yet.
 * I beleive that the vandalism concern would only be aplicable if, on our attribution templates, we used language that implied that the artice, in its present form, is true copy of somewhere else. We don't do that. Our templates include language such as "This article contains material from..." It is up to the reader, if they choose so, to go to the original source and find the material in its full form. There is no expectation that the text found here on Wikipedia is unmodified.
 * The issue has been resolved, on a larger scale, by the community in general and that wider consensus is reflected on the plagiarism guideline. I'm very concerned with the notion that FAC as a community process as is frequently repeated, can simply declare divorce from the project it is a part of. I'm not denying you the right to try and change things, I just beleive that is this discussion is to be rehashed then that needs to be done on a wider scale Acer (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) There is such a project: Wikisource. To your other points, the ability to create derivative works is a crucial aspect of content freedom. So it's not about "passing on" PD texts; it's about feeling free to use them as the base for further composition, to improve them where possible and to adapt them to other purposes. Wikipedia makes quite clear its take on content in the commons: it can be "edited, used, and redistributed at will" (even if against the wishes or intent of the original author). Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Can we resolve some issues? I think it's safe to say that we're not addressing doing anything illegal or violating copyright, so these issues should no longer be part of the discussion.
 * If it's your assertion that this discussion is not about passing on PD texts, I have not gotten that impression from the above remarks. Is it safe to say (from input by multiple editors) that this is correct and the idea of Wikipedia being a part of the passing of PD texts can be removed from this discussion? If not, then obviously this warrants further discussion. This is part of my assertion that we're not necessarily discussing the same things.
 * I'm just trying to weed out the tangents and understand if there are multiple issues or one core issue.
 * I firmly believe that the revolution of Wikipedia and free information draws its power from turning economics on its head. We are working for free to construct professionally written articles available to anyone who has a computer. Our desire to provide information about worthy topics is more motivating than money. Our main page articles are our face to the world and our primary claim to legitimacy, although the number of volunteers and the volume of traffic we get adds to this claim. If we are framing this argument in terms of revolution, it is more important for volunteers to create articles originally, particularly if they are on the main page and the aforementioned claim to legitimacy.
 * If this is not about passing on PD text, what then is the argument for not paraphrasing PD sources and citing them as any other source?
 * FAs are of Wikipedia, but clearly not the same as every other article. Articles exist with awful writing, no sources, and a harrowing combination of grammar and original research. Standards are required at FA, and the same standards should be applied to all other articles, but for the sake of volume and in the hope that someone will come along and improve crappy articles, they remain in their current states. I do not know where "declare divorce from the project" comes from. If all standards were uniformly applied, 3/4 of Wikipedia would be removed for being subpar. FAs have higher standards, and in the interest of clarifying the discussion, I think this should be accepted as a given. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Can we resolve some issues? I think it's safe to say that we're not addressing doing anything illegal or violating copyright, so these issues should no longer be part of the discussion.
 * Agreed.
 * If it's your assertion that this discussion is not about passing on PD texts, I have not gotten that impression from the above remarks. Is it safe to say (from input by multiple editors) that this is correct and the idea of Wikipedia being a part of the passing of PD texts can be removed from this discussion? If not, then obviously this warrants further discussion. This is part of my assertion that we're not necessarily discussing the same things. 
 * Its not simply passing but allowing it to be modified, rewritten, cut, recycled. From our content license: You are free: to Share —to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix —to adapt the work
 * Regarding your other points, and accepting your argument that FAs are fundamental to WPs claim to legitimacy (and I don't necessaraly agree) wouldn't you think it important that our face to the world as you call them, encompass all our values? If Wikipedias view on information and written text is that it ought to be freely distributed and open to modification and adaptation as our own content policy states, then why should FAs be any different? Shoulnt our postcards reflect our mission?
 * Also, you asked bout the "divorce from the project". What I meant by that was, since current WP practice allows the inclusion of external material then FAC should follow along. WIAFA consist of stricter aplication of general WP concepts to ensure higher quality articles. An example of this was when the criteria was changed to refer specifically to "high-quality sources". It was changed so that better articles would result. But how does banning the inclusion of external material results in improved articles? Are articles that were orginally written here, as opposed to somwhere else, inherently better? I don't beleive FAC should deviate from standard pratice save to ensure the production of higher quality material, and I don't beleive thats the case here. Acer (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and agree with Eubulide above. "Too much is being read into the phrase 'our work' in the FA criteria: certainly that phrase does not mean 'work owned by us'." Or owned by the FA process, or specific FA editors, as in "the articles I write". The general readership  should be the priority. The 1000 most viewed pages for January 2010 don't include any FAs. — Mattisse  (Talk) 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amend. It includes Asperger syndrome at number 242. And Nirvana (band) at 524. — Mattisse  (Talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 23:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos to Eubulides :) But Michael Jackson is an FA, so you may have missed some.  (Since sex and porn figure heavily on our most visited pages, I hope we're not considering number of visits as a measure of Wiki articles :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Michael Jackson is number 36, so it shows that FA can be responsive to readers! — Mattisse  (Talk) 23:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should not reader interest be a consideration? — Mattisse  (Talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You also missed Global warming and Barack Obama, so there may be others; I didn't review all of them, 'cuz I'd like to stay on topic here, which is PD, not reader interest. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is good to know that there are several. Many get very few. Perhaps readersihip should be a consideration in FAC?  — Mattisse  (Talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC) 23:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, can we please keep this thread on topic, which is how to handle PD text? It's already a very long discussion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I start a new topic? I feel the neglect of any consideration of readership in FAC is a serious flaw, as is any connectivity of an article to the encyclopedia in general. Many of the articles are essentially orphan. Where should I bring this up?  — Mattisse  (Talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially since the main page exposure gives a significant boust to FA articles. Should not this factor be taken more seriously in FAC? — Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. There is no problem with "orphan articles", and I'd hazard a guess tha most readers arrive at a wikipedia article via Google, not by following an internal link, The "orphan" concept is a bit incestuous I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should take that up with the "higher ups", since they seem to think that wikilinking withinn the encyclopedia is important. — Mattisse  (Talk) 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, surely you know me well enough by now to know that I don't care what "higher ups" think, unless they can demonstrate that their thoughts are rational. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two separate questions
On that note, can I once again try to redirect this discussion away from "our work" and to the questions at hand (as Moni did). We have two separate issues here, now confused by the "our work" issue. One is whether we think FAs should use PD text at all, the other is whether it should be quoted and attributed if used. It's possible, that if this were put to an RFC, "votes" would be split on the two issues. So let's answer the questions separately so we can figure out what an RFC would look like. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Should all text in Feature Articles which is copied verbatim from ouside sources, including those in the public domain, be specifically quoted and cited?
 * 2) Should FAs rely on significant amounts of PD or other sourced text?
 * I don't see what would be gained by voting on these issues. The first should be determined by WP:PLAGIARISM, a project-wide guideline. The second depends on the sources available for each specific topic. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, A; that's the sort of thing we should be sorting here, so we can put up the relevant questions and stay on track. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about "The first [all text in Feature Articles which is copied verbatim from ouside sources, including those in the public domain, be specifically quoted and cited] should be determined by WP:PLAGIARISM, a project-wide guideline" - WP:PLAGIARISM is a guideline rather a policy, "should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (banner at top of WP:PLAGIARISM) and is subject to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Awa, if it was that simple, there would not be a ream of text above this disputing that very point. :) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Awadewit, I'm not sure these are necessarily issues for WP:PLAGIARISM to decide. A large number of editors, for whatever reason, seem to think that copying PD text is not plagiarism....but regardless, the issue I originally brought up is quality, not attribution. And not the quality of the sources: it shouldn't matter how good the PD source is. The point is the quality of the articles, and I believe that articles that are just copies of other sources are low-quality (by virtue of being copied, that in of itself is what makes them low quality, not issues with NPOV or how old the source is). If a PD source is so great, people can treat it like a normal source&mdash;rely heavily on it for ideas, but use footnotes&mdash;rather than simply copying its text. (inserted later:) Perhaps I am wearing rose-colored glasses, but I continue to be surprised at how many intelligent people believe that simply copying and pasting something can ever constitute good writing and good research. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quality cannot be decided in broad strokes like this. Some PD/CC-by-SA material might be perfectly acceptable to copy and paste and some might not be. As such, it should be evaluated under the existing FA criteria about high-quality research and professional prose. Arguing that no such copying lends itself to high-quality content is too draconian, in my view, and doesn't embrace the wiki model and free content in general, which is part of what we are supposed to be experimenting with here. It would indeed be the height of irony if one of the best exemplars of free content on the web, Wikipedia, proclaimed that its "best work" does not embrace the idea of remixing free content, but only redistributing it. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sums up my thoughts beautifully Awadewit. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sums up more of my confusion about what we're actually discussing. In my attempt to make clear what's at issue above, I'm not entirely sure if those supporting using PD text are saying it's ok to put an unattributed paragraph in an article, half the article can have PD text, or the entire article can. What would it look like? A template in the article that vaguely states some of the article is from a PD source? Citations? What? I may not be opposed to someone's vision; I just can't see to understand what that vision is. Furthermore, it has not been established if free content in general, which is part of what we are supposed to be experimenting with here is really the primary goal of Wikipedia or FA. Clearly it is for some people, but just as clearly I hope, is evidence that we are the free part. Free and original material written on a professional level by volunteers. I don't find the assertion of irony to be a bad thing. Why would it necessarily be negative to have higher standards? That's the essence of FA.
 * I tried to simplify this into a format where we can agree on what we're actually discussing. If someone else would like to take a shot at it, feel free. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Moni...I still don't quite see why our making our articles available to others means that we should also lift articles from others. The is absolutely nothing preventing us from treating PD sources like any other reference, so honestly the only reason I can see for copying text directly is laziness. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is arguing that it's "ok to put an unattributed paragraph" in articles. The only issue is whether attribution must be in a strict form, with unmodified text and quotation marks and a citation after every quote, or whether it can be general attribution (such as that generated by 1911) for text that is imported and possibly later modified. Eubulides (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think that's a separate question (and, indeed, that's why Sandy and others above tried to digest the discussion a bit to make these two separate questions clearer). My question has been, ever since this started, whether FAs should use huge amounts of copied text at all&mdash;no matter what the attribution standards are. As I've said already, I'm not concerned about the means of attribution, I'm concerned about the existence of FACs that are copies of other sources, and they would still be copies whether they're enclosed in quotation marks or not. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What he said :) There are two separate questions here, and we have to get them both out on the table before we put it up for an RFC or "vote".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both questions and many others have been discussed at lengh above. I don't know what more can possibly be said... except that I don't think a "vote" on this issue here at FAC will be particularly helpful. There is a wider community consensus on this matter already and if that is to be changed a wider audience than FAC is needed. Acer (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, as has already been said, if this were taken to any sort of vote then notifications would be left at the village pumps, RFC, etc. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What he said again :) The idea is to get the issues out on the table so we can correctly formulate an RFC.  Do we have the right questions, and how should they be phrased?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the pertinent question is, do people actually want a RFC? Acer (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it remains contentious (as this thread shows) it's an issue affecting FAC; it's in my interest to get that solved by the community :) If an RFC is not needed, it will be soundly trounced: FAC problem solved.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An RfC would not solve any of the day-to-day FAC problems, in my opinion, as each article and its sources have to be evaluated individually, when it comes to sourcing. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Awadewit, Eubulides, Acer etc. Suggest mission change (see below) to accommodate the concerns of those who want FAC to diverge from Wikipedia's WP:Five pillars. — Mattisse  (Talk) 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, please consult your advisors about the statements and directions you are taking this discussion, and the implications about FAC editors wanting to "diverge from 5P". This is my fifth request.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good in theory, Awadewit, but in practice, we have an article up at FAC right now that relies on PD sources, I know the editor used to lift liberally from PD sources (don't know about the current FAC, because the sources aren't online), and no reviewer has even noticed. Hence it becomes my problem :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's a broader problem that goes well beyond PD - there are many problems in articles that reviewers don't notice. We can't catch everything - I don't consider it a problem since the articles can always be changed. I don't think you should think of it as your problem - if reviewers don't notice the problem, there is not much you can do. You shouldn't take it upon yourself to review every article to make sure it meets some sort of standard. That is what reviewers are for. If they don't do a good enough job, tough cookie. Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could do that. But in this case, I know that in the "olden days", when it was common to lift text from PD verbatim, and many FAs were written that way, this editor did that.  Yet no reviewers have reviewed for that on a current FAC, and we have a long debate here about whether that's acceptable.  I 'spose you're right; it's not my problem :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we require nominees to make clear when they nominate that parts of the text have been copied from elsewhere? I was looking at one of the examples someone gave in this discussion, and it didn't look to me as though the reviewers had realized. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar concern on translations, where an article had numerous supports from reviewers who didn't seem to have realized that it was a translation, and the translating editor didn't have access to the sources. I only saw it when I was ready to promote and went to the talk page (and because I noticed all the foreign language icons, which is why I do prefer that they are added).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Third question
Would it be worth adding to the criteria (or wherever is appropriate) that nominators should bring to reviewers' attention, when they nominate, anything that might significantly affect the reviewers' opinion of it, such as the incorporation of PD text or that it's a translation? SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggested third question, per SV:

3. Nominators should bring to reviewer attention anything that might significantly affect the reviewers' opinion of it, such as the incorporation of PD text or that it's a translation.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't this getting a little off topic from the issue of PD? The suggestion:"anything that might significantly affect the reviewers' opinion of it" expands this greatly from the issue of PD. Is not the focus lost? Is this open to add other issues "that might significantly affect reviewers' opinion". That is rather broad.  — Mattisse  (Talk) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It specifically addresses PD. For the sixth time, please consult your advisors on topics raised here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it should be phrased in a way to limit it to PD, rather than saying "such as the incorporation of PD text or that it's a translation" which leaves the door open for other issues not specifically named. — Mattisse  (Talk) 02:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the addition of translations, but yes, all three proposals will probably need some refining of the words if/when an RFC is launched. And I don't see any problem with "such as": a positive example that comes to mind-- Colin got an external review from a Ketogenic diet expert on that FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems a sensible idea, regardless of the context in which it is offered. Nominators should be open about their FA candidates and give information that may inform a reviewer's opinion. Ucucha 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)