Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Mr.grantevans2's ownership proposal

Revised Proposal

 * I think there is compelling evidence that there are many editors involved extensively in the FA and FAC process who have little or no respect for the Ownership policy when it comes to FA development. Several of them have said as much:.So, maybe most who are involved in this Criteria Overhaul are in a bit of denial about the obvious conflict and prefer to ignore it: sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.If SandyGeorgia is correct in saying that Ownership can not stop an FAC because it can not be demonstrated in an actionable fashion, then it is clearly possible that some articles which violate the policy could slip through the wide-open crack. Isn't that a huge hit to the integrity of the project? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first 7 comments in this thread also demonstrate the reality of my concern. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr Grant, I appreciate your concerns; however, ownership involves all WP's content and is appropriately covered at a higher level that featured-content criteria. Please take your concerns higher up the chain. These criteria need to be as short and simple as possible. Now, your same-name section below is really going to confuse people, and I must ask you to remove it and to allow other people to comment on the proposal as it has stood up to the last few minutes. Duplicating my whole proposal in a green box with your addition is unfair to me, as well.  Tony   (talk)  06:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Mr.g, even if you can't understand the distinction between allegations about editors and effect on the article content in terms of WP:WIAFA, please stop mischaracterizing my statements and putting words into my mouth. I'll be glad to explain where you're confused once several ongoing FACs are closed.  Interestingly, I don't see any other editors having a hard time sorting out these concepts.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation.
 * 1) Notable. It comprises a set of items that come together to form a notable topic.
 * 2) Appropriately linked. The list is linked to related articles on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Comprehensive. Where a set is "knowable", the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists (which may never be complete because of changes in membership or for other reasons), no major component of the set is omitted.
 * 4) Well-structured. It has a concise lead section that summarizes the scope and entry criteria of the list, and prepares the reader for the greater level of detail in the subsequent sections. Where appropriate, the list has a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help). The list is easy to navigate and is annotated with information as appropriate.
 * 5) Factually accurate. Claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
 * 6) Neutral. The list presents views fairly and without bias.
 * 7) Stable. The list is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured list process.
 * 8) Manual of Style and WikiProjects. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.
 * 9) Images. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt".
 * 10) Not Owned. The article, throughout its development, demonstrates a receptiveness to infrequent editors and their edits as well as an absence of individual or cliquish article control.