User:Szyslak/AAFA

Content and subject matter

Too short

There is no optimum length for a featured article. Featured article criterion 1(b) requires that articles be "comprehensive" — that is, the article "does not neglect major facts and details". Though it is easy to see a correlation between "comprehensive" and "long", there is no such correlation. Many existing featured articles are relatively short compared to most of the other pages on the list. Nonetheless, they have still passed our rigorous standards. Examples of short featured articles include Dr Pepper Ballpark and Interstate 15 in Arizona.

If you feel that an article is lacking in vital information, it is more helpful to point out specific information you feel the article needs, rather than simply arguing that the article is too short.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - too short. NeverSatisfied 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - at 18K, this is far too short for a featured article. SizeMatters 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Support - even though this article is only 18K long, it covers every aspect of its topic thoroughly and meets all featured article criteria. EasyToPlease 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - does not cover many important aspects of its subject, such as [a, b, c]. Since the article is only 18K long, there is plenty of space to add information about these aspects of the topic. Remember1b 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long

Again, we do not set an optimum length for a featured article. Just as short pages are not inherently unsuitable for featured status, relatively long pages do not inherently violate our criteria. If you think an article's length is excessive, remember to address its length in terms of our guideline on article length. Arguments that amount to "I just think this article is too long" or "Featured articles should be short" are not relevant to our criteria.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - too long. K.I.S.S. 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - triggers the "long page" warning. ShorterIsBetter 01:02, 3 April 2005 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - since this article's total text size is 98K, it takes too long to load on my 486 PC running Windows 3.1. LegacySystem 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - the readable prose size of this article is more than 100K, which far exceeds the WP:SIZE guideline. In addition, this article is full of irrelevant information and trivia, especially in the "History" section. ShortIsOK 08:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Our featured articles are chosen for their quality, not the importance of their subjects. Standards for inclusion are governed by the verifiability and what Wikipedia is not policies and the notability guideline. These principles apply to all Wikipedia articles equally, and are not enforced more strongly in our featured articles. If you want to write a featured article about your high school, your favorite Pokémon character or a naval battleship that never saw production, go for it!

The place to debate notability is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not FAC.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - this article's subject is not notable enough for a featured article. NotabilityCzar 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - this article does not meet 1(b) because of [a, b, c]. Because of the extreme obscurity of this subject, there is not enough information available in reliable sources to properly verify this article's text. I recommend a merge with [other article]. Informativity 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

In article sourcing, what's important is the quality of each individual reference, not the medium in which the reference happens to be published. For example, does it really matter whether an article in a reliable, established newspaper or magazine is accessed through the Internet or at your public library? It's still the same article, and it's just as reliable on the Internet as on paper.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - cites too many Internet sources and not enough books or hard copy journal articles. I don't trust the Internet 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - cites the online editions of the XYZ Herald and Anytown Times instead of the print edition. PaperIsBetter 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - several claims in this article are sourced to personal web pages and Usenet posts. SayNoToBlogSources 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - the XYZ Herald requires payment to view the cited online news articles, and the Anytown Times requires registration. In this case, it would be helpful to cite the hard copy editions, with page numbers. FreeAsInSpeech 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Too controversial

While stability is one of our key featured article criteria, we do not keep articles out of our featured list just because of the possibility of edit wars or other controversy. Our "stability" criterion is only contravened if there are current, ongoing edit wars, or if content otherwise changes significantly in a short time, and editors can't agree on a single version of the article. Examples of current featured articles dealing with controversial topics include autism, evolution and Roe v. Wade.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - this subject is too controversial for a featured article. PlayItSafe 01:02, 03 April 2005 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - though I think this is an excellent article overall, it has been protected five times in the past six months due to edit wars. I recommend renominating this article when a more stable version emerges. NoEditWars 09:08, 07 June 2005 (UTC)

Style and formatting

Referencing style

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - does not use Harvard referencing. UseOnlyHarvardReferencing 22:22, 2 February 2002 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - uses several different citation formats. PickJustOne 22:22, 2 February 2002 (UTC)

Minor Manual of Style issues

Avoid the term "MOS breach"...

Procedural issues

Did not reach Good Article status, no peer review, etc.

Many, but not all featured articles were previously Good Articles and/or went through peer review. However, these processes are not required before an article becomes featured. Let's say a Wikipedia editor has made tremendous improvements on a stub, or has created a feature-quality article from scratch. Either way, it's clearly ready for featured status. Do we really need to waste time at the good article candidates and peer review pages? If we required peer review and a Good Article designation before an article reached FAC, that would amount to needless instruction creep.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - has not been designated as a good article. InstructionCreeper1 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - has not undergone peer review. InstructionCreeper2 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - clearly doesn't meet multiple featured article standards, such as [a, b, c...]. As it stands, this article wouldn't even qualify for good article status. ConstructiveCritic1 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - because of [a, b and c], I feel a peer review would be helpful at this stage. ConstructiveCritic2 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suitability for the Main Page

Suitability for the Main Page is not a criterion for featured article status, nor is unsuitability for the Main Page a reason to deny featured status. The question to ask is, "Does the article meet our featured article standards", not "Is this a good article for the Main Page?". Many of our best featured articles will likely never make it to the Main Page, either because they are popular vandalism targets or because their subject matter somehow doesn't lend them to Main Page status.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - this article is far too much of a vandalism target to be featured on the Main Page. AfraidOfVandalism 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - contains sexually explicit images, so it doesn't belong on the Main Page or the WP:FA list. EasilyOffended 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Support - Plato is probably the most important figure in ancient Greek history, making this article an ideal Main Page feature. GoPlato 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Support - although this article may be too much of a vandalism target for the Main Page, it is well-written, extremely comprehensive and extensively sourced. NotAfraidOfVandalism 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - the daily vandal attacks this article receives are so severe, even semi-protection isn't enough to keep it stable. Therefore, the article is nowhere close to meeting criterion 1e (stability). A stable hand 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - because Plato is such an important figure in ancient Greek history, Wikipedia deserves a much better article about him. Areas in which this article needs improvement include [a, b, c]. ImproveTheEncyclopedia 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Other featured articles about the topic

Unhelpful comments

Example: Support - we need more featured articles about this topic. FeaturedArticleFan 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - we already have more than enough featured articles about this topic. There needs to be more diversity in our featured articles. NoMore 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Image use

See also: Wikipedia:Image use policy

Not enough images

There is no Wikipedia policy that requires all articles to contain images or other media. Always remember that images are a supplement to article content, not a decoration.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - contains only two images, which is not enough for a featured article. OneThousandWords 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - a diagram would help illustrate this chemical process more clearly. VisualThinker 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - although this article contains more than 20 photographs that illustrate the subject well, three of them lack information on their source and one is an easily replaceable fair use image. SayItWithWords 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use in articles

While compliance with our policy on non-free content is an essential part of our featured content criteria, Wikipedia policy does not prohibit fair use images or other media. It merely outlines the specific conditions when such media may be used. There is no good reason to apply our established standards differently among featured articles. Likewise, there is no point in setting arbitrary limits on how much fair use is allowed in featured articles.

Never forget that the images' compliance with our policies on non-free content is an important aspect of our featured article criteria. In addition, our featured picture criteria prohibit non-free media in the lists of featured pictures and sounds.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - this article about a film contains a fair-use image of the original movie poster. NoFairUseImages 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Oppose - this article contains seven fair-use sound clips, which is far too many for a featured article. AndNoFairUseSoundsEither 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - the fair-use image of the movie poster lacks information on its source and contains a short, sketchy rationale that fails to address the image's replaceability or necessity for understanding the article's subject. BetterRationales 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: Support - although this article contains seven fair-use sound clips, each one is essential to understanding this article's subject. In addition, they all show strong compliance with our non-free content policies, with detailed rationales and source information. OGGforever 22:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates

It's a pretty picture

The list is called Wikipedia:Featured pictures, not "Beautiful pictures".

Minor flaws

The featured picture criteria require, in pertinent part, that images be "of a high technical standard". However, we are not looking for absolute technical flawlessness, especially in very old pictures and pictures that are noteworthy for reasons other than their artistic merit.

Featured content review and removal discussions

I didn't agree with its promotion

Nominating a featured page for removal soon after its promotion is discouraged. Such nominations are often seen as disruptive, especially if done to illustrate a point. In addition, you have ample time to leave comments, and

See also

• User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them