Wikipedia:Featured article review/Christmas/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christmas[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

Because of this holiday's popularity, the article attracts a lot of editors, in particular those adding random sentences in random spots which don't necessarily harm the article on their own, but collectively reduce its quality over time.

Consider this:

  • The article became featured on December 24, 2004. Compare the version that was promoted as featured-quality to the current version.
  • Since it became featured, it has been edited over 1100 times. Of those edits, about 600 were neither vandalism, reversions, nor minor edits. So, about 600 major edits were made to this article since it became featured.
  • For a quick comparison, look at the tables of contents for the Featured-quality version and the current version.
    • In particular, look at the section titled Regional customs and celebrations: in the Featured version, it was a detailed breakdown of the customs in different continents. Now, it consists of four words: "Further information: Christmas worldwide". Do we really want this to be presented to the world as what we consider "Featured quality"?
  • I've been watching this article over the past couple weeks. It has attracted massive amounts of "holidaycruft". Anyone who has ever seen Christmas represented on a TV show has tried to add something about that into this article. I've been reverting what I can, but this has been going on for the past 12 months. I really doubt that the original supporters of the FAC would support this version.

This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with presenting our best content to the world. Maybe there should be a time limit for Featured Articles, so that they have to be reconsidered for FA status once they have been edited too many times... — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 22:16

Discussion[edit]

  • Reluctant remove. This is going to stir up a whole lot of grief, what with the Main Page listing and all, but I find I have to agree with the nominator. Also, while reading through I discovered one gross copyvio—from Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible, of all places. I paraphrased and trimmed it into something legitimate, but this makes me worry that there are other copyvios present I wasn't eidetic enough to notice. Anville 00:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per nom and Anville. Ambi 01:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is exactly why we need some sort of "stable article" system. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 01:38
  • Comment (somewhat facetiously) - so do we revert it all the way back to the old version? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be bold. :) -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While this would seem like the best solution, there were 600 major edits since it became Featured, so I wouldn't suggest it. If you could determine who the main contributors have been since last December, and ask them if it is alright to revert all of their changes, then maybe. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 01:52
  • Remove This article, there should be an entry for Christmas, but the article is almost unreadable in it's current form. Drn8 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. "[…] Making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea." (--Wikipedia:Be bold). That is exactly what has been happening here, and the article in its current form is not worthy of the distinction given to articles which exemplify Wikipedia's very best work" . --Wikiacc (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, needs a very competent editor to reintroduce old text and trim much of the new text, and remove any other copyvios. Not up to standard at the present time.--nixie 04:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Dan | talk 06:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a vote, this is a discussion attempting to reach consensus. You haven't added anything to that discussion with your one word answer. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as per nixie. Tony 07:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remove' -- needs a lot of work. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant remove. The article seems rather Western-centric, and the copyvio worry is enough for me. A pity, though, because in most other respects, this could have very well been a featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you not think 4 days of fervent editing would get it approaching featured status. It might not be good enough now, and it might not be a "true" featured article on the 25th, but if we got it close, it'd still be a great mainpage. - Hahnchen 10:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The truth is that the article has changed so much from its original version that it wouldn't make sense to accept a new version as also being "Featured quality" without it going through an FAC process of its own. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 12:49
  • I think we couuld just revert to the Featured revision in this case. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no guidelines for such an action, and I'm sure positive changes have been made since it became featured. I would suggest instead a change to the Featured Article policy, giving articles a "featured lifespan" after which they are no longer featured because they have changed too much. This will be basically fixed next month, however, when "stable versions" goes live. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 12:51
  • Remove however, before I do I wish to comment on a few things: firstly, our content is very fluid. Articles still change after being FA, this is as it should be. However, as Brian has noted they do change and therefore FAC does have a lifespan. This is where Wikipedia:Stable versions would be very handy to have! However, the reasons I would like it removed are:
    1. "Some scholars maintain that December 25 was only adopted in the 4th century as a Christian holiday after Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity to encourage a common religious festival for both Christians and pagans." - which scholars?
    2. Merge tag up the top needs to be dealt with
    3. "All extant evidence indicates that Christianity was generally adopted as the official religion decades after Constantine's death in most parts of the Roman Empire." in that case, can we have sources?
    4. Systemic bias: there is nothing on how countries such as Japan celebrate Christmas. This is significant because they have their own unique take on the event. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the old version was so good and the current version sucks why not just revert it? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no guidelines for such an action, and I'm sure positive changes have been made since it became featured. I would suggest instead a change to the Featured Article policy, giving articles a "featured lifespan" after which they are no longer featured because they have changed too much. This will be basically fixed next month, however, when "stable versions" goes live. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 12:51
  • Remove -- lack of sourcing, major objectivity problems. BYT 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Like most featured articles from that long ago, no longer demonstrates Wikipedia's best. -Silence 13:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is steadily improving and is acceptable. I am not persuaded by the arguments below - and while there is a deadline, the article doesn't reflect a rush job. Trödel•talk 22:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withhold vote This nomination has brought attention to the article and we should give it a day or two. If not improved, I would reluctantly have to agree with remove, but believe it can get in shape in time for main page posting on Dec 25th. Trödel•talk 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but would it still be featured-worthy? The content has changed quite a lot since it became featured. I think that letting it remain Featured when it has changed so much is a misuse of the system. The only way I would be comfortable with the article being featured is if it were put up for FAC again. We should not be so concerned about the Main Page date of December 25th. It is better that Featured Articles remain FAC-approved quality than to be an abuse of the process. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 14:16
      • That is the purpose of this vote - to decide if it is - and we should take into considerations the ongoing changes. Trödel•talk 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Entirely predictable I am sure given the "debate" over Christmas and Omnipotence paradox on WP:TFA recently, and given my votes below I doubt anyone will agree with me anyway, but: (i) Yes, it has been edited a lot since 24 December 2005, but much of the structure and content remains quite similar, as far as I can see. Merciless editing is really the point of a wiki. If the concern is that there have been major changes, then perhaps Wikipedia:Featured article review would be a better place to start? (ii) I'm not sure it matters how many edits that an article has had ("major" or otherwise - a loaded term if ever there was one, given the differences of opinion on when an edit ceases to be "minor"); surely the content is the thing. It is obviously harder to maintain the quality of high-profile articles - the slew of vandalism that appears when an article is on the Main Page is rather depressing. But the older version is just sitting there in the history. All it needs is someone to go through, accept the good changes and reject the bad. (iii) Spinning out a over-long section to a new article is the essence of summary style. It is just unfortunate that a summary of the new article was not retained in this article, but there are already mentions of different customs in the rest of that section. I don't see how this article could possibly discuss the differing customs in 200 countries, let alone within countries. (iv) I don't see why an article should lose its featured status simply because it attracts "cruft", holiday or otherwise. Finally, at the end of the day, we can always revert to the 24 December 2004 version, and I don't think we need to ask editors for permission to do that if the old version is clearly much better than the current version. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I think you miss the gist of most of these complaints. The issue is that the article wasn't good enough even then to be featured on the main page now (else we'd simply revert it to its state year ago), and all the edits since then haven't much improved it. It's not that the article's gone downhill especially (most FAs go downhill after being Featured anyway, since there's no longer much of an impetus to improve), it's just that Wikipedia's standards have changed, and it hasn't changed with them. Personally, I strongly supported featuring the article on December 25th, and still think it would be an excellent idea—if the article itself was good enough to merit appearing on the main page on that, or any other, day. Since it's not, I'd try working on it over the next year or so and see if you can get it FAd in time for next Christmas. :) I'll support its appearing on the main page then, if it's improved enormously from its current state. -Silence 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could see someone wanting to keep the article if it was greatly improved from its current state, but as others have pointed out, it's almost unreadable right now. If I had not brought this FARC up, we would have been presenting to the world a copyvio and a section consisting of 4 words as our "highest quality". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 16:25
  • Remove (and fix and re-apply for featured status and find a true featured article for Dec 25) --Dystopos 14:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - "HUMBUG!" --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article contained a copyvio and a section with 4 words. You consider this featured material? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 18:23
      • It doesn't contain it anymore, so it's still featured article quality. --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. There are dozens of other major errors in this article. This article needs cleanup tags, not parading on the main page as though it were our best when it's in fact mediocre. -Silence 18:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's even worse now than it was before! The lead section mentions that "regional Christmas traditions are still rich and varied", but all of that has been wiped out of the article. What exactly is the lead section summarizing now, and how can the article be considered neutral? The original Featured version contained 23 paragraphs on Regional customs. This version contains a few sentences.. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 18:50
  • Remove per nom. Rampart 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At its present state this article is not featured article-worthy. I've been trying to integrate the content that is new with the content when the article was featured. I've also rewritten some of the sections so that they are a bit more clear. I hope to begin editing again starting with the "Religious customs and celebrations" section. Obviously the article has large sections that lack sources. "Theories regarding the origion of the date of Christmas" should probably be merged with "The origions of Christmas", perhaps as a subsection. The same is probably true of "Dates of celebration". Some have cited bias in the article--apparently this was the case with the reference to Christmas being celebrated in Japan (a statement that was in the article when it was featured). If others could elaborate on other instances of bias in the article, these can be corrected. After I finish with the initial rewrite, I'll go back and tag the areas that need to cite sources and then hopefully find sources for them. Theshibboleth 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any diminution in quality should be fixed (and indeed can be fixed if desired by a simple revert). It still has the feel of a FA, jguk 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the article version from when it was FAd. It might have been good enough to appear on the main page a year ago, but it wasn't good enough to appear on the main page now. -Silence 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about moving the old version (which everyone seems to think is preferable) to Christmas/Featured, and then locking that page? Anyone who wants to can still edit the main article, and changes to the new article can be proposed on talk. Then, once the featured period is over, we can go back to normal. Firebug 19:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is considered "featured" has changed over the last year, and I know of several older featured articles which would not be featured material today. It may be the case with this article as well. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 20:37
    • And, it is generally frowned upon (and in the case of Raul654, vehemently opposed) to have an article featured on the main page and be locked for more than 5 or 10 minutes at a time. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 20:40
      • Beating the drum won't change anything if the current efforts of dedicated users are successful. But giving up and not making any changes to the article is one option. Trödel•talk 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless of the improvements that are made, the article needs to be put back through FAC. We should be more concerned about it actually being Featured quality (according to current standards of what is "Featured"), and not about it being on the Main Page at the scheduled time. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-20 20:59
  • I agree. The entire concept of putting the article up on the main page around this time was just a funny game we were playing, an amusing bit of synchronity to get a few more readers interested in the article. All of that is infinitely less important than the actual quality of the article itself, which is clearly lacking to the extent that we should put at least a few more months of hard work, research, reorganization, and copyediting into it before attempting to navigate the more rigorous FA process again. And while we're at it, we could try to get some other former FAs re-featured, like Mozart and Julius Caesar. :f -Silence 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that emotion. Better we took our time and did the article right than rushing through to repair it before the 25th (or even 7 January, ha ha!). Anville 09:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak removal, but I have high hopes it can be saved beforehand. Summarise that section, add more images, then perhaps we can discuss re-entry. -- Natalinasmpf 23:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone doubts the poverty of writing, here are a few random gems:
'for which there are different traditional menus in many country.'
'This practice has led to much adjudication, as some say it amounts to the government endorsing a religion.' (lexical and grammatical problems)
'a family newsletter telling activities of family members' (good one, folks)
'gives gifts at two occasions'
'the many customs of gift timing'
'Christmas customs and traditions transmitted through mass culture have been adopted by Christians and non-Christians alike' (let's be careful about POV)
'As it is implied that John the Baptist could only have been conceived during that particular week; and as his conception is believed to be tied to that of Jesus, it is claimed that an approximate date of 25 December can be arrived at for the birth of Jesus.' (great punctuation and sentence structure).

It's tripe. Tony 04:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you seem to have lexical difficulties with the word random. Perhaps if you are so capable of finding problems in the article, you might also try to fix them. Really though, grammar and spelling are minor things. Right now this article needs to be edited so that it can at least be understood. And what do you think is POV about "Christmas customs and traditions transmitted through mass culture have been adopted by Christians and non-Christians alike"? This is a fact. Further, one can reach conclusions without being biased. Some of your other cited problems are not problems at all either. Theshibboleth 08:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove to avoid further negative publicity. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 10:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's quite good enough to be a featured article and quite good enough to be on the main page - as per the long, lengthy and very recent discussion on the subject here, [1]in which the nominator was a full participant even if he did not get his own way. Giano | talk 16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agreed with Raul's rationale for having Christmas on the Main Page on Christmas. I didn't agree with anyone else's. How much clearer do I have to be? The problem is the article has turned to crap since it was featured a year ago. Had I not mentioned anything, the article would have gone on the main page containing a copyvio and a section with 4 words. Quite good enough? — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 16:32
  • Thank you for withdrawing your claim of bad faith. [2] as I am not inferring bad faith merely pointing out that you were a participant in that discussion and your suggestion to put Omnipotence paradox on the main page on 25th December was not successful. Giano | talk 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until after 25 Dec, then decide again. Sometimes featured articles do get transformed when they are on the mainpage, sometimes for the better. Let's not lose hope on this article. - Mailer Diablo 17:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so this is the season for hope, but I can't quite summon up the Wikifaith to believe that Main Page exposure would bring the right sort of edits. This article deteriorated, in large part, because it is a natural topic for "holidaycruft": everyone who sees a Christmas movie writes a sentence, and everyone who has a viewpoint on whether or not it's overcommercialized adds a paragraph. The noise accumulates until it drowns out the signal. (I've seen this happen many times before, Calvin and Hobbes being a good example of a similarly vulnerable page.) What this article needs is concentrated attention by dedicated editors with serious attitudes toward scholarship. This is not, by and large, what getting on the Main Page gives you. Wide exposure works, sometimes, but this just isn't one of those times.
We do not need more sentences like "Christmas can be a time steeped in a sense of belonging for those who celebrate it while those who do not may feel left out." Yes, that is an image caption. The sections beginning with "Economics of Christmas" are, simply put, dreadful.
Finally, if we put the article on the Main Page in the hope that elves will come along and fix it, then we are still presenting a bad article to the world. Maybe the elves will come and make it all better, but until they do, this article just isn't worth the placement we'd be giving it. Anville 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly agree. The article is not ready for prime time, and mainpage exposure will a) degrade it further and b) send the wrong message about the level of quality WP considers to be "high." BYT 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-21 20:50
    • Is there something wrong with your preference setting Brian - or is this sort of minuscule obscure slash signing deliberate? You must have far better eyes than mine. Giano | talk 22:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't follow that... at all... — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 13:31
        • I believe Giano's referring to your superimposed signature, and the requisite eyesight needed to make it out. GeeJo (t) (c) 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first I agreed with you that the article's content is weak. Now I'm beginning to wonder about your standards. Just because you have to write from a NPOV does not meant that an article must be a disconnected recitation of facts. I, who added the cited caption, did not do say anything that the article already did not. Granted, perhaps we do need a source for the statement (which is made in the article, if not in as many words). It bothers me though that people point out "problems" like that particular image caption and not what I see as a much more pressing problem: the inconsistency and redundancy of the section on the origins of Christmas. Theshibboleth 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Give it a chance first. FAs always can be improved. Needs some cleanup though. --Terence Ong |Talk 05:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, FA's can be improved, but this one has spent a year being destroyed, and over that year, FA standards have greatly increased. It needs to be put back through FAC to make sure that all the destruction has been undone, and that it meets current standards. Many of the current FA's wouldn't be featured material today, and if someone tried to nominate them for Main Page, they probably would go through the same FARC process this one is going through. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 13:34
  • Strong Keep Thanks to those that brought attention to this article needing some clean-up, but removal is premature - the article is shaping up nicely for a christmas main page feature. Abeo Paliurus 05:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still has none of the sections on regional customs that it originally had (previously 23 paragraphs). I would say that it still has quite a lot of work to do, and that it should be resubmitted to FAC to make sure it meets today's FA standards. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 13:29
      • Of course then some will object that the article is too long (it is 39kb as is). Abeo Paliurus 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article used to have a large section on regional customs. That version became Featured. This version has no sections on regional customs. If you're worried about the article being too long, trim away some of the other stuff to add in a section on regional customs. Otherwise the article is showing a strong western bias, particularly toward the U.S. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 13:50
        • It's pretty normal for unwieldy sections to split off into a separate article as WP grows. I don't necessarily see the creation of a separate article as "degrading" the main one. The problem is when the split creates a POV ghetto, leaving readers of the main article oblivious to other significant facets of the topic. This seems to be the Brian's concern, and I agree that the issue does need editorial attention. (copied to Talk:Christmas). --Dystopos 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove this article so it won't litter the mainpage. Bah, humbug! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong remove and, if this FARC discussion lasts until after December 25, please don't feature it on the main page. I'd been staying out of this discussion but I finally read the article and it really has become awful. The "Social impact of Christmas" section is particularly embarassing — it strongly violates NPOV, which makes the whole article violate NPOV, and it's weasel-worded and utterly unsourced, which calls the entire article's verifiability into question. When these are the most common criticisms of Wikipedia already, this is not the sort of article we should be presenting to our readers under a banner calling it "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community". --keepsleeping sleeper cell 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed this section - are there other specific areas which need improvment. Trödel•talk 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove... The social impact section is particularly bad... 24.126.232.208 19:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been removed until it is sourced and reflects the WP:NPOV standard. Trödel•talk 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove not ready yet. Needs to be improved in the areas mentioned by voters above. Some parts are good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - The article really just isn't well-written. And considering how well-known Christmas is, the number of references is frighteningly small. It's almost as if no one has done any real research, and instead, just written on what they think they know about it. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My final two cents' worth: the ballooning of Xmas into an orgy of comsumption and commercial activity is treated in just one sentence—a good one, but it's woefully inadequate given the cultural and political implications of this trend at the expense of the religious/spiritual meaning of the occasion. Along with the inadequacy of the treatment of regional customs, which could be fascinating if it shed light on the wider cultures in question, fixing this aspect needs thoughtful, cooperative effort that is almost certainly unachievable in two days. Tony 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Article has five footnotes, only four of which are linked to from the text. The floating fifth is a quote from Gandhi (mv to Wikiquoute?). References are given, but there is very little link between the text and which of these are referencing claims, and the references themselves don't inspire a lot of faith. Suggest a massive rewrite with a couple of the popular histories of Christmas at hand. Jkelly 00:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. First: it can always be featured next year. Second: it can - and should - be so much better, especially if this should be main paged during XMAS. The style is bad: too many short paras, too many stub-sections, no pic in lead. Plus, few inline citations and for a bizzare reason, a reference section with several positions AND a {{unreferenced}}. Unless this is fixed in a few hours, I say we should improve it and feature next year. Then we can be truly proud of our work.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really hope someone is paying attention to this discussion, there are many valid objections with this article and very few have been addressed. The article is still heavily overlinked and is not cited well. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tarret 03:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a vote, this is a discussion attempting to reach consensus. You haven't added anything to that discussion with your one word answer. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objections:

I am a little confused on this WP:FARC. I have only recently helped review a few WP:FAC, so if I am being a newbie I apologize. In FAC objections were raised and the editors attempted to address the objections with an eye towards improving the article. Is the purpose of a Feature Article Removal Candidate vote to just demote the article or not? If so that seems counter-productive to creating a great encyclopedia. It seems to me that the purpose of farc should be to get an article back up to feature status - or up to the current standard (if the FA standard has been raised).

Or is the FARC a process like FAC that provides feedback to make sure the article is up to feature standards? If so, then that is not what has happened here. Since this article was listed, I have watched objections raised and addressed, and tried to address a few myself, but unlike the FAC process - there doesn't seem to be any willingness to review the changes made to resolve objections and further comment on them to the benefit of the quality of the article.

Is there something that I am missing? Trödel•talk 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see FARC as basically a process for "forcing" an article to go through FAC again. This article was featured a year ago, and in that time, its quality has dropped significantly, while the FAC standards have risen significantly. So, FARC is basically a way to see if others agree that the article's Featured-status is at best questionable, and therefore should be unfeatured and put back through the more structured, well-understood FAC process. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-22 22:36
  • You are essentially right - on FAC, a person nominating an article is under an obligation to make good-faith efforts to deal with objections. Here, the person nominating an article has no interest in maintaining its featured status. The only way that objections here (remove votes) are dealt with is if someone interested in the article (often the person who nominated it as a FAC in the first place, or someone who contributed significantly to its content) is willing and able to deal with them. But the original nominator or authors may not be around to deal with objections, and it is rare some else to pick up the baton. I think the archive will show that it is more common than not for articles nominated here to be "removed", mainly because noone has any responsibility to deal with objections. This is one reason why the threshold to remove "featured" status has been "consensus" (that is, broad support for removal) rather than "no objections" (as on FAC). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thx! That makes sense. Trödel•talk 23:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello. I am the creator of WP:FFA and, since August, have been the one closing FARCs and, where needed, demoting articles. Copying what I have said elswhere, like ALoan has said, 2 to 1 is not consensus. However, featured content does not always work by consensus. For instance, Raul can deny featured status to an article if it has just one objection among a sea of supports, if he feels the objection is substantive. I use a similar methodology when I close FARCs. Like Brian says, we are sortof forcing it through FAC again, and if there are reasoned, logical calls for removal, and any number of keep votes that do not actually respond to the objections raised, I am more likely to discount those keeps. Indeed, this is a discussion, and not a strict vote, and we must hold our featured content to a higher standard. As an aside on the current didcussion, I will not comment on the progress of this current discussion and will withhold contemplating a decision until the two week limit has expired, and I have not decided on whether or not to make a vote myself. All FYI on how the process has worked to date. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the explanation - but I am completely disenchanted with the process - because as I've reviewed some editors contributions - they suggest (though, of course I can't be sure) that there is a desire to see this article demoted because it is about Christmas, rather than any substantive arguments about its quality, and they have shown no interest in improving the article or in giving feedback about the edits that are being made to improve the article. Trödel•talk 12:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am interested in demoting this article for the specific numerous reasons listed by myself and others above, and also for the reason that I do not want low quality articles being shown on the main page as top quality. Nowhere has myself or others said that we wanted it demoted for the reason you claim of us. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 15:40
        • It seems to me that instead of just saying "Keep because XXXXXX", the people who are in favor of keeping the article should actually pay attention to the problems we're finding with the article and fix them. And as for Trodel ... I've celebrated Christmas all my life, but my support of this FARC has nothing to do with Christmas itself. I merely think this article isn't up to snuff. And I have been giving feedback about improving this article: get more quotes, add a bit more to the section on rampant consumerism, etc. --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:New article for December 25

Raul has changed the Main Page article for December 25th to Ido. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 19:09

  • Um - is this relevant to this FARC? Are your objections are now less strong are a result? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, and no. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 20:05
  • I guess I'm glad, because I really don't think the quality of this article is up to snuff. It's sure not going to change my vote though. The article continues to not be up to snuff. I've raised numerous objections with the article (and even fixed some of them), but it just doesn't seem like anyone else is paying attention. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I am demoting this article, and locking this sub-page. There will be no further discussion about removing or not removing this article - if you feel it should be featured, take it to WP:FAC. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Christmas/archive1&oldid=1140678612"