Wikipedia talk:Featured articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Another video game? Really?[edit]

I noticed today's FA is on "Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow", a video game. I do not know off the top of my head how many video games have been the subject of featured articles, but I can tell you that as a member of the Wikipedia-reading public that there seem to have been a lot of these in recent years and that they seem to be the result of a niche interest in the subject generally. I find it unlikely that there aren't enough articles on a wider variety of subjects that qualify for featured article status... So while I acknowledge that video games are a significant part of the world-experience for a number of Wikipedia users, I wanted to encourage consideration of other subject matter for future Wikipedia featured articles. That is all. Keep calm and carry on. KDS4444Talk 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean for this to be brought up at WT:TFA, but it appears that one video game article has run per month in 2014. Given the proportion of video game FAs to overall, I am not sure that is overkill. As always, however, the answer is to encourage people to write FAs in other topic areas as their interests dictate. Resolute 17:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Also this particular article wad nominated per the usual WP:TFAR process snd was up for debate for what I believe was a few weeks.-- (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

FA preparation hub[edit]

There is the list of FA criteria and several essays. Is there a central "How to prepare a page for FA" somewhere? Would be very grateful if users could point me in the right direction/s. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

LT910001, are you still interested in this? I don't know of any centralized page like that; what I've always done (I've got a few FAs under my belt, with one more that will likely pass within a couple days) is get the article a peer review and typically a copyedit on top of that (you can request one at WP:GOCE/REQ, or just ask on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject). Tezero (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro paragraph redundancy[edit]

This phrase seems unnecessarily redundant to me: There are 4,240 featured articles out of 4,510,669 articles on the English Wikipedia (~0.1% are featured). Thus, about one in 1,060 articles are listed here. 4,240/4,510.669 = .1% = 1 in 1000; why say it three times? How would you feel about editing it to read, "Of the 4,510,669 articles on the English Wikipedia, about .1% (4,240) have achieved featured status"? Ultrauber (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this, too. I support the change. Tezero (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding Anarcho-capitalism (a featured arcitle)[edit]

Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, as far as I know there isn't a size limit to FAs, but what would be people's opinion on the lowest FA? I have a few articles at GA which I would like to take further, but their size is an issue to me, as the majority of FAs are larger. Some I feel I have got all all the available info, and it still feels small in comparison to other FAs (I know it needs a lead expansion). Is there any chance of such articles becoming FAs? Thanks, Matty.007 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about length per se. Only two of the FA criteria relate to length. Criterion 1b states that the articles needs to be comprehensive, "neglect[ing] no major facts or details and place[ing] the subject in context". Criterion 4 states that articles shouldn't be too long "stay[ing] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and us[ing] summary style." The former states that the article length should be appropriate given the article's scope and the amount of information available in reliable sources, while the latter says that articles on extremely broad topics should avoid being too long.
Anyway, if you've found everything that's available in published sources about Clarence Chesterfield Howerton, for example, you've met the comprehensiveness requirement, while the excessive length requirement doesn't apply. Almost all of the lost film FAs are really short, 750-1500 words generally. One of the shortest FAs ever was promoted just three days ago; it's Si Ronda, a lost film from the Dutch East Indies. It clocks in at a mere 644 words. The nominator, Crisco 1492, has 31 FA stars under his belt, many of them for really short articles on lost films such as these. I've mentioned him here in the hope that he'll pop in and offer you additional advice on getting really short articles to FA status, but I wouldn't worry about length if you've found everything you can on the subject. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I've got to head out soon but I'll give a couple comments. First, reviewers will generally ask you to ensure you've really gone through as many possible sources as you can. Thus, before going to FAC, make sure you've had a look at JStor (WP:RX really helps if you don't have access), GBooks, and GScholar (GNews archive works for Major Mite, because he was US-based, but for me that's never been worthwhile). Targeted searches in Google (i.e. using "-blogspot", "-wikipedia", "-facebook" etc.) help too; I've often been able to find proof of international showings (always in Singapore) of the films I write about using this. If there are specific databases or archives which provide access to sources you want, search them. I use two (niod.x-cago and delpher) but neither will probably be very useful for the Mite article. Finally, don't be afraid to hunt print sources as well; often the oldest are not online. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And of course, it should go without saying that you need to ensure that the prose really shines. The shorter the article get, the more glaring the mistakes are. Something that wouldn't even be apparent in a 6k word article will seem pretty obvious in a 500 word article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much to you both for the help. I've found a few more books in Google which I will try and use but I think they are small (minute?) points, I'll keep searching though. Thanks again, Matty.007 11:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)