Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 (size discussion) /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 (short FA discussion)

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 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Day the Violence Died and Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Featured article criteria included the line "{{tag|ref|content= blablabla }}", creating a reference.

The project page was in its turn included in the template {{grading scheme}} which was part of article Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/ClassificationCategoryHeader 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—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 <new>facts and quality of the </new> relevant body of published knowledge" but the words should be carefully selected. The words "facts" and "quality" are a bit imprecise. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—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. BuddingJournalist 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 Wikipedia: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—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. BuddingJournalist 03:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you should probably flesh out the reasoning for your oppose. :) BuddingJournalist 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—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. BuddingJournalist 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—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". BuddingJournalist 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—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—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—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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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—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". BuddingJournalist 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—WP:3IAR)} 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by WP:RS though? BuddingJournalist 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—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—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). SandyGeorgia (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—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—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? BuddingJournalist 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. SandyGeorgia (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". BuddingJournalist 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)? TARTARUS ^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. BuddingJournalist 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—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—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—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. BuddingJournalist 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—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). BuddingJournalist 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. - hahnchen 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. --PresN 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—and with the sudden arrival of so many faces plus the silence of folks who supported above, it now seems likely— 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—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—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)

• hey, how did all these people hear about this? IRL Chat? Is that WP:CANVASS? I'm not clear on this. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—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)

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)

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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support this. BuddingJournalist 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. SandyGeorgia (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.") BuddingJournalist 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. --PresN 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 ^barleyscribs 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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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 :) SandyGeorgia (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)

wow, it's a madhouse. I'll repeat myself only once

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—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. --PresN 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—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. --PresN 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—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. —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. —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 ^barleyscribs 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 ^barleyscribs 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—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 ^barleyscribs 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—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. --MASEM 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—WP:3IAR)} 13:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Crap no that sucks too. How about:

1. 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."? --MASEM 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. BuddingJournalist 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:

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—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. BuddingJournalist 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—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

2. 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

3. 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. SandyGeorgia (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. BuddingJournalist 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—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. —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—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. BuddingJournalist 16:14, 25 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—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—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—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—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 Importance=none 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)

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. BuddingJournalist 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. BuddingJournalist 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)

• (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—WP:3IAR)} 00:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)