Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

; Archives
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, April Fools 2005, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Short FAs, 32 Short FAs cont., 33, 34 Context and notability, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now

For a Table-of-Contents only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list

Multilingual Wikipedians needed

Sandy has suggested that we write a Dispatch on the featured content processes on other wikis. We have already had volunteers translate the requirements for the Spanish, French, and German wikipedias. Ideally, we'd like to cover the 10 most popular, so we are looking for editors who can translate the featured content rules on the wikis for these languages:

Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · Polski · Português · Русский

If you are able to read one of these languages (at minimum at the intermediate level), please feel free to add notes about their featured content processes at Wikipedia:FCDW/OtherWikis. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing Dutch (Nederlands). Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "credit where credit due department", actually it was Awadewit's suggestion at WT:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can get someone to translate the Portuguese one. Awadewit (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos can do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind then. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We still need Polish, ~~Japanese~~ and Italian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to find someone to do the Italian one. Wrad (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73

Millennium '73 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some fresh FAC reviewers on this one. The FAC has seen a few of the same people commenting back and forth, but could use some previously uninvolved editors to take a fresh look and give an evaluation. Comments would be appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the debate at the FAC has taken place between this controversial article's top-five contributors. Awadewit (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Sandy pointed this out up above, but it has been lost in the slugfest. Anybody interested in revisiting it? I see little point in pushing ahead with discussion of other changes if they are likely to be reverted on the same basis. Yomangani ^talk 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Christopher Parham the only Opposer, then? Just asking. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. I did not revert, and didn't object to the attempt to add it, but I think Christopher was right that there was not a definite consensus for it and that it was not clear how the new phrase would be interpreted in practice. I think it was reasonable for someone to revert.

How about nominating four or five editors, who represent some of the differing points of view on this, to work together at the Wikipedia:Content_review/workshop and try to come up with a consensus suggestion for review by everyone here? That workshop has been silent for a while; the idea was to give interested parties a separate location for the conversation. It had one success -- the automation of peer review -- but has not been very active for a while now. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better? I would propose (ducking) another method, but I suppose it will be shot down: I would suggest that everyone (except me) participate in a "brainstorming session" to come up with better verbiage. I would further suggest that arguments be kept to a bare minimum; only comments that refine or seek to refine a given suggestion should be offered. No Opposes to any suggestion allowed, for a period to be agreed upon (beforehand or after the fact, whatever). I'm just thinking, crap, the cycle is endless: we have one or two ideas, we bicker over them endlessly, etc. Then while we're busy bickering over proposals unlikely to pass, no one is thinking of new ones. How's about we temporarily skip over the bickering part? Just a thought.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need specific proposals to debate, I agree, but we need to be sure that once they are agreed upon by those discussing them, they are not reverted by one person. If one person can upset the consensus, then these reform efforts are fruitless. Awadewit (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly true. It appears that this mythical wikipedia "consensus" is at best illusory if one editor can overturn what's been agreed between the other interested parties. What's the point? There will always be someone who disagrees with anything; should that person have the deciding vote? "Consensus" on wikipedia is simply another name for "stasis". Nothing changes, except insofar as it just continues to get worse. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense is intended to either Mike or Christopher, but I just reverted Christopher's reversion of yesterday. After carefully reading the FACs that were linked in that discussion, it seems clear that the community already uses this standard to determine what passes and what fails. You can argue that the wording isn't perfect or that we don't know exactly what it means yet, but I think it's clear that the criteria including Awadewit's phrase are a better representation of reality than without. Even if that weren't true, please re-read the discussion. We rarely get that kind of consensus around here; let's cherish the moment! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the community already uses this standard is that it is already present in the criteria and has been for a long time. An article that does not establish context does not contain all major facts and details about the topic. Nobody, so far as I can tell, has claimed differently. At the same time, there's no agreement that the outcome of any past or future FAC would be changed by this addition. The implication that this is a "reform effort", when nobody believes that it alters either the spirit or practical application of the criteria, mystifies me; immaterial changes in wording do not constitute reform. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the additional wording apparently makes the criterion clearer for some people and you believe that it doesn't doesn't alter the criteria there is no reason to remove it. Hooray, consensus re-established. Arf. Yomangani ^talk 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher, we have worked together at WT:MOS and WT:Layout and you are good at seeing these things ... when you take the time to read it through and think it through. Don't cut corners here; there are a lot of FACs to read in order to pick up the pattern. Read those links above, and consider whether coverage of "context" or "background" isn't a reasonable way of describing whether recent short-ish FACs have succeeded or not. IMO it's a much better description of what's actually happening than just looking at how the relevant "facts" of the subject were covered. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents on this issue: the context phrase is definitely needed in FAC criteria. Stating facts without giving Reader any context surrounding those facts can be a very POV way to present a subject. I cant see how any article could be considered FA quality if it does not give Reader context and I support Awadewit's proposal. NancyHeise ^talk 15:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I imagine an nominator in the future will omit a section on the larger implications of a subject because the FA criteria did not mention it. There are some categories of articles that are so small there are too few FAs to model after, so at times, the FA criteria is all to go on. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm in favour of the context clause too, and believe it has consensus support. Geometry guy 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too favor the context clause. I don't see what harm it causes, and it can only help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the "context" clause - I think it helps clarify what "comprehensive" means. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured short articles and systemic bias

On Wikipedia, systemic bias refers to uneven coverage caused by imbalances in the editor demographics. For example, most Wikipedians are American, so American topics are well covered. In contrast, few Singaporeans edit Wikipedia and hence coverage of Singaporean topics is lacking. Systemic bias is a severe problem, but it often goes unnoticed.

I oppose the proposed FSA process as I believe it will worsen systemic bias. There are two main types of short articles: those on over-represented topics and those on under-represented topics. Based on the discussions I have read, FSA is clearly intended to recognise short articles about things like American roads and popular culture, which fall into the former category. Articles in the latter category will be left out in the cold, discouraging editors from working on them and thus worsening systemic bias.

Comprehensiveness is not the only reason why the FA process puts articles in the latter category at a disadvantage. Editors who focus on the latter category of articles are usually not native speakers of English, making criterion 1a an impossible mountain for them to climb. A Singapore-related article that failed FAC for this reason would be Odex's actions against file-sharing. There are other reasons, which I shall not go into here.

The last time a Singapore-related article passed FAC was in July 2007. But in the following seventeen months, over thirty Singapore-related articles achieved GA status. These include many short history articles written by Aldwinteo, such as Long Ya Men and Early Founders Memorial Stone.

GA is still the best process for recognising excellent short articles in both categories. Since FA (and FSA) cannot include both categories of short articles, they should exclude both categories and let GA be the inclusive process. Instead of introducing an FSA process, we should give greater recognition to GAs - such as by letting GAs appear on the Main Page and showing a GA plus on the top-right corner of GAs. This proposal would keep FA status reserved for the best articles, better recognise short articles, help fight systemic bias and keep down the bureaucracy that would arise from the proposed FSA process.

It is time for the bitter rivalry between FA and GA to stop. It is time for us to unite. It is time for GA to be integrated with the other processes that recognise quality content. It is time for us to fight systemic bias. Can we change? Yes, we can.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until I can make some time for this, my suggestion is: don't push any one solution to any one problem too hard. Let people air their grievances over their own issues at their own speeds. It will all work out. (Disclaimer: this does not mean that it's okay for sour people to drop in on random FACs sowing discord. That's a topic ban waiting to happen if I ever saw one.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gondjout failed FA for two reasons: shortness and verifiability (it was partially translated, which is apparently a big no-no around here). He was a Gabonese politician, and consequently there was little about him outside French, which I can't even speak. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over that and it seems like the concern wasn't just that it was translated, but that there was reason to believe that, since no professional, fluent translator had looked over the sources, it may not be ready. Other articles have had translated material and been just fine, such as El Senor Presidente. Wrad (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is FSA an existent, live, approved by consensus element within Wikipedia? The pages there give the impression that it is and is not, depending on how you view them. It's most peculiar. And I strongly object to the concept per se - and wonder where I can/should/should have registered my opinion. --Dweller (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a proposal only. Some heated discussions regarding it usually became diverted to other issues. For example, the issue of TFA became entwined with it, some wanting to rule out short FAs because they then would be in the pool for TFAs. If you look in the archives, you can find the discussions. Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive32 —Mattisse (Talk) 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I've missed a lot. But if it's just a proposal, the project page should be labelled as such. --Dweller (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, Dweller: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive31#Wikipedia:Excellent short articles. It was something that Marskell and Worldtraveller kicked around for years, years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-GDP per capita of Asian WikiProjects

Ah, wrt JLWS, this gives me a chance to flaunt some statistics I made on the Asian nation-state WikiProjects. I gave points on a 3-2-1 basis for FA/A/GA and then divided them by the millions of people in the country. Per capita, Singapore is miles ahead of most of them (data as of earl 2008). I'd say the main problem is that the Singaporean editors don't seem to be effective at votestacking, unlike some of the other nation-state/ethnic WikiProjects, which have 100% support for their own WikiProjects' articles. Also, some of them have very high turnout rates compared to active editors, eg 300 edits per month for an active editor. Also, as to the language comment, English is a mainstream language in Singapore, as it is in Israel, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, moreso than the other Asian countries. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send all short articles to GA by default? I concur, wholeheartedly! And so I think would Outriggr, if I understand his "Send to GA" suggestion a while back. But will this pass, or if it does, will it pass smoothly? I doubt it... It's all about the pride of bearing the gold star. No really, every bitter argument at FAC is about that. People just want that damn gold star. It makes them feel proud, special, etc. Then... some people get the star who (in my opinion, at least, but I think objectively as well) don't deserve it... then people who are stopped from getting it are pissed because they compare their articles to the ones that got it but didn't deserve it.. and.. so on.. and so.. on. And people who write short articles will be pissed if the gold star is disallowed for their efforts. It's all about the pride of getting the gold star. All of it. For that reason, there will always be at least some level of acrimony at FAC, because not everyone can get the gold star, and some people will be axe-grinders and poison-spewers when they don't. So... color me a little cynical about all proposals to help the problem. :-) But I support sending all short articles back to GA by default. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that there are competing visions of what FA is or should be; we've failed when debating changes that address those visions because there are too many choices, and we've failed when discussing individual changes because without agreement on the overall raison d'être of FA there is little chance of agreement on individual points. I'm not optimistic we'll get anywhere at this point. I'll participate in any likely-looking discussion but am not expecting to see one. The status quo, though it's not where I personally would like it, still generates good quality articles, and it'll do if we can't figure out how to improve it. Mike Christie (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS In addition to supporting short articles back to GA by default, I now have changed my position regarding GA: I agree they should get the green dot, and I agree that some GAs should hit the main page from time to time. The GA process should very, very, very carefully select the GAs that go, giving preference to shorter articles. I say all this because the damn gold star is just too unique and precious, and as long as that's true, There Will Be Bitterness... people need to have some reason to value GA more as well. It's all about pride... but if those ideas don't fly, then I'm with Mike: keep the status quo, be far stingier on FACS, that's all. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is a short FA? As far as I've heard, no article has ever been opposed solely because it was short. There is no length requirement in the criteria. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec @Ling) Sounds to me like if you want GAs on the main page and you want short articles to get deserved recognition, that's the same as acknowledging the wisdom of Marskell (recognizing excellent short articles). But since he's no longer here to make it happen, and make it happen well (as he did the FAR redesign), I don't expect it will: a shame that we lost a contributor of such dedication. If you want short articles on the mainpage, I'd rather see them vetted through a community process wrt WP:WIAFA then a one-editor-pass process. And I was never convinced by the argument that short articles would drain resources from here (I will claim that I was proven right, since the discussions of the past months have effectively cut FA production in half, yet the page still lags for reviews, because the people reviewing the long FACs are still the same group, while a different group reviewed short articles). Whatever: so instead of recognizing featured short articles, we'll have half as many FAs and one-editor-pass GAs on the mainpage? Doesn't make sense to me, but what do I know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are fated to live in the past, talking about discussions that have already happened, repeating them over again, and mourning over editors who have left. Same old, same old. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandy: First of all, I am not wedded to any proposal. But... Implicit in my remark "The GA process should very very very carefully select" is the idea that the GA on the main page would be vetted by the whole GA process; not just any one-editor-chosen GA can pass. As for Marskell, I had nothing to do with him leaving, so please don't throw that in my face. @Matisse: I do not see any valid contribution in your remarks. I only see some form of unhappinees or ill will. if you're unhappy, then take someone to RfC, or drop it. You are just making everyone unhhappy.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ling, re Marskell, see your talk. My point is that a short article "vetted by a whole process" is what WP:FSA was proposed to be; the two are equivalent, while GA isn't set up for community vetting relative to WP:WIAFA, our highest standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Quickly, I have to go please forgive typos. The only diff b/w letting GA have short articles and letting those hit the main page versus marskell's SFA is who would be doing the reviewing. I have always said, the only reason I oopose SFA is the drain on reviewers. I meant FAC reviewers. But but but if we let GA reviewers do the brunt of the work at SFA, occasionally supplemented by FAC reviewers, that would be excellent. First it would alleave ny fears about reviewer drain. second it could be a bridge betwenn the processes. Gott run bye. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for the bridge, but my other point was that I never agreed that FSA would drain reviewers. After reading thousands of FACs, I submit that there are different reviewer pools for different kinds of articles. The reviewers who participated in the topics that lend themselves to shorter articles aren't always the same reviewer pool as those looking at the long articles. I offered as proof that even with half of the traffic now at FAC, and half as many FAs, we still have dozens of FACs that I can't close, because we have the same reviewer pool looking at the same (longer) articles. So we're turning out half as many FAs, and the short articles are ... where ? Further, the enthusiasm for FSA was instant; there are a lot of editors who would eagerly staff it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ling.Nut - Please let GA be! I wish you would leave GA out of this discussion. GA is still a pleasant place and an enjoyable experience. Whatever solution you want for your "short" FAs, find some other solution. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Matisse: I was a GA reviewer long, long before you ever were. ;-)

@ Sandy: I suspect the GA folks would be thrilled to participate in a new project which was a bridge between the two processes. But as for other pools of reviewers... didn't you see me kinda throw down the gauntlet here a few days ago? I said "I SUPPORT SFA, if and only if we can get enough short articles folks to do the reviewing"? And all I hear in reply was... the crickets chirping in the weeds. Silence. SO... yeah maybe, there may be more reviewers hiding somewhere in those weeds.. but initially at least FAC and GAC reviewers are all that we have. And so if we have SFA, then I suggest a pow-wow between the two processes, handing the bulk of the reviewing of SFA over to the GAC process regulars. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this division between GA and FA reviewers that you mention (many do both), and some of those reviewers, who were very enthusiastic when the proposal was first launched have ... yes ... picked up their marbles and left. Did you see the enthusiasm here and on my talk page when the proposal first surfaced? Now we can't even get consensus here to add six little words to WP:WIAFA, so I'm unsure if we get any substantial changes in place, particularly without Marskell, who was good at shepherding just that sort of thing. And, I still see a lot of resistance, so we may need to dialogue around all of these issues a lot more still before we all decide which way to go. Point being, in the meantime, we're not producing FAs, and we sure haven't lowered the page backlog by eliminating the shorter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Ling.Nut - despite your huge superiority in experience, I have not seen your around GA recently, doing the normal, daily review work. In my opinion, GA reviewers don't want to wear the iron nit-pick chains of FA reviewers. They seem to handle whatever problems crop up in a refreshingly uncomplicated and direct way. Please leave them be. Ask Malleus his opinion. Besides, you are not Marskell, for heavens sakes! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SFA

Support. Once again, I support the SFA process.
I strongly suggest a pow-wow between FAC and GAC reviewers. I don't care if there's overlap between the processes, etc. I just don't want the whole burden of SFA to fall on the folks who review at FAC. New blood! plus it may be a bridge, as I suggested.

Ah, my life is hectic! I may be leaving Taiwan soon (like next week-ish??) to go to the States, to defend my dissertation. Or I may go a bit later. Or I may go much later. I have no idea! We are scrambling to work things out. So I have no idesa when i will be participating I vote support here and now; add my name to that list. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss, don't vote. There are many ideas, going many different directions, and moving prematurely to votes and straw polls doesn't usually yield ... anything :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry. I was being...mmm... overly cheery? My point was this: If there ever is a poll regarding SFA, I support. But please do go to GAC and drum up reviewers. I also said (above) that we should have a brainstorming period first, with no polls... but no one responded. ;-) But anyhow, I may or may not be here for a while. I dunno. later. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per my opening post. FSA will recognise short articles about American roads while neglecting short articles about Singaporean politicians. Since FA to FSA cannot include articles in both categories, the only fair solution is for FA to exclude articles in both categories, letting GA include articles in both categories. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me is right. Not all highway articles are short. I've worked on two, M-28 (Michigan highway) and M-35 (Michigan highway) that are definitely not short, and both are currently listed as FAs. Other articles are quite long, but with somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 articles on various state highways in the US, not all will be short, and some will never be long. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth did we get back on this? FSA is a solution without a problem, and if anybody ever manages to provide evidence that shortness is itself a problem, we'd still need to see how FSA would help. Yomangani ^talk 09:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break to refocus discussion

Hardly any of the replies discuss the problem of systemic bias. Could everyone please reread my original post and keep the discussion focused on the issue (systemic bias with regards to the FA/FSA process) and my proposal? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the depth of problem that you apparently do. Yes, it is often harder for non-native English speakers to meet 1a. You must also recognize, though, that it is often hard for native English speakers to meet that criteria. Writing an FAC does not have to be the work of one person - this is a wiki and we should be taking advantage of other people's expertise and willingness to help. If someone writes a lot of articles that consistently are archived due to 1a concerns, then that person needs to find a good copyeditor and then renominate the article. We have lots of FAs on Vietnam-related topics; there is no reason why articles related to other countries cannot meet the FA criteria. It's just a matter of pairing the right editors to meet the criteria. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out I have lived my entire life in Australia, and none of the FA/A/GA in Vietnam appear to have been written by Vietnam-born editors at all. The 20-odd A-class articles are written by an American fellow who did grad work on the VN War. Anyway, in respect to what JLWS said, per my "GDP graph" above, Singapore still has the highest per capita wiki-GDP of Asian WikiProjects, which isn't surprising as English is a mainstream language in Singapore, official IIRC. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Karanacs, above, I am happy to copyedit articles on Vietnam-related or any other country-related topics, provided the topics are nothing to do with either astrophysics or professional wrestling. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and images

I notice one area of checking seems to have escaped everyone's attention — checking the sources of maps and diagrams. Very often, I notice that many maps, charts, or diagrams might be WP:OR. We certainly need a source/sources on the image page to back them up eg Image:ComunerosCityControl.png, Image:BattleofTordesillas.PNG, Image:ProtonTransfer.png, unless the images explain an abstract concept. Does this sound doable? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem here. To create free images, editors often have to draw their own. Modern maps can be checked by anybody with a good atlas. My virus diagrams—see my user page—are used to help readers with descriptions in the text of the articles. The text is referenced, but the diagrams can not be (directly)—they are entirely home–made. Insisting on sources for diagrams could deplete the project of many good illustrations as sources other than WP contributors are probably going to be copyrighted. I think it should be part of the FA review process to check that images illustrate only what is in the text and that no original ideas or research is included. In short, this idea needs much thought and further discussion before any new rules are introduced. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The maps would depend on the context. This is how I have added references to this map: Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg. Back to the diagrams: When drawing the diagrams, it would be obvious that the author would refer to some illustration, and then use his or her creative talents to draw the image. For such cases, cite the original sources. (Please note that *information* cannot be copyrighted) Finally, did you draw this image: Image:HBV replication.png without referring to any previous illustrations(s)? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I have little idea what that image is supposed to mean. I'm not too familiar with microbiology (but can learn it up fast). I managed to understand what a capsid is from Virus#Structure, but I'm sorry a "Schematic diagram of the hexon of a virus capsid" makes little sense to a first-time user. How do we verify that it's supposed to look like that? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't look at all like that. It is a schematic diagram not a portrait. Graham Graham Colm ^Talk 15:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like electron-positron collisions look nothing like this:Graham Colm ^Talk 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they don't, most of the time (photons don't often decay into quark-antiquark pairs). But it does look like electron-quark scattering, with a bit of gluon radiation thrown in for good measure. :-) Geometry guy 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I images are generally exempted from WP:OR. See here. Ruslik (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.....where WP actively encourages editors to draw images like Image:Hexon.png, which although not illustrating an abstract concept, originated entirely in my head. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added self-created images to Indigenous people of the Everglades region and Stonewall riots, but I used materials to reference from. I think it's generally a good idea to require FACs to have images with sources, whether they were taken from the internet, or given by some kind of agency, or from a print source used. Since I don't deal with a lot of medical or legal articles, I don't come across a lot of editors who claim to be experts in their field as licensed professionals. So Graham's images are trickier. I think some verification should be included on the image page to confirm the image came from an expert of some kind. To put the image beyond reproach would be a book with page number. If Graham is claiming his own expertise to do the self-made work, should he put his own name as the reference, something like "Graham Colm, licensed physician/microbiologist in the United Kingdom" or some such? --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Moni's concerns. I think that we would want some sort of verifiable source. If it's a synthesis that popped into your head, the original info came from somewhere- at least referencing where similar info can be found would be nice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Given that WP already has a policy on this, I can not see what we can achieve here. Illustrations illustrate the text which is sourced. I have seen thousands of images of bacteriophages, many directly using an electron microscope. They are as familiar to microbiologists as cars are to drivers. If an editor draws a picture of a typical car can we demand a source? Surely not. With regard to 'phages, this image also came from memory Image:Phage.png it's not controversial, it's not original research, but it is an original drawing. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this depends on why the image is being used. If the 1978 Ford Pinto is being illustrated to show why it was a firetrap, then yes, I think a source is in order. If a steering wheel is being illustrated, perhaps not. Viruses and bacteria are technical enough to equate to a braking or steering system of a car, if cars are what we're comparing. If the engineer who designed the Pinto, or just an engineer, provided the image, I think his/her name and credentials would be quite helpful. Because Essjay left a legacy for all of us to remember. --Moni3 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to recognize the distinction between self-made images of "tangible" things (e.g. virii) and "intangible" things (e.g. distributions). Just as it would indeed be silly to source a drawing of a car, so too would it be silly to source a drawing of a virus (although, as always, there may be rare exceptions/caveats - I saying knowing nothing about autos or virii). Alternatively, self-made images involving compilation of data (e.g. an election map) or distributions (e.g. a battle plan) do need a source. Both are, ultimately, mere visual representations of some underlying data. Images, like prose, are subject to our content standards (WP:V, WP:OR, etc); we need to source data/facts/statistics, even if they've been manifested visually. Эlcobbola _talk 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Car for FA debate on unsourced images.png

Source required? Graham

Graham Colm ^Talk 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure (couldn't resist this!) :) Wikipedia contributors, "Automobile," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automobile&oldid=253916882 (accessed November 26, 2008). Posted this to lighten things up here. Will reply in detail in a short while to avoid e/c. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, we're not saying that *all* images "must" have a source. WP:V should answer what needs a source. I think it would be better if one could source the location from where the images are inspired from, not necessarily a graphic design, it could also be understood from a book. If you're drawing the cross section of a virii, I'm sure you must have read some books that describe the structure, and then were inspired to draw this. That's perfectly fine, just label the image as an artist's impression. See the article on Pluto – we have several artist renderings of the minor planet, and it goes without saying that a source/reference will not be needed. This map: Image:Alexander-Empire 323bc.jpg has a reference, so we can say the regions that Alexander the Great conquered is as per xyz source. Conversely, why should one consider Image:MacedonEmpire.jpg to be reliable? Do you now get what I am trying to say? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a beautiful map and by the way please, the plural of virus is viruses. Yes, I do see your point but you gave this as an example: Image:ProtonTransfer.png, which rattled my cage. A diagram, almost by definition, is an artist's impression, and it would be redundant to place this tag on very diagram in an article. Diagram's can of course, have mistakes. I had to redraw this one Image:HBV genome.png because another editor spotted a small error—but this is why images have talk pages. I think we have to use common sense here and I agree with Зlcobbola. Simple diagrams, (like mine) will probably not be contested with regard to the text they illustrate. ~~On your other point, inspiration can come from sources other than books. Much of my inspiration comes from over 40 year's working as a virologist.~~ We should not confuse volunteers with amateurs, I think Wikipedia should use editor-created images more. We are as creative as any other set of encyclopedia editors and should not have to rely so much on second-hand images. Thanks for starting this discussion; it has been most useful. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Interesting that under Car, sources for all images are given, and there is no attempt to say there is a generic "car" or "automobile", perhaps because the generic word "car" is relatively meaningless. The picture provided about of a "car" presumably could be a truck or a bus, for example. Unless an editor discovered the nature of a virus himself (OR), the information in a diagram of a virus must have come from somewhere. It may be clear to Graham that a virus equals a car in the information base of the general readership of Wikipedia, but I do not agree. I would like to have a general source for a medical diagram provided. In textbooks etc., diagrams are usually sourced. Is not a diagram of a virus really a model or a concept? You are not literally picturing a virus, are you, or am I mistaken? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - When I made a comment recently, a much milder equivalent to the one by Graham above in an FAC: "Much of my inspiration comes from over 40 year's working as a virologist. We should not confuse volunteers with amateurs." - I was accused of "elitism". Does this not apply here also? You declare you are an expert, so your diagrams should be accepted. But the fact I am an expert in a certain field does not give me any more weight in opinions over content than those who clearly are not. Is this not the same issue? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Yes sorry I withdraw that. Here's my pre EC reply:

Hi Mattisse, the first book which comes to hand is "Understanding Viruses" (full reference given in Virus). Most of the diagrams do not give sources. The photographs do, apart from the ones taken from Wikipedia! No, I am not literally picturing a virus, (unless the image is one of my electron micrographs). I concede your point on my over-familiarity with viruses—but please, can't I just provide a simple diagram to help explain a fact without pretending I got the idea from elsewhere? Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring books as sources as opposed to just requiring reliable sources

I'm trying to get Jackie Robinson up to FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jackie Robinson. A couple of editors have mentioned using more book sources, one of them opposing for this reason. Changing sources requires changing all the associated text, so I'm wondering what the consensus is on requirements beyond just reliability for sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I've heard of this requirement. Although some reliable sources are more reliable than others has an oddly familiar ring... Seriously, it sounds like the conversations we've recently had here about FAs needing to be more notable than notable. I disagree. --Dweller (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I suggested you use Robinson's biographies and autobiography because they are the best possible sources, not because they are books. But I think I made that clear in the FAC. I opposed History of Indiana for that reason as well. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there is a definitive answer, because there's no point in improving the article's prose if it's all going to have to be replaced. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni's comments don't seem to add up to what you posted here. I suggest you resolve this at the FAC. I think we're done here. --Dweller (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, for almost all FAs I have needed some offline sourcing (in most cases books). I think there are a few articles one may not need them but I haven't encountered any. Some medical articles (due to the quality of secondary sources, review articles and texts online) come to mind (as long as one has good access to fulltext), and I think some astronomy articles, teh bulk of referencable material is, but not sure what else. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Different articles require different levels of sourcing. Most articles on baseball players would be fine with newspaper, magazine and reliable Internet references, but Robinson is a special case. As one of the most important people in the history of American sports, there have been many biographies done on him. We should always use the best sources possible, even if it requires more work; the books are the highest-quality sources for Jackie, and should have been used earlier. That doesn't mean that online sources should never be used in such articles, but the highest-quality sources should be used most often. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to assume that all book sources are better than web sources, which is not the case. Wrad (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) That's true. If books on a topic are junk, they shouldn't be used. I'm just saying that good biographies are the best route in this case. The highest-quality sources for a given article will always vary, and it is the editor's job to find and use them. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, there is no requirement that books should be used. But there is no doubt that "some reliable sources are more reliable than others". What is "more reliable" is a subjective judgment, but the best sources should be used, nevertheless. And Ies, using them will likely require a whole rewrite. --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is a side issue. The quality of the sources is the most pertinent aspect. Comprehensive and well researched biographies will always trump good news articles etc. Plainly speaking, it's impossible for an article to have the same level of information and analysis as a well written book. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a hot topic. Should short FAs be allowed; should reliable web sources be allowed! In this case, I have an article on the line, so what exactly are the unwritten requirements that I have to meet? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short FAs have nothing to do with this. Reliable web sources are allowed. There are no unwritten requirements you need to meet. Chill. --Dweller (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with using internet/newspaper sources. This is a false dichotomy. Merely, you should think about what sources you're going to use in an article. If there is a well written and well regarded book on a topic I would be very surprised if reading and citing it didn't improve the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London is a extreme example of a more-than-once-failed FAC that relied almost entirely on web sources when, God knows, there are books by the thousand on the subject. Where books exist, many reviewers will expect to see use made of them to produce the highest standard of articles. If for some reason, they have been read but the editor chooses not to use them, thatr is one thing, but if it looks as though they have not been seen the article is almost certainly the worse for it. Any good editor knows how hard it is to patch up a decent article or even section from the web in the absence of good books on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an approach I would agree with. Wrad (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that the article isn't good enough, it needs more X, and one suggested way to improve it is to use books, that's fine with me. If it's the content of the article is fine, but you need to use more books, then that isn't what our criteria says. I think the specific criticism at Jackie Robinson was about half way between the two. If it needs X, I'll put it in, that's how FAC works. I just don't think there should be any strings attached on what reliable source I use to add X. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you have perfect prose and online sources for the topic (say Jackie Robinson) are more than sufficient to support the perfect prose, I would still demand books be used for such a notable figure. It is a matter of accessing the original documents, the documents that the web sites used, that the newspapers used, because after all, this is a featured article we are talking about.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be noted in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria so that people will know what is required of their article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly something along those lines. You should always ask where did these web sites get their information?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think video games are one of the few subjects in which you can write a good FA without relying on print sources (the magazines usually publish their reviews online.) That said, with older games and for more in-depth coverage magazines and newspapers are often helpful and sometimes required. Books are never used unless the game has become such a phenomenon or so influential that years after books talk about it (as is the cast of the Myst franchise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here want to review/copyedit my article on the Atlantic essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". I have tried to use books wherever possible.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, our professor made us read that essay in class... I'll see about looking at it this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would appreciate that.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Copyediting bores people to tears. Talking about how to do it is much worse, and proposing a process in which we'll talk about how to do it ... well, if anyone is still reading, I'm shocked, but then again, if you've got that much dedication, you just passed your first test. Please see WT:WikiProject_Featured_articles#Kicking around some ideas about copyediting. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science FAC

The FAC going on for acid dissociation constant is of some interest. For those of you who haven't looked at it, there is some disagreement about the accessibility and prose quality. The ones who appear to be expert chemists (Petergans, Eaglefalconn, Physchim62, Itub) are supporting; several who oppose have scientific backgrounds but do not appear to be expert chemists. The opposes generally assert that the article, or specifically the lead, is "dense and difficult to follow". The experts counter that various proposed simplifications are in fact technically incorrect. TimVickers did a copyedit pass on the lead, and eventually reverted all his edits after opposition from the experts, who identified problems with what he did.

I think the FAC is an interesting test case, and others may like to chip in at the FAC or comment here. I don't know enough chemistry to know if the experts or the non-experts are right in their assertions. I do know technical material can't always be simultaneously precise and easy to read, though sometimes it can. Is that the case here? How do we tell? Are the opposes valid if they are technically incorrect, though they have given examples of actionable changes?

I've supported the FAC, because I was able to read and understand the great majority of the article, stumbling only at some highly technical points, but it was a difficult article to read. I'd be interested in other opinions, both at the FAC and here, on the general question. Mike Christie (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I backed away from this one after striking my original oppose. I'm disappointed that the nominator and the supporters do not seem willing to work towards a consensus. They could have worked with Tim Vickers and the article would eventually have been improved. Instead, they told him he was introducing errors and so he reverted his edits and left. The nominator seems to be very reluctant to change the article—almost to the point of arrogance I feel. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Converting jargon into plain english without losing meaning can be formidable, but I feel in many cases very possible. Sometimes these have to be broken down on a sentence by sentence basis. I have not looked at this one yet. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the lead in particular should be expanded to explain the basic concept further for non-chemists. The nominator said somewhere on the FAC that the article was written so as to be understood by school students studying chemistry with no previous knowledge of that concept, but having been such a one once, I'm fairly sure he has badly misjudged this - he is evidently not a teacher by his self-description. The article looked very thorough & so on, but for those not needing to read the whole thing, a much simpler explanation of the basic concept should be provided in the lead. I would have opposed on these grounds. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a non native speeker I did part of my Promotion with hydrogen bond reactions and even I had to read it several times to get it all. I must state criteria of a professional standard is fully given and it is one of the better explanations of the topic. But what do we want for FA understandable to everybody, but not really accurate in the lead and giving the 100% later in the article, or being not understandable for everybody, and these persons have to get the info by reading several articles before they are up to the level or skipping this one and reading the simple english version. I would not dare to chose one of these alternatives. --Stone (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but in my opinion Wikipedia is not a technical encyclopedia for experts in the field; but an encyclopedia for the interested (intelligent) lay-person. I got lost in the first two lines of the introduction; so apparently this articles fails that and should not become FA. Note that this is not only the issue in this article, e.g. I have seen Wrestlemania articles being nominated that were jargon constructions that were completely incomprehensible for non-Wrestlemania fans. Arnoutf (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against these opposes, as I'm genuinely unsure about the argument the expert chemists are making. However, a related discussion on the talk page did lead to Geometry guy reminding me of this: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" which is from the five pillars (my emphasis). Geometry guy's point was that some technical articles simply can't be written for a general readership. I think he's right. I'm not sure whether this is such an article, or how FAC can answer that question in general. Mike Christie (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to believe that is impossible to write at least an explanation of the basic concept (in the lead) that is both accurate and more widely comprehensible. If some of the later sections are beyond a non-chemical audience, that may well be acceptable. But I'm not convinced the attempt has been made here. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that this saddens me very much. I understand the frustration of seeing weeks, months, or even years of work "ruined" by poorly informed (if well-intentioned) edits, but Petergans' request is completely incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. If this article is featured, what will happen when it goes on the Main Page? Surely the authors understand that with FA comes increased visibility, and visibility leads to vandalism and uninformed edits. We can't simply rollback the article to its featured version whenever new content is introduced! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the sentiments expressed are a flavor of WP:OWN, and not working towards wikipedia's goal to boot as said above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment says it all: "The general reader should be able to walk away with a solid understanding of what the topic is basically about and how it basically works, while chemistry savvy readers should still be able to walk away with a technical understanding. These are not mutually incompatible goals. The article could generally progress from a layman's explanation to technical details." There needs to be a compromise here. People might be afraid of "dumbing the article down", but honestly, if someone can't even grasp the most basic of basic ideas the article is trying to communicate, what good is it? I don't expect to be able to understand everything, but I'd like to be able to understand something, and I think that's part and parcel of what "incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias" is all about. Wrad (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the "expert" chemists (I hardly consider myself as such...I'm just about to finish my bachelors) on this, I will conceed that the article is difficult to read. And I'm willing to lend credence to the possibility that the article, as written, may not be accessable to a general audience. Unfortunately, the acid dissociation constant is a very important concept in chemistry. As such, it bears on (and is affected by) many different parts of the discipline. This results in the lead being very dense in mentioning these ideas. I will continue to stress, though, that this is not a basic chemistry article. It requires background knowledge, and the complexities of the topic are not always presented to high school students. But the body of the text is, in my opinion, VERY strongly structured and provides an excellent introduction of the material as long as you have some low level chemistry knowledge. When working on structure of the article, it is basically centered around how Brown, LeMay and Burnsten (one of the top gen chem textbooks in the US) present the topic. Is the problem purely with the lead?

To directly address Mike Christie's question: I'm torn. On the one hand, it is a topic with many subtleties that bears on a lot of subjects. That leads me to want to write a very technical article. Flip side: It is something taught to highschool students, but with many of the subtleties left out. I'm strongly opposed to having a "layman" part of the article and "heres all the subtleties thrown back in" part of the article. I'm not sure how to find that balance. When we wrote the article, though, I feel like we went out of our way to present a lot of the background needed in a simplified but correct manner (first two sections of the text). Is this not true? EagleFalconn (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to write an explanation of the basic concept for the lead is not sufficent! So you are not allowed to limit the lead to the basic concept, but it has to summerize the whole article, with all subsections. This is FA criteria, I thougt, which makes it hard to have both: All the article and the a simpliefied basic concept. Not easy to fulfile both.--Stone (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for eloquently stating what I was trying to say and failed. EagleFalconn (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not have a "Basic overview" section which summarizes the subject at the high-school level? Wrad (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this what the "Definitions" and "Equilibrium Constant" sections do? EagleFalconn (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that consensus leans against adding "disclaimers" concerning the level of technical articles, but people are generally fine with hatnotes. Would it help to have a hatnote saying, "for a summary of X (subject), see (article)"? It seems to me there's a larger subject here, tangent to the dreaded "featured short articles". Some FAs have to be long; there was no way to break up Stonewall riots into subarticles. But I think a lot of FAs could be broken into two articles; they might even be easier to follow that way. But people get the idea that their FA is their "magnum opus" and prefer it long, or perhaps they don't want to have to push two articles through FAC. Long FAs are not generally a problem, but shorter FAs should be okay too (think 1200-1600 words ... I agree 800 words is very tough to get up to FA standards). So, what would be wrong with letting the authors break acid dissociation constant up into two articles, and using a hatnote that hints that if you aren't a chemist, but you want to read the second article, it would be a very good idea to read the intro article first?

However, that's just a suggestion; do it in one article if you prefer. Mainly, I want the editors not to get too stressed over this. Some reviewers feel that the editors are demonstrating "ownership", and they're allowed to say that; this is an important issue that has to be worked out at FAC, and the best way to argue these things is in the context of one article at a time. But don't take it personally or get discouraged, or try too hard to make everyone happy at once; that makes the FAC experience stressful, and that inhibits the production of future FACs. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is theoretically possible Dan. Unfortunately I feel like it may set a bad precedent, where if an article is difficult to read the editors will simply create a fork that avoids the issue of good writing entirely. EagleFalconn (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the people who want to write high school texts should be at wikibooks, not here. Wikipedia was still supposed to be an encyclopedia the last time I checked. Physchim62 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give just one example of the problems: suppose the article were to say "The acid dissociation constant is a measure of the strength of an acid." Very clear, absolutely true (although in a circular sort of way) and utterly misleading for anyone who doesn't actually know what a strong acid really is. The carborane superacid H(CHB₁₁Cl₁₁ is a million times stronger than sulfuric acid, but entirely non-corrosive; hydrofluoric acid is a very weak acid, but extremely corrosive! Hydrocyanic acid is dangerous, in part, because it is a weak acid: it's much safer to handle solutions of sodium cyanide than hydrocyanic acid. I could go on ad nauseam, just please don't try to tell me that the acid dissociation constant "measures" anything, it hasn't got hands and can't carry a ruler or a stopwatch: it "is a measure of"… All the time there are FAC reviewers who feel that their personal view of article "readability" is more important than accurate text, FAC will remain the farce that it currently is. Physchim62 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]