User talk:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content

Review pls?[edit]

@Ceoil, Colin, Ajpolino, Spicy, and Tom (LT):

Tom asked me to write a brief blurb for the Anatomy newsletter on "why should I write an anatomy FA". I wanted to, instead, write something more general, that may also be useful to Ajpolino's medicine newsletter. This is intended to be linked in a much shorter blurb at the Anatomy newsletter (which either I can write or Tom (LT) can write). Spicy, I am particularly interested in your input.

All of you are welcome to edit my userspace (as long as you understand I reserve the right to revert anything, because ... it's mine :)

Ceoil, if you have a non-medical example (eg art) of a "uniquely comprehensive FA" (eg one of yours), I'd like another example :)

Spicy, before the Anatomy newsletter goes out, CBC will likely be an FA, but for now I'm referencing it as a FAC only. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber and Graham Beards: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, re humanities, Early Netherlandish painting was a very, very challenging FAC, but was aided by particularly resilient and demanding reviewers, who were none-the-less kind and attentive and went the extra mile in helping out. It failed its first nomination, which was disappointing, but made the later promotion seem harder won, and thus more valuable. Two medical articles I'd highlight as impressive in dept but as maintaining ease of understanding for lay people are Major depressive disorder and Dementia with Lewy bodies. Both benefited from extended, months long reviews, on talk, at PR, at talk again, and finally at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceoil! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would link to Giano and Yoman's essays. I get what you are doing here; its more blunt and encouraging and less "insidery" than they are, but if you wade through all the written in third party voice cleverness, there is a lot of (alas hard-won, but 10 years ago) wisdom there. Tony's writer guides remain gold standard. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything, Ceoil ... feel free to add them ... I no longer know where to find them all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil I can't find a Yoman essay? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, great idea. I look forward to hearing what you have to say. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): I planned to just write a short summary blurb for your newsletter, and then link to this; will that do? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that FAC is important so we have medical articles for editors to aspire to and also as examples of best practice. The general quality of medical articles is not great so it can be really hard otherwise to demonstrate our policies and guidelines in practice. Even basics like how the lead and body are developed and work together are rather too frequently ignored. I also agree that developing an article for FAC requires more than individual effort. You can likely get a GA on your own, with a friendly reviewer, but FAC needs collaboration and since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, IMO that's a pretty essential mindset to develop. Again, that's something WP:MED hasn't always been great at, with editors doing their own thing a lot of the time. Of course, many FACs are the baby of one writer, but like any decent factual book has a lengthy acknowledgements section, it needs more than that. I think exposing editors to folk outside of the WP:MED group is also a beneficial reminder that we are part of a bigger encyclopaedia project. I wonder if the text needs some mention that there are people who enjoy reading/reviewing good quality writing and supporting editors in their push towards FAC, so it isn't like you are being unreasonable in asking for help from others, though you may need to be patient. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin that is supposed to the gist of this essay. Unless you think it is already too long, please feel free to work in anything you think missing. I believe that Tom's deadline for the Anatomy newsletter is approaching, and I need to write a summary blurb. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I've been a bit busy with IRL stuff, and with tweaking the CBC article... it is a little surprising to see it being held up as a "model FA" ... ! This is an excellent essay and it explains the benefits of the FA process very well. On a vaguely related note, User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article was mentioned above. I would like to add that "write like you are writing for a intelligent 14 year old" is easily the best advice I have read for writing medical articles. You could probably replace 90% of WP:MEDMOS with that. It is a concise way to say: don't write like you're writing a dumbed-down patient leaflet, but don't write like you're writing a journal article; focus on the most instructive and important aspects of the topic rather than trying to list every possible thing; put everything in context so the reader understands not only what it is but why it matters and how it works. I think anyone who sticks to that idea will be able to satisfy the FA prose and comprehensiveness requirements, and create a "uniquely comprehensive Internet resource". Spicy (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behold User:Yomangan/A bastard's guide to writing a featured article...maybe not as usable as I remember form years ago. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo-man at his almost finest :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting an anatomy FA[edit]

Tom (LT) asked me to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.

You can read "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.

A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikpedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!

Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.

Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.

Tom (LT), here you go, does this work ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd reduce "The single most important reason to aim for an FA is that they serve" to "A vital purpose of Featured Articles is to serve". After all, there isn't a point at all if there are no readers, and FA's serve our readers firstly. And I think there are a lot of personal growth/learning/achievement reasons as well. -- Colin°^Talk 09:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, done! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Sandy! Looks great. How do I describe your relationship with FA? An FA regular? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): A regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006 ... first delegate at the FAC page (now called Coordinators) serving between Nov 2007 and Feb 2012 ... User:SandyGeorgia/My_work#Non-article ... I have only read about 5,000 FACs and FARs, but I lost that spreadsheet on an old computer, so have no proof of that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia thanks for that. I've copied with some slight alteration above to User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7. Let me know if you've got any comments about my changes. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): looks good, except the reference to “hundreds” looks odd as I would have had to be asleep on the job, or derelict in duty, to review so few as FAC delegate for more than four years ;)

Volume at FAC during my tenure was about three times higher than it is now, and I promoted or archived about 100 per month for many years (not counting my activity at FAR, or my activity before and after I was FAC delegate). FAC archives verify that. At the time of my retirement, I had promoted around 1,400 articles and not promoted about the same. (I had agreed with a medical colleague when appointed that I would retire and return to medical editing if we ever reached a point where one-third of all FAs had been promoted by me, and we had well passed that point when I stepped down ... that was why I kept a spreadsheet back then. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive55#FAC delegate resignation.)

If you feel uncomfortable switching that to “thousands” this (imperfect) search result may help,[1] or I can point you to and explain to you how to use the FAC and FAR archives. The bot didn’t start adding who had promoted until some time in to my term. Even with today’s reduced volume at FAC, a Coord would have to be asleep on the job to have reviewed only hundreds of FACs or FARs, so that just sounds very odd. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria, and Laser brain: I was prompted to write this by Tom (LT), who wants to include something in the upcoming Anatomy newsletter. Feel free to edit the page if you see anything off ... proposed newsletter blurb above ... the main idea is to get medical editors back to a better understanding of the process, following on years of neglect based on some faulty memes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]