Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Synapse

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

Synapse[edit]

Article is still a Featured article.

Short article with three references, none inline. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination and provide notice on the talk page as per instructions. (Yes, Taxman pointed out that the article needed references in 2004. At that time, references meant references, not inline cites, and references were added, to Taxman's satisfaction.) The Disco King 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Article does not cover subject in sufficient detail, is not one of Wikipedia's best. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That may be true (I can't say I know enough about synapses to comment), but the point is that this was promoted to featured status at some point, and before demoting it, it's common courtesy to give the page's main editors a chance to bring it up to current standards. The very first point under "Nomination procedure" at the top of this page says: "Before listing here: post comments detailing the article's deficiencies on its talk page, and leave time for them to be addressed before nominating the article here." Do this, give it a week or two, and if you still think it doesn't deserve to be an FA, try again. The Disco King 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, references are sufficient that I am substantially confident of the material on the talk page, though inline citations would be nice. Some points are directly cited on the talk page; anyone could add inline citations for those facts. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, most, if not all of the factual information is found in the references cited and represent years of neurophysiology research, adding inline refs for every fact in the article would make it hugely unweildy. Recently I expanded, corrected and reorganized the entire article, adding new diagrams and such and I think it definitely still meets the FA quality. Since this is such a big topic I think that it is appropriate to keep many of the sub areas as separate articles (ie. postsynaptic potential, neuromuscular junction, etc.) rather than having one gigantic article. I've been continuously checking the article to make sure everything is up-to-date, and any room for expansion is already covered in the associated articles. Nrets 00:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Guys, I have no grudges against any of you, and I know we're all working together to make Wikipedia a better resource. The institution of Featured Articles (FA) is there to showcase the Best of Wikipedia, and this article as it stands would have trouble getting accepted even as a Good Article, which is a much lower standard than FA. In particular, the main body of text is about 1/3 of the length of a typical recently accepted FA. If you wish to keep this article as is, I urge you to fight for the same standards to be applied to all the current GAs that are equally good - you will find a huge number of them! As for following things up with editors, I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that and it is highly unlikely that someone is going to suddenly lurch forwards and expand this article to three times its current length to meet current FA standards. I feel that demoting gives a challenge to editors in the field to make this article so much better. I love the article, but I hate the state it's in. Please demote. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
We could merge it with other related articles to expand it to three times its length. But, where does it say that the length of an article talks about its quality? If you want inline citations, I'll start adding them over the next few days. Nrets 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that detail is part of quality. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 18:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What details are missing? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to that, exactly what is missing from the article? As I said before, it would be rather pointless to expand it just for the hell of it, or to merge other related articles to it, in order to make it an unweildy mess. If you feel specific aspects relating to synaptic transmission are missing, please point them out and I would be happy to expand on them. I read over the article again and short of repeating info already in other articles I find it hard to improve. Please be specific in your criticisms. Nrets 01:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:WIAFA doesn't say anything specifically about length; articles should be "of appropriate length" to cover the topic at hand, and be "comprehensive." If you have specific issues with missing detail, by all means, bring it up. (Also, while we're talking about standards being equally applied, I feel that we should ahve the same standards for all FARC nominations: notice should be given on the talk page in advance, or the nom is invalid.) The Disco King 03:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Good Lord, are we there already? The form is not master of the content, and the format of citations is not part of current FA standards. There have to be references, but they can be handled multiple ways. Geogre 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Another good point. That being said, and maybe this is best brough up elsewhere, but maybe there can be a mechanism for bringing groups of shorter articles to FA status. In a way this fits better with the WP model of heavily interlinked, nimble articles, rather than long, long essays which woud resemble more what you would see in a printed encyclopedia. Nrets 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Invalid nomination as per Disco. Tony 11:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking abuot? The nomination is perfectly valid and noticed correctly. I fear you are a bit mixed up, Disco was just suggesting the nom be withdrawn, not actually doing it. (He can't, he isn't the nominator.) pschemp | talk 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Tony doesn't have the authority to withdraw the nom either, he's just stating what I stated - that this nomination is invalid. No notice was given on the talk page whatsoever, and the instructions explicitly state that NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN. Imagine a nominator ignored another procedure - say, the requirement for explaining which FA criteria the article fails. If instead of saying "This fails the featured article criteria," the nominator said "I don't like the topic of this article," that would be an invalid nomination. Similarly, by not giving notice on the talk page of the newly revised FA criteria, this nom is INVALID. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 18:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Demote. This article is in no way comprehensive enough to be a featured article. While it is true that references can be handled in more than one way, FA's are supposed to show the BEST of wikipedia, and the current format of this article is not it. This is a perfectly adequate good article, but is nowhere near the level of what a FA should be. pschemp | talk 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What does it not cover to your satisfaction? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And to add to what Disco just said, all you had to do was to post a decent notice on the talk page and a little later nominate it. There's no explicit definition of 'enough time', so there you go. It can't be demoted this time. Withdraw it and go through the proper procedure; it's hardly onerous. Tony 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if you don't care, I don't care. Editing should be instantaneous. No Wikipedia user should be forced to keep mental notes. As you say, it is procedure, not policy. Secondly, as a reply to an earlier comment, articles are not meant to be portals. There should be summary sections of articles that cover parts of the subject (see my recent edit). - Samsara (talkcontribs) 13:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There are summary sections that link to everything else. You still haven't answered our original question which was the basis for your complaint. mainly, what specific details do you think this article is lacking in? If you let me know, I'll be happy to expand on them. Nrets 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delist - While the image at the top is informative and it seems to have some references, this article just isn't comprehensive. The one-paragraph (and even in one case, one-sentence) section(s) I find totally abhorrent. As a non-scientist, most of the article makes no sense whatsoever to me (hereby failing the brilliant prose criterion): even the first sentence is almost unintelligable. No inline references and the extreme shortness just go to seal the coffin for me. --Celestianpower háblame 12:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it simple and keep it as a FA. I think for someone like me, with little scientific background, the article is definitely informative and to the point. I compared it to the equivalent article in Britannica Online and WP's is considerably better. Burleigh 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)