Wikipedia talk:April Fools' Main Page/Featured Article/Archive 2009

Who will do the work?

There are many excellent suggestions on the page now; however, unless someone actually begins to work on these articles to prepare one for FAC within a few weeks ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pick an article you like and amend the FA criteria to fit it. – iridescent 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down ? :))) Do I look uncalm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see either of you *wink*. Royal broil 01:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we need to choose an article first? So says the page, anyway. -kotra (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anyone can bring an article to FA standard and submit to to WP:FAC. There is no "we". Different groups can work on different articles. An article has to pass FAC to be the April Fools' TFA; then Raul654 decides what article to run. Point being that, unless editors start working on articles ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the chance of an April TFA based on a featured list? (I guess it would be a TFL then.) Gimmetrow 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Raul would make an exception and run a list for TFA on April Fools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Featured list on the Main page for TFL sounds interesting, but besides the topic issue, the lead section of most FLs are about the size of the main page blurbs, if not smaller. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a greater chance of succeeding in time if we choose one (or two, just in case) article(s) right now and then everyone interested pulls together on that one (or two) article(s). At least, that seems to be the order described in the section I linked to. If we're doing it your way, that's fine too, but that should be clarified (by changing the instructions). -kotra (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it seems that the George Bush article should be promoted, sounds like a good idea. Ceran^→//forge 10:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, U.S. Route 491 (one of the nominations) is already at FA status. Although the George Washington Bush article has more appeal, if it can make FA in time. With that said, I have concerns about this for TFA on April fools day. The blurb could be seen as mocking a living person, and we will have to be careful to comply with the WP:BLP policy. I can easily see if the blurb is not well written some people accusing wikipedia of taking partisan stance. Dave (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We already have this viable option done. I don't know if everyone understands that there are some weird things associated with its former name U.S. Route 666 (as 666 is associated with the number of the beast). That said, the George W. Bush article is timely this year. Royal broil 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I like the Bush article idea. Just saying we do need to be careful, and that US 491 is ready as if nothing else passes. For the record, there are some at WP:USRD that are hoping US 491 fails here, as some in the project want to nominate a different road article for April 6th. As I worked on both articles, I won't be crushed either way. =-) Dave (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, we have one month left... should we officaly pick an article to work on?--Found5dollar (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't take too much more to get all the known sources for Jean Desbouvrie. The key would be help from editors who have university access to historic journals. I'm game to put a bit more work in; want to go for it? Durova^Charge! 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The George Bush art. will take too long, this is my choice (Durova'). I'll look up some sources and get to work. Ceranthor 13:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Durova^Charge! 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know that there is also a group working on Museum of Bad Art trying to get it to FAC status. I have been helping them some. They are currently working in a sandbox.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short list (presumptive candidates)

I suggest adding a new section on the project page, listing only articles that (a) have reached at least "good article" status and (b) where there is no general agreement against a particular GA or FA (say, for lack of humor).

The idea is to make it clear to editors (I believe this is the case, anyway) that (1) simply suggesting an article for the April Fool's Day Main Page isn't going to result in a rush of editors to improve it; (2) at this relatively late hour, the group needs to concentrate on a very few articles, specifically those that are at least GA in quality.

Nothing would prevent someone from improving any article not on the short list, and moving it (when it reaches at least GA) to the short list (candidate) section, of course. The point of having a short list is that it would might concentrate the thinking of those who don't realize that they have just about run out of time (this year) with whatever their favorite article might be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Bad Art is definitely the best of the group. It should be decided. Ceranthor 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The clock is ticking

March 20 and still no shortlist. Does someone want to be bold and start culling? Or ping some of the editors who have nominated the more likely candidates? Skomorokh 02:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without just a little more information (such as the subject's approximate birth and death dates), I don't see how Jean Desbouvrie could move up to FA. Hit a brick wall regarding material that appears to be unavailable except at local archives. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone went and starred the ones on the project page that passed FAC. So the shortlist has been made. I'm not concerned, I think Museum of Bad Art is a good choice. While only 2 of us on this forum seem to agree, I think US 491 works too, although were I to do that article today, I probably would have wrote the content in a different order to put the "April Fools Day" worthy content at the front of the article rather than the bottom. Dave (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the naysayers on US 491 I'm afraid; as a non-American I don't see much jocular potential in it. I've left a message with User:Moni3 regarding Museum of Bad Art, so hopefully we can get working on the April Fool's TFA wording. Skomorokh 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always the last place you look...

I hate it when I have been in full panic mode and then I find a forum where everyone is waiting to give me feedback and I just didn't know it was here. So I have written four main page blurbs for Museum of Bad Art, available on the talk page, and I need feedback. I need to know which has the most potential.

Yes, Ima Hogg was a wonderful freakin' success, but The Fat Man took his toys and left me alone (I shan't forget it, Fat Man!). Besides, Ima was a serious article with a ridiculous blurb. This year we have a ridiculous article and I'm looking for direction for the blurb.
I asked my brother, the funniest person I know, to assist, and he says he can't be funny under pressure. I asked him then if he could be funny when the blurb turned out to be a total failure this year and I went over to his house and vomited on his shoes. He was able to be funny when I said that, smartass.
If it doesn't get mentioned in at least four newspapers, well...that's not really reason for me to keep living, is it? Gah! If you know what kind of perfectionism this is, then help me out! Must...achieve...more...

So, go read them, make comments, tell me what sucks and what you wish you could see. I'll write 10 more blurbs, I swear. I just need to know what direction to go in. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the suggestions on the talk page, I've taken my whack at the final draft. I've put it up in the usual place (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009) but left it unprotected. Feel free to adjust it, but bear in mind that it's already longer than I prefer. Raul654 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, Moni is an admin. Ceranthor 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left it unprotected so that non-admins can also tweak it before it goes live. Raul654 (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :). And Moni, you might want to contact TFMWNCB. Ceranthor 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. I'll assume he knows what he's doing. He participated in the FAC. He's doing Fat Man things elsewhere, sadly, leaving us to ourselves. --Moni3 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That hook is way too serious. I won't click on it if I was a reader. I think we need a blurb that is at least silly, not serious. Royal broil 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]