Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:32, 13 June 2007

Latest revision as of 12:01, 15 July 2025

Line 1:

{{shortcut|WT:FA?}}

{| class="infobox" style="background: #F9F9F9"

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|-

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|align="center" | '''[[Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png|40px|Archive]]<br />Archives'''

|maxarchivesize = 500K

----

|counter = 10

|-

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

| style="font-size: 90%" |

|algo = old(56d)

*[[/Archive 1]]

|archive = Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria/Archive %(counter)d

*[[/Archive 2]] (size discussion)

}}

*[[/Archive 3]]

*[[/{{Archive 4]]box|auto=yes|search=yes}}

*[[/Archive 5]]

*[[/Archive 6]]

|}

{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}}

__TOC__

== Fair-use audio excerpts in FACs and FARCs ==

== Best practices in FA for multiple cites at end of a sentence ==

The debates [[WP:FAR#FARC_commentary_12|here]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Fair-use_audio_excerpts_in_FACs_and_FARCs|here]] may be of interest in relation to the interpretation and enforcement of Criterion 3. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If an article has a sentence, and there are several sources for that sentence, say three, that are all significant, what is the best practices in FA for listing all sources? Displaying three (or more) separate cite superscripts as [1][2][3] in the body is clearly ugly, so bundling is preferred, correct? Is is acceptable in the FA world to use bullets as shown in the following examples:

== Proposal- Accessibility and Importance need to be prominent leads to a FA. ==

:This is sentence one.<ref> <br/> • {{harvnb|last1|first1|title1}}<br/> • {{harvnb|last2|first2|title2}}<br/> • {{harvnb|last3|first3|title3}}<br/> </ref>

I think the FA [[1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·]] is an example of an article that needed a bit more work before it is promoted to FA status. I think that one of the missing pieces here would be accessibility. I know this will be a technical article, but as a FA, I think this needs to say in the intro why it is important and, if it can't say what it is in a brief summary, then at least tell what you need to know to understand it. I think that [[Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible]] should be something that is included in any part of the FA review.

{{reflist-talk }}

or:

:This is the sentence two.<ref> • {{harvnb|last1|first1|title1}}<br/> • {{harvnb|last2|first2|title2}}<br/> • {{harvnb|last3|first3|title3}}<br/> </ref>

{{reflist-talk }}

or:

:This is the sentence three.<ref> {{harvnb|last1|first1|title1}}<br/> • {{harvnb|last2|first2|title2}}<br/> • {{harvnb|last3|first3|title3}}<br/> </ref>

{{reflist-talk }}

''[ignore the first/last/title formatting here ... question is only about the bullet layout].'' Or is some other approach more favored in the FA universe? [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with a Mathamatics article being a FA. I think they are at least as worthy as a [[Bulbasaur]]. I would like to suggest that the importance of the topic be asserted in the intro so that someone going there from the Main Page would see first the summary of what it is and then the summary of why it matters.

: All forms are acceptable. Bundling is ''not'' best practice. I personally prefer separate cite superscripts, as bundling leads to bloat and repetition where the same reference is used multiple times in different bundles. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have seen several articles which I think miss out on making the importance of the subject and the accessibility of the article prominent features of the FA review. Any comments? [[User:Slavlin|Slavlin]] 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

::Agree with Hawkeye that bundling is not necessarily preferred. It's worth considering whether you do in fact need to use three or more consecutive citations often enough that it makes a difference whether or not you bundle – often lots of consecutive citations are either unnecessary (unless it's very contentious, you don't generally need three citations to support the same claim) or could be better placed so as to make it clear which one supports which claim. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 22:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

*You are assuming that the topic is important, which perhaps is not the case. I think the introduction makes clear the things that are ''interesting'' about the topic, specifically that it has a bit of history behind it, and that it is an example of paradoxical and unintuitive mathematics. On the whole I would say that the article is at a good level of accessibility; with only an awareness of infinite series, you can basically fully grasp the lead, and even without that background the first few headings of the article ought to make some sense. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::@Caeciliusinhorto - Great suggestions. Regarding multiple sources for a sentence: the article I'm working on covers a contentious topic, and there are a couple of sections that seem to attract lots of the wrong kind of attention. Providing multiple sources is, it seems to me, a useful way to provide information for editors 5 or 10 or 20 years in the future. If editor(s) in 2025 do research and find 3 different angles on a single sentence, why not capture all 3 angles, so future editors don't need to repeat the research process? Again, this is in the context of contentious sections that have been repeatedly contested over the past 20 years. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 00:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::There certainly are situations where multiple citations are a good idea. Looking at your contributions, I see a lot of recent edits to [[Margaret Sanger]] – I can certainly see why you might want to might often want to provide multiple sources there. If you do want to bundle citations in an article like this, I don't think anything in the FA criteria would prohibit you from doing so. Of the three examples you give, I would tend towards the second format [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 14:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::@Hawkeye7 - Thanks for clarifying that bundling is not best practice ... good to know. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 00:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::He's expressed his opinion, which is far from clarifying or confirming anything. I tend to use 2-3 sources together, & will bundle short non-templated refs together, which is absolutely fine for FA. FAC is still resistant to any pushing of a particular ref style, though unfortunately not as much as it used to be. That's as long as the system works. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Bundling is allowed. Not bundling is also allowed. FAC does not have a preference between those options. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 20:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::If a topic is not important in some way, why do we have a Wikipedia article about it? This article is confusing to me and I minored in Physics, going as far as multivariable calc and linear algebra, but it is still difficult to understand why anyone would care about the topic. The same is true of many articles, in my opinion. That is why I would like to see this as something that is considered in the FA criteria. I think this is definately a good article, but I still think that it needs to be more accessible to have it as the "this is what Wikipedia is about" which the FA represents. [[User:Slavlin|Slavlin]] 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

::::{{replyto|Hawkeye7|Nikkimaria}} when bundling when different parts of a sentence come from different sources, are explanations required for what comes from where, per [[WP:CITEBUNDLE]]? For a single sentence, is it an [[WP:INTEGRITY]] issue bundling different things without mentioning? [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 21:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It would depend very much on the specifics of the case, IMO. It certainly makes INTEGRITY problems more likely. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 00:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::FAs should not have to be accessible to everyone, or useful, or vitally "important", whatever that means. These might be valid points in deciding which ones to feature on the main page, but that's not decided here. Personally, I found this article interesting, and learnt quite a bit from it. Of course there are others I don't care about. I guess part of the art of choosing the main page FAs is to provide enough diversity among the topics that most readers will occasionally find something of interest. -- [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::A topic:::Thanks! doesnI'tm haveinterpreting tothis beas, importantunless toit warrantis a Wikipedia articleobvious, atit leastshould underbe ourin current policies.[[WP:CITEBUNDLE]] [[User:Christopher ParhamBogazicili|Christopher ParhamBogazicili]] ([[User talk:Christopher ParhamBogazicili|(talk)]]) 0220:2400, 1827 AprilJune 20072025 (UTC)

== What is best practice when a book (listed in the bibliography) is named in the body text? ==

:::: I have apparently used the wrong words. Where I said Important, what I meant is [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]]. I still think that articles need to be [[Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible|accessible]] to the general user. But that can be something as simple as the summary at the top. What I am suggesting is that the accessibility and notability of the topic be demonstrated in the intro as part of the FA criteria. Is there any reason you can suggest not to have this as a criteria other than "don't wannna"? [[User:Slavlin|Slavlin]] 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider a biographical article, and the subject wrote book ''"A Great Book". '' That book does not have its own article in WP. The book _is_ used as a source for citations, so it has an entry in the Bibliography, and there are citations pointing to it. Query: When the body of article first names ''"A Great Book" ''in a sentence, should the text be a blue link down to the entry for "A Great Book" in the Bibliography section? Or should the book's name simply be white text with no link? Or does FA not care either way? [PS: I tried to find recent FA articles that had this situation, but could not find any] [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 04:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the article, and I've been paying attention to what people say about it throughout both Wikipedia and the rest of the Internet, so I hope my perspective here will help.

:I wouldn't do that -- it would be a [[WP:EASTEREGG]]. I tend to footnote with something like "the work is Smith 2020", linking "Smith 2020" via a Harvnb template. I'll blow my own trumpet and point you towards note 63 on [[Alison Frantz]]. ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' ^{[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]} 23:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

First of all, the series is notable simply by virtue of the fact that it gets nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as Hardy, Saichev, and Weidlich. It helps that one of these is a respected primary source, namely Euler. It also helps that the series gets a ton of passing mentions. You may judge that the series does not ''deserve'' its notability, but then you're making a judgement on how human inquiry should be done and not how Wikipedia should report on it.

:Footnote 49 in [[Coinage Act of 1873]]. I did not note that it was a source.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

== Add understandability as a new criterion? ==

Even though I think that article topics don't need to be important (in the more-than-notable sense), I have stuff to say about that too. If you have a physics background with linear algebra, you've probably seen Fourier series. This means that there's an excellent chance that you've seen Abel summation without realizing it; see the reference to Davis at the end of the article for how. Abel and Borel summation are essential to modern physics, which deals with divergent series all the time, and I for one think that examples like 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · are essential to understanding such methods.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria/GAC&diff=prev&oldid=913557339 In 2019], compliance with [[WP:make technical articles understandable]] was added to the GA criteria. Surprisingly, the standards at FA seem to be lower in this regard, even though reviewers sometimes argue that overly complicated prose and content is not engaging (1a). The [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Simple_summaries:_editor_survey_and_2-week_mobile_study|recent disaster around simple AI summaries]] reminded me of this discrepancy. Would people be open to adding a new criterion (1g) worded as:

There are at least two reasons why I wouldn't say so in the article:

#[[WP:NPOV]]. Who am I to tell you that you should read up on 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · to better understand modern mathematics and physics? I can't attribute that opinion to anyone you should care about.

#[[WP:NOR]]. 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is an example of a divergent series. Examples are important for understanding general concepts. Divergent series have important practical applications. These statements are not controversial and could easily be attributed. That doesn't mean we can combine them to claim that 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · has practical applications, or that understanding it will lead to a better understanding of the way mathematics is used. Such derived statements would need specific evidence or at least an attribution, and we have neither. Here's another application of NOR: I have seen the series used several times as the prototypical example of a series that isn't Cesaro summable but is still easy to sum by any other method. Can I combine those observations to claim that the series is an important or widespread example? Can I claim that this role is why you should care about the series? Not so much.

1g. '''[[WP:TECHNICAL|Understandable]]''' to an appropriately broad audience.

On to accessibility. The closest the article comes to explaining what's "really going on" is in Stability and linearity: "A generalized definition of the 'sum' of a divergent series is called a summation method or summability method, which sums some subset of all possible series. There are many different methods (some of which are described below) which are characterized by the properties that they share with ordinary summation." This is just a couple of sentences. One ''could'' explain the situation a lot better by writing a whole section, but then you'd have to duplicate that section across every article dealing with divergent series. Duplication of information is bad for lots of reasons. Oh sure, you could make sure to mention the series by name within the explanation, and then do a find-and-replace for other articles, but that's cheating. It also opens doors you don't want to open: then we can have suspiciously similar articles on every divergent series under the sun.

In my experience, articles tend to mimic the tone of academic sources, which for technical FA articles are often preferred. Sometimes appropriately of course, for topics studied at postgraduate level, but there is a tendency to use the same tone for articles likely of interest to a non-academic audience. Given FAs should be the best articles we write, excluding a large share of our readership by making things too complicated isn't ideal. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We avoid duplication by placing information where it belongs, in this case in the article titled [[Divergent series]]. Perhaps the latter article doesn't explain the philosophy of divergent series very well either, but it already says a lot more than [[1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·]] should.

:No, 1a should cover it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::It doesn't consistently in practice however. Some reviewers interpret 1a to include understandability to a wide audience, while other articles that are unnecessarily complicated (but great in other aspects) pass. Making it explicit will remove this inconsistency. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 13:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Such as? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: I don't want to single out current nominations, but might be better able to give examples if there is a list of recently passed FAs? It's not too difficult to find overly complicated leads of FAs from the [[WP:FA|overall list]]. In medicine, all the articles I looked at are understandable. In other topics, it's more hit-and-miss. For instance, [[group (mathematics)]], fails to give a simple example in the first paragraph. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond&oldid=1293189859 Diamond] contained a niche application in its first paragraph, [[DNA]] contains unnecessary jargon in its first sentence, [[Actuary]] has overly complex sentence structures in its second paragraph, [[Oxidative phosphorilation]] had inaccessible IPA in its first sentence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 14:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::[[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log|This]] will give you the recently passed FAs. I think one problem with your proposal is there is a spectrum of opinion about how technical or non-technical language should be for any given article. [[WP:ONEDOWN]] is one suggestion but I have seen (and engaged in) multiple good faith disagreements about what is appropriate. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 19:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::And [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_21#NOFORCELINK|here]] is one of the discussions I mentioned -- there are many others. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 19:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::FAs are required to comply with the MoS, which includes [[MOS:JARGON]]. This by no means includes all of the areas complained about, but a greater awareness of it at FAC may help. (It is also where one level down features in the MoS.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The upshot of my explanations for 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is that we generally shouldn't add FA criteria that many articles won't be able to meet without stretching policy and damaging the encyclopedia as a whole. The current criteria encourage fundamental good practices that all articles should be able to implement without conflict. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 03:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

: On the face of it, it does seem odd that GAs are held to higher standards of comprehensibility than FAs. ''De facto'', it is extremely common to bring up comprehensibility in FA reviews, so there might be an advantage in writing that into the criteria explicitly -- though, as Gog and Sandy say, it's certainly possible to justify opposing an incomprehensible article on existing grounds (either that it doesn't meet [[MOS:JARGON]] or that a professional writer would do a better job of making it understandable; [[MOS:NOFORCELINK]] sometimes comes in as well). I'm not sure I'd want to put [[WP:MTAU]], particularly [[WP:ONEDOWN]], on too high a pedestal -- the "intended audience" part is controversial, possibly not applicable to FAs (which generally end up on the Main Page, so being read by everybody) and often used (at this point the proposer may remember [[Saxe–Goldstein hypothesis|a recent GA nomination]]...) to justify ''not'' making an article comprehensible. I suppose that probably all works out to a tentative support in principle? ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' ^{[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]} 22:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::What about adjusting the text of 1a instead of adding a new criterion? I could support, e.g., a new wording of "Its prose is engaging, of a professional standard, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience." [[User:A. Parrot|A. Parrot]] ([[User talk:A. Parrot|talk]]) 02:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I would also support this. <span style="font-family:cursive;color:darkblue;cursor:help"><span>[[User:Alexeyevitch|Alexeyevitch]]</span>^{([[User talk:Alexeyevitch|talk]])}</span> 03:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That would seem like a good move to me: "appropriately broad" theoretically allows a duck-out under ONEDOWN (e.g. "this article is too complicated for absolute beginners, but they're not an appropriate audience for this topic). ''[[User:UndercoverClassicist|<b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b>]]'' ^{[[User talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/UndercoverClassicist|C]]} 11:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I like the approach of working any change in to 1a, but can't support it as written ("appropriately broad audience"); the technical density of the article varies as one goes deeper in to the article, or in to sections that would be less read by "broad audiences" (eg, pathophysiology in medical articles). The level of accessibility is not the same for the entire article as it needs to be, for example, for the lead or several other sections (in medical, eg symptoms). Again, I believe the notion is worthy, but the problem is already covered by 1a and 2. If it's not being applied at FAC, that is a separate matter. We really should avoid CREEP in FA criteria. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Supportive of changing 1a instead too.

::::SG: The suggested text is meant to cover that nuance: the difficulty of a text should depend on the range of expected readers (and that includes within-article differences in audience). [[WP:MTAU]], which I suggest we link to, mentions the differences in difficulty within an article in [[WP:UPFRONT]]. <small>We might want to improve the guideline now that most people are reading article non-linearly on mobile</small>. That shortcut further suggest a section such as pathophysiology could have a single paragraph in simpler terms before delving into the technical details. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::[[MOS:INTRO]] also implies the lead should be relatively easy to understand compared to the body (and leads are also prominent for mobile). I've as a vague rule of thumb considered ONEDOWN to be useful for the body, while the lead could perhaps be 'TWODOWN' or similar. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think that however you phrase it, since FAs tend to be on non-basic or specialized subjects, there is always going to be discussions about whether or the basic concepts that underlie the article should be explained for the benefit of the newbie, whether an article about a baseball game should assume the reader knows the rules of baseball.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 14:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am not sure I could support the word "appropriately". What does it ''mean''? In what way does it improve, or even change, "understandable to a broad audience"? [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 16:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Other wording might be "understandable to its expected audiences". I've pluralised here in lieu of 'broad'. "Understandable to a broad audience" might imply that highly specialised articles need to be understandable to people unfamiliar with the topic area. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Er, if an article is only understandable to people already familiar with the topic area, why is it in a general encyclopedia? [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 20:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: With topic area I mean the broader topic. As in, I expect only people with a decent grounding in mathematics or physics to read [[Ginzburg–Landau equation]]. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 21:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thoughts here. Opening an RfC, as there seems appetite for possibly adding this, but there's no clear consensus for the wording. Hope that the proposals below address concerns expressed above. That is, putting the audience of an article (section) explicitly in there. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

==Well written -> professionally written==

I think this wording change is extremely necessary. Not only does it underscore 1a, it also helps distinguish GA 1a from FA 1a (since I got complaints for adding "'reasonably' well written" during my GA criteria revision last week). &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 09:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:I have the green light? &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::Does that mean that "professional/ly" will appear twice? Once in the intro and once in 1a? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 09:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::True, but at least there will be emphasis. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 09:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:"Professionally written" suggests that you must be a professional to write an FA, which is, of course, not required. I would be okay with saying that prose should be ''of a professional standard''. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>[[User:Celithemis|<font color="red">&mdash;Cel</font>]][[User talk:Celithemis|<font color="black">ithemis</font>]]</b></i></font> 10:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::Rather than the repetition (which might irritate readers), why not remove "even brilliant"? Celithemis, many of us aspire to a professional standard of writing, in many walks of life. I think it's a reasonable epithet, given the fierce competition out there on the Internet. Can't aim for less. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I have no problem at all with the phrase "professional standard"; it's a good expression of the standard that I think should apply to FACs. ''Professionally written'' means something different. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>[[User:Celithemis|<font color="red">&mdash;Cel</font>]][[User talk:Celithemis|<font color="black">ithemis</font>]]</b></i></font> 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:: <font face="Trebuchet MS"><i><b>[[User:Celithemis|<font color="red">&mdash;Cel</font>]][[User talk:Celithemis|<font color="black">ithemis</font>]]</b></i></font>'s distinction is vital, and I would agree to that wording change, but not the other. –[[User:Outriggr|<font color="#112299">Outriggr</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Outriggr|''§'']] 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::: So, "Well written means the prose is of a professional standard"? &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: From your last comment, it seems you intend to remove "compelling" from the criteria, which did not seem to be the case when you started this discussion. Is that correct? '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: Well, I'm trying to suggest anything to make well written clearly mean a professional standard. Several people have commented that "compelling" should stay; another idea of how to word it? &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 11:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

* Tony suggests just removing "even brilliant", and I'd agree with that. We can just continue to emphasize "professional" standards in FAC reviews. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 11:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:That would leave "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling", which is not true. An article can be engaging without meeting the level of writing quality expected for a featured article. I would prefer "'Well written' means that the prose is compelling and of a professional standard", or something similar. 1(a) should cover both the "technical" (professional standard/brilliant) and "artistic" (compelling) aspects of good prose. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::What is wrong with "even brilliant"? But I rather like "engaging" rather than "compelling".

== RfC on adding understandability to criteria ==

::How about "'Well written' means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."? -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 15:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753012918}}

:::Sounds good to me. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Should understandability be added to the featured article criteria? And if so, which wording should be used?

::::I'd prefer it if we could cut the "brilliant" out (since exceeding the standard, as "'even' brilliant" applies, is not necessary to mention on the rubric). &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

# It should be added to the well-written criterion as

:::::Agree with removing "even brilliant", would be fine with either engaging or compelling. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 04:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

## '''well-written''': its prose is engaging, [[WP:MTAU|understandable]] to a broad audience, and of a professional standard;

::::::The "even" makes it so that "brilliant" isn't really a requirement, so I'd like to keep it. It's a nice nod to our "brilliant prose" days, and it's not hurting anything. — [[User:BrianSmithson|Brian]] ([[user talk:BrianSmithson|<small>talk</small>]]) 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

## '''well-written''': its prose is engaging, [[WP:MTAU|understandable]] to its [[WP:audience|audience]], and of a professional standard;

*Added the change; kept "brilliant" because we didn't come to an agreement to remove it. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

# It should be a separate criterion: 1g. '''[[WP:MTAU|Understandable]]''' to its [[WP:audience|audience]].

# Status quo: no explicit mention

[[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

* '''Option 2 > 1.2 > 1.1''': If I had to choose 3 criteria for a featured article, it would be that the article is well-researched, neutral and understandable. In the [[WP:GA?|GA criteria]], we explicitly mention understandability, but we omit this in the featured article criteria. Adding understandability has two advantages: it puts it more front-of-mind for those preparing an article, and makes it more likely reviewers explicitly review on it. In my experience of reviewing at FACs, article writers often have to make fairly significant changes, in particular the lead, to make the article more understandable. It would be good to make expectations more explicit. On occasion, tough-to-read articles slip through. {{pb}} Now, there's two options to include this. The first is to adjust the 'well-written' criterion, the second is to include it as a separate criterion. As understandability refers not only to prose, but also to images and tables, my preference is to mention it as a separate criterion. For example, at [[Talk:Grid energy storage/GA1]], I was rightly requested to remove a complicated figure and replace it with a simpler table. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

== Proposed criteria ==

*'''Option 1.1''' good to explicitly mention [[WP:MTAU]] in the criteria, but it's a subset of prose and there's no need to include a link to [[WP:AUDIENCE|an essay too]]. Thus, 1.1 works best. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''3, then 1.2''' Frankly, I don't see the need for a change, it is going to come down to reviewer and coordinator judgment in any case. If we do, it is senseless to make an article understandable to those who will never read it. I read 1.2 to say that an article should be understandable to those who would be expected to read it. Thus, an article on the finer points of baseball should be understandable to those who at least have a nodding acquaintance with baseball. If it is to be read to say that you have to dumb down prose to explain there are 9 players on the field in a baseball game etc then I certainly favor 3. In neither case should this be used to bludgeon nominators over the head who care to write specialized articles.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

* '''Option 3, no change, not necessary''': well-written prose should already be enforcing understability via [[WP:WIAFA]] crit. 1, [[MOS:JARGON]] is already part of [[WP:WIAFA]] via crit. 2, and expanding the FA definition of a professional level of writing is [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]] that opens the possibility for problems such as the claim that anything not explicitly mentioned isn't included (keep it simple applies). Different parts of the article have to be accessible at different levels; this addition creates the possibility of making it harder to write the specialist parts of FAs. The LEAD should be understandable to very broad audiences ([[MOS:INTRO]] is already covered by crit. 2), whereas more technical sections (eg pathophysiology in medical content) can be written at a higher level; adding this broadly without such nuance could be problematic. There are quite a few subject areas whose articles get through [[WP:FAC|FAC]] with dense prose that is hard to understand even at the intro levels, but if [[WP:MTAU]] is not being reviewed for and enforced at FAC now, that is a FAC/Coord problem that hamstringing writers by CREEPing the criteria won't solve; it's perfectly fine for the Coords to point out when dense prose is present that reviewers haven't addressed, and delay promotion until that review has occurred and items have been addressed. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Option 3''' per scope creep. '''Strongly opposed''' to option 1.1, which dumbs wikipedia down. I don't expect to understand an article on quantum physics or partial differential equations, but I do expect physicists and mathematicians to find those subjects in an encyclopedia. Option 1.2 would be acceptable to me as long as it is clearly understood that the audiences for physics and mathematics articles are physicists and mathematicians, and similarly the audience for other in-depth articles is the profession interested in that article's topic. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 13:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

* '''Option 3'''. I don't have any objections in principle to the requirement for understandability, but it's not well-enough defined for the other options to be helpful. I agree with DrKay that 1.1 is a particularly bad choice -- there is no way that [[sheaf (mathematics)]] can be made to comply with it, for example. 1.2 and 2 don't say who the audience is: if it's professional mathematicians, then the article on mathematical sheaves is fine as is. If it's undergraduate mathematics students then it's not. That question is exactly what derails many of these discussions. I agree that [[WP:JARGON]] does already cover this as much as can be done and so this is scope creep to some extent as others have said. That doesn't bother me too much, though; the real issue is that this would add nothing useful to the discussions that already take place at FACs on this question, and 1.1 would be actively harmful. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 13:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Option 1.1, then 3.''' Option 1.2 might cause editors to state that their intended audience is people with specialised knowledge, which is not English Wikipedia's stated audience. I read DrKay and Mike's comments above and do not agree, but would not be bothered if Option 3 was used over option 1.1. I like 1.1 because it makes the formatting of the criteria more succinct. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 14:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Option 3''' I think "audience" and "broad audience" need to be clearly defined before any FA criteria can be based on these terms. There's a shortage of science FACs and I think adding another hurdle will deter nominations. We have Criterion 1a, which should be enough if fully enforced. There are many subjects that I would have to work at understanding, but at the same time, I expect to see them in an encyclopaedia. This is not the [[Simple Wikipedia]].[[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*:I believe it has been defined clearly as [[WP:ONEDOWN]]. This ensures that maybe 95% of likely readers will understand a given article.

*:I would not see this as a hurdle, in the sense that some editors believe they need to cover highly technical issues only of interest to a very small subset of expected readers. By making clear prose needs to be understandable to its audience, you lower the hurdle to write about these technical topics. I usually find reviewers helping me write more understandable the most pleasurable part of nominating articles. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*::Hi Femke, from my experience (nearly 20 years) of our FA system, this comes naturally to our nominators of technical articles and is further refined by our reviewers. In my view, they write ''lower'' than one down. The most recent FAC that comes to mind is [[Virgo interferometer]]. This was not one of my nominations, but one I fully supported. When we worked together on [[Menstrual cycle]], you noticed that I did not dwell on the chemical structure or the precise mechanism of the hormones actions. I don't believe we need to add another criterion: we should enforce the ones that have served us well for so many years. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 19:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

* '''Option 3'''. I found myself nodding to every rationale for preferring option 3 above, but have been holding off a decision. Mention of ONEDOWN has crystalised my decision, as I have only previously seen it cited as a reason for ''not'' making articles more understandable. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*'''Strong support for Option 3''' I've seen problematic changes when editors try to change the text to simplify it. I think this might also lead to [[WP:OR]], [[WP:DUE]], and [[WP:PROPORTION]] issues. In general, I find editorial decisions in Wikipedia such as this as very problematic. Paraphrasing what the sources say in simpler terms should be ok, but we should stick to what the sources say in general. If the article is too complicated, find another source which explains the issue in more simple terms. These discussions should be done on the talk page of the article, and depends on the availability of the sources. Given availability of the sources is an issue, I'd only support a recommendation for "understandable to its audience" [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 17:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

*:'''Support Option 3''' for the same reason. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; border-radius:35% 0; font-weight:bold; background:linear-gradient(300deg,#ff0d00,#1AD); color:#fff; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Gommeh|<span style="color: white;">Gommeh</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Gommeh|🎮]]</span> 20:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

*'''Option 3'''. I don't see how an article would even get through FA if it weren't understandable to an audience. MTAU reads more like advice and I'm not sure how we can really evaluate compliance with ONEDOWN. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

===Discussion===

All too often, even featured articles use technical terms to excess. Obviously, the basic terms of the field should be used, however, particularly in more general articles, they ought to be briefly explained at first use. As it is, all too often we get articles that think that a wikilink absolves them of all responsibility to write layman-accessible text. Many such articles require the reading of dozens of other articles just to get through a few paragraphs, and if they wikilink to each other, the reader is screwed.

{{u|AirshipJungleman29}} and {{u|Z1720}} (and anyone else who likes option 1.1), I'm genuinely puzzled as to how this could be implemented for the more arcane articles in the encyclopedia. Can you explain your thinking? I linked to [[sheaf (mathematics)]] above as an example of the sort of article that I don't think can be explained to a broad audience -- it's at least three levels of mathematical discovery too complicated. Are there no articles in your own fields of specialized knowledge for which this would be true? Or am I misunderstanding the intended meaning of "broad audience"? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 15:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:The [[WP:Good article criteria]] say "appropriately broad audience" (which is of course subject to interpretation), for the record. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 15:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Mike Christie}} When I was writing [[Flight Pattern]], I removed lots of specialized dance terminology so a broad audience could understand the article. For Canadian political history articles like [[William Lyon Mackenzie]] and [[John Rolph]] I was told to replace [[Riding (division)|riding]] with constituency, even though Canadians rarely refer to electoral divisions with that term, because a broad audience would not understand what a riding is and would not click on the wikilink. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that serves as an introduction to a topic; an article's phrasing and terminology has to be understood by a broad audience with little difficulty. This might mean that some specialised articles (like math, politics, or medicine) will have to adjust their language so that a broad, international audience that speaks a near-native level of English can understand the article's contents. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

A general rule might be "All terms not in general use should be explained at first occurrance, not just wikilinked, except where a technical term is substantially more basic and better known than the subject of the article itself." [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:{{u|Mike Christie}}, I interpreted "broad audience" as "the widest possible general audience" of [[WP:MTAU]], as that was linked. I appreciate that it could be taken differently as "a broad audience no matter the context", in which case I agree with you. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::OK, I can see it could be interpreted that way -- MTAU's wording is "the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material". If that's the interpretation taken by those who support 1.1, then I'd suggest that the wording is not clear enough. MTAU's wording seems better than the wording in either 1.1 or 1.2 to me, but I think the criteria already cover this so I'll stick with option 3. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 20:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Are there no articles in your own fields of specialized knowledge for which this would be true?}} I think this is particularly a problem for advanced mathematics topics. I cannot think of any example of a topic any humanities field where the lead would be as impenetrable to someone without a university education in the subject as I find the lead of [[sheaf (mathematics)]] to be. (Although frankly I find Wikipedia articles about mathematics concepts where I do at least understand the basics are frequently just as impenetrable, so it may be that mathematics articles {{em|also}} do not need to be this confusingly written and our maths articles are just largely not written with readers in mind) [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 18:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Re option 1.2, I think {{tq|understandable to its audience}} is so vague as to be useless. What does that {{em|mean}}? I envision that just leading to arguments as to what an article's audience actually is, without actually clarifying anything (e.g. "fails 1a as impenetrable to someone without specialised knowledge"/"this is a topic which is typically only covered in the final year of an undergraduate degree; the audience is only people with specialised knowledge") [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:It can mean so many different things. That's why perhaps a recommendation, without a hard requirement, is the best course of action. [[User:Bogazicili|Bogazicili]] ([[User talk:Bogazicili|talk]]) 18:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:An article like that would violate [[Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions]], part of the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]], and thus fail criterion 2. There's no need to add a specific criterion just for this. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

::And leave it to the FAC coordinators to sort out? Oh boy. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hmm. Point. It alright if I just make that explicit, since it's a particularly common failing in science articles? (See, for example, [[DNA]] or [[Big Bang]], featured articles I put up for review for being unreadable in just that respect.) [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]] ^{[[User_talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]]} 14:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::If you notice there is a [[WP:MTAU]] problem when a FAC is maturing towards promotion -- and you notice that hasn't been addressed by reviewers -- you ping 'em back and ask them to have a look. It's not your job to "sort it"; it's your responsibility to ping the reviewers and make sure they've opined. Then you judge consensus -- after you're reminded reviewers to do their job. On the other hand, how would adding this wording make your job any easier? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Take a look at {{[[Template:Style|Style]]}} and see how many different pages of stylistic guidelines we have. If we went down this road, criterion 2 would be excessively large. It's best to just say "It complies with the manual of style" and leave it at that. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Unsure why it should be different in this respect for FAs. This issue is the same for all WP articles. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 22:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

* It seems we may need to make [[WP:MTAU]] clearer first. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]], you indicate that people have cited it to keep articles difficult to understand. Do you happen to have examples of this? I can imagine the wording 'the typical level where the topic is studied' may not cover the full audience of a topic. Taking the example of [[Virgo interferometer]], that [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] mentioned: gravitational waves will be studied at postgrad level, but also be of interest to lay physics enthusiasts, reading about it in popular science magazines. ONEDOWN would say focus on people doing a physics bachelor degree (which it probably does, but there are things I don't quite understand despite having such a degree). But we might lose some readers with less formal training in the topic. GtM, is that the problem you've encountered? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

== Article length criteria ==

**I'm increasingly in agreement with Mike that it's less [[WP:MTAU]] that needs to be made clearer and more this proposal. MTAU summarises my position to a T. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 08:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{U|Femke}}, yeah, that's a pretty good summary. And illustrates that while MTAU cam be a very useful guideline it is not, IMO, appropriate for elevation to policy. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 09:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I've boldly added a sentence to [[WP:ONEDOWN]], to resolve the apparent contradiction with [[WP:GENAUD]] earlier in the guideline. I would love to improve [[WP:MTAU]] such that it could become policy, but that's a discussion for another day. Just noting that we do already cite some guidelines in the FA criteria, such as [[WP:summary style]]. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Understood. And so effectively raise them to policy level. I was just saying that I don't see MTAU being ready for that. YMMD. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

== Difference between featured list and featured article criteria ==

Is there a maximum to article length. I tried splitting an article I was working on into subarticles and then compressed the text in the main article but was reverted to take the 89kb article to 111kb. The reverter said they reverted to try and get the article to featured-article length. I thought that it was a bit too long for FA. I would like confirmation. [[User:Traing|Traing]] 07:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone clarify please why there is a difference with regards to accessibility between [[WP:FLCR]] and [[WP:FACR]]? I particular, why is §5(c) of the featured list criteria not present in the featured article criteria? [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 12:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:This hasn't been officially set but it keeps coming up and needs discussing. The focus criterion (4) is meant to handle this. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 08:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:{{u|Renerpho}}, see e.g. [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive93#Alt text]] for discussion on the issue, and the previous RfC (linked therein). There may have been subsequent discussions since. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::WeThanks! also need a minimum. Something isn't right about 15 KB articles becoming featured. &mdash; '''[[User:DeckillerRenerpho|DeckillRenerpho]] ([[User talk:DeckillerRenerpho|ertalk]]''') 1013:5720, 724 MayJune 20072025 (UTC)

:::I agree. The slender ones make me feel very awkward when they pass. They rarely do justice to the requirement that FAs are "among WP's best work". But who's got a good idea as to how to frame such a guideline? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Perhaps 15-60 KB of prose? &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 11:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yes! Something needs to be done. [[1974 aluminum cent|An FA with 3KB prose]] is outlandish. Deckiller, are you speaking of prose or readable prose? We can't measure by only prose size, because that counts references, so well-referenced articles are hit. 60KB of readable prose is too high; [[WP:LENGTH]] has long said that reader attention tops out around 50KB of readable prose. I'd recommend a range of <s>10</s> 15–50KB of readable prose (calculated easiy with Dr pda's page size script). As to how to frame it, I believe that somewhere way back in this page history, it used to be suggested that GA was appropriate for the shorter articles. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Readable prose, obviously :) &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 11:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:I really hesitate to put down a specific number. Like all other featured criteria, any requirements should be qualitative and flexible to accommodate that truly outstanding 14.5KB article. It seems to me that 1(b) (comprehensive) is a fairly good minimum already. If there is a very short article that still meets 1(b), it might be an indication that the article should be merged with another. At that point, I believe one could object under criterion 4 (unnecessary detail). If neither of these quite fit, one could object that the article does not comply with [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] and thus fails 2 (Manual of Style). '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Pagrashtak, this discussion arises precisely because that has failed in the past, because there was no specific guideline. We've had articles with 85KB of readable prose (!!!!!!) pass FAC (and above, you've got an example of one with 500 words &mdash; a fifth-graders term paper), without using Summary Style, and over Objections. Many of us have long discussed the need to review and consider formalizing the length issue. Of course, a guideline is still a guideline, and a truly exceptional short article could still pass based on IAR. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Pagrashtak, relying on "comprehensive" is clearly not working. At the moment, it's theoretically possible to break up an excellent article into its components to score a number FAs instead of just one. FAs need to be substantial, I think, to be showcases of WP's best work. There might be exceptions, so we need to think carefully of what they might be, and frame a new criterion around this. Something like "Nominations that are at the extremes of this recommended range, or that fall outside it, must demonstrate ...." [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) PS To keep this debate rolling, does anyone have examples of FAs that are outside the range and that are (1) acceptable, and (2) unacceptable? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Just so I understand, is the current situation not working because reviewers are not objecting when they should be due to lack of an explicit criterion to make the requirement obvious? '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 14:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Different situations for long and short. On short, we can't object because we have no guideline that allows objection based on too short &mdash; the only criteria is comprehensive, and short articles can be comprehensive. On too long, many of us do object, and are shouted down or overridden. And, yes, often no one is checking. On too long, we can ask for better use of [[WP:SS|Summary Style]] or conforming to [[WP:LENGTH]], but recently have been ignored. The question is whether we need to formalize either too long or too short, or both. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I understand; I'm inclined to believe an additional criterion could be useful, then. I still recommend that numerical restrictions should be avoided, however. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Or, very carefully worded to allow for exceptions. What do you think of Tony's first suggestion? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Right now, I'm still opposed to using numbers to define this. We require articles to have references, complemented by inline citations. I think it's pretty safe to say that a FAC with only four inline citations would almost certainly not pass, but we still wouldn't want a "no fewer than five citations" requirement. That's not the best example, but I hope it illustrates my concept. None of our criteria are hammered down to a purely objective statement, and I want to keep them that way. Thought should have to be exercised at every step, even though that seems to be an increasingly rare resource (the commenters here an obvious exception, of course). '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose any such criterion for a minimum length (indeed, any criterion designed simply to exclude otherwise flawless articles). It's unfortunate, Tony, that you believe short articles do not display Wikipedia's best work, but it is not at all clear why that is true. My opposition would be tempered if you promise never again to oppose an article for redundant prose or other excess verbiage: if this criterion is added, there will indeed be a good reason for padding the word count at the expense of readability. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

===Here's a list for perusal and discussion===

To my knowledge, these are the only ultra-long FAs. Six out of 1382 = .4 % &mdash; I can't find the most recent list of ultra-long articles, but this is all that showed up last time I perused it.

*[[B movie]] — 95KB overall, 63KB prose, 10KB refs

*[[Byzantine Empire]] — 106 overall, 78 prose, 2 refs

*[[Campaign history of the Roman military]] 121 overall, 74 prose, 20 refs

*[[Ketuanan Melayu]] — 107 overall, 81 prose, 11 refs

*[[Schizophrenia]] — 119 overall, 60 prose, 24 refs

*[[Sound film]] — 112 overall, 63 prose, 20 refs

[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Several could clearly make better use of Summary Style (e.g.; at least Schizophrenia, Byzantime Empire). Also note Dr pda doesn't pick up listy prose, so Sound film had to be calculated manually. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:I think B-Movie is a good threshold; anything longer is excessive. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::I don't think we can generalize based on [[B movie]], because [[Schizophrenia]] is shorter than B movie but VERY definitely not making appropriate use of Summary style. IMO, 50KB should trigger serious review. If we set the threshhold at the precedent established by B movie (wrongly, IMO, but everyone knows how I feel about that :-) we're going to have nothing to enforce. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Also, if your concern is B movie, Tony's proposed wording works, since it ''theoretically'' (even if I disagree :-) "demonstrated" something about its size by passing FAR. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::As a side note, [[WP:GA]] as originally envisioned by WorldTraveller was meant to recognize short articles of excellent quality that didn't have enough meat for FA. After a lengthy discussion between he and I, he actually created [[Wikipedia:Excellent short articles]] (note his first edit summary) with a cut-and-paste from GA. Alas, it's received 9 edits in a year. It could be revived to accomodate the low end of this debate (e.g., the coin article). [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::By whatever means, we need to get back to something that recognizes that a 500-word term paper shouldn't be an FA. I know we want *more* FAs, but that's not the way to highlight Wiki's best work. Heck, I wrote [[Intrusive thoughts]] in a couple of hours when a disastrous, incomplete, and inaccurate version came through LoCE; it's 17KB prose (2600 words), probably the best info on the net now on the topic, says everything there is to say on the topic, and I'd never consider it remotely FA-eligible. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Based on my own example, I switched my recommendation above to a lower limit of 15KB. Does anyone have examples of the shortest FAs ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Found this list in archives &mdash; will come back and add Dr pda data:

* [[Austin Nichols]] — 7KB prose (1279 words)

*[[Australian Green Tree Frog]] — 10KB prose (1763 words)

*''[[Diary of a Camper]]'' — 7KB prose (1135 words)

*[[Hurricane Irene (2005)]] — 5KB prose (792 words)

[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Ouch. Diary of a Camper's plot section is way too short. It should be at least 3-4 paragraphs. &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh, never mind; it's a 100 second film clip... &mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 14:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this list above, I'm back to thinking 10KB prose should be a lower limit, because the Frog article is worthy. With all due respect to Titoxd and the Hurricane, Wiki isn't short on hurricane FAs. Austin Nichols and the Camper article don't convince me. Guess I should polish up Intrusive thoughts and sumbit it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:But wait. Before having a lower cut-off, we need to decide on a way to recognize these articles other than a regular FAC. We want to encourage polished post-stubs just like polished long articles. [[Wikipedia:Featured short articles]]. I suggested it to Raul a year ago and still think it's a good idea. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 17:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thoughts ?? GimmeBot, {{t1|ArticleHistory}}, and a whole 'nother category to track. Gimmetrow will have ideas. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::In practice, I suspect it'll just mean that editors will try to fluff up their articles with extra text so that they pass over the cutoff to get into the "real" featured articles. While absurdly short articles may be unsuited as FAs for various reasons, we shouldn't start penalizing tightly written prose because of that. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, [[Battle of Bicocca|here]] is an article with a mere 13KB of prose; do people feel it's insufficiently long? [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Not if it is comprehensive. I don't see we have a need for a lower cut-off. No, a 500-word essay that you knocked off in an hour isn't likely to be FA-worthy, but, in my mind, a short article that collects every scrap of data that there is on a subject and combines it into an interesting read is more FA worthy than 50K on a "straightforward" subject regurgitated, with a hint of rewording, from a mass of freely available sources. Getting the scraps for a 2K article can mean a lot of work (for example, I'm finding it much harder to build comprehensive articles for three short subjects I'm working on now than for the four longer FAs I turned out last quarter) I expect we'd get a lot more people reading some FAs if there were a decent amount of short articles in the mix. I might look at [[Hurricane Irene (2005)]] if I had five minutes to spare rather than read five minutes worth of some 80K behemoth. If an article meets the criteria then it should be considered, and criteria 1.b and 4 cover very short articles in the same way they cover long articles. (On a side note, I think I'd personally stop participating in the FA process if there was a lower limit, we simply don't need 50K on everything and I don't look forward to the padding of what would otherwise be examples of "our very best work" to push them over an arbitrary limit). [[User:Yomangani|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangani|^talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yomangani has summed up how I feel rather well, and I second his opinion. If short articles are comprehensive in that they collect all the available info on the given topic, then I feel criterion 1. b. is satisfied. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Thirded. [[1974 aluminum cent]] is quite an extreme case, but I suspect that there really is nothing more to say (although, having seen it, I wonder if an article like [[Corinthian bronze]] would pass...) -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I've objected to the [[1974 aluminum cent]] nom on the grounds of comprehensiveness (amongst other things). In practice there aren't many subjects that can be covered well in a very short article, but that doesn't mean there aren't any (and the coin can probably cover everything in 6K of prose rather than 3K). [[User:Yomangani|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangani|^talk]] 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like that's that :-) But ya'll didn't say how you feel about including an upper limit in the criteria. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think we should impose size limits, in part because it creates yet another hurdle for people to negotiate (and there's a strong sense out there that the FA process has become too hurdles-esque), and in part because articles should be as long as they need to be, which is a matter of editorial judgment. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I invite perusal of these [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2007|58 archived FACs from April]] to see if there are articles that should have had these "hurdles" lowered so they could be considered among Wiki's finest work. I can't see why these alleged "hurdles" are a bad thing, considering some of the quality that is now coming through FAC due to the backlog at GAC and PR. On the other hand, it's easy to point out articles that have passed FAC that should have had some "hurdles" put up by more consistent reviews, reviewers, and application of standards. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Good writing and researching shouldn't be about ticking a check list, and offering a list of FACs doesn't help, because it doesn't include the articles people haven't nominated because of the hurdles perception. I have two myself that I would otherwise have nominated by now, but the thought of being scolded for not using citation templates (or whatever hurdles would be focused on) makes me weary, so I haven't. High standards are good, so long as they're not petty. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::I think I read almost every FAC, and if any reviewer (incorrectly) requests cite templates (which rarely happens), they are quickly reminded they aren't required (and that many of us don't like them). Now, when editors are using them &mdash; and using them incorrectly &mdash; or when sources aren't formatted at all by any method, that's another story. Further, there is a checklist for FACs: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and so on. Someone has to check it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I had the template thing happen to me, which is why I mentioned it, but there are other examples. [[Jerusalem]] lately had some objection or opposing comment based on MoS stuff. I forget the details, but it was something that had nothing to do with the quality of the piece. Anyway, the point is it would be good not to add anything else. Perhaps you could say "X is likely to be too short, and when you start heading toward Y, you better be sure that the content is all relevant," but without introducing actual limits. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: But the template thing is ''clearly'' not valid, and Raul can ignore it. If we impose some limits, I agree the wording should be as you mention (and as Tony suggested); that is not hard and fast, but at least some mention that size matters (ahem). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::The MoS enforcement is probably justified under the current featured article criteria. I do think that it is pursued here with a vigilance that ignores the reality of the MoS, which is that 99% of editors ignore 99% of its advice 99% of the time. "Fixing" these issues, I find, tends not to improve the article in any discernible way, but at the same time it takes so little effort that you might as well do it. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::And if you don't do it, along come ten more FACs that say, "well so-and-so didn't, so I don't have to." [[WP:MOS]] (2) is not less of a criterion than any other, and FAs set an example for other editors. If FAs don't get the MOS right, why should we even have an MOS ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Good question. The MoS is widely ignored because it's edited by too many people and is unstable, so no one can be expected to know what's in it, and often what's there is wrong or idiosyncratic or impossible to understand. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 06:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Perhaps the problem is that we consider the MoS as a block, when in reality it is a mixture: some important standards that have been produced with a great deal of input, and some not-so-important standards that are the product of a handful of editors who worked in peace mostly because nobody else cared. Distinguishing between the two is basically impossible without delving into the talk pages and histories. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 06:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I've not seen this phenomenon; do you have an example? The MOS problems I most often see at FAC are standard and stable MOS items, AFAIK. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::The only problem I see with not having a fixed upper limit is it opens up the opportunity for claims along the lines of "the criteria don't explicitly forbid it, therefore objecting on size it isn't a valid objection, so unless you have another objection I demand my 800K of prose is passed". I don't think any of the super long articles got through without a hard time in that area though, did they? [[User:Yomangani|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangani|^talk]] 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::: Only two (from the list of six above) were challenged at FAC: [[Campaign history of the Roman military]], and [[Ketuanan Melayu]] (both by you-know-who :-) Others grew after FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think the problem is less "hurdles" in general and more hurdles of the sort that are arbitrary rather than thoughtful. In my view, requiring articles to be comprehensive and to abide by [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] keeps them to an appropriate length without imposing one-size-fits-all numerical standards on a very diverse collection of articles. Certainly at the low end, to say that an article is comprehensive but at the same time needs more content makes little sense. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 05:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Viewing it as a problem affecting less than half of one percent of FAs, maybe it doesn't make sense to impose another "hurdle" on a problem that isn't widespread. On the other hand, in the arguments [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Horace_Fran%C3%A7ois_Bastien_S%C3%A9bastiani_de_La_Porta here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Horace_Fran%C3%A7ois_Bastien_S%C3%A9bastiani_de_La_Porta continuing here,] this editor claims that it's OK to riddle an article with extremely excessive inline citations (had as many as six per clause, now down to three or four) simply because there's no "rule" ("hurdle") which says he can't. We get exactly the same argument on article size. Of course, if more reviewers were actually "checking the list" (reviewing the criteria other than 1a), maybe less of these issues would be slipping through. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the old 32k rule-of-thumb limit always seemed to me to produce articles of a nice, readable size, but it does often require a quart to be squeezed into a pint pot. Anything more than, say, twice as long as that is getting too long, IMHO, and probably ought to be broken down into daughter articles. The [[saffron]] / [[history of saffron]] / [[trade and usage of saffron]] series shows how it can be done. But I don't think we need a hard-and-fast limit. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:A good usage of Summary Style to break up a long article. Back to Tony's suggestion, "Nominations that are at the extremes of this recommended range, or that fall outside it, must demonstrate ...." ... How's this ?

4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Nominations that fall outside the [[WP:LENGTH|recommended prose size range]] are discouraged and must demonstrate appropriate usage of [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]].

[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 08:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is for only those at the big end of the spectrum, not for the aluminium cent ones? I presume that the current wording of Criterion 4 is not strong enough to allow objections on the basis that summary style is not used in parts or the whole of the nomination. (It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).) Perhaps reviewers haven't used this Criterion explicitly for this purpose. I'm wondering how nominators will "demonstrate appropriate usage of summary style" when challenged; they'll just say "It's all in summary style—go away", won't they? The onus will still be on us to say where and why it's ''not'' in summary style. So I'm unsure that the new version would change anything in practice. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, seems like consensus is that the shorter ones are OK (if compehensive); can you suggest any wording that would discourage 70KB of prose? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

*I've looked at [[Wikipedia:Article size]], which is all too vague. No matter how I try, I can't find a way of changing the criterion in a way that is practicable and acceptable to all. I don't see why citing Criterion 4 and the following armory of statements at [[WP:Summary style]] isn't enough to force the issue:

*"information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article"

*"generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover its topic and that the extra reading time is justified".

*"The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects."

*"Articles larger than 30 KB (those that trigger page size warning) may be getting too long to efficiently cover their topic. This likelihood increases with larger size and it is very rare for an article 50% larger than this [45 KB] to still efficiently cover its topic."

*"Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines".

It's up to individual FA reviewers and their colleagues to form an opinion of where the limit lies beyond which they start to object; that might be better than cementing it in black-letter law (which might upset the 30/45 KB guideliners). [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

=== section break ===

I didn't know I would trigger such a long discussion...:)...I've been working on [[Sino-Indian War]], where I summarized the 111kb article to 89kb by creating articles [[Origins of the Sino-Indian border dispute]] and [[Events leading to the Sino-Indian War]] while just keeping a summarized version on the actual page. I was reverted and [[User:Yuje]] explained that he did not support me because I supposedly "deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else" and said the he is "trying to improve it by extended it and giving the historical background leading up to the war, to make it a feature-length article". Which made me think whether there should be a limit to feature-length articles, particularly because the article hardly has any pictures and still takes time to load (depending on your browser speed). I believe the maximum for an article should be 70kb because we could allow them to go over the 64kb mark slightly. The minimum should be 15kb, some topics are simply not worthy to make it to the main page because there is not much information related to their topics. Those are my view's and could someone clarify to Yuje on [[Talk:Sino-Indian War]] because he seems to be of the view that I am deleting all this information without restoring them anywhere else. For example, he says "He editted the article in a completely POVed manner, editting out selectively, and he deleted huge sections of information that despite what he said, did not restore anywhere else". [[User:Traing|Traing]] 08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:Traing, it's helpful in discussions of [[WP:LENGTH|article size]] to specify overall size, or readable prose. Also, you don't indicate if you used [[WP:SS|summary style]] to move the content to daughter articles. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Accepted reference styles ==

This matter was brought up in the recent (and successful) [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conatus|nomination]] of [[Conatus]]. This article, as I originally sourced it, used [[Harvard referencing]], ''not'' the more typical ref/note method. I believed that this, while not the standard, would be acceptable in an FAC because of the endorsement of this method on various pages, including the "guideline" [[WP:CITE]]. According to this page, the three accepted methods of citing sources are: Embedded HTML links, Harvard referencing ''and'' Footnotes. In my experience, however, only the last is truly acceptable for a modern FA: during the Conatus's FAC, there was overwhelming support for a conversion to Footnotes style. I say that if FAs must realistically use Footnotes, the list of criteria should specify that; or if Harvard style is decidedly OK, ''that'' should be said directly. WP:CITE may be a good guideline (I don't know if it is) for most articles, but it is ''not'' a good guideline for FAs right now. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:Harvard is entirely acceptable. If an article employs Harvard style properly, objections on the basis of reference style are invalid. It is unfortunate that people are not aware these objections are invalid, and therefore sometimes do unnecessary work. Of course, whatever style you use should be implemented in an appropriate manner. I can't answer for whether this article used Harvard correctly when it was first nominated. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::Unfortunately not everyone thinks so... if we find here that it is... we should say this explicitly in the FACR. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::I don't believe embedded links are considered acceptable by any FAC regulars who care about reference style. It should be removed from our guidelines, if you ask me. '''<font color="8855DD">[[User:Pagrashtak|Pagra]]</font><font color="#6666AA">[[User talk:Pagrashtak|shtak]]</font>''' 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:::FAC criteria already state that cite.php is preferred when footnotes are used. Embedded links are fine for other articles. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Yea, well embedded links aren't fine for FACs, as Pagrashtak says. This should be said explicitly. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::In my view if someone wants to use embedded links properly then that would be fine. The personal views of reviewers here shouldn't trump the community guideline. Embedded links are rather tedious to use properly, however, and are doubly annoying if you intend to use print sources. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:ArticleHistory coughs up [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conatus&oldid=122599132 this version,] which is hard to plough through with all those inlines. By the way, that article can't decide if hyphens or endashes are used on date ranges, and if endashes are or aren't surrounded by spaces. That kind of sloppiness shouldn't get through FAC. A read of [[WP:DASH]] might help. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

::That was the argument: Harvard style is annoying. I'll fix the issues with the dashes. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== FAC and FAR/C urgents boxes ==

{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}}

{{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}

Will reviewers kindly note that these boxes are regularly updated for problematic nominations and for those that are hanging around for too long with too few comments. Transcluding them on your user page and/or at the top of your talk page would be a great way to generate more interest in these processes, especially by reviewers who manage to visit only occasionally.

All you do is to key in <nowiki>{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} and {{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}</nowiki>. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== New version of Featured Sound Criteria ==

I've proposed [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_criteria#Revamp_of_criteria|a new version]] of [[Wikipedia:Featured_sound_criteria|the existing criteria]] to be implemented after a week or so of debate, if consensus can be achieved. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== Focus / Proportion ==

In my opnion, Featured Articles should be structured with section sizes being appropriate to that which would actually interest readers. This may not make sense, so here's a hypothetical example:

Stairway to Heaven is an FAC. It meets all of the criteria, and is lengthy and well-structured. It includes information about the backwards lyrics. However, the largest sections are:

* Recording: Explains, in detail, all of the instruments, tracks, and recording equipment used in making the song.

* Exclusion from Guitar Hero: Provides rationale and reactions to the fact that the song is not included in either of the Guitar Hero games.

* Concert Variations: Lists venues at which the song was played and any differences between those performances and the recorded version.

That would certainly be a comprehensive article. However, if the volume of non-notable and uninteresting material vastly outweighs the pertinent information, I would say the article is too ''unfocused'' or ''misproportioned'' to be an FA.

The problem with having ''focus'' as in the FA criteria is that it is subjective. An editor who really doesn't want an article to pass FAC could easily say "This article doesn't stay focused on the pertinent information." The easiest way to apply this objectively would be to ask "What would the average reader want to know about this topic?" Whatever the answer to that is should be the focus of the article.

This wouldn't necessarily have to be its own criterion, nor would it have to be strictly enforced. It could fall under ''well-written'' and would really only be actionable in extreme cases. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic]]&nbsp;[[User:Cryptic C62|C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

== Layout ==

Two editors are editing [[WP:LAYOUT]] to state that Wiki "sister" links should be added to the lead rather than the See also or External links at the end of the article. I believe this will clutter the lead, resulting in ugly articles, and external content (even interwiki) belongs at the end. Other opinions ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:Just realized it's actually three editors, who have strikingly similar prose and syntax. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::Sometimes, sure -- the link at top right of [[United States Constitution]] isn't particularly ugly and makes a lot of sense -- but generally no. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I'm not crazy about that one either :-) Can you imagine if all the WikiSister links were added at the top of articles? Yuk. It's bad precedent. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::Discussion taken to [[Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#InterWiki_links_never_be_External_links.]]. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

== Phase out Harvard style ==

I think the discussion above finished prematurely... May I re-word the criteria to recommend only footnotes for the sake of standardization and readability? -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:No: some of our established FAs use it and they can't be frozen out of the criteria; it's acceptable academically and it isn't our business to reject it; some people genuinely hate footnotes. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 17:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::If articles are going to be "opposed" because they use use Harvard style, it should not be recommended. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Any such opposition is invalid, as stated above. We can hardly stop people from opposing on that basis (it is a wiki) but we ignore them when they do. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Are Wikipedia's policies suddenly ''prescriptive''? [[Conatus]]'s recenct FAC garnered no actual "'''oppose'''"s because of its initial Harvard style; but the fact that the consensus was that it was inferior to footnotes brought about its reformatting. I wish that something would be done to prevent this from occurring (again) to a user who has read the guidelines. The criterium in question may waste many more hours of time in the future if it is not made more specific and ''descriptive''. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::The criteria already point to [[WP:CITE]] for formatting guidance, and that page makes it very clear that Harvard style is acceptable. I'm not sure what more can be done in this regard. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to use a single consistent style of referencing, and the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> ones are certainly the most convenient for the reader. [[User:Atropos|Atropos]] 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:"certainly the most convenient" - by what measures? I am aware of a substantial number of people who prefer to use and read citations in the Harvard style. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:Good luck enforcing that consistency across the nearly 2 million en articles. There is a very good reason the guidelines allow inconsistency. We will not be changing that. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::Good thing I was talking about the 1431 [[WP:FA|featured articles]]. [[User:Atropos|Atropos]] 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I have an MA in Econ. and am working on a PhD in Linguistics... and to the best of my recollection, all I've ever seen is Harvard... it's what the social sciences tend to use.. I think the Anthro. folks use the same... that's a whole lotta journals &amp; a whole lotta Wikipedia editors... so... [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

== Image criteria ==

Hello. I've noticed that several featured articles use non-animated images stored in the [[GIF]] format. This is not recommended because images like these are often better represented in the [[PNG]] format. The PNG format is completely lossless, often compresses better, and supports full alpha-channel transparency. The templates {{tl|BadGIF}} and {{tl|ShouldBePNG}} exist to help us identify and resolve this problem by doing a fairly simple conversion from GIF to PNG. The [[User:PNG crusade bot|PNG crusade bot]] can do this conversion with little human intervention.

Would it be OK if another criteria was added, requiring that GIF images be converted to PNG unless there is a good reason not to? —[[User:Remember the dot|Remember the dot]] ^{([[User talk:Remember the dot|talk]])} 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

:This is a triviality. I do not see it as necessary. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, we may be able to save a significant amount of bandwidth that way because of all the times features articles are viewed. —[[User:Remember the dot|Remember the dot]] ^{([[User talk:Remember the dot|talk]])} 04:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Both gif and png use fairly good compression algorithms. The size difference between a thumbnailed gif and png is trivial. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:If this can easily be done with a semi-automated bot why not just run through the new featured articles at the end of the month (there are only about 60)? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

== Technical content ==

How about setting up some technical content FA process? A lot of technical content can't be boiled down to the same level as a Celebrity biography, or an article about the flag of Peru, and that appears to be a criteria imposed by reviewers for getting technical articles through the FA process. Just wondering... [[User:SqlPac|SqlPac]] 20:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

: I feel your pain, but the current FA criteria do not in principle disallow technical articles. However, no one can stop commenters from broad "this is too technical" objections, and I hope those objections are given no more weight than any other unsubstantiated comment. What a sad encyclopedia this would be if a dense subject could not become an FA, while Pokemon can. The key is to give every reader a basic overview of the subject in the lead of the article. As long as you've done that, consider the objections nullified—no pun intended. My suggestion for your [[Null (SQL)]] would be to provide more of an overview of the article in the lead. Take a look at the recently passed [[Equipartition theorem]] for your inspiration and precedent. For most of us readers, its lead is our only hope. –[[User:Outriggr|<font color="#112299">Outriggr</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Outriggr|''§'']] 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

::We just narrowed down the intro and put a lot of the content in the new History subsection :) LOL. I'll definitely check out the [[Equipartition theorem]] article, and see what we can apply from there to the [[Null (SQL)]] article. While the FA criteria might not explicitly disallow technical articles, a quick run-through of the current crop of FA articles shows that biographies and national flag articles have a much greater chance of achieving FA status. And after the initial comments on the FA review for [[Null (SQL)]], it seems that the reason might be that (as one reviewer stated) technical articles need to be "dumbed-down" to make the cut. I think that's a pretty sad commentary about the articles used to "represent the best content on Wikipedia," or at least about the process for selecting them. [[User:SqlPac|SqlPac]] 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I don't think that looking through the current crop tells you a lot about the chances of different articles; it says more about the interests of the projects and individuals who are particularly geared up to produce numerous FAs. e.g. the hurricanes project and whatever group is bringing all the Final Fantasy games to featured status. Can you point to any technical articles that you feel were unreasonably failed? [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Now that you mention it, how about the [[Null (SQL)]] article?? Here's a quick rundown:

::::*Article is reviewed, changes are made as necessary, and it is promoted to GA status

::::*Article is nominated for FA status

::::*Most of reviewers' objections are fixed immediately

::::*Questions concerning clarification of some objections, and how to best fix them, are posed to reviewers

::::*Other reviewers post information that contradicts some of the reviewers' objections, including the dumbing-down comment

::::*Reviewers who objected fail to answer any questions or post any further information

::::*Article is promoted to FA status

::::*Article is immediately recommended to FAR

::::*Bureaucrats who recommended article to FAR, and who support it are asked to provide information concerning what needs to be fixed in the article. Multiple times.

::::*One person responds, and his few recommendations are implemented immediately

::::*Others respond by saying they are not using FAR to judge the article by its '''content''', but rather to enforce a '''technicality'''

::::*No further guidance is provided, presumably because none of the reviewers in the "Featured Article Review" actually "reviewed" the article

::::*The article is slated to be moved to FAC-Failed

::::*Contributor on article decides it's not worth dealing with the bureaucratic nightmare and cuts down on his contributions considerably

::::How about an article that's promoted to FA status, and subsequently demoted with no "due process"? No objections noted, no existing objections reaffirmed, no suggestions on what needs to be fixed, no answers to requests for this information, no ''reviewers'' actually even ''reading'' the article. One would think that actually ''reading'' an article would be important during a so-called ''review'', but as was voiced by the lead [[WP:FA|FAcker]] during this article's "[[WP:FAR|FARce]]", all those FAckers weren't interested in the actual article or its content. Does that meet the criteria for '''reasonableness'''? For all these FAckers know, the article may be up to FA standards; or it might require some minor tweaks to get it there. These FAckers will never know since the entire review was a FARce. 'Nuff said. '''[[Wikipedia:Be_Afraid#Meet_the_.5B.5BFAckers.5D.5D|Meet the FAckers]]''' [[User:SqlPac|SqlPac]] 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see us changing the FA process to accomodate technical articles; however, if someone would like to come up with criteria that apply specifically to technical articles, I'm all ears. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

:It would be nice to see a higher ratio of technical content to "State Flag" and "Celebrity Bio" articles identified as "the best content on Wikipedia". Many writers of technical subject matter around here have expressed the opinion that technical material will never reach FA status, so "why even try?" I'm a new member of that camp myself. Considering the vague objections accepted from reviewers (e.g., it won't make FA status if it's not "dumbed down"), it's no wonder technical writers and subject-matter experts are more than willing to tweak their articles up to GA status and stop. And the bureaucratic nightmares that can pop up on a whim? As they say in Jersey, Fuhgettaboutit. [[User:SqlPac|SqlPac]] 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

==Transcludability==

If it helps, this page is [[WP:TRANS|transcludable]] as <nowiki>{{Wikipedia:Featured article criteria}}</nowiki>; if not, revert my changes :) [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]^{[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]} § 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Ah, I see that the intro paragraph has also been added; that's fine, although I see many more references to the bulleted points than to the introduction (and the point of transclusion is functionality). [[User:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">Grace</span><span style="color:#000;">notes</span>]]^{[[User talk:Gracenotes|<span style="color:#960;">T</span>]]} § 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== Necessity of an FAC to have images ==

Hi all, at the moment we have a rather subjective criterion (3) in determining whether or not images are a prerequisite. After [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birchington-on-Sea|reviewing]] at [[Birchington-on-Sea]] I felt that images would be (a) pretty easy to get and (b) essential for facilitating engagement, I thus decided not to continue reviewing until images were added, which they were.

Now the criterion states: ''It has images where they are appropriate to the subject,...''

I could imagine some obscure theoretical idea maybe not require images but I would have thought just about everything else would need them to make "Wikipedia's best work". Have there been FAs in recent times with no images? cheers, [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] | [[User talk:Casliber|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]] 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

:I think [[Conatus]] is a good example of such an "obscure technical idea", and how it ''can'' include images, however indirect the connection. But I do think that [[Conatus]] could/should have passed had it not those images... because they're not necessary... -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

==Proposing new critera for images==

*It must include a link to the relevant [[Wikimedia Commons]] (perhaps ''relevant [[Wikipedia:Sister projects|sister projects]]'') page(s) where appropriate. (Not all extant sister page projects may be suitable, e.g. a patchy, poorly written Wikibook or similar).

*All free images and media must be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia.

We have far too many people ignoring the message to upload free images there, not here. We also have far too few articles linking to commons when there is a valid page to link to. Creating this as a standard for FAs should signal to all articles that this is how things should be done. It will improve Wikipedia articles by providing a link to more images and other media, it will allow editors to browse other possible images to improve the article as they become available (or are moved into the category), will provide better awareness and closer relations with Commons, and it will improve commons in similar fashion, as editors may improve the commons categories/pages, upload images there for use on other projects, and see better utilization of Commons resources.

These are the best of our articles and I think they should demonstrate proper use of this important sister project. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 01:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:As for the first, there is already enough on sister projects at [[Wikipedia:Sister_projects]], which is part of the manual of style, and thus already included in the second criterion. So no need for that. As to the second issue, I don't think this is important enough, or sufficiently related to the quality of the article, to warrant inclusion. BTW, if you want better relations with Commons then pester the devs to implement the single login. Until then, for basically all English Wikipedia contributors, there are zero visible benefits of adding to Commons and significant inconveniences. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:: I for one would object strongly to the second portion of the proposed addition. I'm an admin on [[:mw:|MediaWiki.org]], and we've had significant problems with Commons deleting images for no reason. There's no need to do that either. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])} 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Then I guess the [[tragedy of the commons]] shall continue... Hopefully they get the single login worked out pretty soon. [[User:Richard001|Richard001]] 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

== Sections within FAC pages ==

''Moved to [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates]]''

== Printable version of a FA ==

Some FA articles ([[Evolution]] for example) have scrollable content (References, in [[Evolution]]'s case) that make the printable version incomplete. In the case of [[Evolution]] it is especially noticeable in that only a few of the many many references are in the printable version of the article. Is there any guideline about having a complete printable version in the criteria for a FA? - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:Hrm... that's a *very* interesting point... [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 03:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[[WP:PAPER|Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia]]. What we write is designed to be read on screen as part of a hyperlinked set of webpages. Formatting should be designed to aid our huge web readership, not the tiny minority of people who choose to print out web-pages. [[User:TimVickers|TimVickers]] 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:You're completely misusing that. If someone wants to be able to print out an article (I can see the article on evolution being very useful to pass out to a high school biology class, for example), the entire article should be there. I've [[WP:BOLD|been bold]] replaced it with <nowiki>{{reflist|3}}</nowiki>; however silly me forgot to write an edit summary, so it may be reverted by someone who prefers it how it was and isn't aware of this discussion. [[User:Atropos|Atropos]] 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a problem that should have a technical solution; i.e. that the scroll box should be automatically expanded in the 'printable version'?--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:File a feature request - http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

:OK, it's filed as [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10239 Bug 10239] if anyone cares to look at it or comment there. Also, I'm not really technically inclined so it might be helpful to check that I described it properly.--[[User:Pharos|Pharos]] 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any markup that allows conditional expansion depending on whether or not the current rendering is the printable version of an article? I imagine it would be some sort of If-Then-Else construction. It would be useful for alternative images to the animated ones, for example, as well as for using the simpler rendering of the References list for the printable version. - [[User:Bevo|Bevo]] 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)