Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martha Stewart/archive3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 8:
****Heh - I never commented on the prose myself :). Anyway, often what happens here with former FAs (and it seems to be happening more now) is a clash of sorts between FARC and FAC standards. That is, often the standards to "keep a article featured" are much lower then what it is to go to featured normally, so sometimes people think that can get close to the former only to find themselves coming up against the newer, much higher, standards such as the requirement of inline citations. [[User:RN|RN]] 06:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
*****I did not realize that the standrards have improved very much. I still believe that it is a strong article, much of it was expanded by myself and a few other users over the last 2-3 months. I've read it back when it was a FA, and it is much nicer that it was when it still had that designation. --[[User:Alexhb|Alex]] 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
******To RN and Alex: it's nice to know that standards have improved over time. I'm a little suprised as to how much of a improvement there has been. For example, I dug this up from the Martha Stewart Archive and.... wow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martha_Stewart&oldid=4915571]. (Yeah I agree with you Alex, you did add a lot to the article.) :)--[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 06:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
| |||