I think the FA status of this article would have been removed quickly
if the regular
process had been followed, so there was no real need to act
unilaterally. But frankly I share Tony's amazement that something as
problematic as this was ever promoted. It shows a continued high level
of childishness.
Articles on star athletes are examples of good WP coverage we should
be proud of; articles like this are a disgrace--the inclusion is
necessary, but the photographs and the tone were tabloid journalism,
not encyclopedic treatment. We show authenticity by attribution, not
by names and photographs of the unfortunate. We maintain the right to
deal with the unpleasant but necessary by using discretion and
objectivity, not sensationalism.
DGG
On 6/5/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/06/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
Oh c'mon, removing the featured article
status of a single article is
"reckless"? It's a simple change that anyone who disagrees with can
easily
revert. It's not at all reckless.
It's also pointless. If you really think that an article should lose
its FA status then you take it to
[[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Featured_article_removal_candidates]]
which will also give you a chance to explain in detail what you think
is broken which will allow others to fix it should they wish to do so.
Amen.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.