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@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/07, Anthony wikimail@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l