Andries Krugers Dagneaux (andrieskd@chello.nl) [050521 05:35]:
I notice that lately articles on the Featured article Candidates are often longer, sometimes almost twice, than the recommended size of 32k and nobody complains anymore about it. Personally, I do not object to articles that have a size <64k but I do have a problem with the inconsistent enforcement of standards for size that are now used. For example, some contributors oppose to an article about [[Germany]] larger than 32k. A comparable article like the [[United States]] has a size of 61k. I request consistent enforcement of this recommendation or a more lenient recommendation e.g. <64k. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size
The 32k limit used to be quite strongly agreed with on FAC, then 172 came along with several excellent articles that were very lengthy indeed. He argued that that was what it took to cover the subject properly, even with many breakouts into sub-articles, and enough people agreed that the articles got through.
The 32k limit was of course originally because of broken browser behaviour with text boxes over 32k. As it happens, some (including me) think it's a good recommended maximum length for an article for readability - there should be a compelling reason to go over six thousand words. But considerations like 172's (subject requires it, article is really good) still get past. So if the Germany article should get by even being over 32k, the nominator would probably have to convince people the subject required it for proper coverage. (Which I can well see being likely.)
FAC requires a ridiculously high and sometimes inconsistent standard, and is a tremendous amount of work and often very frustrating for nominators. I'm not sure what can be done about this without [[m:instruction creep]].
- d.