On 4/22/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/22/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 22/04/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
As an example, I've been involved in a bit of a dispute over at [[Transhumanism]] where an editor who's done a lot of work on the article has now declared it to be "finished", and has been rather aggressive in reverting further changes because he believes new additions that aren't up to the same standards as existing material reduce the overall quality of the article. With stable version flagging, we could mark the version that got FA status and then people could work freely on the article without fear of disruption until a new and improved FA-quality version ensued.
To use your example to explain my feeling on the matter, we *already* can mark the version that got FA status. In fact, it's already marked. If you click on [show] next to the featured article message, you can see quite plainly that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&oldid=53177243 is when the article received FA status.
Could we show by default the featured article and make people click through to the work in progress? Yes, although I'm sure it's debatable whether or not we should. If we did that, would this appease the person who's agressive in reverting changes which s/he feels is making the article worse? Probably not. Even if so, are there that many featured articles in the first place? No, so then you've gotta have good articles, and semi-good articles, and non-vandalised articles, etc. Could this be implemented well? Probably, though it would take an awful lot of time and energy to maintain even after the technical parts are implemented. Will it be implemented well? I doubt it.
Anthony
The problem with this, imo, is that no matter how excellent a FA is, when it is placed on the front page, it is greatly improved by the large variety of new editors who see the article and add, subtract, or clarify information, or just comment on aspects of the article. My thinking is that it may be a stable version, but the best version of the article comes a week or two after it has been on the front page.
Good article criteria is much looser. There are some awful good articles. I am removing some in the past few days that have problems. There are some FAs that need reviewed, but not truly awful, imo. So, not GAs at all, just FAs, but still, they improve with becoming featured on the main page.
KP