On 6/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
FAC is a time-consuming process, and it requires a lot of concentrated work on the part of various editors. Things slip through that shouldn't. This obviously shouldn't have. Also, FAR is a time-consuming process. Maybe acting unilaterally and just removing it was a good thing.
I don't think it's that it accidentally slipped through; rather, it slipped through because FAC explicitly does not make value judgments on the suitability of a subject. Non-actionable objections may be ignored, after all, and 'Get a better subject matter' is not actionable.
-Matt
I don't at all think the article is crummy because of its subject matter. I am the one FAC editor, although an irregular one at best, who ruthlessly supports funky culturally unique and ala mode articles. I save obscure pop artists from deletion, and help editors who are working to bring pop culture articles up to snuff--and I'm good at it.
This is an area, along with small biographies, that Wikipedia can excel in, and own the market. I want pop culture articles to be among our very best--that's why I was so cruel in my evaluation of the article, because I care about the topic.
The subject matter is, imo, absolutely perfect. It's the angle and style that sucks.
KP