On 10/3/05, Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
Consider the example articles Tony pointed at. If those articles "Exemplify Wikipedia's best articles", then he has rather low expectations. The featured article criteria are the standards we hold articles to, and every single one those articles is lacking (as Geni pointed out). Is holding articles to a high standard a bad thing? I would hope not.
Actually I don't claim that those articles exemplify anything except acceptable content that would be okay on the main page. I don't think much of featured article, as you're aware, and I regard the process as largely a waste of time.
I have a different view of Wikipedia's strengths--I think we're really good at producing so-so, useful but not perfect articles, and that we should spend energy trying to maximise our production rate at this level. I view the FA process as masturbatory, self-congratulatory, and of low impace on the project as a whole.
I also feel that it's also a little dishonest to put such massage content on the main page, when so much of the best that Wikipedia has to offer comprises mediocrely written articles that tell you pretty much what you need to know, and generally do it in less than a screenful of information and without pointless fripperies such as pictures.