Wow, that is a crappy article. I will officially act unilaterally as soon as I get the time and put it up for FAR--someone with more free time should do so, though. I've done this with a few articles, and removed GA status from some crap. There's a procedure, but I think sparing en-Wiki the embarrasment of having this listed as a FA made acting unilaterally and pulling the FA from this article appropriate behaviour.
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.
KP
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, that is a crappy article.
No shit.
I will officially act unilaterally as soon as I get the time and put it up for FAR...
You mean you will officially do one or the other, right? If honestly you think you're doing both you are having delusions of unilaterality.
—C.W.
On 6/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, that is a crappy article.
No shit.
I will officially act unilaterally as soon as I get the time and put it up for FAR...
You mean you will officially do one or the other, right? If honestly you think you're doing both you are having delusions of unilaterality.
—C.W.
Well, technically I will only do the one, put it up for FAR. There are other issues to consider, namely, this may have just slipped through on FAC--in which case, taking it to FAR will bring it to the attention of the overworked FAC editors, who will try to squeeze more hours out of their day and blood out of rocks, to make sure others don't slip through.
KP
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, that is a crappy article.
No shit.
I will officially act unilaterally as soon as I get the time and put it up for FAR...
You mean you will officially do one or the other, right? If honestly you think you're doing both you are having delusions of unilaterality.
—C.W.
Well, technically I will only do the one, put it up for FAR. There are other issues to consider, namely, this may have just slipped through on FAC--in which case, taking it to FAR will bring it to the attention of the overworked FAC editors, who will try to squeeze more hours out of their day and blood out of rocks, to make sure others don't slip through.
KP
PS I never have delusions of unilaterality because I write like crap. I NEED to not be a unilateral, I want those anyones to edit the heck out of my turgid prose.
KP
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, that is a crappy article. I will officially act unilaterally as soon as I get the time and put it up for FAR--someone with more free time should do so, though. I've done this with a few articles, and removed GA status from some crap. There's a procedure, but I think sparing en-Wiki the embarrasment of having this listed as a FA made acting unilaterally and pulling the FA from this article appropriate behaviour.
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.
Ok, I'm tired of this. I've put the article on [[Wikipedia:Featured Article Review]]. If you think it's a crappy article, go say exactly what you think is wrong with it.
-- Jonel
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
On 6/8/07, 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.
I'm sure a lot of our featured articles are very, very good, and some of them must be about as good as we can get. But yes, perhaps we should stop saying "eatured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors". I don't often actually need to look at featured articles, because most articles aren't featured. However this is the second time I've had to remove an article from the list because it was so far from good that it was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The last one was eighteen months ago, I think.
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure a lot of our featured articles are very, very good, and some of them must be about as good as we can get. But yes, perhaps we should stop saying "eatured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors". I don't often actually need to look at featured articles, because most articles aren't featured. However this is the second time I've had to remove an article from the list because it was so far from good that it was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The last one was eighteen months ago, I think.
Like any process on Wikipedia, FAC falls down at times.
One problem is selection bias; it's only selected by people that are interested in showing up. This generally means either (1) FAC regulars - those with an interest in the featured article process, or; (2) those interested in the subject matter.
I note in this case the nomination received only two supports and a few comments for promotion.
-Matt
On 6/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure a lot of our featured articles are very, very good, and some of them must be about as good as we can get. But yes, perhaps we should stop saying "eatured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors". I don't often actually need to look at featured articles, because most articles aren't featured. However this is the second time I've had to remove an article from the list because it was so far from good that it was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The last one was eighteen months ago, I think.
Like any process on Wikipedia, FAC falls down at times.
One problem is selection bias; it's only selected by people that are interested in showing up. This generally means either (1) FAC regulars - those with an interest in the featured article process, or; (2) those interested in the subject matter.
I note in this case the nomination received only two supports and a few comments for promotion.
-Matt
Yeah, I think two supports is a little low. But this also can be remedied and not by FAR--this I would have taken up with Mike.
KP
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