Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MissingNo.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
Hmmm. I sometimes feel that there's certain articles that just cannot ever be made featured articles due to inbuilt limitations and I don't think I would have supported this at FAC.
Do others share my (only shakily held) belief that some articles, no matter how much work is put into them, can never get to featured status?
Bodnotbod
On 14 September 2011 14:53, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
Do others share my (only shakily held) belief that some articles, no matter how much work is put into them, can never get to featured status?
Any article can legitimately be made FA, no matter how unencyclopedic, if you rewrite it, move it to a different name and change the topic.
Bodnotbod
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 September 2011 14:53, Bod Notbod bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
Do others share my (only shakily held) belief that some articles, no matter how much work is put into them, can never get to featured status?
Any article can legitimately be made FA, no matter how unencyclopedic, if you rewrite it, move it to a different name and change the topic.
That's not an entirely serious answer, is it?
Carcharoth
Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MissingNo.
Carcharoth
Seems appropriate.
Fred
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
Seems appropriate.
Sure, the length is about right for the topic, but if you are in the habit of settling down at some point in the day to read through the featured article, you might feel a little short-changed that you'd finished reading it after a few minutes or so. I suspect readers don't realise that almost any article can be featured, and have certain expectations that aren't always met. This is a case where viewing figures don't help, as lots of people click through to the FA, but the question here is what the reaction is of those readers. But then I'm not convinced that people even use the main page the way that is assumed. I suspect the main use is as an entry point to Wikipedia, with a brief scan of what is there if the passing visitor is not in a rush, and maybe following some of the links if something looks interesting. Those who want to follow some regularly may be more likely to use RSS or some other syndication service.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
Seems appropriate.
Sure, the length is about right for the topic, but if you are in the habit of settling down at some point in the day to read through the featured article, you might feel a little short-changed
Carcharoth
Change is good.
Fred
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Change is good.
Brevity wit.
On 14 September 2011 15:15, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
expectations that aren't always met. This is a case where viewing figures don't help, as lots of people click through to the FA, but the question here is what the reaction is of those readers. But then I'm
This may be a rare case where the reader-feedback option is actually of some indicative use :-)
There's currently 60-70 valid ratings on the article, averaging about 4.5 in all four categories; "complete" is the closest we have to a proxy for "of sufficient length", and it's a safe 4.4. Yesterday's fungus article, of more reasonable length, scored 3.6 on all counts with 14 ratings, so length doesn't immediately appear to be a major factor of disquiet...
(This is a bit shaky to draw conclusions from, I know - it's hard to do a study on this because of the way ratings "expire" after thirty edits, so you can't easily look at what the reaction to past articles was. Is it technically possible to extract all the ratings received by an article in a specific time period? It might be very interesting to use the daily FAs, which we know get a lot of traffic and are unlikely to have drastic flaws, to study as a defined set...)
In other words, upon reading this featured article, something is Missing, No?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MissingNo.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, upon reading this featured article, something is Missing, No?
This thread is turning pun-itive.
Carcharoth
Happy that that finally happened...
short, nevertheless still complete, that gives me quite a satisfactory feeling while reading.
Petr [[u:Reo On]]
On 9/14/11, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MissingNo.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l