[Foundation-l] "Vital Articles" underperforming?

[Andreas K.]

There was a lengthy discussion recently on en:WP at



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#FAC_spends_too_much_time_on_trivial_topics



about the fact that many featured articles – at least on en:WP – are about
niche topics, while so-called "vital articles" (VA), i.e. core topics that
any encyclopedia would be expected to cover well, are underperforming, with
comparatively few making FA or GA. Looking at the VA list,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VA

topic areas like philosophy, languages and social sciences seem to be doing
particularly poorly.



Generally speaking, it stands to reason that articles on niche topics are
easier to improve. One or two editors can work in relative peace and quiet,
and the number of sources is more manageable. If there are only two dozen
sources covering the topic, it's clear where to start; but where do you
start with a topic like Information technology?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology


After ten years, it's still a start-class article in en:WP, little more
than a stub really (though I note it is a featured article in Catalan
Wikipedia).


Do vital articles need a special approach to get them to FA standard,
perhaps with Foundation-sponsored outreach to universities, formation of
article improvement teams involving outside experts, and expert involvement
in the FAC (featured article candidate) assessment process? Or do we trust
that these articles will improve in time through the normal process of
editing?


What is VA quality like in other language versions of Wikipedia?


Andreas