On 10/3/05, Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)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.