With FA nominations often missing out on basic criteria (at least the last
time I checked in there), rules are apparently needed. It stops additional
work in de-featuring work that should not be featured to begin with if
criteria are too lax.
Mgm
On 9/12/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/09/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/12/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com
<daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
> we do have are as good as possible. Rather
than getting another
million
> articles, I believe that we need 100,000
more Feature-quality
articles.
Impossible. Featured articles are determined by
FAC, which is as
ridden or more so with politics as AFD, DRV, and other such eyesores:
standards are constantly shifting and unevenly applied. Good Articles
itself has turned into a mockery of FAC.
Raul as Featured Articles Dictator might apply the cattleprod enema a
bit more thoroughly. If FAC has gone off into one of those weird
genetic drift zone of ten people agreeing to 'consensus' that drives
others out and fails to serve Wikipedia, and if GA has done the same
(considering GA was supposed to be the process-light parallel to
unclog FAC), then burning it down and building something that actually
gets back to the really quite short and reasonable FA criteria might
be well in order.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l