On 6/8/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/7/07, K P <kpbotany(a)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.