On 6/8/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/07, K P kpbotany@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.