Good articles - was Re:[WikiEN-l] Article quality deterioration (was: a valid criticism)

Tue Oct 11 13:39:14 UTC 2005

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony DiPierro [mailto:wikispam at inbox.org]
> Sent: 11 October 2005 4:00 AM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Article quality deterioration (was: a valid
criticism)
>
> I'd rather see a radical expansion of the the featured articles system.
Instead of nominating an article, you'd nominate a version of an
article. The standards would be radically lessened from the current
featured article
> standard, of course. As long as an article was well structured, had
adequate
> references, lacked non-free images, was NPOV, etc., it'd pass. No
requirement that the article actually be one of "the best", just that it
be
> acceptable for a static/semi-static copy (think CD/DVD distro).
>
> Even if an article failed this process, it'd produce a list of what
needed to be fixed.

I've thought for a long time that there should be some way of recognising
the many, many articles that are pretty good but would probably never make
the grade as an FA, due to being too short, too broad, too narrow or
whatever.  99.9% of our articles are not featured, but surely at least 10%
are pretty good, have images, references, are neutral and so on.

However, I think lowering FA standards would be very bad.  We should be
identifying the very best we have to offer, while also identifying the
less spectacular good stuff.  So, I have just started Wikipedia:Good
articles, which is my idea for how our good but not the best content can
be recognised.  All comments welcome of course.

WT