Andries Krugers Dagneaux (andrieskd(a)chello.nl) [050521 05:35]:
I notice that lately articles on the Featured article
Candidates are
often longer, sometimes almost twice, than the recommended size of 32k
and nobody complains anymore about it. Personally, I do not object to
articles that have a size <64k but I do have a problem with the
inconsistent enforcement of standards for size that are now used.
For example, some contributors oppose to an article about [[Germany]]
larger than 32k. A comparable article like the [[United States]] has a
size of 61k.
I request consistent enforcement of this recommendation or a more
lenient recommendation e.g. <64k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size
The 32k limit used to be quite strongly agreed with on FAC, then 172 came
along with several excellent articles that were very lengthy indeed. He
argued that that was what it took to cover the subject properly, even with
many breakouts into sub-articles, and enough people agreed that the
articles got through.
The 32k limit was of course originally because of broken browser behaviour
with text boxes over 32k. As it happens, some (including me) think it's a
good recommended maximum length for an article for readability - there
should be a compelling reason to go over six thousand words. But
considerations like 172's (subject requires it, article is really good)
still get past. So if the Germany article should get by even being over
32k, the nominator would probably have to convince people the subject
required it for proper coverage. (Which I can well see being likely.)
FAC requires a ridiculously high and sometimes inconsistent standard, and
is a tremendous amount of work and often very frustrating for nominators.
I'm not sure what can be done about this without [[m:instruction creep]].
- d.