Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 3

792:

but did not include in your comment above, that simply listing a book (or other resource) about a subject in a References section is innapropriate, instead the book has to have actually been read and to actually confirm the material in the article. Finally, as many may well know, I would of course disagree with you that a lack of references alone is not sufficient for listing on FARC. It has been a long time now that references have been a requirement, and also a long time now a list was produced of all FA's without references to illuminate the problem, and a month now that every FA without references has had a request made to add references to it. I'm an eventualist too, and believe that Knowledge (XXG) will continue to improve, but I also believe that we can be ok with breaking some eggs to make an omlette. And I believe that omlette would feed the hungry of the world better and sooner if we break the eggs now (or soon). If it was made widely clear that at a given date, say a month from now, the references requirement would be retroactive to all FA's, I think we would all be amazed at how much success there would be in referencing them all. Given that advance warning, I think there would be nothing but good as a result of making the switch to retroactive. I'm not anticipating that many will suddenly agree with me, but I decided to restate what I believe anyway. Feel free to move this to a new section if anyone wants to reply to this instead of the inline cites issue. Thanks for reading. -

1639:"Just remove those 18 footnotes", "...and those who don't aren't going to demand specific page references.", "There's no value in keeping them", "Referencing things like ... effective range of rifles with footnotes really serves no purpose", "what I'm saying is no different from complaining that there are too many images or sub-sections in an FAC", " If a note clearly serves little or no purpose in referencing an article '...enhanced by appropriate usage...' might just as well be interpreted as 'none' (though not in this particular case)". So you haven't stated any actual positive value for Knowledge (XXG) or its articles to reduced inline citation. You've just repeatedly stated you don't think they're needed. What I'm asking you for is the why behind your stance. What is the value to removing them? Again, if anyone can answer that, and that value is greater that the cost of reduced verifiability, I'm at least listening. If what you really think is that they are just being misused, then lets work on how to best use them correctly,a nd make great, reliable articles, which is of course what we're all after, no matter what differences of opinion we have. - 1057:

Perhaps there should be a rule that any article is firmly required, without exception, to go through peer review for the full month period that PR remains active before being allowed to be a FAC. Should that apply also to repeat bids? (I think so - I can't see how it can hurt to give an article more time and outside help.) Even if there are good articles that get through to FA without PR, I find it hard to believe that the process can be a significant impediment to any article. As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway? Not to say that's a bad thing at all, but clearly there is a backlog, so should anyone object that a new rule of this sort would lower the number of promoted articles, the answer seems to be that that doesn't appear to necessarily be a bad thing in the short term - some of those older promoted ones waiting in the wings and getting dusty can finally see the Main Page! Anyway, just my musings... What do you all think? --

2238:

attempting to write history from their recollection. Any attempt to state that an article is encyclopedic must then be in line with either the seminal texts produced in a disciplinary context of history, or the primary disputes developed by historians in their analysis of the past. This means that to be complete and "cite sources" an article on a "history of x" must demonstrate that it lies within the disciplinary discourse of "x": it must demonstrate the historiography which produced the article. This can be as simple as "The seminal work produced by E.P. Thompson has dictated the study of the emergence of a working class in England." or as complex as "Initial studies of the causes of the first world war denoted primarily diplomatic causes(Foo, Bar); this was followed by a tendency to analyse the causes in terms of economics(Baz, Bok); but in recent years attention has turned to the role of popular sentiment(Bik, Bang)."

1656:

enhanced with the appropriate use of inline citations. The lack of consensus is over whether the inline citations should be in the form of footnotes, journal style notes that refer to items in the References section, or even numbered links to external online references. It is up to the articles' editors to determine the appropriate amount and use of inline citations for each article. We have not come to an agreement on one specific type of inline citations (personally, I don't much like footnotes, but I don't use a lack of inlines or their presence as an objection), and the way things are going with nominations, I don't see that happening for a while yet. What we have all agreed is that aiding the verifiability of an article's facts is necessary.

1422:. Or at least they feign to in order to not have to look for better sources. I like Brian's criteria. I do suppose what I am mentioning is not as much of a problem for FA's but it does still happen for FAC's and certainly happens all over Knowledge (XXG). To respond directly to Brian though I don't find Fox nor NPR as remotely high quality references for a fact. I would take a well regarded textbook over either one of them any day, because of the editing and review process those go through. For material that is new, and is not in journals or textbooks, we may have to accept that news organizations are the best sources we have, but lets not kid ourselves that they are as high quality as other choices. Is cite sources the 1616:

because, while there were opinions both ways, what we ended up changing the criteria to is the citations are needed, and that appropriate doesn't mean none. I'm not telling you that's my interpretating, that was the interpretation of many, and I can pull out specific diffs from various nominations after we made that change if you like, specifically discussing the difference between appropriate and none. But ignore all that if you want to, and just respond to the most important part, italicized above. Given that, I do feel this is very important to the core issues of building an encyclopedia, so I will defend it strongly, but I certainly don't mean to piss people off, and I'm sorry, because clearly I have. -

1410:, which had a successful FAC nomination despite using as references such websites as "cats.about.com", "hgtv.com" (a home improvement cable channel), "cozycatfurniture.com", "fabcats.org", "demented-pixie.com" (my personal favorite), "messybeast.com", and personal webpages. While these references are all accessible, they are neither reputable nor recognizable. This makes the article weaker than it should be, considering that there must be a wide variety of excellent references available for most of the facts cited. Clearly, using superior references strengthens the article, and I firmly believe we should encourage this. - 1627:

slambo is a very good sign that you're exaggerating its importance. Your highlighted sentence is really nothing more than a repetition of what I've already criticized, so I don't see what there is to add. For some reason you're trying very hard to polarize and overly simplify the attempts of others to nuance policy and making them out as being generally "anti-reference". The policies and ideas that articles should be verifiable are not in any kind of jeapordy even with the somewhat conservative interpretations about footnote usage offered by myself, bish and geogre.

2999:, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in the section you signed up for (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, or on the FMP talk page. 1371:"Fox News is biased; therefore this fact may also be biased." Reputation in this case is not a problem; it is recognition of the source. In other cases, "most reputable" is appropriate, for example when a scholarly peer-reviewed journal (especially in the hard sciences) can supply the same facts as some blog. Accessibility is another issue; if we have two reputable sources, we would rather reference the more accessible one to facilitate fact checking. Example: I'd rather reference a 258:, do I need to duplicate the reference? I've come to think that maybe we can use other Knowledge (XXG) articles as formal references, but only so long as those articles are well referenced themselves. (Does that mean we should list subarticles in the ==References== section?) The obvious danger is that we create huge circular references where we only back things up with our own articles, which of course defeats the whole purpose of referencing in the first place. - 31: 689:

unbearable task for any editor that has done good research. I'll repeat for emphasis, if you've done good research, citing a reasonable number of facts should be no big deal. If you don't feel like formatting them, just at least give a listing of which source and maybe a page number in a comment. If we promote this as just another step in the process when adding material and people get in the habit of it, it is really not very hard at all. -

2605:

removing them without discussion when people have added them back is innapropriate. But I'll finally go fix mine and move it to Knowledge (XXG) space if it's that big a deal. We could also have a discussion about creating a single article with expanded explanation of the criteria. For those editors that aren't familiar with how they are applied, the concise criteria probably aren't enough to know how to meet them. -

2321:

Besides, by including a historiography section, you are claiming directly that the articles' contents are not infallable/dependable, which then fails it for FA critera 2(c). 2(b) requires that the article be sufficiently comprehensive such that it doesn't miss any major parts of the article... by my comments above, a historiographical section is not a major section of the article by being digressive and superflous.

697:

without cites to add them. That takes hours but is worth it since it makes the article much more verifiable. Arguments that say that having such cites is not standard for an encyclopedia need to be reminded that Knowledge (XXG) is not a standard encyclopedia; that letting anybody edit any time and having multiple authors carries an extra burden of proof that what the reader is reading was not simply made up. --

1751:

editors should preferably decide. But I still think it's very reasonable to object to either too few or too many footnotes as long as the objection is at least generally specified. "There isn't enough/too many references" or "all historical facts require/don't require notes" isn't actionable, and I try my best to specify what I feel to be overusage whenever I object even if I don't address each individual note.

1073:- No. The standards - what we expect of a featured article - have gone up (A LOT) over the past year, and this has artificially depressed the rate at which featured articles are being generated. I believe today is the 183rd day of 2005 and (to date) we have had a net increase of 181 featured articles this year (which is in fact below the 1 article/day minimum we must sustain in order to prevent any repeats). 1949:, I've begun a list of article types (e.g. albums, architectural styles, orders of chivalry) and their featured articles. The goal is to encourage the standardization of layout and formatting between articles on similar subjects. There's a lot of variation in featured articles, some of it for good reason, but a lot of it would be better off standardized. Is anybody here interested in working on this? 620:- the same slippery slope that made the criterion for references go from "when and where appropriate" to required, see above - that will require any featured articles to look like an academic treatise, not an encyclopedia article. I am not objecting to the requirement to provide sources to justify the broad content of an article, nor indeed to provide specific inline citations (whether using 2398:

could say that the orthodox view was that it was a gradual process beginning with the industrial revolution but that Callum Brown challenged this view by suggesting that it was a rapid process that started in the sixties when women moved away from religion and so on. Obviously there shouldn't be a blanket requirement, but I can see how it'd be useful in some articles.--

375:, with quotes from the sources. I think this is very useful and interesting, but is making the references section very long. If the entire article is done like this, it will be way over 32k. Should I remove the quotes but otherwise keep the referencing the way it is? Or does page size not matter in this case? Do you like the sound sample download format (e.g. at 178:: Me and B have been overhauling the article alot in the past eight or so weeks, but the net result of that has been a sharp increase in red links; mostly their locations that I have never been to. The discussion on the 1980s modernization has also led to red links because of obsolete weaponry, yet in both cases I see no need to penalize the author for this. 735:? And is my proposed guideline a good one? As a side note, I would say that even if what you outlined actually occurred, I would still argue the article is improved, even if only slightly. I'm not sure how many would agree with me on that, but I think verifiability is simply that important. It's Knowledge (XXG)'s biggest weakness. - 1900:

considerably more time, effort and skill than fixing the first two problems (not always, but usually). Poor prose is a more consistent problem, and is what will stick out when Knowledge (XXG) parades featured articles to the world. That's why I'm arguing that it be emphasised, and singled out for extra mention in the instructions.

302:

ideally, one would go check the references. Only if this is done should the refs be added to the article's refs section. This will be more easily done if one records which wikipedia article the refs come from. What I've been doing with all my refs is putting an abbreviated specific reference in comments (like

1924:

Raul's ruthless pruning that has kept the FAC instructions so nice and simple compared to those of Peer Review. It wasn't very long since you made the additions, so it's possible that no one complained because no one noticed yet; the longer the instructions are, the more cursorily they'll probably be read, that's the problem.

162:. Other than not having a lead section, I’d say that it is a pretty darn good article. Yet it has many red links due to the fact that this article covers an area of history that is very poorly-covered in Knowledge (XXG) right now. Why should this article be denied FA status due to a lack of related articles? -- 665:

least some specific facts where it is beneficial to the reader to know precisely where they came from. However I would much prefer to see "Facts A,B,C,D should have a specific citation" rather than "This article only has two specific citations. Please add more". The former is actionable, the latter is not.

2728:

Taxman's right: of course the stubby para problem is irritating to reviewers, but so are other aspects of poor prose that occur just as frequently. Criterion 2a says it all and says nothing at the same time, which is the most practical solution. Spin-off pages are a good idea, given that the official

2593:

I agree with ALoan on this point. However, I implore the main contributors to both of those pages to have them edited. They should be written in nothing less than excellent prose, and bloopers such as "editors that aren't aware" should be fixed promptly. Otherwise, it makes nonsense of the whole idea

2387:

Yes, but if we need to cite historiographers to verify the historians, wouldn't we therefore need to cite historiographer-ographers to verify the historiographers? I can see the value of a historiography section in an article which is forced to depend on only semi-reliable sources, but in the absence

1877:

I could cope with the removal of the expansion to point 6 (what not to write at the top of a nomination), but I will argue strongly that the additional signpost in point 1, concerning the need to have nominations copy edited thoroughly beforehand, should stay. Substandard prose was becoming a serious

1663:

Both have its merits and demerits. I have a few suggestions: What if we combine the merits of both systems? Use inotes so that it doesn't break up the flow of the text, but at the same time Taxman can view the references. How this is done? By CSS: class="db-aW5vdGU" for Peter and all of us it will be

1626:

Previous discussions do not count as policy unless they've resulted in actual policy change, and it's very obvious that even if the unanimous consensus you talk about existed, there's clearly enough criticism to consider it rather shaky. Just the fact that it's not immidiately obvious to someone like

1375:

web article on most unspecialized knowledge than an offline scholarly journal, because 1) Smitsonian is trustworthy, 2) the subject matter is not controversial enough to need the gravitas of a journal, and 3) accessibility facilitates fact checking, which reinforces our reputability. To summarize, it

1366:

are both held as credible and unbiased by many, but also accused (justly or unjustly, it doesn't matter) by many as substantially biased. Regardless, as long as sources are well known, the reader can judge for himself. If a fact is referenced with Fox News as a source, the reader can say to himself

791:

I would have to say I reluctantly agree with inline cites not being applied retroactively for the very reason you mention. Especially since it is just now getting formalized as a requirement. In a minimum of a year, I would consider revisiting that though. I would also like to emphasize what you know

218:

suggests not including them in a references section. Fair enough; the original references will be in other wikipedia articles, which we can follow links to see. But this raises the possibility of an article with no references section at all that is actually soundly referenced. The easiest way for

187:

I agree with you guys. It would be silly to not give something FA status just because linked articles don't exist. It would only promote people not linking to them, or linking, but writing substubs. Now if such a link is a subpage of an FA that summarizes something in a section, it's another thing...

129:

I concur strongly with Raul. Red links are what ultimately ecourage growth of the wiki (although I go to some length to eliminate them on the articles I work on - but by the expedient of creating content, rather than declining to link). That said, it is also true that too many red links tells me that

2695:

To me that's just part of good writing, so it's already said. There's lots of things the criteria in concise form can't expound on, so they don't. You can't fit every detail in them and still be concise. That's why I wrote my advice and Jengod wrote his, to expand in more detail how the criteria are

2075:

section. Given that disciplinary history demands a historiographical consciousness, yet does not resolve to distinct "empirical" demonstrations as the sciences claim, an encyclopedic entry on a historical subject must discuss historiography in order to be featured. For an example of a pro-forma of

1923:

My overriding concern is that the instructions be kept simple and practical. Following Bishonen's Law, they will naturally tend to be always growing, as people add their own special concerns over time, while hardly anybody ever removes anything. I know Raul654 agrees with me in general, in fact it's

1894:

Tony, I appreciate your good intentions and the urgency that made you expand the instructions. But I do think it's bloat to add specifics on one aspect of one of the (many) criteria, right next to the link to the criteria themselves. Nominators need to either make very sure to click on that link, or

1746:

a hellofalot better than footnotes in books and both inline citation and footnotes have their merits and both can be used in the same article, so simply turning off footnotes for most people doesn't really seem like a practical solution. And as for print-outs, the current system would work fine even

1638:

Ok, forget previous discussions. Pretend they never occurred if it's easier. But you've sidestepped the very core of the issue by saying it would just be repetitive. Well it wouldn't be, because this is all you've said (from the most representative quotes I can find besides what is on this page) is:

1550:

I think all objections that call for more referencing without proper justification should be disregarded, especially when made with nonsense claims that, for example, all historical facts need specific references. Blanket statements like this is about as merited as "it's not interesting enough". And

1390:

We need to encourage the maximization of all three of these aspects for references: the perfect reference would be an online article from an unimpeachable source with a household name. While this is almost never possible, we need to strive for that, and favor references that achieve the best balance

1056:

I know that it is listed as a step in "The Path to a Featured Article" infobox, but I have been noticing more and more often that articles seem to be nominated for FA without even bothering to go through the peer review process. Or they get impatient after about a week of PR and jump it over to FAC.

780:

Note that due to the amount of work required to add inline cites retroactively, I very strongly oppose this requirement to be retroactive on FAs that were nominated before this was a requirement. I do, however, think that a lack of a populated ==References== section is a reasonable thing to add to a

652:

Appropriate use of inline citations is a requirement. I originally opposed this but was over-ruled. Using invisible cites will not make the article look like an academic treatise. You come from a FAC on a topic that many people think is in large part original research. Use of inline citations behind

2330:

A historiography section is not necessarily original research - many areas of history have had information on their historiographies published even if just as part of a more general work. We could quite safely cite these. I think these sections are more applicable to very specific articles, though,

2258:

I'll remind you that we're writing encyclopedia articles, not dissertations. While in some isolated cases (generally for broad or contentious topics) a discussion of sources is appropriate, this is not the case for most historical articles, which tend to focus on fairly narrow (and rather obscure)

2241:

Failure to do this is like allowing pseudo-science into the wiki without a criticism of it as pseudo-science. Due to the failrue to have a historiography section most articles claiming to be a "history of x" are actually folk- or media- pseudo-histories. A pseudo-history certainly doesn't meet my

2237:

History isn't the (alleged) instances of the past, but the systematic recording and storytelling of the past as done by people. All claims in history are dependent upon the quality of the work produced by historians, see for example the almost continuous series of fallacies produced by journalists

1908:

I've already significantly simplified the wording and formatting of the criteria, and shifted greater emphasis onto prose by moving it into first position (that was one of the few substantive changes in meaning that I made). I don't know what more you can say in the one place than 'compelling, even

1572:

But take a look through the archive on this talk page about footnotes. It's not as cut-and-dried as some of the other requirements and has proven to be a little controversial here. I know I brought up similar concerns in (I think) March, and we've been discussing it off an on since then. No real

1528:

is an even bigger problem. Most FAC subjects should be comprehensive and general enough to require inline citations, but that does not mean it applies to all candidates equally. Personally, I feel the current wording is ambiguous for a reason and should stay that way. Just like too many images or a

1259:

Many books have been written about topics we wish to cover with FAs. We cannot, and should not aspire to, cover any topic with the same breadth and depth as a lengthy scholarly work. Besides, the "best article available" varies by who is looking; the best article to a scholarly researcher is much

688:

featured quality article should have used good sources, so citing the top facts in the article should be no big deal. While I'm against a numerical requirement, certainly 20+ facts would not be unreasonable to cite in an article the length of even the shortest FA's, and certainly 10 would not be an

664:

A couple of points. There is now quite a tradition for FA standards to rise over time, and I am comfortable with this general trend - calling this a "slippery slope" is too negative an attitude. Now the flavour of the month is inline cites. These are generally useful - most articles will contain at

275:

section, I haven't seen any other guidelines on referencing existing articles. My thought is that if an article is used as a reference, it should be listed in the References section. We have a mechanism to link to specific versions of articles through the page history, so why not use it? Perhaps

2638:

My point of view is this: I wouldn't want someone to make edits to pages in my userpage (other than to my talk page or maybe a copyedit of my user page). If people are going to link to them from a Knowledge (XXG) article, then they had better be editable like anything else. Right? I'm going to ask

2320:

By using words like "which claims…", you are making direct inferences about the credibility of the author of the source(s), which is digressive and shouldn't appear on the article anyway. If it was used as a source, great, discuss it on the talk page (which is why it is there) or create a subpage.

2212:

such a topic seems completely digressive. You're analyzing a source(s), which is completely off the direct topic of writing about the history of x. That can be included in a sub-page, but otherwise is unnecessary for being comprehensive. The other thing you have to realize is that the history of x

2106:

be cited from appropriate sources. For contentious or heavily studied periods, this may be possible; but for subjects where the material about the subject is itself fairly limited, finding material about the material about the subject will be next to impossible, and quite unenlightening to boot.

1899:

I've since pruned some of the additions in response to your comments, but your objection, I suspect, still applies to what remains. Lack of references, image copyright issues, and poor prose appear to the be most common complaints of reviewers. However, fixing poor prose, in my view, usually takes

1881:

As a contributor who has put a lot of time and effort into trying to raise the standards of prose in the nominations, I thought that something needed to be done. When I comment on poor prose in nominations, I feel I need either to roll my sleeves up and fix it myself, or quote several examples and

1804:

standards, and that a conflict of interest doesn't necesarily keep someone from contributing to an article. However, I feel uneasy about articles with such blatent conflict of interest becoming a FA, especially when the editor promoting the article for FAC is the one with the conflict. Does anyone

713:

It is a shame I said actionable and that you concentrated on that. I should've said that the former objection is more useful than the latter. You say "Please add some inline cites to this article; you get to pick" and indeed I can carry out an action passed on that just to shut you up, as it were,

696:

Very good points. At first I was really annoyed by this new requirement since it was something I was not doing before. But now that I know the requirement exists, I add inline cites as I write. It is very easy and second nature now. What still is a bugger is having to go back to an article I wrote

1727:

You'd need to contact a developer to set the class in the HTML code first. I was also wondering if we could have a "verify" button in addition to "article" "edit" "discussion" etc., so that the actual modification of the css file by a user is not done; instead the server dishes up the correct css

1719:

That's awesome, thanks. We've been clamoring for an option for those that don't want to see them don't have to, and that is almost perfect. The only thing better would be to have that be an account preferences option instead of having to change the css style sheet. I don't mind personally, but it

1615:

Well hmm, misunderstandings all around, because that response wasn't to Slambo, it was to you, but I can see the confusion, because I didn't place it very well, sorry. So was MATIA's comment, . I think the indenting is finally right for who was responding to who. You do need to read the archives,

1599:

What kind of response is that? Slambo claims he can't find the consensus you insist is there and you tell him to read it again? You're no longer discussing this. You've just dug in and now you're doing your best to blatantly trivialize objections or to warp whatever criticism that might be voiced

1274:

The purpose of articles on Knowledge (XXG) is to provide the most essential information in as condensed a format as possible, and we can easily do that better than most 400 page books. If we need more information, we move the details to specific articles and get those featured as well. What about

826:

or something like it. A footnote may be considered an inline citation, but is not in the least bit synonymous. And considering how a lot of recent article have clearly overused footnotes, I think we should try to explain either in the criteria or on nomination pages that footnotes aren't actually

2397:

We're not citing them to verify the historians, though. Maybe we're using the word to mean different things; historiography (in the sense I'm using it) simply means summarising the writings of various historians for its own ends. In an article on secularisation in western Europe, for example, we

1655:

Maybe I can help clear up what I meant to convey... The citations requirement as it stands now is that references must be cited in the article. As a minimum, the references used must be listed in a == References == section which is normally at the end of the article. This should (not must) be

1488:

Indeed. I've been using reference sections for all new articles I create (even stubs), and some editors (including well-known and respected ones) have tried changing them to "external links". I think awareness is high in the FAC community, but we still need to spread the good word to others. -

730:

Good points also. It is apparent from the tone of your response that my comments must have come accross much more abrasively than they were meant to. I apologize, as that was not my intention. Basically, avoiding that pitfall you point out is not much different that any other factor in writing a

301:

I think ALoan is right. But it's true that (especially for print references) we should be more willing to trust well-referenced Knowledge (XXG) articles than random unsupported claims. What I mean is, I think it's okay, although not ideal, to simply plunder another wikipedia article for facts;

2604:

That's why it's still userified in my case, though I suppose I should get off my assets and go fix it. But Matt's reasoning for removing them is specious, there's no policy against user pages on Knowledge (XXG) pages, and common sense would say to leave links to useful ones. Further, repeatedly

1820:

Personally, I would rather have someone who has done a lot of research in a field be a contributor to articles in that field (which is why, for example, all of my own edits have something to do with railroad history and rail transport technology). As long as we do everything we can to ensure a

1480:

At least for FA's, but we still have a long way to go to make sure editors reallize it is important for every article, and even that all editors will see guidelines that recommend it. That said, we have come a long way in a year on this front and all progress should be considered encouraging. -

758:

No need to apologize. I was over-reacting. Inline references are good, and FAC comments should encourage them. If those FAC comments are particularly detailed and specific, so much the better. But even if not, the writer should implicitly understand where citations are most appropriate. This is

2581:, saying "userspace links are inappropriate from Knowledge (XXG) articles". Clearly links to userspace from actual articles would be inappropriate, but surely we can have links to useful information in userspace in wikispace, no? Quite a few things in wikispace started off in userspace... -- 2263:

to declare something the "seminal work" unless we can cite said opinion to an outside source; given that such limitations make a proper analysis of documents (which is all you'll have if there are no major disputes over the topic) all but impossible, I see no reason to require a historiography

1762:

I'm one of those who likes footnotes, but dislikes the clutter and distractions of footnote overuse. I prefer to use a style I've seen in recent publications which limits footnotes to one per paragraph. In this style, the footnote number is placed at the end of the paragraph, where it is least

1750:

I'm also not quie comfortable being described as a proponent of "a system". I'm trying to influence people to stop overusing footnotes, not to get rid of them altogether. I think slambo's post summarizes my own view of this very nicely. It should be determined from case to case and the article

2358:

The problem with citing historiographies to write such a section is that it creates a circular situation. Which historiographer(s) should we choose? How do we know that the historiographers cited don't have their own biases? Do we need to cite historiographer-ographers as well? I realize this

1918:

I'm not sure that I agree; I'm a professional editor, yet on occasions I've hired someone else to edit my text when it really matters. It's the 'fresh pair of eyes' that just about all text needs, even text that has been produced by good writers. Perhaps we could soften the wording ('strongly

1350:

That's easy to solve with "the most reputable source available". Then people can't use garbage sites if much better is available, but don't get frustrated when there is only one source has the info. It is important to discourage shoddy resources as references just to get by the requirement. -

455:

I for one think the changes are great, and make the criteria simpler and more concise. However, now the section on images is gone and the only leftover part says you don't really need images. I think that is misleading since in practice every article that does not have an image is objected to

440:

I'm talking about 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', like the kinds of examples Raul654 named. The reason I brought I up is because some of the articles related to the Gundam Universe (which is an entirely fictional universe) have been refined enough to meet the needed criteria for

408:

First, define what you mean by 'Fictional Articles'. If you mean 'an article which covers a topic in fiction', then that article will be treated the same as any other. If you mean 'a fake article that is pulling the reader's leg', then that will be treated just like any other vandalism and be

200:

Something else to consider about featured articles and red ink: Since the featured article is right out on the main page people who generally wouldn't look for the article have accsess to it, and may have knowlage of the red inked link, which leads to an increase in the number of pages and a

2137:." Now some subjects in the past, Henry Miller for example, aren't historical in this sense. But articles claiming to be a "History of X" or dealing with a subject of central importance to history ("Causes of the First World War" for example) really should include this to qualify under 2b. 1819:

Well, one way to look at this is that someone who is very familiar with the details is contributing to the article, so it's more likely that accurate (and hopefully well-referenced) information would be included. However, we could also see it as a veiled attempt to push a particular POV.

1012:

just looks wrong. It would not be at all difficult - searching would still work, the "?" is at the end of the name so links would work too, and there would be a redirect, which would also solve the "lots of links" point too. But I am not going to die in a ditch over a question mark. --

121:

There's an informal policy that they shouldn't have an excessive number. As far as prohibiting it entirely, that would be a terrible idea - the whole idea of red links is to advertise articles we are lacking -- prohibiting red links would simply encourage people not to link the terms.

1878:

problem in the nominations, and I think (although I'm not certain) that the problem has lessened since the recent expansion of point 1. Clearly, nominators either had a distorted sense of the standards that apply ('compelling, even brilliant' prose) or weren't reading the criteria.

1337:

I actually like this. If there is no other source for a view, then any source is fine - as long as it is noted, the reader can judge the validity of the source himself. But for most facts or viewpoints, I feel much more confident in believing them when they are referenced to, say,

141:. I don't think red links should be eliminated from FACs; rather, we should encourage editors to create articles (or at least good stubs) that fill in the necessary background information for articles. I've tried to follow this practice on articles that I create or edit (like the 680:(Well not just you, lots of people do that, but I've got to keep the quote straight :) Actionable means able to be acted upon. "Please add more" is actionable because the editor can add them, an action. While it is more helpful to ask for specific facts to be cited, that is not 337:

page ~80 links. Its shouldn't be expected that the authors waste their effort in translating the pages. Having a simple english page on the other hand would help the SE cause and also those who may not understand the jargon on the FA page, but would like to read a good article.

803:

Fair enough. :) I'd like to get some more back-up re objecting to FACs that don't have adequate inline cites. As is, I'm a bit of the poster child for objecting based on this (which is odd considering I did not agree to this addition to the referencing requirement at first).

731:

great article. If the guideline is to cite the most contentious and the most important facts in an article, and instead what you referred to is done, the guideline has certainly not been met. Where would be the most appropriate place to have that guideline, this article or

2242:

criteria of comprehensiveness under 2b. And if this is the case for currently featured articles, then our currently featured articles are more an indicator of our status as bad editors: especially when we use the example of a mass of past errors to defend a current error.

2919:

Done - I've withdrawn the lot of my objections, but please let me note, for the record, strongly, that if there's no a compelling reason NOT to use the ref tags (example - currently broken for harvard refrences) as opposed to the ref-note templates, they are just better.

1398:

I think is a solution in search of a problem. We have not, to my knowledge, had problems with people citing crappy sources in articles because I believe it's pretty obvious that you are expected to use good ones. Until it becomes problem, I don't see a need to add this.

2804:

If there's really that much of a encouraged/required problem, that's fine. ref-note is a terrible, terrible system, which is prone to making previously featured articles have bad references sections (because they have so many of them, keeping them in place is hard).

441:

featured article status, but the only featured articles I see are those that come from the actual real world. I know that fair use images do not qualify for featured picture status, but I was unclear on whether or not fictional articles were similarly disqualified.

1992:

No, I don't think it's specified anywhere - it's just something that developed as a result of articles with very long references sections (a common trait of featured articles). Using small font means that the article text isn't dominated by the references section.

1091:

Nah, in the future, don't bother checking archives - it's a waste of your time. It's probably buried deep in the archives of the featured article candidates talk page, and there are people here who can tell you off the top of their heads that an idea is not new.

2128:

Its still possible to indicate the seminal text, "Prior to Johansen (1974) no scholarly historical investigations were conducted into Boot Making in the Upper Hunter Valley. Johansen and subsequent scholars have followed principles developed in the fields of

1841:

Additionally, an article which exists on Knowledge (XXG), though it may not be deleted because it is considered notable, may not become a featured article unless the group has been referenced in a published book, newspaper, magazine or Academic journal. (cf

2070:

Under 2b we learn that a featured article must be ""comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details." However, many articles on historical subjects have been passed without having a

1433:

Of course you're right re: news orgs vs. textbooks; for some reason I had contemporary politics in my head, which is more dependent on news for sources. Even then, I'd generally prefer newspapers and magazines, for precisely the reasons you mention. -

2768:

Considering previous discussions about references, I think "strongly encourage" would be a better choice of words than "require". In some articles, a list at the end of common references where many facts for the article were sourced is sufficient.

2305:; there are so many because all of it is unsubstantiable and is original thought. By judging the ability of the historian, you are making POV comments in the article directly, and such should instead be discussed on the talk page (like it was for 1967:) the font size in the notes and references is reduced. I generally consider featured articles as "best practices" and therefore would go along with the reduced font size in notes and references. But, is this practice specified somewhere in the 2217:

history of x, not just a single event (like those above), so that it is difficult to actually find one source to analyze using historiographical techniques. Plus, such a change would require every single article under the history section of the

1913:

Though I also stand by my remark about it looking condescending to tell everybody to go get somebody else to copyedit before nominating. Wouldn't you agree that there are articles that are good to go directly from the hands of the author/s/..?

2696:

applied. But I'm also not against having that in there, because it is one of the most common problems I see. What would become a serious instruction creep problem is if every objection at FAC were added as a line item to the criteria. -

2713:

Obviously. That'd be ridiculous. It's just an explicitation attempted to reduce the amount of times we have to repeat it. After all, we can't make an objection that is not covered anywhere in the FA criteria. (e.g. the reference style)

1792:, but I thought we might try to come to some consensus before the article returns for another FA vote. In a nutshell, here is my major issue with the article: One of the people actively involved in the Terri Schiavo case, Gordon Watts ( 2293:. By considering the quality of the historians themselves, you either must have bad and unreliable sources, which means that those sources should not have been used and that there would be no necessity for the historiography section. 456:

multiple times. The only ones that make it through without one are conceptual articles where an actual image is difficult or impossible. I think the criteria should reflct some clarity around this issue. - 12:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

2194:

I agree with Krill and Aranda - I don't see any purpose to this requirement. Articles are required to have (good) sources; I don't think a seperate section discussing the sources should be required for all (or even most) articles.

2578: 287:

Surely the 'right' answer is that the copied fact should be checked again in the reference cited in the original article, just to make sure, and then the original reference is repeated in the article where the fact is copied. --

827:

required and that they are not the least bit helpful if used in excess. In any subject that isn't particularly controversial, I would prefer a short and concise "References"-section over 20+ footnotes any day of the week. And

1541:

for inline citations, so footnotes or Harvard referencing or whatever else is considered fine. Maybe that should be in the criteria specifically, but it has not been in order to simplify the criteria as much as possible. -

460:

I would even suggest that, as it's worded now, the paragraph on images should be bullet point 5. The lead for the list is "A featured article should", and the first four words of the images paragraph starts the same way.

2336: 1895:

else several other specially important points need to be mentioned up front (which I'm against, as creating more bloat). I'm pretty sure lack of references, for instance, is as frequent a problem as lack of copyediting.

1342:

rather than about.com. Even for contentious views, a reference from a known source, even if biased, is better than one where the reader cannot judge the potential bias of an item because the source is unknown to him. -

320:

as possible, and if I have time I might start on some existing FAs. It only really works for proper names, so we couldn't make this a hard and fast rule - people can't be expected to translate an article title into

1417:

I also disagree. I see this all the time, people citing Joe's website in support of their claims, and lacking even a hint of understanding of the difference in quality of sources as Brian has outlined above. See

1283:

on the Internet" is equally hard to reach since many of our FA topics are covered on lots of other sites. It is really a guideline more than a rule, and that's why I think making it more ambitious is justified.

821:

Somehow the term "inline citation" has been made synonymous with "footnote", which doesn't seem very logical to me. An inline citation is actually writing a sentence into an article paragraph along the lines of

1327:

I think the phrase "reputable sources" could become a needless point of contention. Sometimes a source is not viewed as "reputable" by everyone, and yet it represents a notable view (where no others exist).

714:

and get my article featured. But if I cite ten facts that could be verified in five seconds by using Google then I've added nothing to the article. It's just creating a false impression of verfiability.

896:"What is a featured article" can be a statement can't it? It's just a different way of saying: what a featured article is. Unless the alternative is much better, I'd like to keep it where it is at. - 400:

Is their a general rule for the status of fictional articles with regards to their eligability (or lack there of) of becoming featured articles? I cannot seem to find anything regarding the subject.

1260:

different than the best article for a curious but casual reader. We must serve all audiences, so it is doubtful we can be the best to everyone on everything. But I like your ambitions! :) -

1147:

I've modified the link to go to the license section of the Copyright FAQ, which lists more-or-less all of the common licenses and whether or not they are acceptable. Is that suitable to you?

276:

list wiki articles in a subsection of the References like === Knowledge (XXG) references === or somesuch, and list the article name as a link to the specific version that was referenced.

950:

since that's what is written most of the time when linking to this page anyway. We always write criteria or featured article criteria, so why wouldn't the page be named that instead? -

962: 1561:

And I think you should show more respect to your fellow wikipedians, and try more to understand their thesis, or should I say their answers to your objections all these days. Thanks.

684:

to be actionable. It is fairly straightforward to prioritize the facts in the article from the two standpoints of most potentially contentious and most important and to cite those. '

130:

an article exists in something of a vacuum, which is problematic for a featured article... A featured article should be sufficiently well linked to put it in an appropriate context.

89: 2672:

I agree entirely with the sentiment, but perhaps there should be discussion here before a substantive change is made to the criteria. (The wording is not entirely clear, either.)

498:

I left things as they were to avoid controversy, and assumed that images were not a prerequsite for FA status. I would be happy to re-word the paragraph to reflect your comments.

1317:

here; I see that this is a criticism that often arises in candidacies, and I reckon that it isn't obvious for people who are not accustomed to scientific article,s for instance.

81: 76: 64: 59: 585:

Whoa - this series of edits almost slipped by me. I only checked the diff for the last one, not realizing there were a bunch more. Anyway, from what I can see, it looks good.

2204:

Agree again with objections above against the historiographical section. The thing is that in analyzing sources (which again, I'm not too understanding of the subject like

1210:

We would have to start rejecting a lot more FACs :). I think we could reword to make the statement stronger and that would be a good thing.. but your statement is a little

781:

FARC nomination (but that should not be the only reason). Adding such a section to an older article is not nearly as difficult as adding inline cites to such an article. --

1460:, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." I worry much more about people not giving any source, than people ginving sources of questionable value. 1882:

pull them apart; it's a lot of work. That is why I acted, and no one has since complained. I wouldn't mind if the italic highlighting in point 1 were softened to roman.

1764: 1524:

For one thing, the widespread notion that "inline citation" means "footnote" is a problem. That this sentence is cited by those who feel that inline citations should be

1313:

Perhaps we might want to explicitly put the "...is well-documented; reputable sources are cited, especially those which are the most accessible and up-to-date." part of

643:

While I personally prefer the idea of inline citations, I don't think it should be a requirement (nor do I think historically there has been support to require them).

1600:

into some sort of general assault on the foundations of verifiability. No one's even calling for a rewrite of policy, yet you're rock solid in your opinion that only

1551:

it should be very obvious that any article that has multiple notes in single paragraphs or even sentences are either grossly over-referenced or need to be rewritten.

630:

or otherwise) to support an specific surprising, contentious or debateable point, but I think requiring inline citations as a matter of course is simply overkill. --

985:

No no, I don't like this idea one bit. Not only does it strike me as pedantic, but (a) tons of pages already link here and (b) it makes the article harder to find.

2450: 158:

I think this would be a bad idea since it would discourage writing in topic areas that are now on the fringe of our coverage. A recent article I wrote is on the

2682:

The addition was mine. That reason (which fits perfectly within the MoS, AFAICT) is invoked so frequently in the FAC page it ought to be listed there, I think.

1008:" is a personal attack or a compliment (looking at our article, decidedly the former!). But anyway, whether it is pedantic or not is really beside the point: 2995:, such as the discography, format and style or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for 2181:

is and I read that article, so I need no need, not a reason anyways, and on my article on FA that was opposed for it is rather hard to make one. Thank you --

1134:

Raul, can we list the acceptable image copyrights on here for Requirement Five, for future reference? There is still a problem about fair use images at FAC.

2372:

We'd presumably go about it the same way as we would citing historians, no? I can't see how it would be any different to writing the rest of the article.--

2154:

historical articles that lack such discussion (or in which the discussion is present in separate articles about the individual works cited) is excessive. —

924:

I'm struggling to think of any context in which you would use "What is a featured article" as a statement rather than as a question (per the discussion on

925: 312:

Should it be a guideline that a Featured Article should attempt to include as many links as possible to other languages? I've been using aka's marvellous

47: 17: 322: 2992: 2639:

the two of them if they mind letting everyone else take a crack at editing them mercilessly. If they do mind, then the links need to be removed. Right?

2454: 2449:, an attempt to encourage and facilitate successful featured article candidacies and peer reviews for articles on musicians and bands. You can help by 2405: 2379: 2350: 2339:, though, and I think that is too broad a topic for a historiography section - it would have to be several sections. If there was a future article on 2030:

mean in an environment where you are scrolling through a document of arbitrary length and there are good guidelines for the ordering of the material?

1267:

I concur with Bantam - an 40 kilobyte-or-less article on some given subject cannot ever hope to be more informative than a 400 page book on the same.

878: 1069:

part of the Featured article process. Requiring it is instruction creep, and it serves little value becaus people have no incentive to make it work.

105:

I wonder, shouldn't there be a (informal) criterion that featured article should contain no red links? I haven't noticed that some would have, until

2428:

I've decided to raise this issue, along with the more general issues of what we should expect in a History article, on Manual Of Style's talk page.

503:"however, even if the subject does not have any obvious images associated with it, a suggested picture which could be used to represent it on the 1806: 1586:. If after really reading those, you can tell me some actual advantages (that outweigh the costs) to reducing inline citation then I am all ears. 1009: 610: 2838:, but there is no official preference between Harvard, inotes, ref/note, cite, or indeed any other system, so long as references are there. -- 1789: 874: 146: 1041: 947: 933: 2787:

format is required" work? I'm not looking to require footnotes (I know, drama), rather require that any footnotes be in the new-cite format.

2084:. I would appreciate others comments on whether this should be considered a requirement for articles on historical subjects to be featured. 613:

currently says that a featured article should be "enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations", not "must contain inline citations".

2880: 1946: 1065:

Requirng peer review for FACs has been proposed before and has been roundly shot down every time. It is understood that peer review is an

870: 1854:

If we are going to fail an FA solely on this criteria, then we should at least update this as a reason why an article may not make FA. -

2574: 2984: 2446: 1588:

I will specifically repeat that it has been established that appropriate does not mean none. I believe there is no subject that would

1529:

bad sub-section hierarchy will spoil an article, so will a pointless sprinkling of cosmetic footnotes. A very good example of this is

1426:

place to educate people on how to research facts and what sources are best, or do people have ideas on where that best can be done? -

267:

That's a tricky point. There is precedent and instruction for referencing foreign language wikis (which I've followed on some of the

142: 2056:

I replaced one of the succinct words with concise, just because I found it odd to have such an unusual, but clever, word used twice.

1843: 1824:, and work to make the articles as readable as possible, even to the point of "brilliant prose", then there is less to worry about. 835:

on the account of meta-debates over pointless minutiae at the talkpage should be removed on sight. At least when it comes to FA(C)s.

2335:

that didn't make some reference to the different theories about what caused it, for example. I was pointed to this discussion from

1847: 1846:). This is a controversial FA criteria because it cannot be actioned (we cannot effect external publications and we cannot publish 1801: 2039:

It means that for reasons of style the referenes section shouldn't be longer than the article itself, or even similiar in length.

2012: 1981: 159: 1314: 1275:

scholars vs casual readers? Indeed, we need to serve all audiences, and therefore we can state that our articles should be the

929: 904: 2222:

page to be removed and redone, which is certainly not practial. Unless your sources are very likely to be POV, like the one in

1604:

is valid and that whatever you've perceived as consensus in past discussions supports you. It's disheartening to say the least.

1339: 993:

I agree it would be practically difficult; however, I cannot agree that asking for correct punctuation in a title is pedantic.

1114: 609:. I know he has the highest of motives, but, to my mind, at least, that objection is not supported by the current criteria: 1742:

Thank you for suggesting a compromise, Nichalp, but I like the fact the footnotes link straight to the reference section. It

251: 231: 470:

Agreed - a good rewrite; I changed "may" to "should" contain images where appropriate, as it used to say, incidentally. --

2987:. The Featured Music Project is an attempt to improve a large number of articles on musicians to make them ready to be a 2402: 2376: 2347: 1904:

Perhaps you might edit the criteria page further instead (I see you already did), to emphasize the need for copyediting?

1419: 1763:

distracting. In the footnote text, all of the relevant reference information for the paragraph is briefly described. See

371:

system of referencing, I'd like to get some input from the FAC crowd (since PR is inappropriate for this case). See the

223:

so that everything in the article is then a summary of some other wikipedia article, which contains all the references.

2146:

Then we can object on an ad-hoc basis. In other words, objecting because an article lacks historiographical discussion

560:

I'm Irish, and my sense of it here is that "should" allows for the possiblilty of a "however" while "must" does not.

2539:

It would be kind of like saying "Featured Articles should not contain Libel." Some things fall under common-sense. —

759:

different from the vague objections like "not comprehensive, but don't know how" that don't help the reader at all.

376: 372: 364: 38: 2615:

Taxman, sorry to have been silent; I'll have a go at that text early March, when I'm freer from work obligations.

2309:. Again, a historiographical section would also be digressive, but it does not directly pertain to the subject of 1583: 220: 2478:, contained a "History and Founding" section consisting entirely of three paragraphs copied almost verbatim from 1800:) is actively involved in the creation of the article and even nominated it for FAC last time. I am aware of the 1179:

Exemplify Knowledge (XXG)'s very best work. Represent what Knowledge (XXG) offers that is unique on the Internet.

3003: 2972: 2932: 2890: 2854: 2845: 2817: 2799: 2778: 2762: 2736: 2718: 2700: 2686: 2676: 2659: 2629: 2619: 2609: 2598: 2588: 2557: 2548: 2528: 2513: 2499: 2486: 2461: 2435: 2408: 2392: 2382: 2367: 2353: 2340: 2325: 2276: 2249: 2230: 2199: 2187: 2166: 2141: 2119: 2088: 2060: 2043: 2034: 2017: 1997: 1986: 1953: 1935: 1886: 1872: 1858: 1813: 1771: 1757: 1672:. So while we'll see nothing in normal mode, Taxman who'll have to modify monoboox.css, will see the following: 1633: 1610: 1565: 1555: 1516: 1464: 1332: 1321: 1292: 1242: 1221: 1202: 1161: 1141: 1124: 1108: 841: 808: 785: 766: 732: 725: 672: 657: 637: 580: 555: 514: 477: 445: 413: 230:

and removed the only entry under "References" because replaced the only place it was used with information from

215: 2399: 2373: 2344: 1085: 1058: 2732:

A related issue is that greater levels of detail are likely to be less universally agreed on than the basics.

1573:

consensus has been reached, but we've so far agreed that better referencing on articles is a Good Thing (tm).

304:) and then (if it's not a Knowledge (XXG) article) listing the detailed ref in the References section. --~~~~ 1279:. Seems clear enough to me. Note that the qualification of "representing what Knowledge (XXG) offers that is 2544: 1793: 1027:

I would favour the use of the question mark, or rephrasing as a non-question ("What a featured article is").

601:

in a featured article, or mandatory. The absence of inline citations has been coming up as an objection on

193: 219:

that to happen is to write a monster article, full of detailed references, then have it split according to

2471: 1964: 1189:

Be the best article about the topic available in any encyclopedia or information resource, on or off-line.

597:

At the danger of getting the wrong answer, I think we need to discuss whether inline citations are simply

488:

A featured article should have images (pictures, maps and diagrams, with good captions) where appropriate.

387:

Nobody is going to ding the article on length if what is pushing it above 32K is extensive referencing. --

2268: 2158: 2130: 2111: 718:

requests for cites on facts you feel needed backing up however, definitely add something to the article.

326: 2652: 2185: 1363: 1033: 850:(which was promoted recently) and it uses the academic citation style quite a bit more than footnotes. 2479: 2077: 2008: 2003: 1977: 1972: 1855: 1810: 172: 1515:, arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see 624: 2925: 2810: 2792: 2755: 2332: 2273: 2265: 2205: 2182: 2163: 2155: 2116: 2108: 1530: 1158: 1138: 110: 2540: 2525: 2510: 2496: 2388:

of a significant sourcing dispute, I see little value from a blanket historiography requirement.

1104:

If you recommend an article should be sent to Peer Review, you should be active on Peer Review --

998: 976: 912: 677: 565: 525: 189: 1928:

I agree with all of these points, but I'd like to see the additional clause in point 1 retained.

2245:

That's why articles on a historical topic should have a historiography section to be featured.

1734: 1710: 1289: 1239: 1199: 423: 347: 1821: 2773: 2640: 2570: 2389: 2364: 1768: 1359: 1105: 1030: 507:(it can be an abstract symbol that would be too generic for the article itself) is helpful." 246:

This is actually a pretty big deal, and one I also ran into (consequently, while working on

114: 2996: 2360: 2290: 2226:

is (note all of the citation neededs), there is no real point to including historiography.

2099: 1968: 1837:

I have added the following criteria, because the GNAA article failed solely on this issue:

1473:- this is generally not a problem now - the references requirement is a well-accepted one. 602: 317: 2969: 2887: 2842: 2585: 1218: 1017: 940: 889: 805: 782: 763: 722: 698: 669: 654: 634: 606: 577: 474: 410: 388: 292: 163: 2988: 2219: 1728:

file. We already have a "print" version, so a "verify" version is the next logical step.

1040:

As was suggested above, if we were going to move it (and I'm still not fond of the idea)

2331:

dealing with one incident. I don't think we should have a featured article on (say) the

961:

I would recommend against adding a question mark to the page name for reasons stated on

2921: 2806: 2788: 2751: 2645: 2306: 2298: 2223: 2209: 2178: 2081: 2072: 2057: 1155: 1135: 1084:

Fair enough. I withdraw the proposal. (Shoulda checked the archives, I guess! Oops.) --

847: 617: 552: 511: 442: 401: 202: 179: 2429: 2959: 2522: 2506: 2493: 2432: 2246: 2138: 2134: 2085: 1754: 1630: 1607: 1562: 1552: 994: 972: 908: 882: 838: 561: 521: 254:

is well referenced, as it is, and I use a fact from that article in the main article

239: 131: 106: 2521:

Oh, OK. Thanks for helping me decide. Well, in that case, nothing needs to be done.

2066:

Additional requirement for articles dealing with a historical subject to be featured

483:

Thank you for your comments. I came across two conflicting sentences while editing:

3000: 2851: 2715: 2683: 2554: 2458: 2294: 2196: 2150:

the subject is such that this discussion would be meaningful is fine; objecting to

2040: 1994: 1950: 1729: 1705: 1490: 1474: 1435: 1411: 1400: 1392: 1344: 1285: 1268: 1261: 1235: 1234:

Why too strong? I think many of our present featured articles would hold up to it.

1195: 1148: 1093: 1074: 1045: 986: 851: 644: 586: 431: 380: 368: 341: 259: 123: 2750:

format. It solves the problem of citations gravitating from their refrence point.

1788:

I don't know if any of you are keeping track of the fun and games with regards to

2489:

say explicitly that featured articles ought not to contain copyright violations?

1909:

brilliant' prose. That's why I thought another signpost elsewhere was called for.

653:

weasel terms like "some publications" is certainly appropriate in such a case. --

501:

If pictures were required, would it be okay if I removed the following sentence:

325:- but where it's easy to check what exists, I think this should be encouraged. -- 214:

What is the appropriate way to deal with references to other wikipedia content?

2991:. To sign up, put your name under one (or more) of the eight categories on the 2770: 2729:

criteria need to ration detail severely to retain their impact and simplicity.

2697: 2626: 2606: 1825: 1721: 1657: 1640: 1623:

I've never liked breaking up threads, but it's your response, so it's your call.

1617: 1593: 1580:

And again, please read the archives, where the consensus for this was achieved.

1574: 1543: 1482: 1427: 1372: 1352: 1121: 965: 951: 897: 793: 736: 690: 462: 277: 150: 149:

FAC). The presence of red links should not be a deterrent to featured status.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1506:

There's obviously a clash of opinions when it comes to the following sentence:

1071:

As it is, aren't we getting too many featured articles passed per month anyway?

2966: 2884: 2839: 2733: 2673: 2616: 2595: 2582: 2322: 2227: 2031: 1932: 1883: 1869: 1767:

for an example of my usage of this style. I hope others like it and use it. --

1376:

looks like I've come up with two more criteria for references, plus Taxman's:

1215: 1014: 937: 886: 760: 719: 666: 631: 471: 289: 1891:(Bishonen, thanks for your message; I've interpolated my responses into it:) 520:

Not really conflicting, as "should" and "must" are not quite the same thing.

2343:, for example, then I can see the value of a historiography section there.-- 1461: 1318: 504: 2579:

User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them

238:

should have loads of references, but that's beside the point for now...) --

2289:

A historiography section would be a POV section and would be a section of

313: 1329: 1005: 427: 928:, I think "who" and "what" are used in somewhat different situations). 422:

I think he means fictional in the good (e.g., literay) sense, like with

2951: 2431:, can I sugest moving this conversation there to centralise efforts. -- 255: 247: 1868:

Dialogue between Bishonen and me pasted in as relevant to this page.

1115:

Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#templates_to_make_summary_style_explicit

235: 227: 2594:

of FAs. Both pages require a careful run through by a good editor.

551:(if my memory serves me well). Your comment has made this clearer. 493:

However, an article does not have to have a picture to be featured.

334: 1537:

I believe it is fairly established that there is not a consensus

543:. I remember reading somewhere on the internet that in the U.S., 824:"According to 'Book Y' by 'John Doe', 75% of all cats are brown" 430:

or whatnot. And yes, those articles are treated no differently.

971:

Not really relevant as the ? would be at the end of the title.

1407: 25: 2553:

Bish and Bunchofgrapes took the words right out of my mouth.

2784: 2747: 2301:, deeming it quite unnecessary. Look at all of the {{fact}} 1277:

best at making the tradeoff required to serve all audiences

963:

Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (technical restrictions)

2363:, I see no other way a historiography section would work. 1797: 2783:"In the event where refrences or footnotes are used, the 1790:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo

1452:

Sorry, My point was mostly emphasised like this: "...is

1406:

With all due respect, I disagree. One recent example is

2850:

As usual, Aloan steals the words right out of my mouth.

1809:

be adjusted to reflect this, or is that going too far?--

271:

pages), but other than mentioning related articles in a

2475: 2302: 250:

and its sub-articles) without knowing what to do. If

226:

This hasn't happened yet, exactly, but I was editing

97:

Refactored to archives on 19:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1471:

I worry much more about people not giving any source

2954:

uses an interesting combination of the <ref: -->

2076:what a historiography section should look like see 907:would do the trick, but I'd favour the "?" option. 303:

or

2983:I'd like to invite everyone to participate in the 1358:"Most reputable" is very difficult - for example, 333:I've tried to do this as far as possible. See the 2453:articles, or by working on the articles that are 2313:, but instead is a discussion of the sources for 1765:Population history of American indigenous peoples 881:(that is, shouldn't the article's name end in a 605:very frequently in recent weeks, principally by 377:Music of the United States#Native American music 535:Thank you for your comment. Where I come from, 1963:In many of "Today's featured articles", (e.g. 946:Ok, if we're going to move, I'd be happy with 396:Fictional Articles and Featured Article Status 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article criteria 926:Knowledge (XXG) talk:What is a featured list? 8: 1367:"I trust Fox News, so I trust this is true" 1194:Is there any reason to set the bar lower? - 2359:situation is absurd, but without violating 879:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured article? 2467:"Should not contain copyright violations?" 1807:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured article 1010:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured article 930:Knowledge (XXG):What a featured article is 905:Knowledge (XXG):What a featured article is 611:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured article 2881:Raul654 is my sock-puppet and claim my £5 2317:, which can then be covered in a subpage. 2098:historical subjects. Consider that, per 1805:else have concerns about this? Could the 1391:among the three criteria listed above. - 1042:Knowledge (XXG):featured article criteria 948:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article criteria 934:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article criteria 2492:I'm not sure whether or not I'm joking. 2445:I'd like to announce the opening of the 2102:, any discussion of historiography must 875:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured list? 2482:on the University of Arkansas website. 1971:or in some other guideline? Thanks. -- 1947:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review 871:Knowledge (XXG):What is a featured list 2985:Knowledge (XXG):Featured Music Project 2337:WP:FAC/History of Portugal (1777-1834) 2297:removed the historiography section in 1959:Font size in references/notes sections 1833:Further criteria added to what is a FA 903:Grammatically, it's a question. Maybe 147:Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2208:), but by looking at the article for 2094:I don't think that's appropriate for 7: 2303:in the section before it was removed 1802:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest 1592:from not having inline citations. - 379:)? Or does that seem to obtrusive? 2575:User:Taxman/Featured article advice 1315:Knowledge (XXG):The perfect article 145:page to eliminate a red link on my 2668:Recent point added to the criteria 143:Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad 24: 2746:We should require use of the new 1844:Gay Nigger Association of America 1687:{{inote|http://www.google.com|4}} 936:is an alternative, I suppose. -- 831:reference that has been inserted 451:Recent condensing of the criteria 1720:would be easier for everyone. - 367:soon. Having recently used the 201:reduction in the red ink links. 160:history of the Grand Canyon area 29: 1739:14:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 1724:14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 1715:12:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 1660:11:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 1620:02:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 1340:New England Journal of Medicine 2625:Yes, well, when you can. :) - 2264:section as a mere formality. — 1936:09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 1887:00:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 1873:09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 1859:03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC) 1828:17:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC) 1772:04:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 1697:what the rest of us will see: 1643:14:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 1044:would be the place to put it. 932:is rather less elegant, IMHO. 252:material properties of diamond 232:material properties of diamond 1: 3004:06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 2973:10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 2933:17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2891:17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2855:16:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2846:16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2818:16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2800:15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2779:15:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2763:14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 2737:07:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2719:23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2701:23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2687:23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2677:22:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2660:00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 2630:23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2620:22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 2610:15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 2599:12:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 2589:10:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 2436:11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1954:18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 1814:02:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC) 1784:FAs and Conflicts of Interest 1758:18:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 1634:09:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 1611:00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 1596:22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 1584:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1485:21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1477:20:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1430:21:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1420:Talk:Battery electric vehicle 1403:20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1395:17:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1355:16:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1271:20:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC) 1264:18:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC) 1109:01:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 1004:Hmm - I'm undecided whether " 221:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style 2558:00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2549:22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 2529:01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2514:22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 2500:22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 2476:the version nominated for FA 2462:19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 2455:already close to being ready 2409:16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 2393:22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 2383:10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 2368:23:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 2354:21:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 2326:22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC) 2277:04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC) 2250:04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC) 2231:01:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 2200:00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 2188:23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2167:23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2142:23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2120:23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2089:23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 2061:04:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 2044:18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2035:17:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2018:17:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 1998:17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 1987:16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 1864:FA instructions and criteria 1577:18:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 1546:22:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 1517:Knowledge (XXG):Cite sources 1493:18:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 1438:21:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1414:20:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1347:21:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC) 733:Knowledge (XXG):Cite sources 216:Knowledge (XXG):Cite sources 2259:topics. We are explicitly 1668:and for Taxman it will be * 1566:18:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC) 1556:18:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC) 1465:20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1333:19:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC) 1322:07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC) 1293:21:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC) 1243:11:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC) 1222:13:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC) 1203:12:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC) 1151:02:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC) 877:, should this also move to 854:14:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC) 678:You keep using that word... 318:Featured Article Candidates 3019: 2487:What is a featured article 2341:The independence of Brazil 1048:16:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 1001:14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 989:14:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 968:14:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 900:13:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 842:14:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 693:13:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 589:01:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC) 383:17:04, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) 365:music of the United States 363:I am hoping on nominating 242:04:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 1162:02:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 1142:21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 1125:10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 1088:July 2, 2005 02:42 (UTC) 1061:July 2, 2005 02:34 (UTC) 979:14:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 954:16:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 943:14:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 915:13:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) 892:13:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 796:18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 739:18:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC) 647:20:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC) 568:13:55, May 11, 2005 (UTC) 528:13:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC) 465:12:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC) 404:08:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) 354:20:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC) 329:15:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 308:Other language Wikipedias 280:18:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 262:17:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) 195:11:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) 153:19:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) 126:18:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC) 117:18:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2566:Lists of common problems 1677:{{inote|Milton-Ch2-pg3}} 1582:Also spend some time at 1096:July 2, 2005 02:47 (UTC) 1077:July 2, 2005 02:39 (UTC) 1036:14:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 1020:15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) 809:02:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC) 786:14:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 767:10:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC) 726:16:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 673:12:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 658:22:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC) 638:20:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC) 581:01:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC) 556:13:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 547:has a meaning closer to 539:has a meaning closer to 515:13:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 478:12:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 434:20:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC) 391:02:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 316:to add these to as many 295:19:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 205:08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) 182:08:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) 166:17:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) 134:19:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) 109:, which has red link to 1130:Image copyrights, again 446:23:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC) 414:17:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) 140:Me too!</newbie: --> 2979:Featured Music Project 2472:University of Arkansas 2447:Featured Music Project 2441:Featured Music Project 2177:I have no idea what a 1965:Planetary habitability 1794:User:GordonWattsDotCom 1214:strong for my tastes. 1120:Please take a look. -- 869:Following the move of 323:93 different languages 269:xxxx in Rail Transport 2573:removed the links to 1364:National Public Radio 42:of past discussions. 2078:History of the world 616:There seems to be a 2333:February Revolution 2131:history of the firm 1941:Example FAs by type 1666:inote{display:none} 1602:your interpretation 1531:names of the Greeks 1174:I'd like to change 1086:Girolamo Savonarola 1059:Girolamo Savonarola 1052:FAC and Peer Review 1701:text text text 103 1691:text text text 103 1681:text text text 103 1670:inote{display:all} 1502:"Inline citations" 373:References section 2929: 2834:Oh, I agree with 2814: 2796: 2776: 2759: 2015: 1984: 1848:original research 1458:sources are cited 1154:Perfect. Thanks. 576:Looks good. :) -- 424:Foundation Series 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3010: 2989:featured article 2964: 2958: 2927: 2812: 2794: 2774: 2757: 2658: 2655: 2291:Original thought 2271: 2161: 2114: 2007: 1976: 1798:personal webpage 1737: 1732: 1713: 1708: 1692: 1688: 1682: 1678: 1671: 1667: 1360:Fox News Channel 629: 623: 593:Inline citations 353: 350: 344: 260:Bryan is Bantman 171:Same story with 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2981: 2962: 2956: 2744: 2670: 2653: 2650: 2568: 2469: 2443: 2269: 2159: 2112: 2068: 2054: 1969:Manual of style 1961: 1943: 1919:recommended'?). 1866: 1856:Ta bu shi da yu 1835: 1796:and here's his 1786: 1735: 1730: 1711: 1706: 1690: 1686: 1680: 1676: 1669: 1665: 1504: 1454:well-documented 1311: 1172: 1170:Raising the bar 1132: 1118: 1054: 867: 627: 621: 595: 453: 398: 361: 348: 342: 339: 310: 234:. (Of course, 212: 139:<newbie: --> 103: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3016: 3014: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2955:style and the 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2743: 2740: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2690: 2689: 2669: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2633: 2632: 2613: 2612: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2468: 2465: 2442: 2439: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2318: 2307:Katyn massacre 2299:Katyn massacre 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2253: 2252: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2224:Katyn massacre 2210:historiography 2191: 2190: 2179:historiography 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2123: 2122: 2082:Katyn massacre 2073:historiography 2067: 2064: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 1960: 1957: 1942: 1939: 1930: 1929: 1921: 1920: 1911: 1910: 1902: 1901: 1865: 1862: 1852: 1851: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1752: 1748: 1703: 1702: 1695: 1694: 1684: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1628: 1624: 1605: 1578: 1569: 1568: 1548: 1547: 1522: 1521: 1503: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1415: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1348: 1310: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1192: 1191: 1182: 1181: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1131: 1128: 1117: 1112: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1079: 1078: 1053: 1050: 1038: 1037: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 983: 982: 981: 980: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 919: 918: 917: 916: 866: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 848:Yom Kippur War 836: 814: 813: 812: 811: 798: 797: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 661: 660: 649: 648: 618:slippery slope 594: 591: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 530: 529: 496: 495: 490: 481: 480: 467: 466: 452: 449: 438: 437: 436: 435: 417: 416: 397: 394: 393: 392: 360: 357: 356: 355: 327:194.73.130.132 309: 306: 299: 298: 297: 296: 282: 281: 264: 263: 211: 208: 207: 206: 197: 196: 184: 183: 168: 167: 155: 154: 136: 135: 127: 102: 99: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3015: 3006: 3005: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2978: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2961: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2934: 2931: 2923: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2856: 2853: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2844: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2819: 2816: 2808: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2798: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2761: 2753: 2749: 2741: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2730: 2720: 2717: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2702: 2699: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2667: 2661: 2656: 2649: 2648: 2644: 2643: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2618: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2565: 2559: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541:Bunchofgrapes 2538: 2537: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2490: 2488: 2483: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2466: 2464: 2463: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2440: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2410: 2407: 2404: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2324: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2216: 2213:includes the 2211: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2135:local history 2132: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2110: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2065: 2063: 2062: 2059: 2051: 2045: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2014: 2010: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1958: 1956: 1955: 1952: 1948: 1940: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1892: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1871: 1863: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1832: 1827: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1783: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1740: 1738: 1733: 1726: 1725: 1723: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1714: 1709: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1689:rendered as: 1685: 1679:rendered as: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1661: 1659: 1642: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1585: 1579: 1576: 1571: 1570: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1545: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1532: 1527: 1520: 1518: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1501: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1402: 1397: 1396: 1394: 1389: 1384: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1354: 1349: 1346: 1341: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1320: 1316: 1308: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1272: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1180: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1169: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1129: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1060: 1051: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1025: 1019: 1016: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1000: 996: 992: 991: 990: 988: 978: 974: 970: 969: 967: 964: 960: 953: 949: 945: 944: 942: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 922: 921: 920: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 899: 895: 894: 893: 891: 888: 884: 883:question mark 880: 876: 872: 865:Question mark 864: 853: 849: 845: 844: 843: 840: 837: 834: 830: 825: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 810: 807: 802: 801: 800: 799: 795: 790: 789: 788: 787: 784: 768: 765: 762: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 738: 734: 729: 728: 727: 724: 721: 717: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 700: 695: 694: 692: 687: 683: 679: 676: 675: 674: 671: 668: 663: 662: 659: 656: 651: 650: 646: 642: 641: 640: 639: 636: 633: 626: 619: 614: 612: 608: 604: 600: 592: 590: 588: 583: 582: 579: 567: 563: 559: 558: 557: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 533: 532: 531: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 516: 513: 509: 508: 506: 499: 494: 491: 489: 486: 485: 484: 479: 476: 473: 469: 468: 464: 459: 458: 457: 450: 448: 447: 444: 433: 429: 425: 421: 420: 419: 418: 415: 412: 407: 406: 405: 403: 395: 390: 386: 385: 384: 382: 378: 374: 370: 366: 358: 351: 345: 336: 332: 331: 330: 328: 324: 319: 315: 307: 305: 294: 291: 286: 285: 284: 283: 279: 274: 270: 266: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 244: 243: 241: 237: 233: 229: 224: 222: 217: 209: 204: 199: 198: 194: 191: 186: 185: 181: 177: 176: 170: 169: 165: 161: 157: 156: 152: 148: 144: 138: 137: 133: 128: 125: 120: 119: 118: 116: 112: 108: 107:Caesar cipher 101:No red links? 100: 98: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2982: 2835: 2745: 2731: 2727: 2671: 2646: 2641: 2614: 2592: 2569: 2491: 2484: 2470: 2444: 2427: 2315:history of x 2314: 2311:history of x 2310: 2295:User:Raul654 2260: 2214: 2151: 2147: 2103: 2095: 2069: 2055: 2027: 1962: 1944: 1931: 1922: 1912: 1903: 1893: 1890: 1880: 1876: 1867: 1853: 1836: 1787: 1743: 1704: 1696: 1662: 1654: 1601: 1589: 1581: 1549: 1538: 1525: 1523: 1512: 1510: 1505: 1470: 1457: 1456:; reputable 1453: 1451: 1423: 1382:Recognizable 1368: 1312: 1280: 1276: 1211: 1193: 1188: 1183: 1178: 1173: 1133: 1119: 1103: 1070: 1066: 1055: 1039: 984: 868: 832: 828: 823: 779: 715: 685: 681: 615: 598: 596: 584: 575: 548: 544: 540: 536: 510: 502: 500: 497: 492: 487: 482: 454: 439: 399: 369:Titan (moon) 362: 311: 300: 272: 268: 225: 213: 174: 111:pattern word 104: 96: 70: 43: 37: 2993:status page 2642:Matt Yeager 2571:Matt Yeager 2390:The Catfish 2365:The Catfish 1822:neutral POV 1769:Kevin Myers 1693:– for URL's 1683:– for books 1373:Smithsonian 1159:(Sound Off) 1139:(Sound Off) 1106:PopUpPirate 553:=mrcleanup= 512:=mrcleanup= 409:deleted. -- 314:search tool 115:Samohyl Jan 36:This is an 2965:style. -- 2451:evaluating 2266:Kirill Lok 2156:Kirill Lok 2109:Kirill Lok 2026:What does 2002:Thanks. -- 1811:Alabamaboy 1513:references 1385:Accessible 1309:References 999:Blarneyman 977:Blarneyman 913:Blarneyman 566:Blarneyman 526:Blarneyman 210:References 90:Archive 10 2922:Hipocrite 2807:Hipocrite 2789:Hipocrite 2752:Hipocrite 2742:Citations 2505:You are. 2480:this page 2457:for FAC. 2261:forbidden 2058:Deckiller 2052:Succinct? 2028:dominated 1747:on paper. 1526:mandatory 1511:Includes 1379:Reputable 1156:Zscout370 1136:Zscout370 599:desirable 505:Main Page 443:TomStar81 402:TomStar81 203:TomStar81 180:TomStar81 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2523:Dpbsmith 2507:Bishonen 2494:Dpbsmith 2433:Barberio 2247:Fifelfoo 2139:Fifelfoo 2086:Fifelfoo 2013:contribs 1982:contribs 1945:Over at 1731:=Nichalp 1707:=Nichalp 1475:→Raul654 1401:→Raul654 1269:→Raul654 1149:→Raul654 1094:→Raul654 1075:→Raul654 1067:optional 1046:→Raul654 1031:James F. 1006:pedantic 995:Filiocht 987:→Raul654 973:Filiocht 909:Filiocht 852:→Raul654 846:I wrote 716:Specific 682:required 645:→Raul654 587:→Raul654 562:Filiocht 545:"should" 537:"should" 522:Filiocht 432:→Raul654 428:Superman 359:US music 273:See also 175:Missouri 132:Fawcett5 124:→Raul654 3001:Tuf-Kat 2952:Saffron 2852:Raul654 2775:(Speak) 2716:Circeus 2684:Circeus 2555:Raul654 2485:Should 2459:Tuf-Kat 2403:blossom 2377:blossom 2348:blossom 2206:Jaranda 2197:Raul654 2183:Jaranda 2041:Raul654 1995:Raul654 1951:Tuf-Kat 1736:«Talk»= 1712:«Talk»= 1590:benefit 1491:Bantman 1436:Bantman 1412:Bantman 1393:Bantman 1345:Bantman 1286:Fredrik 1262:Bantman 1236:Fredrik 1196:Fredrik 885:?) -- 381:Tuf-Kat 343:Nichalp 256:diamond 248:diamond 39:archive 2997:WP:FAC 2970:(Talk) 2888:(Talk) 2879:Heh - 2843:(Talk) 2771:Slambo 2698:Taxman 2627:Taxman 2607:Taxman 2586:(Talk) 2526:(talk) 2497:(talk) 2400:Cherry 2374:Cherry 2361:WP:NOR 2345:Cherry 2215:entire 2104:itself 2100:WP:NOR 1826:slambo 1722:Taxman 1658:slambo 1641:Taxman 1618:Taxman 1594:Taxman 1575:slambo 1544:Taxman 1483:Taxman 1428:Taxman 1353:Taxman 1281:unique 1216:Pcb21| 1122:MarSch 1034:(talk) 1018:(Talk) 966:slambo 952:Taxman 941:(Talk) 898:Taxman 890:(Talk) 794:Taxman 761:Pcb21| 737:Taxman 720:Pcb21| 691:Taxman 667:Pcb21| 635:(Talk) 603:WP:FAC 541:"must" 475:(Talk) 463:slambo 293:(Talk) 278:slambo 240:Andrew 236:carbon 228:carbon 151:slambo 2967:ALoan 2885:ALoan 2883:. -- 2840:ALoan 2654:Talk? 2583:ALoan 2474:, in 2323:AndyZ 2228:AndyZ 2220:WP:FA 2032:patsw 1755:Peter 1631:Peter 1608:Peter 1563:MATIA 1553:Peter 1539:style 1015:ALoan 938:ALoan 887:ALoan 839:Peter 632:ALoan 625:inote 549:"may" 472:ALoan 335:India 290:ALoan 16:< 2960:Harv 2928:Talk 2836:that 2813:Talk 2795:Talk 2785:cite 2758:Talk 2748:cite 2734:Tony 2674:Tony 2617:Tony 2596:Tony 2577:and 2545:talk 2511:talk 2406:tree 2380:tree 2351:tree 2133:and 2009:talk 2004:Aude 1978:talk 1973:Aude 1933:Tony 1884:Tony 1870:Tony 1462:Rama 1424:best 1362:and 1319:Rama 1290:talk 1240:talk 1219:Pete 1200:talk 833:only 764:Pete 723:Pete 670:Pete 349:Talk 173:USS 2274:hin 2164:hin 2152:all 2148:and 2117:hin 2096:all 2080:or 1408:cat 1330:119 1212:too 1184:to 873:to 829:any 806:mav 783:mav 699:mav 686:Any 655:mav 607:mav 578:mav 426:or 411:mav 389:mav 190:Mgm 164:mav 2963:}} 2957:{{ 2924:- 2809:- 2791:- 2754:- 2547:) 2516:. 2509:| 2016:) 2011:| 1985:) 1980:| 1744:is 1533:. 1519:). 1369:or 1288:| 1238:| 1198:| 997:| 975:| 911:| 804:-- 628:}} 622:{{ 564:| 524:| 352:)= 113:. 86:→ 2930:» 2926:« 2815:» 2811:« 2797:» 2793:« 2760:» 2756:« 2657:) 2651:( 2647:♫ 2543:( 2270:s 2160:s 2113:s 2107:— 2006:( 1975:( 1850:. 346:( 340:= 192:| 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Featured article criteria/Archive 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index