Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

The battle for the title of the article

I will continue reviewing this article. I have been reading MOS and other wikipedia articles about FAs and good articles, and I see where some of my review comments were off target, especially for the other article I am reviewing now.

But, a FA should stand alone. To say that a reader should be expected to find out why the article is titled what it is, ship classes are named after a ship in the class, and the ship is named after a Chilean admiral, is incorrect. It does not say anywhere in the instructions for writing FAs or in the MOS that an article should exclude a translation of the article title or the reason for the name of the topic.

This is a good reason not to review an article: a tedious battle with the writer(s)/nominator(s) against a reviewer who wants the article to stand alone in accessibility to a general audience. A tedious battle where the nominator is arguing against the most basic aspect of an article: translating a foreign title and explaining the topic's name.

If there is no reason to explain the title of this article to the reader of the article, then I oppose its promotion to FA. A reader should have to click on links only if they want more information, not in order to find out the most fundamental information about a topic, namely why the topic is named what it is, and what the translation of the Spanish is.

--Kleopatra (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the way I've come across; there's some context you don't know which may (or may not) help. The delegate indicated that she wanted to close this FAC one way or another, today. It's been open about 6 weeks. A complaint I've heard more than once is that it's very difficult to get any article through FAC when reviewers can (and do) demand at the last minute that you do it their way, on issues where we know from experience that other reviewers will disagree; we need a little time to do the research and make both sides of the argument. FAC winds up hurting rather than helping article quality if the nominator goes into it thinking: I'll do whatever anyone asks so that I can pass FAC.

Having said that, I think your point of view is reasonable, I just need to make a post at WT:SHIPS to see if I can get agreement, and after that, see what the nominator (Ed17) wants to do. It's not the way we've usually done things. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kleopatra, as an aside, I would encourage you not to view FAC as a battle. If you do, you will quickly experience burnout. You will almost always run up against nominators who disagree with some of your points—it is then that the we have a true test of Wikipedia's collaborative nature. Some writers work on their articles in a vacuum to avoid subjective options from outsiders, but most writers come to FAC after having heard the opinions of many other editors. I find that the MILHIST people in general are the latter sort—they've usually come here after an A-class review in the MILHIST project at the very least. MILHIST is one of the best-organized and well-run WikiProjects here, in my opinion. However, many of their articles come here without ever being seen by a layperson, and that's where they sometimes run into problems. Plus, the FA standards are certainly higher than anywhere else. I think you'll find that if you're friendly and easy to work with, most nominators will be willing to consider your suggestions. If there is disagreement, we need to work for consensus. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm mean. If I weren't mean, WT:Ships would have changed their policy and allowed the use of English translations for articles on en.wikipedia. Your comments were very helpful. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<shrug> Just trying to help. If you find your particular style of discourse tends to work well, then have at it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no style of discourse that works well on wikipedia if you're not a member of the in-crowd and particularly if you have an obviously female name. When I post just neutral comments, I get ignored. If I post with any sort of passion I get accused of being mean. Every editor who spends time on articles, then tries to cross over to the community, will find that there are plenty of editors who will not let discussions drop without having to point out that the newly arrived contributor is wrong. Wrong, I tell you. Wrong. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a translation of almirante in the first paragraph[1] and an explanation of ship class in a footnote (as a definition, it didn't fit in the narrative of the paragraph).[2] If you like this, I will start adding it to my other articles. Thanks for the idea! Is there anything else you have a problem with in this article? I would be more than willing to address or discuss it with you.

On to more general thoughts. Please, please don't get frustrated. I disagree with reviewers quite often, and we almost always work the differences out. I would love for you to review more of my articles in the future – it's not often I have a non-Milhist editor read through my articles and leave detailed comments. With regards to your above post, I can't speak for everyone, but your "obviously female name" didn't register with me until you said that. From my point-of-view, I don't think of editors in gender terms. I'm also one of the people who stays in articles and rarely gets out to the wider community (excepting Milhist), and I actually agree with your point, but I don't think that is happening here. If it is, it is completely unintentional. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after getting called a cunt for reviewing FAs, I'm pretty sure I couldn't care less what happens to this article. I hope it sinks. --Kleopatra (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who called you that? It certainly wasn't me, and I'm relatively sure it wasn't about this article, so why must you take this out on me? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a trolling-only account. I've blocked them. [3] --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]