Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches

Problem

The quote is SO abstruse. Most readers won't get it. (I still find it hard.) I wouldn't use it unless it can be led into more explicitly. Tony (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

When you do finally understand it, you realise it's implying that the editor should attract they type of fly-by reviewers who descend on SImpsons, etc. Very dangerous. You really have to be an FAC insider to get it, and that's not our target audience here.

Allright .. <sigh> ... will replace now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

--- Featured articles (FA) show off our best work to the world and serve as a powerful model for all of Wikipedia's articles. The featured article process (FAC) is vital to setting and maintaining our standards of verification, writing and formatting. To complement the FA nominations/archiving process, the featured article review process (FAR) enables the review and updating of articles that already have the gold star. Both FAC and FAR pages are dynamic places where you'll meet and work with talented Wikipedia editors. It's a role on Wikipedia that people tend to notice.

Some nominations are not promoted simply because not enough reviewers look at the article. Featured article writer. The solution to this problem? More reviewers! All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC and FAR, but reviews well grounded in an understanding of featured article standards are most helpful. Editors who have submitted articles to FAC are encouraged to return the favor and review other articles; articles can't be promoted without review, and one way to get more reviews is for frequent nominators to give more reviews. We've put together a list of frequently asked questions:

....

It still relies on knowing that The Simpsons et al are frequent topics. It's very laboured. Maybe I'm not understanding something here.

There are three "nots" in one sentence.

Tony (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

title?

Sandy et al, I wonder whether we could grab them with a more dynamic title than "Reviewing featured articles"? I have rootling around my mind phrase such as "Achieving excellence on Wikipedia: reviewing featured articles", or "A most valuable role: become a featured article reviewer", or something like that ... What do you think? Tony (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How about, "The Everyday User's Guide to Reviewing Featured Articles"? I want to stress that it really isn't that hard. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's important to stress, I agree. I'm more concerned to stress importance and prestige, because I see that as a way of attracting quality people. I admit my suggestions are a little corny, but can we put thinking caps on? Tony (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Now this dispatch should be highlighted at quite a few WikiProjects and other pages, don't you think? And possibly at the WikiDesk where good people congregate to answer public queries on their subject? Tony (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a combo title then, "Achieving excellence on Wikipedia: The Everyday User's Guide to Reviewing Featured Articles"? Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open, but not good at wordsmithing. But there's a HUGE white gap because of the new image; just starting to look, but the image has to move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Ral315 shortens long titles when he comes through to publish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gold star?

...Isn't it supposed to be bronze? I thought I'd cower from WP: BOLD and ask on the talk page. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought so, too, but never got around to checking and changing; pls do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Op ed

This tincture of self-praise by three reviewers should be marked as opinion piece; it is not factual reporting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is this comment designed to do, PMAnderson? --Laser brain (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)