Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-11-24/Dispatches

Queries

Awadewit, where you encourage others to review articles, would you be interested in linking Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Awadewit (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, do you have that link for the Danish journal article ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here it is Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

If each one of you will list a few of your favorite images from your FAs here (make sure they're free images), we can see how many fit and give us the best layout once all the text is in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unfortunately, title pages aren't very exciting, so we'll have to go with portraits:

This is the best of the bunch. Awadewit (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PriestleyRiots.jpg - Priestley Riots
Image:Reynolds-Puck.JPG - Boydell Shakespeare Gallery
Image:JosephJohnson.jpeg - Joseph Johnson (publisher)
Image:Vindication1b.jpg - A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (selfish, I really like this article)

Other options. Awadewit (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to prioritize ! The goofy banner down the side limits image options, but once everyone is done with text, we can begin to play with images. It's your Dispatch! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer we can't include Mike's portrait! Awadewit (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind if we could; I'd love to draw attention to Dan Thibodeau's paintings, which I think are terrific. (You should check out the rest of his website.) Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:False_morels_for_sale_in_Helsinki_2.jpg and Image:False morels for sale - don't touch.jpg - False Morels for sale in Helsinki. Not jawdroppingly spectacular but I feel they symbolise much of what is great here. Me wirting the article in Sydney, Australia requesting Ilmari Karonen to pop down the road in Helsinki, Finland and take a few snaps for the article. Global cooperation --> priceless. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red winged wren MR walk 3 email.jpg - this one I was proud of as it is a species from a remote corner of Western Australia, so I was able to write the article and illustrate it. Thank god for digital cameras as you don't know how many images of blue blur or tree branch minus bird I had! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's images:

Image:Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - C - 871.jpg -- a stunningly well preserved early page from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Image:Ella - John Speed.JPG -- Imaginary depiction of Ælle of Sussex from John Speed's 1611 "Saxon Heptarchy".]]
Image:Asimov signature in Beyond Sep 1953.jpg -- Isaac Asimov's signature at the end of his story "Kid Stuff" in the September 1953 issue of Beyond Fantasy Fiction
Image:If cover May 1955.jpg -- May 1955 issue of If; the cover is by Kenneth Fagg, and is titled "Technocracy Versus the Humanities"
Image:Imagination Oct 1954 cover.gif -- A characterful cover for Imagination, from the October 1954 issue; artist is H.W. McCauley.

Combine questions/answers?

Do you think some of the question/answer sections could be combined? Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or should we look at splitting the whole thing into two Dispatches ? I'm of two minds, not sure. I like seeing four editors, as it shows different approaches and issues, but will readers find it too much to digest ? If we split it in two, we might run one this week and one next week. If we combine some of the sections, that's fine, too. What do you all think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think splitting in two is a good idea, but some of the questions are similar - I wonder if combining the advice/mistakes questions might be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so. I was hoping Tony would help with the final polishing, but I don't think that's likely now that he's ... otherwise entertained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got busy and won't be able to get back to this until tomorrow or the next day, will look at combining those, but there's one aspect of all four responses that is troubling me. The impression may be left on FAC newcomers that 20 hours is the outside limit for writing an FA. I spent ten years researching and gathering material for Tourette syndrome, and six months writing it (granted, I was a newbie, and figuring out the ins and outs of Wiki, and there was, back then, not a single other Wiki editor who could help me either with the medical material or the ins and outs of medical FAs, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS have been substantially beefed up since I was new, and TS led the way in setting a higher standard for articles like Asperger syndrome, Schizophrenia and autism, which were dreadful FAs before standards improved, but all I had for comparison). Colin and I have discussed FAing History of Tourette syndrome (many interesting sources available), and that would take me at about four months of research and work. Can any one of the four you add any similar experience, something to dispel that idea that a new writer could turn out an FA with a few hours work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more time to my answer. Cla68 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already described the six months Qp and I spent working on Mary Shelley - there is a fine line to walk between inspiring people to do hard work and overwhelming them, I think. I would hesitate to add a sentence explaining that I think it would take years to properly write an article on some topics, such as the History of Christianity. I think that would frighten many editors. Awadewit (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now (good point, Awadewit). Still haven't found time for the combining, in case anyone else gets to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined one section which could be done rather easily and asked for help below. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combinations

What has been your favorite Featured article to work on?: Cla68. Two articles in particular were extremely and equally fun to work on, Naval Battle of Guadalcanal and Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi, because I found the article's subjects to be so naturally compelling and fascinating. Also, several other editors helped out with completing the articles which made working on them more enjoyable.

Casliber. Vampire was great, I learnt a lot and have hopefully spread some knowledge far and wide. Lion too I felt very proud of. Much of the banksia and bird ones I knew quite a bit about so they were enjoyable too (and easier!) but not as challenging in some ways.

Could you guys combine these answers with those in "Which of the featured articles to which you've contributed make you most proud? And why?" - they seem to be similar. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potter and putter

I'm sure Casliber will respond if he notices David Fuchs' recent edit summary, but just FYI: "potter" is a legitimate word in British (and apparently Australian) English. Its meaning is close to that of "putter". Mike Christie (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so ... if Cas doesn't notice, we can change it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Signpost article

By far, this is the most interesting Signpost article I've read. I got a tremendous sense of the level of professionalism and dedication maintained by these experienced FA article writers to achieve so many FA articles. This article does a great job in conveying what Wikipedia is about and an understanding about the end product resulting from all the behind the scenes operation efforts. The lead for Wikipedia:About should be modified with information from this Signpost article and media outlets should be made aware of this article to allow them to truly capture what Wikipedia is about for their readers. -- Suntag ☼ 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]