| Revision as of 21:32, 23 April 2010 editDionysosProteus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users16,330 edits →John Vanbrugh← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:35, 23 April 2010 edit undoCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits replies to the account DionysosProteusNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ***** I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. ] (]) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ***** I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. ] (]) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ******Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account {{user|DionysosProteus}} has been active on English Misplaced Pages for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass ] muster at current standards. -- ''']''' (]) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ******Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account {{user|DionysosProteus}} has been active on English Misplaced Pages for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass ] muster at current standards. -- ''']''' (]) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ***** No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Misplaced Pages--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? ] (]) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ******* No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Misplaced Pages--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? ] (]) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ********The FA criteria are not the be all and end all of FA standards, rather, the standards of what is of FA quality are determined by the community at ] as informed by the FA criteria, and I highly doubt this article would pass muster at this point in time. According to its contributions, the account {{user|DionysosProteus}} has been editing since 2007. -- ''']''' (]) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:35, 23 April 2010
John Vanbrugh
John Vanbrugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: all WikiProjects on talk page
I found this article through WP:URFA. Article easily fails 1c. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Only 5 notes, but otherwise seems a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the_ed17 (talk · contribs), blatant referencing deficiencies include lack of citations for direct quotations of material. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where in fact? The Boswell is cited to a diary entry date, which is fine. I hope you're not one of those people who want OED page numbers? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- It might be easier to illustrate where there could be improvements and more specific citations in certain key places such as after direct quotations of material by adding helpful templates like {{fact}} tags. Unfortunately, however, I will refrain from doing that, in this particular case. -- Cirt (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where in fact? The Boswell is cited to a diary entry date, which is fine. I hope you're not one of those people who want OED page numbers? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't easily fail 1c - it is thorough and representative of the critical literature, and is verifiable against appropriate sources. The only question is whether or not the low number of inline citations meets or fails to meet the "where appropriate" criteria. I don't see anything in the article that is "likely to be challenged." DionysosProteus (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Current FA standards mean that virtually everything in the article needs to be cited. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assessed the article using Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. Are you working from a different set of criteria? Where are they? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You think the article would successfully gain support at WP:FAC and be promoted to WP:FA with the current standards at FAC, in the article's present state? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been active on English Misplaced Pages for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass WP:FAC muster at current standards. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Misplaced Pages--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The FA criteria are not the be all and end all of FA standards, rather, the standards of what is of FA quality are determined by the community at WP:FAC as informed by the FA criteria, and I highly doubt this article would pass muster at this point in time. According to its contributions, the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been editing since 2007. -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, there is nothing rhetorical about them, they are genuine questions. Either the criteria given are the ones against which this article ought to be assessed, or else we should have access to a different set of approved criteria. The criteria are there to provide an easily accessible description of the standards to which all articles are to be held, as determined by consensus. I understand that you are arguing that that consensus has changed. If that is the case, then the criteria need to be ammended. Having done that, we may then have an opportunity to assess this particular article in light of those new criteria. Whether the policy and practice are not longer in synch or not, this article's assessment is not the appropriate place to debate that. The only relevant criteria for this assessment are those given in the policy statement. I tend to confine my comments to articles that fall under my areas of expertise. I'm not sure what you are implying with your description of the length of time with which I have been involved with Misplaced Pages--perhaps you could state it more explicitly? DionysosProteus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure whether or not those are rhetorical questions - as the account DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) has been active on English Misplaced Pages for quite some time now... Nevertheless, it is quite clear that this article would not pass WP:FAC muster at current standards. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea. The issue that you raised, however, is whether or not it fulfils the criteria. If those that I linked to are the ones in question, then the article fulfils them, as far as I can see. I assume from your response that those are the correct criteria? If the present practice is to pursue a different set of criteria, then the policy document needs to be adjusted to reflect that practice. As I understand it, the purpose of this assessment is to examine whether or not the article fulfils the FA criteria detailed in that policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You think the article would successfully gain support at WP:FAC and be promoted to WP:FA with the current standards at FAC, in the article's present state? -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assessed the article using Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria. Are you working from a different set of criteria? Where are they? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Current FA standards mean that virtually everything in the article needs to be cited. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)