Wikipedia talk:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No talk for this page and it's over a year old? Hm.
I just stumbled across this for the first time and, I must say, while I appreciate the effort that has gone into it, I find it fairly useless.
- Differentiating "well written" vs. "professionally written" is meaningless; by definition, "professionally" should imply that someone is getting paid to write it.
- The descriptions for "broad" (for GA) and "length" (for FA) are also essentially interchangeable. It's not clear why one is better/harder to acheive/more desireable than the other.
- the inclusion of "needs a good lead" for an FA implies this is not necessary for a GA; this makes no sense to me as a differentiator. Any good article (not to mention a Good Article) needs a good lead.
- Presence of images as a differentiating factor: well, I can see where this is necessary for the way FAs are presented on the main page but I suppose it is unfair for more abstract topics and leads to the creation or use of some contrived images for articles for which no concrete visual representation applies. cf. Macroeconomics. But that's arguing with the rule rather than the presentation, and at least the rule is clear here.
- Nearly all of the other differentiating factors have to do with technnical nits (common citation format and heading heirarchy) rather than content issues, which should be the basis of deciding the status of an article. Sure, okay, FAs should have all those things, but if a GA is just an FA with less-than consistent markup and/or lack of images, just say that, it'd be a lot easier.
