331:
Copyediting the well-written and accurate article would improve it further; but a review that has had only style concerns addressed is incomplete. Checking references is often the hardest part of a review, especially if they are offline; as much as possible, the comprehensiveness of the article and the accuracy of its sources should be a priority during review. Editors should not be tempted to do the easy part, and leave the prose and content unconsidered.
118:
80:
487:– determination of a picture's feature-worthiness is not a vote. Support opinions without reasoning may be discounted if there are concerns with the picture, especially relating to encyclopedic value. Oppose opinions without reasoning don't help the participants in determining whether they should fix the problem(s) with the picture and may also be discounted in a similar manner.
24:
493:. Minor technical faults may be forgivable if they do not detract from the overall image quality. Additional leeway may be given to pictures that are relatively hard to replace and/or have few free alternatives. Of course if such technical faults do detract from the overall quality, the image is unlikely to be featured.
356:(not "Do not space em dashes"). It is perfectly open to a nominator to rebut a complaint by saying "well I like them". The weakest form of recommendation is "please consider", which covers useful suggestions. We have complied with this if the possibility mentioned has been considered, whether or not it has been adopted.
365:
Until August 2007, they recommended, without qualification, using both metric and Anglo-American units whenever a measurement was mentioned—a good thing for most articles; exceptions were added for scientific articles, which should use metric, and articles on the history of maritime law, which should
355:
Do remember that the style guidelines differ in the force with which they make suggestions. There are many parts of MOS that are expressed in ways that make them explicit recommendations: these cannot be used by reviewers as a basis for opposing FAs. For example, em dashes are not "normally" spaced
330:
Our copyediting rules are guidelines, which are recommendations; they should be followed (as guidelines ought to be), but it is better to have a clear, well-written, neutral, accurate article with copyediting problems than a badly written and erroneous polemic with perfect dashes and italicization.
359:
Also remember that the style guidelines are a few pages, whereas many published guidelines are whole books. Our guidelines often generalize, giving advice, without qualification, that is sound for many articles, but not all. Use common
596:
173:
370:
will only mention such exceptions when they have become a problem, and someone has added them; for example, MOS does not mention, on this same subject, that galaxies are measured in lightyears or parsecs, which are not
458:
It is a lot easier and quicker to fix obvious typos and formatting glitches yourself rather than typing how to fix them. Also makes for a shorter discussion page at the FAC itself, although if there is
387:
In general, folk who nominate articles at FAC have put a lot of work into them and as such emotions can run high in nominations. Thus, anything which keeps a positive spin communication in the case of
612:
224:
440:
Be humble; I often assume an apologetic/conciliatory tone. If an article is really falling short and fails in many areas, offer some pointers on where or what to do rather than just 'PR'.
472:
Say what you think good about the article, as well as the flaws. If you are commenting on purely stylistic issues because the content and writing are excellent, it will help to say so.
321:
All aspects of an article should be brought up to the highest possible standards, but it is helpful to distinguish between certain aspects, some of which are "more equal than others":
292:, this page discusses the commonly made fallacies and incorrect arguments used in Feature discussions. The term "Feature discussions" refers to the discussion processes used for
183:
591:
178:
622:
509:
MediaWiki has a thumbnailing algorithm to deal with large images. If you can't view an image at 100% because of its size, then don't support or oppose the image.
219:
566:
289:
158:
643:
581:
285:
148:
617:
214:
245:
586:
561:
352:) standards; arguments that boil down to "I don't like this article" or "I don't like this subject" are unhelpful to people who want to improve it.
188:
153:
240:
449:
Try to focus on how to fix rather than what is wrong; remember the ultimate aim is to create featured articles regardless of who writes them.
540:
324:
Clarity and readability are essential to the purpose of
Knowledge. If an article can't be read or understood, it might as well be deleted.
340:. This means that someone could use your comment to fix the problems with the article. To this end, make sure to give specific reasons
384:
review. The community should ensure that the discussions are polite, helpful and informative, both for the participants, and for Raul.
571:
163:
39:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
305:
297:
198:
271:
648:
431:
Reviewers are neither judges nor schoolmasters; nominators are not pupils, much less defendants. We are fellow editors.
40:
533:
193:
499:. The main factor in determining feature-worthiness on Knowledge is the picture's encyclopedic value. We have
658:
106:
and little or no improvement. Please help by introducing links to this page from other related project pages.
44:
402:
Be conciliatory, especially if the nominator is inexperienced at featuring deliberation. Consider writing, "
526:
345:
418:". Although obvious, it leaves the communication on a positive note. Similarly, do avoid the expression
293:
653:
478:
315:
264:
134:
8:
103:
62:
257:
54:
47:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
87:
32:
500:
327:
We require, as core policy, that articles be accurate, neutral, and verifiable.
99:
91:
637:
381:
380:) promotes articles based on a reading of the comments and discussion at the
367:
309:
301:
377:
349:
515:. How so? Be specific, otherwise your opinion is likely to be discounted.
518:
422:
the Manual of Style is neither a fortification or a commandment.
79:
395:
to keep morale and mood good is essential. Some hints include:
613:
List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
597:
in place and transportation related deletion discussions
366:
use nautical miles, without converting them every time.
102:
link to this page. This may result in the page having
225:
Policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
463:time to write detailed edit summaries, this is it!
635:
336:Objections to promotion of an article should be
623:How to save an article nominated for deletion
534:
265:
220:How to save an article nominated for deletion
644:Knowledge essays about Wikipedian fallacies
290:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions
541:
527:
286:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
272:
258:
618:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
215:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
636:
548:
522:
306:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates
298:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
112:
74:
18:
13:
45:thoroughly vetted by the community
41:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
670:
414:once fixed", rather than a flat "
116:
78:
22:
507:It takes too long to download.
344:the article does not meet the
124:Please help improve this page.
1:
184:Template deletion discussions
174:Place/transportation deletion
592:in file deletion discussions
479:Featured picture candidacies
316:Featured article candidacies
7:
10:
675:
199:But there must be sources!
52:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
649:Orphaned Knowledge essays
605:
554:
179:File deletion discussions
567:in adminship discussions
246:Redirects for discussion
582:in deletion discussions
577:in feature discussions
497:It's a pretty picture
241:Articles for deletion
194:Subjective importance
159:Adminship discussions
141:Arguments to avoid in
135:Knowledge discussions
43:, as it has not been
659:Knowledge discussion
503:for pretty pictures.
149:Deletion discussions
587:in deletion reviews
562:On discussion pages
189:On discussion pages
169:Feature discussions
555:Arguments to avoid
549:Arguments to avoid
491:Don't be too picky
376:The FAC Director (
631:
630:
346:featured articles
294:featuring content
282:
281:
207:Arguments to make
129:
128:
111:
110:
73:
72:
666:
654:Knowledge essays
543:
536:
529:
520:
519:
391:or highlighting
274:
267:
260:
154:Deletion reviews
131:
130:
120:
119:
113:
82:
75:
65:
26:
25:
19:
674:
673:
669:
668:
667:
665:
664:
663:
634:
633:
632:
627:
601:
550:
547:
481:
318:
278:
233:Common outcomes
117:
107:
69:
68:
61:
57:
49:
48:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
672:
662:
661:
656:
651:
646:
629:
628:
626:
625:
620:
615:
609:
607:
606:Good arguments
603:
602:
600:
599:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
558:
556:
552:
551:
546:
545:
538:
531:
523:
517:
516:
510:
504:
501:FPC on Commons
494:
488:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
467:
466:
465:
464:
453:
452:
451:
450:
444:
443:
442:
441:
435:
434:
433:
432:
426:
425:
424:
423:
397:
396:
385:
373:
372:
362:
361:
357:
353:
334:
333:
332:
328:
325:
317:
314:
280:
279:
277:
276:
269:
262:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
243:
235:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
222:
217:
209:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
196:
191:
186:
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
151:
143:
142:
138:
137:
127:
126:
121:
109:
108:
104:low readership
97:
96:
83:
71:
70:
67:
66:
58:
53:
50:
38:
37:
29:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
671:
660:
657:
655:
652:
650:
647:
645:
642:
641:
639:
624:
621:
619:
616:
614:
611:
610:
608:
604:
598:
595:
593:
590:
588:
585:
583:
580:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
559:
557:
553:
544:
539:
537:
532:
530:
525:
524:
521:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
482:
471:
470:
469:
468:
462:
457:
456:
455:
454:
448:
447:
446:
445:
439:
438:
437:
436:
430:
429:
428:
427:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
379:
375:
374:
369:
364:
363:
358:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
329:
326:
323:
322:
320:
319:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:, such as at
295:
291:
287:
275:
270:
268:
263:
261:
256:
255:
253:
252:
247:
244:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
231:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
205:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
140:
139:
136:
133:
132:
125:
122:
115:
114:
105:
101:
100:project pages
94:
93:
90:is currently
89:
84:
81:
77:
76:
64:
60:
59:
56:
51:
46:
42:
36:
34:
28:
21:
20:
576:
572:in edit wars
512:
506:
496:
490:
484:
460:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
393:fixes needed
392:
388:
341:
337:
283:
168:
123:
85:
30:
513:Bad quality
485:Just a vote
420:MOS breach;
410:...happily
284:Similar to
31:This is an
638:Categories
406:for now...
338:actionable
98:Few or no
408:(reasons)
164:Edit wars
389:opposing
312:), etc.
92:orphaned
55:Shortcut
412:support
378:Raul654
371:metric.
63:WP:AAFD
416:Oppose
404:Oppose
382:WP:FAC
368:WP:MOS
360:sense.
88:essay
86:This
33:essay
288:and
461:any
342:why
310:FPC
304:),
302:FAC
640::
350:FA
95:.
542:e
535:t
528:v
348:(
308:(
300:(
273:e
266:t
259:v
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
