Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One featured article per quarter is a list of Wikipedians who have informally agreed to attempt to bring one article to featured article standard every quarter (3 months). Beyond the obvious goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia entries, the purpose of this list is twofold: to provide a means of mutual reinforcement and friendly competition; and to provide a centralized talk discussion solely devoted to the content and structure of featured articles.
The talk page here is meant to address specific difficulties editors have when attempting to bring an article to standard (a picture or scientific paper that is needed, for example). If you have a query, post it here.
Contents |
[edit] Increasing FA throughput
At present, Wikipedia:featured article candidates produces about one featured article per day (successful candidacies less former featured articles). Unlike other Wikipedia processes, the throughput on FAC has increased little over much of 2005 and 2006. Article creation itself, by contrast, continues to increase in volume; thus, the % of Wikipedia articles which are featured has dropped from 0.11% to 0.08% in a little over a year.
One stated goal is to reach 100,000 featured articles, within the range of traditional encyclopedias such as Britannica. At the current approximate rate of 1.5 per day, it will take nearly two centuries to reach 100,000. One hundred per day would be required to reach the goal in three years.
Incremental goals are needed if throughput is ever going to increase by orders of magnitude. If this page produces 100 extra FAs per quarter, it would constitute a rough doubling of the current rate. This is an achievable initial goal.
[edit] The List
Wikipedians are meant to sign up from quarter-to-quarter. The only requirement is that editors list the article they plan to bring to standard when signing for a given period. This is to encourage people to think through whether they have time for a FA and what subject they are capable of handling. The quarter after current will be listed here; if it's late in the three-month period or more time is required, articles may be listed under the second section.
When listing, provide a one or two sentence description of the state of the article and any help required. Editors should not only list the article they plan to work on, but scan others to see if they can provide any help.
[edit] Fourth quarter 2008
- Red-throated Diver: Making slow progress, hope to have it done by year's end! MeegsC | Talk 10:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- La Cousine Bette: Another Balzac piece. I would have to choose his longest work for this busy end-of-the-year season! Scartol • Tok 11:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
History of a Six Weeks' Tour (again) - I should really just stick to one featured article per quarter. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)- Mount Baker - Copyediting would naturally be appreciated, I'm a bit busy to work on this at the moment. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third quarter 2008
 FA: 4 —  GA1: 1 — ██ B or <: 2: 3 |
||
| 1 This includes articles rated as A — 2 Includes articles with a rating lower than B and those unassessed. | ||
| Article | Listed by | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Osteochondritis dissecans (talk • edit • history) | FoodPuma (talk · contribs) | GA |
| Bird nest (talk • edit • history) | MeegsC (talk · contribs) | B |
| Red-throated Diver (talk • edit • history) | MeegsC (talk · contribs) | B |
| Race Against Time (Stephen Lewis) (talk • edit • history) | Maclean25 (talk · contribs) | FA |
| Doha Development Round (talk • edit • history) | PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) | B |
| Emmeline Pankhurst (talk • edit • history) | Scartol (talk · contribs) | FA |
| Proserpine (play) (talk • edit • history) | Awadewit (talk · contribs) | FA |
| History of a Six Weeks' Tour (talk • edit • history) | Awadewit (talk · contribs) | FA |
[edit] Second quarter 2008
[edit] First quarter 2008
[edit] Fourth quarter 2007
| FA: 7 — GA1: 0 — ██ B or <: 2: 1 |
||
| 1 This includes articles rated as A — 2 Includes articles with a rating lower than B and those unassessed. | ||
| Article | Listed by | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Las Meninas (talk • edit • history) | Ceoil (talk · contribs) | FA |
| R.E.M. (talk • edit • history) | WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) | FA |
| A Vindication of the Rights of Men (talk • edit • history) | Awadewit (talk · contribs) | FA |
| Joy Division (talk • edit • history) | WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) | FA |
| The Age of Reason (talk • edit • history) | Awadewit (talk · contribs) | FA |
| B-52 Stratofortress (talk • edit • history) | Trevor_MacInnis (talk · contribs) | B |
| Joseph Priestley (talk • edit • history) | Awadewit (talk · contribs) | FA |
| Battle of Musa Qala (talk • edit • history) | Marskell (talk · contribs) | FA |
[edit] Third quarter 2007
[edit] Second quarter 2007
[edit] First quarter 2007
[edit] Fourth quarter 2006
[edit] Project resources
Even if you don't plan to write a featured article, you may be able to help the "One featured article per quarter" project. Featured article collaborators often desire independent reviewers to ensure that their articles meet Wikipedia style guidelines, are properly sourced, and are well written. If editors can contact you to request your input or assistance, list yourself below, mentioning the type of help you're able to provide. (The resources listed here are offered only within the scope of this project. Article reviewers are always needed, in general, at Peer Review.)
Peer reviewing
- Awadewit | talk: European and American literature and history; a thoughtful lay reader of science articles
- Scartol: Literature, some history, general information, words, etc.
- dihydrogen monoxide (H20): Music, video games, Australian topics
- Karanacs | talk: Biographies, history
Copy-editing
- ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- - Have done it professionally. Proto::► 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- -- Fishal 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- -- EdJohnston 02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- -- tennisman sign here! 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- -- Mbisanz (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- – Scartol • Tok 15:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- -- Rosuav (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I do fair amounts of copyediting, on various Wikis, but not a huge amount of content work. Post me a message!
Provision or verification of sources
Drawing diagrams
Userbox
Project members are invited to add this userbox to identify their involvement in the project:
 |
This user is part of the 1FAPQ Project. |
[edit] Considerations
- This appears to assume that individuals working more or less alone are what drive our best content. What about collaboration? Does this encourage ownership of articles?
- This does assume that individual users rather than pairs or teams are the primary FA creators. Massive additions to and restructuring of articles are generally less time-consuming if performed by an individual and then presented to others for critique afterwards. Very clearly, however, users do not own the articles they post here or have any sort of privilege in regards to them. Also, the list itself and discussions on talk are meant to be a form of collaboration: list your own but also see what you can do for others.
- What if the only people who sign up were going to create an FA anyway?
- If this merely lists what is going to happen anyway, no harm done. Three months will ideally encourage two things: a regularized target for people who've already produced FAs, and a reasonable goal for people who'd like to try their first.
- Might this actually be a discouraging process if someone signs up and fails?
- This is not a contest and there is no "pass/fail." Avoid signing up if you do not genuinely believe you have the time for an article, but don't worry if real life and work intervene.
- I've heard complaints that some people view successful FACs as the only measure of a Wikipedian's contribution. Is this encouraging that bias?
- Featured articles are far from the only important contribution Wikipedians make, but this list is meant to further foreground the importance of bringing articles to the FA standards.
- Doesn't "Project resources" duplicate Peer Review?
- Peer Review allows editors to comment on articles that range widely in quality, with no guarantee of engaging the nominator. Some editors would like to have a more active collaborative role in creating featured articles, even if they are not the primary contributors. Listing themselves as "resources" offers users the chance to be more engaged in article creation.
