Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-11-05/Featured content

Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

This week, the Signpost interviewed two editors. The first, PumpkinSky, collaborated with Gerda Arendt in writing the recently featured article on Franz Kafka and won second prize in the Core contest last August. The second, ‎Cwmhiraeth, collaborated with Thompsma in promoting the article Frog, which was featured last week. We asked them about the special challenges faced while writing Core content and things to watch out for.

1. What do you think the role of featured content is? Can all core topics reach featured (FA) status?

   PumpkinSky:

   It's to provide a high standard for editors to strive towards in making items as good as they can and providing recognition for those who achieve that level. I would expect that any core topic could reach featured status though broad topics can be hard to get to featured level.

   Cwmhiraeth:

   Given the constraints of the number of Wikipedia editors able and willing to improve key articles, I'm not sure that raising them to FA would be preferable. I find the amount of time necessary to give the finicky attention to detail that seems to be part of the FAC process offputting. In my view, it would be a more realistic goal for all core topics to be brought to the good article (GA) standards: I think that would be a better goal. The "comprehensive" criterion for FAs is difficult and may be unattractive to otherwise enthusiastic editors.

2. What makes writing a featured core article different than an article on a lesser-known subject? Are there any special considerations we must take? Are there any special difficulties?

   PumpkinSky:

   Core items invariably have lots of sources whereas a lesser-known topic may have few sources available for a well-developed article. Many core topics, such as zoology and tree, are so broad that it can be hard to focus the many points within the topic into a well-balanced article.

   If you are in a CORE contest, get a full time partner, as one month is not much time at all get what is needed done. About a week before the contest ends, look at what is left to get it to featured status/make it as good as you can, decide what can be realistically done be done before that deadline, focus on the most important parts, and do the rest after the contests ends. For any featured effort, work on something that interests you and get a team together to work on specific aspects of the article. For example, V. Smith did the mineralogy section of Yogo sapphire.

   Cwmhiraeth:

   

   An article focusing on a small topic is much easier to raise to FA level, in my opinion. One's own knowledge gives a background from which a well-rounded article can be written, and if it is an article that one has started from scratch, one can feel a pride in its ongoing development.

   I have been involved in improving several core articles during the year. One was sugar, which I brought to good article standard but would not attempt to promote to FA. I added a lot of basic information that was poorly covered but shied away from the diet/obesity/health considerations issues. I found it difficult to identify and distinguish recent research that related to sugar rather than to total calorific input. Finding suitable references for unsourced statements was challenging. At the same time others were editing the article, not always in a helpful way. It was different with the article frog, which has recently received FA status. This article had the advantage that it was permanently protected because of past vandalism and changed little from day to day. Nor did it have an "owner" who resisted change. I was able to rename and move sections, add and remove material and change images without hindrance. When working on the featured article Bivalvia and on the core article amphibian I was much helped by the users who undertook good article reviews and who brought new eyes to bear on the articles as a whole, whereas I had been concentrating on the detail.

3. What do you think of the Core Contest, and how has it helped / hurt the encyclopedia?

   PumpkinSky:

   I think it helps the encyclopedia by getting users to focus on vital topics, which should be in good shape but often are not. A problem with the contest is that it is only a month long and that means an article will rarely be ready for featured status at the end, though they can certainly be close.

   Cwmhiraeth:

   I think the Core Contest is a really useful way of encouraging users to work on important articles. Without such initiatives, there is little incentive to tackle important articles that are in bad shape: in the Core Contest, the worse the article is at the start, the more credit one can get for improving it. Many basic articles are very unreferenced and really need to be radically overhauled and I think that the contest gives a legitimacy to getting to grips with an article's structure and improving it. Often these articles are large and have been added to over the years by multiple users. There is duplication, poor arrangement of sections and other structural faults. While working on core articles as part of the contest one gets feedback as to how the article is progressing. I applaud the users who organised and judged the Core Competition and who did a fine job in encouraging substantial improvement to such important articles.