No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:::Yep, same basis as for that article. As for the condensing, Ajr, I suggest you condense that Olivia's House. Town Hall looks fine as is.[[User:BobaFett2 | BF2]] [[User talk:BobaFett2 | Talk]] 23:16, May 22, 2012 (UTC) |
:::Yep, same basis as for that article. As for the condensing, Ajr, I suggest you condense that Olivia's House. Town Hall looks fine as is.[[User:BobaFett2 | BF2]] [[User talk:BobaFett2 | Talk]] 23:16, May 22, 2012 (UTC) |
||
::: Wow, yeah, much better- replacing a full description of the minifg with some vague and subjective references, and not describing the minifigure at all, just its accessories. Well done :/ {{C|My finger is itching to hit tha rollback button}} {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 23:31, May 22, 2012 (UTC) |
::: Wow, yeah, much better- replacing a full description of the minifg with some vague and subjective references, and not describing the minifigure at all, just its accessories. Well done :/ {{C|My finger is itching to hit tha rollback button}} {{User:NightblazeSaber/sig}} 23:31, May 22, 2012 (UTC) |
||
+ | ::::'Tis not a parts article though... -{{User:King of Nynrah/sig1}} 23:33, May 22, 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:33, 22 May 2012
First is the voting. People are voting based on their gut instinct, that these things aren't long enough. The requirements say one paragraph, which obviously doesn't cut it, but they're turning down articles with as much information as possible about a large and popular set simply because it doesn't have "enough information". Not every article is about Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or other large licensed franchises, whose characters, vehicles, and scenes all can have a large "Background" section. This means that not every article can be as long as a featured Wikipedia article or other such article - other than Theme Articles and articles about Star Wars figures, there really isn't that much that reaches those lengths. Also, I have the feeling that people are turning down Featured Articles because they don't like the sets. I realize that there's no basis for this statement but it seems as if people are giving "I just don't feel like this is good enough to be featured" statements all the time and there really is no way to fix that. I've heard people say "this article just doesn't do it for me" and things along those lines - that's more of a theme preference than actually caring about the quality of the article. In addition to that, the requirements for passing an FA are ridiculous. All opposes must be met - however, this is impossible when people oppose because of their "gut instinct" or per someone else who did that. They aren't reasonable opposes. Opposition per length makes sense when you have a small paragraph, or a few small paragraphs, but an article chock-full of data does not need more length. It also needs 5 supports, which makes sense but only when you have a large voter base. All in all:
BF2 Talk 13:57, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
Both of those were things that I was pointing out. One paragraph is wrong. Five paragraphs of information is not. And yet it's not "long enough". And I've seen the same arguments for longer things... BF2 Talk 15:04, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
The main statement of your argument, BF2, would appear to be that people are opposing for invalid reasons. While I do, very occasionally, see this, I don't think it is a terribly large problem. "Gut instinct" is not a reason I have ever opposed for, and I have yet to see anybody else do so, either. The reason for my opposition on your FANom (which is, I'm assuming, the source for all this) is that I honestly don't think it is long enough and, at the risk of sound cliched, doesn't "have the potential". You've been gone quite a while, and, at least unofficially, the standards for FAs have changed a bit. Articles such as this and this are more the norm now, and most of those that you recognize as Featured would probably just pass C1 if they were nominated currently. While I have seen a lot of ridiculous nominations (Marvel was probably the worst), I've never seen a truly incorrect vote. -Cligra Join the redlink war! As I've said about other things, that article (Olivia's House) is ridiculous. Every paragraph is so much longer than it has to be. I don't want to read that. Nobody would. The important info is hidden in a mess of crap - literally describing every single piece within the set, or going nearly that far. Condensed paragraphs only containing important info are important. As for the Town Hall, the set is very detailed. The article has pointless information again but not so much as the other set. BF2 Talk 16:57, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
And I totally disagree with the "length" issue. That is what I mean when I say it's a "gut" thing. People assume that because it's not "long enough", it's not good enough. Length is not everything. The article shouldn't be so long and filled with excessive description because nobody will want to read it. Length matters to some extent but conciseness and completeness are much more important. No, being long is not bad. But Olivia's house is long in the same way that those articles describing each portion of the printing on a minifigure - pointless junk that nobody needs to read because it could be condensed into one concise sentence. BF2 Talk 17:00, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
Lengthy and detailed isn't a problem, it just has to be concise/complete. However, describing every little piece goes beyond lengthy and detailed. BF2 Talk 17:04, May 22, 2012 (UTC)
|