Wikipedia talk:Featured short articles/Archive 1
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep and mark historical. |
I don't get it...
[edit]If these articles meet FA standards, they should be FAs. Period. -- Rmrfstar 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm also confused as to why, other than this page, everything just links to Good articles, which doesn't mention "Excellent short articles." What? Atropos 01:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Do these actually meet FA standards?
[edit]It doesn't look like this list is of any use at all, Rmrfstar.
Compare these oldids: Good articles Excellent short articles
In other words, User:Worldtraveller cut out all the articles that didn't meet "featured article" quality in his opinion (which is surprising, actually, considering how bad most of these articles are) and then left the page hanging there. He didn't even bother fixing the numbers at the end of each section. There was no actual discussion, no qualification, just one user's opinion.
And most of these don't seem to cut it. I chose to check out every article in the Language and linguistics section and for the most part they didn't have any inline citations. A number of them only had 1 reference. For the most part, they've been removed from the Good article list by now. The only one that was at all worth looking into was Scanian (linguistics) (which I think should be called Scanian languages, but I'd have to check), which actually has some inline citations.
There's no point looking through this list. One would be much better off looking through the more current and more complete list of good articles. Atropos 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)