Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Tutorial

Great work on the tutorial. The only thing I could think of would be to give a little more advice on images, such as how they should be laid-out to avoid whitespace, omitting periods if the image caption isn't a complete sentence, fair-use rationales, and sizing. Again, nice job. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a lot of comments on Yannis' talk page.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both for your suggestions. I did my best to implement them and I'll continue to. Many thanks also to Yomangan for his copy-editing.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A small bronze star () on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured.

This isn't quite correct. Anyone can add that star, and we have to be careful that doesn't happen after this article. The determining factor as to whether an article is featured is not the star; in fact, Raul doesn't even like the star. Being listed at

• I noticed this remark Sandy, and I intended to contact you on this issue. What I did here was just to copy the exact wording of
  WP:FA. So, it is not what I say, but what WP:FA says. So, if it is wrong here, it is also wrong there! And I respect Raul's opinions, but I like the star a lot!!!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• ah, ha, I see the problem :-) OK, Raul has been really busy lately, but I'll ping him and make sure he looks in on this talk page and the article before it runs. I picture a rash of folk adding a featured star to their articles :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial. —Markles 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't give the impression that every sentence should be cited,[6] and that repeat citations are good.[6] A balancing statement to the effect that it's quite possible to overcite might be added to this advice.[7] Tony (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See the Sebastiani review. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some inconsistency on using 'a' or 'an' before 'FA'. 194.75.236.69 (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unreasonably optimistic account of FA; even if all reviewers were like Yannis, it would require much work to get it to this level. As it is, most FACs are cesspits, filled with complaints that "This article used the wrong style of ellipsis" or "You suggested that the Holy Alliance might possibly be interested in stability [or that Pericles was on the popular side in politics] and didn't give a citation. Anathema!" or "You didn't include my fringe view, [or what our State High Schools all teach] so you must be POV".

Is FA worth continuing at all? It might be salvagable if it didn't matter, if it didn't give a pretty star or position on the front page; but that, I suppose, is much too much to hope for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]