Wikipedia:Danny's contest/Requested Featured Article discussion

Seems I'm first. Anyway. I strongly support this. Would they be chosen from the Vital list, or already Good Articles, or possibly from Start/B-Class (for those that are assessed), or by requests, or something else altogether? Crystallina 02:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be chosen from anywhere, as long as we are improving the articles that we have and making them as good as possible. Danny 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem very hard or something that needs much discussion. Just change the focus from Requested articles to Requests for expansion. Expanding a lot of articles into featured articles would be great, but is a but unrealistic; expanding a lot of stubs to decent, average articles is nearly as good, and much more possible. It would be like COTW and AID except there'd be 6 at a time and more people would see them because they'd be on Recentchanges. --Rory096 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think, however, that there needs to be a focus for these, preferably on "core" subjects or better known ones. I'm not married to the Vital list and think that the core subjects are much broader than the list currently stands. I just don't want to see the requests for expansion filled with people pushing their borderline-non-notable cruft to the top of the line. On a side note, it makes me sad to see people leaving because of the quality of articles. Crystallina 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, VITAL is too small (mostly because it's derived from m:List of articles all languages should have, not m:List of articles very good encyclopedias should have very good articles about). WP:CORE is also rather small. Wikipedia:Concise seems to be a much broader, better list. --Rory096 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article required to run the WP:FAC gauntlet successfully? Note that FAC deliberately turns up its criteria every now and then so as to be sure of representing only the very best of the very best.

See also WP:100K - David Gerard 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]