Sure, the length is about right for the topic, but if you are in the
habit of settling down at some point in the day to read through the
featured article, you might feel a little short-changed that you'd
finished reading it after a few minutes or so. I suspect readers don't
realise that almost any article can be featured, and have certain
expectations that aren't always met. This is a case where viewing
figures don't help, as lots of people click through to the FA, but the
question here is what the reaction is of those readers. But then I'm
not convinced that people even use the main page the way that is
assumed. I suspect the main use is as an entry point to Wikipedia,
with a brief scan of what is there if the passing visitor is not in a
rush, and maybe following some of the links if something looks
interesting. Those who want to follow some regularly may be more
likely to use RSS or some other syndication service.
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
>>> Today's featured article is all of 6 paragraphs long. Discuss.
>> Seems appropriate.
> Sure, the length is about right for the topic, but if you are in the
> habit of settling down at some point in the day to read through the
> featured article, you might feel a little short-changed
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Ian Woollard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 14 September 2011 14:53, Bod Notbod <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Do others share my (only shakily held) belief that some articles, no
>> matter how much work is put into them, can never get to featured status?
> Any article can legitimately be made FA, no matter how unencyclopedic, if
> you rewrite it, move it to a different name and change the topic.
> expectations that aren't always met. This is a case where viewing
> figures don't help, as lots of people click through to the FA, but the
> question here is what the reaction is of those readers. But then I'm
This may be a rare case where the reader-feedback option is actually
of some indicative use :-)
There's currently 60-70 valid ratings on the article, averaging about
4.5 in all four categories; "complete" is the closest we have to a
proxy for "of sufficient length", and it's a safe 4.4. Yesterday's
fungus article, of more reasonable length, scored 3.6 on all counts
with 14 ratings, so length doesn't immediately appear to be a major
factor of disquiet...
(This is a bit shaky to draw conclusions from, I know - it's hard to
do a study on this because of the way ratings "expire" after thirty
edits, so you can't easily look at what the reaction to past articles
was. Is it technically possible to extract all the ratings received by
an article in a specific time period? It might be very interesting to
use the daily FAs, which we know get a lot of traffic and are unlikely
to have drastic flaws, to study as a defined set...)