From IRC:

<Jorrel|Lunch> I mean, many of the noms seem to fall along the lines of making a point, not for making articles good for the point of making them good, but instead making obscure articles "good" in compliance with FA standards without actually making articles "good"

I think he has a point. Comments/suggestions? - Sikon 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, if I had known that what I said was going to end up here, I might have been a tad more articulate :-P. But, anyway, I also questioned earlier if the FA process had become a "staging area" for exposing flaws in the system. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't it FA's job to expose flaws in the articles and finding people that will fix them? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but his point is that people seem to be gaming the system. Case in point "Oxygen" is now on the FA nom list, mostly copied and pasted from Wikipedia. How dumb is that. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 18:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean that the FA had become a staging ground for exposing flaws in the articles, I meant that FA has become a staging ground for exposing flaws in the FA system. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 18:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, I was aware of you noting that. I was providing the true meaning of FA. Furthermore, oxygen should not have Wikipedia info, only info that pertains to the GFFA. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Precicely. That's part of the issue in all of this. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jorrel. But I'd say Burl Ives is just as bad as Oxygen, and the fact that more people have objected than supported but every objection has been struck just goes to show that something is wrong with the system. WP:GA says "A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content." but we seem to be getting shorter articles with limited Star Wars content being nominated for FA when they might be more appropriate for GA. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Burl Ives does not equal oxygen. For one Ives is a real person with a cult status. Oxygen is canon, but can be expanded on in greater detail on Wikipedia because the rest of that information is not canonized. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see the difference. You've removed most of oxygen for not being about Star Wars, you should do the same to Burl Ives. We are not Wikipedia. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • True. Not that much SW content with either. Neither should even be nominated, imo. -Fnlayson 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Going off of what Green Tentacle has said, this is why I think there needs to be a length limit for FAs. Otherwise, what is the point of GAs? If it's too short and doesn't have enough info relating to Star Wars, kick it to GA. That's what I thought the GA was created for, so yes, I agree on that point. Cull Tremayne 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Burl is not canon, his character is. Oxygen is canon, however. Since Burl in out-of-universe, we can have out-of-universe information. Oxygen is in-universe, however, and so we should only have in-universe content. There is no double-standard.--Doquis(HoloConference)Czerka Logo 21:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Exactly. .... 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Per Doquis. Wookieepedia is actually two wikis in one. The first is a repository of *all* in-universe material, regardless of notability. The second is a repository of notable real-world phenomena related to Star Wars. If something passes the notability test in the first place (as a narrator of a Star Wars production clearly does), then including real-world information *about* that topic is appropriate, even if it doesn't directly relate to Star Wars. The same is not true for in-universe material; the standards there differ, as well they should. That said, I agree with Cull that there should be a length limit of some sort; some articles, while technically flawless, aren't long enough to show off the quality of what we do here, and those should be GAs, not FAs. I don't know exactly what that limit should be, but I think anyone using an 800x600 monitor should have to scroll a little to see it all, at the very least. jSarek 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)