Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/OtherWikis

French

I saw Sandy's message about this on jbmurray's talk page and thought I could help. Feel free to move the French info elsewhere if this ought to be split into multiple dispatches. On a personal note, I'm glad Sandy inspired me to go look at this - two articles I've written have been translated and achieved bons articles (GA) status this week! Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! I put up a list of the largest Wikis; now we wait to see if others add info, and then we can decide how to use this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arabic

If you want to know how things work on the Arabic Wikipedia, I can provide that. I do have some edits there and have looked at their FAC pages, with hope of someday writing a FA there. Let me know if you want the info. --Aude (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

FACR vs. reality

I also advise caution for looking at all wikis, when translating the FAC criteria and other such pages in other languages. I know that the Arabic FACR criteria listed is the same as the English Wikipedia, essentially a translation of our FACR page. In reality, I have some doubts that they really hold FACs to the criteria, though some of the recent (especially since Wikimania in July) Arabic FAs look quite good and closer to the standards. (e.g. [1] - Amman, Jordan - current FAC) I wonder if something similar happens on other Wikipedia versions, where the listed criteria say one thing, but FACs are not held quite to that standard. --Aude (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If we write a Dispatch, it probably won't contain this much info, and won't be in this format after we prosify the findings: it will be more of a summary of trends and basics, with less specifics. Re, the Arabic wiki, I thought we'd stick to the list of largest Wikis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Just be careful about reading too much into what the criteria say. On English, I'm not sure we always follow the criteria either, with images on FACs not always being reviewed (until recently), etc. --Aude (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Japanese

I'll try to give this a shot but I'm a bit rusty. I'll translate relevant portions here bit by bit so it won't be completely done until the next day or two. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checking in to say that I'm currently away at a conference and have very limited free time until after Friday and that I will definitely continue to work on this as soon as I can. --Polaron | Talk 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, have fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Main page

Sections of main page include "Announcements", "Excellent article" (this is their version of FA), "Search materials" (an article navigation guide of sorts), "List of portals", "New articles" (3 listed), "Categories", "What is today?" (Today in History), "Seasonal topic/picture", "New pictures" (2 displayed), "Donation request".

Excellent articles

Excellent articles are those articles that passed the "Excellent article selection process". Articles that have passed the selection process are added to the list [of excellent articles] and rotated on the main page in order to showcase the efforts of the article authors and serve as examples for other article authors to follow.

The articles on this list represents the highest quality articles within the Japanese Wikipedia. If you know of other well-written articles, or if you yourself think that you have written a great article, please recommend them to Excellent Articles.

Excellent articles are not chosen on the basis of the relative merits of the article topic. The main point of the selection process is whether or not the article has issues regarding quality, quantity, and writing style as an enyclopedia article. For details, please see "Wikipedia:Excellent article selection".

At present, the Japanese Wikipedia has 539,194 articles, with 81 of those having been chosen as Excellent articles. Articles are classified according to the Japanese Library System Decimal Classification to the second division. In cases where there are more than 5 entries in a given second division, the third division is used.

Excellent article criteria

6 criteria are listed but are not numbered.

• "From the point of view of experts in the subject, are all the aspects that should be explained as part of an encyclopedia adequetely explained in the article?" This is essentially criterion 1b. Note that comprehensiveness can involves subarticles so that a given article may not necessarily be comprehensive if a subarticle or another related article is discussing the missing/incomprehensive aspect.

• "Is the article written in such a manner that regular (non-expert) readers are able to grasp the basics of the subject matter?" For highly technical subjects, allowance is given for needing to read a related article as a prerequisite to understand the article being considered.

• "Contents are complete. Having only the required aspects be written in an easy to understand matter is insufficient." My reading of this is that while the article should have sections written for general understanding, if necessary, the article should also go into details that are not necessarily written for non-experts.

• "Degree of completion is high. Sentences are well-written and easy to understand. Article structure is well done. There are no obviously incomplete/unfinished sections. Article should have maps/images/charts/tables if possible." This is essentially 1a, 2b, and 3 combined.

• "Preserves a neutral point of view." (1d)

• "Has citations and/or bibliography." (2c)

Other featured processes

• Excellent article re-selection (their version of FAR)
• Excellent lists
• Excellent pictures
• There does not appear to be a TFA process. All Excellent articles are placed in a continuously rotating queue with a different article appearing on the main page everyday. Articles can have repeat appearances on the main page.

Article structure

David, thanks for taking this on. I don't think converting this mass of info to prose will be the most helpful format. Instead, I suggest a consolidation of the information by area of information rather than by language.

For example:

• Featured content in other languages (summarize which languages have which processes)
  • (How many of each featured content types, compare some data to en.wiki)
• How are candidates submitted, by language
• How are candidates passed, by language

See what I mean? Rather than converting each language to prose, summarize the trends, similarities and differences in the other languages by area. Compare and contrast. A summary would highlight the similarities and differences, statistics and so forth by language, rather than oblige the reader to read through boatloads of prose on each particular language. For example, on basic stats, how do the numbers of FAs compare across languages? How many have directors? How many discount IP declarations? Which FAC processes have unique aspects not included in any other language? etc ... Really, a synthesis of the info already on the page rather than a conversion to prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So have a section on FA, GA, main page, et al? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if "section" is the correct word, but at least a sentence or paragraph summarizing each area that is set up now on the page; synthesize the info to a meaningful whole, compare and contrast, rather than rewrite in its current form. View the current page only as data gathering. Summarize trends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww, I thought this was going to be easy... :( Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can do it if you think it's overwhelming; I was just thinking someone else would take a crack at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I feel guilty not doing any FCDs recently... you'll prolly have to clean up after me anyhow. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

David, how about if you write the new article at WP:FCDW/OtherLanguageWikis so we can save this raw data page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Save link to original data: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your comment earlier. Page reverted and draft moved to above link. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's restart this little project

I have had a quite detailed look at WP.fr FAC (well, it's all one big party for every type of featured article, promotions and demotions, on a single page). I have looked only at the criteria, structure and instructions. The criteria are based on what the English ones were before the revamp a couple of years ago. They are similar. The process is VERY VERY different. Needs a native speaker who knows both systems to comment on how strictuly they apply the criteria.

Examining the FAC process reaches way into a foreign-language WP, since the criteria are likely to refer to policies and style guides. It is complex and involved, and very worth doing. But I think the number of WPs should be strictly limited, or the task will get out of hand. I suggest French, German and one or two others. Tony (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)