LPedia talk:Featured Articles Plan

I added Libertarian Party of New York back to the queue -- even if we decide something else should come first, articles which have already been identified as good enough to feature should stay in the list.

At the same time, I have doubts about the idea of replacing it, so close to the top of the queue, with Mises Caucus. My original concern about featuring articles about caucuses was balance, e.g., if we featured the Radical Caucus that could be seen as taking sides. Featuring several different articles of this type, about different caucuses, would address that. However, I don't think this article is that great for this purpose, for two reasons. First, it's not much of an article. It looks kind of neat and organized, but it seems to be almost entirely a repeat of information that can be found on their web site. So how is it really an "article" at all? What value does it add? Surely there is other material that could be added here -- something about the meetings they have held, some photos of their people or scans of their literature. My concern here is that if we "feature" articles that are basically just a copy of somebody's existing web site (or brochure), we will be encouraging other people to advertise whatever is their latest group or cause by creating "articles" like that and think that's "good enough". My other concern is about the ideology -- not that I have any special problem with it, actually I mostly agree with it -- the problem is that while it comes from a different direction it isn't much of a _contrast_ to the Radical Caucus. It's also very new. Our focus is history -- perhaps we can find some "caucus" from the past that would allow us to feature more ideological variety?

JWD3 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (CDT)

• I asked them beef up the article a bit - and I don't think we should really be overly concerned about not highlighting caucuses- Reason did an article on them so they are relevant. The same thing could be said about people articles - and history is being made; it is both past and present, no? CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2018 (CDT)

• Yes, history is always being made, and what happened this morning is part of history, but I think we should try to avoid putting too much emphasis on recent information just because it's easier to get. There are lots of other web sites which provide information on what's going on right now -- what makes our site special is that it covers the whole history of the party. We don't want to ignore recent history, but we should try to present a balance of old and new. That can be achieved by featuring articles that address topics that naturally span many years (such as an organization or publication that has been around for a long time) OR by featuring a mix of shorter-lived things from various eras. JWD3 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2018 (CDT)