The advice is usually that FAQ pages are obsolete and everything should be an article. That is right in the case people have in mind and wrong in three others, and the distinction is about how many questions there are and whether the reader arrived knowing one of them.
Right: a handful of questions attached to one thing
A product page, a form, a booking flow. Five or six questions the reader has right there, answered in place, saving a hop. Splitting those into six articles makes each one thin and makes the reader leave the page they were going to act on, which is the opposite of what anybody wanted.
Right: objections before a decision
Is my data safe, what happens if I cancel, do I need a card. These are read in sequence by somebody deciding, and the sequence is the value. As separate articles they are individually findable and collectively useless, because nobody searches for an objection they have not formulated yet.
Right: the page that is genuinely about a question
Structured data for a question-and-answer page exists precisely because some pages are lists of questions and search engines wanted to read them as such. Where the page really is that, mark it up as that. Where it is an article with three questions bolted on, do not.
The trap: the FAQ that becomes the base
One page grows to forty questions because adding a row is easier than creating an article. It cannot be searched usefully, no question in it can be linked to as the answer, nothing on it can have an owner, and it will be somebody's project to dismantle in two years. The moment a page passes about a dozen questions it has become a base wearing a disguise.
Questions people ask about FAQ pages
How many questions before it should be split?
Around a dozen, and earlier if the questions have stopped being about one thing. The test is whether a reader can scan the whole list without scrolling twice, because scanning is the only reason the format exists.
Do FAQ pages still earn anything in search?
As pages, yes, when the page genuinely answers the questions people ask. What has changed is the rich result treatment, which has narrowed, so mark it up because it is true rather than because of what the result will look like.
Should the same answer be in the FAQ and in an article?
No. Pick one and link. Two copies of an answer is two review obligations and one of them will be missed, and the one that is missed is the one the reader happens to find.
What about an FAQ inside an article?
Useful and common: the article answers the question and three short follow-ups sit underneath it. That is a section, not a page, and it does not carry the trap because it cannot grow past what the article is about.